Post trump Legal Actions, Including his Enablers

[BIGUN 1,056]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

then you're not learning anything by looking back retrospectively.

Retrospectively as in 40-50 years ago as compared with your analysis of the current. I will vote for neither.

[nigel99 144]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Retrospectively as in 40-50 years ago as compared with your analysis of the current. I will vote for neither.

As an outsider it's interesting to see the polarised debate.

I am not sure that I would vote for someone in their 80's. Trump is awful, but I find it hard to believe Biden is the best alternative. 

Overall it is a really sad indictment of the state of US politics. The US have lost all moral authority on democracy and it's going to be interesting to watch.

[jakee 1,257]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Retrospectively as in 40-50 years ago as compared with your analysis of the current. I will vote for neither.

The secret Trumpist’s get out clause.

[lippy 773]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

Trump is awful, but I find it hard to believe Biden is the best alternative. 

The reality is that based on where we’re at today, Biden is the only alternative. Maybe in 7 months, we’ll look at President Elect Trump and wish that there had of been another option, but at this stage in the game, Biden’s our horse. 
 

No doubt that Trump is a threat, but I wouldn’t write Biden off as nothing more than the lesser of evils. He’s done some good thinks like the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPs act, student debt….that are materially improving lives for lots of people. It’s hard to imagine that the trend wouldn’t continue if he gets another 4 years. 

[wmw999 2,123]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Retrospectively as in 40-50 years ago as compared with your analysis of the current. I will vote for neither.

My memory is that you didn’t really like Trump, but felt it was more important to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House, so you voted for him.

Id submit that Trump is a greater threat to how our country operates; one of the best things about the US is that we trust our succession, and that the person fills the position, not that the position is wrapped around the person.

But that was threatened in 2020, and Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to accept a loss this year, that he plans to pardon people who consider an invasion of the Capitol and the shenanigans that went along with it to be OK. In addition, his need for personal loyalty (rather than to the position) is very concerning.

Personally, I consider this to be a significant threat to the structure of the country.

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,303]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Retrospectively as in 40-50 years ago as compared with your analysis of the current. I will vote for neither.

You are absolutely the wrong guy to have that position. I don't that  doubt your opinion is respected in your daily circles and can be persuasive. Not voting for either is a vote for Trump, don't kid yourself otherwise. If a few others don't vote owing to your opinions and Trump is elected you will own that. Given you are a smart man I am starting to wonder if that's what you really want.

Edited April 8 by JoeWeber

[BIGUN 1,056]

53 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

My memory is that you didn’t really like Trump, but felt it was more important to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House, so you voted for him.

Id submit that Trump is a greater threat to how our country operates;

You m' lady have made THE best logic statement for consideration.

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

If a few others don't vote owing to your opinions and Trump is elected you will own that.

 Someone came up with this in the 70's - It's all your fault if you don't vote. Well, Joe. It's not. If NOBODY voted there would still be an electoral vote and if they didn't vote, congress would vote.

It's all part of the Illuminatus plan to own the world. Ya know, Latin for we be fucked while the light is on.  

[ryoder 1,390]

Newsweek: Letitia James to Begin Claiming Donald Trump's Properties

She's going to grab him by the properties; Because when you're Attorney General, they let you do that.

[JoeWeber 2,303]

5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You m' lady have made THE best logic statement for consideration.

 Someone came up with this in the 70's - It's all your fault if you don't vote. Well, Joe. It's not. If NOBODY voted there would still be an electoral vote and if they didn't vote, congress would vote.

It's all part of the Illuminatus plan to own the world. Ya know, Latin for we be fucked while the light is on.  

'Someone came up with this in the 70's - It's all your fault if you don't vote. Well, Joe. It's not. If NOBODY voted there would still be an electoral vote and if they didn't vote, congress would vote."

Well, you might be new but I was there in the 70's and it's as true now as then. Bottom line is that you will also own the electoral vote and, if it ever happens, what congress gives us. But you just go on voting for the American Minority Party, local, state, and federal, for whatever set of reasons justifies your vote and then when the shit is really about to hit the fan hide behind the 'ol your vote don't matter trope. 

[jakee 1,257]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

Newsweek: Letitia James to Begin Claiming Donald Trump's Properties

She's going to grab him by the properties; Because when you're Attorney General, they let you do that.

You couldn’t make it up. To post a bond so he could appeal his massive fine for inflating assets and breaking NY law, he teamed up with a company which does not have enough assets and does not think it has to comply with NY law.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:45 PM, BIGUN said:

And, she exiled to Russia and asked Putin to expedite her citizenship after receiving death threats, Uh huh. 

With the help of a known Russian agent. And she has now stated that Russia is much better than the US. Those two little factoids normally set off some alarm bells.

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

23 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Yeah, but they are merely MINO's. :)

I'm going to share the following link. I find it interesting that it encompasses poll type/politician/institution in the dropdowns and then reports who did the research and who funded the research. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/

As to your points on JFK vs. Nixon, etc. We all learn by looking back "retrospectively." Unfortunately, that doesn't help in the decision making for future leadership. I've voted for Democrats - admittedly on a local level primarily because they were more fiscally conservative than their republican opponents professed.

Anyway, I don't think either team has a good choice and am faced with not voting for a P at all.

Hi Keith,

Re:  I don't think either team has a good choice and am faced with not voting for a P at all.

The best instructor I had in college was a math teacher.  His position was that if had not tried your homework, you could not ask questions about it in class, later.

My position is that anyone who does not vote for POTUS, should not comment on the outcome.

Once I became eligible, I have never failed to vote in ANY election that I was allowed to do so.

IMO it is our most important civic responsibility.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I've voted for POTUS 15 times; IMO only 3-4 times were there good choices.  C'est la vie.

 

 

 

[winsor 186]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

Re:  I don't think either team has a good choice and am faced with not voting for a P at all.

The best instructor I had in college was a math teacher.  His position was that if had not tried your homework, you could not ask questions about it in class, later.

My position is that anyone who does not vote for POTUS, should not comment on the outcome.

Once I became eligible, I have never failed to vote in ANY election that I was allowed to do so.

IMO it is our most important civic responsibility.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I've voted for POTUS 15 times; IMO only 3-4 times were there good choices.  C'est la vie.

 

 

 

I think the Bull Moose candidate, Teddy Roosevelt, is a better choice than the Republican or Democrat offering.

[wmw999 2,123]

He’s not running. That said, I still think it’s more important to keep the guy who wants to change the social (and constitutional) contract of how office is earned and held, along with the civil service that your pal Theodore Roosevelt fought so hard for 

Or are you OK with the purity and personal (as opposed to national) loyalty tests that are coming? 

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,303]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

He’s not running. That said, I still think it’s more important to keep the guy who wants to change the social (and constitutional) contract of how office is earned and held, along with the civil service that your pal Theodore Roosevelt fought so hard for 

Or are you OK with the purity and personal (as opposed to national) loyalty tests that are coming? 

Wendy P. 

He couldn't care less, I'm certain. It's not in the nihilist playbook.

[nigel99 144]

11 hours ago, lippy said:

The reality is that based on where we’re at today, Biden is the only alternative. Maybe in 7 months, we’ll look at President Elect Trump and wish that there had of been another option, but at this stage in the game, Biden’s our horse. 
 

No doubt that Trump is a threat, but I wouldn’t write Biden off as nothing more than the lesser of evils. He’s done some good thinks like the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPs act, student debt….that are materially improving lives for lots of people. It’s hard to imagine that the trend wouldn’t continue if he gets another 4 years. 

I wouldn't use the lesser of 2 evils to describe Biden. Rather to me it indicates that the dems have a competence problem in the party if someone over 80 is the best they have to offer.

People age and peak, physical and cognitive decline is real not imaginary. It appears that Biden has done a good job, my challenge is "Is he really the best of the dems?"

Trumps age is only irrelevant because there is a laundry list of reasons why he is a walking disaster that far outweigh age being a factor.

[JoeWeber 2,303]

13 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Rather to me it indicates that the dems have a competence problem in the party if someone over 80 is the best they have to offer.

The system offers the incumbent another shot at the office. The hope is that without reelection on offer after term two they can make hard and unpopular decisions that benefit the nation as a whole. Also, the chance of the party in power staying in power is great. That is vastly different from it being a competence problem.

[billvon 2,402]

14 hours ago, nigel99 said:

As an outsider it's interesting to see the polarised debate.

I am not sure that I would vote for someone in their 80's. Trump is awful, but I find it hard to believe Biden is the best alternative. 

He, of course, is not.  He is merely the better of two bad options.

 

[billvon 2,402]

12 hours ago, wmw999 said:

But that was threatened in 2020, and Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to accept a loss this year, that he plans to pardon people who consider an invasion of the Capitol and the shenanigans that went along with it to be OK. In addition, his need for personal loyalty (rather than to the position) is very concerning.

I heard it put pretty well by someone else:

You can vote for Biden in November, and then in four years have your vote counted for someone better.

Or you can vote for Trump in November, and never have your vote counted again.

[nigel99 144]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

The system offers the incumbent another shot at the office. The hope is that without reelection on offer after term two they can make hard and unpopular decisions that benefit the nation as a whole. Also, the chance of the party in power staying in power is great. That is vastly different from it being a competence problem.

Interesting perspective that I never considered and makes a lot of sense. It also highlights additional risk of a Trump second term for the same reason.

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

Hi folks,

In the Nixon-Frost interviews, Nixon said:  'If the President does it, it is not illegal.'

Looks like not everyone agrees:  Presidential immunity would “inexorably lead to deep divisions between the armed forces’ political and military leaders and would place servicemen and women in the impossible position of either ignoring presidential orders they are sworn to obey or committing crimes at the President’s behest in violation of their oath — for which they may be prosecuted,”

Former top military officers push back on Trump immunity claim | The Hill

Jerry Baumchen

 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

In the Nixon-Frost interviews, Nixon said:  'If the President does it, it is not illegal.'

Which is why Ford sacrificed his election to give him a pardon.

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Which is why Ford sacrificed his election to give him a pardon.

Hi Sky,

I disagree.  While one [ his pardon ] was a factor in his non-election, I do not believe it was a factor in his [ Ford's ] decision making, as regards the pardon.

He wanted to put the past behind us & move forward.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,257]

45 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

I disagree.  While one [ his pardon ] was a factor in his non-election, I do not believe it was a factor in his [ Ford's ] decision making, as regards the pardon.

He wanted to put the past behind us & move forward.

Jerry Baumchen

Wouldn’t it be nice to believe the VP of the (2nd?) most corrupt President ever had such noble motives. 

[JoeWeber 2,303]

29 minutes ago, jakee said:

Wouldn’t it be nice to believe the VP of the (2nd?) most corrupt President ever had such noble motives. 

Nothing noble about it. Just ass covering on the chance he gets caught.