USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
Stop dodging questions and repeating literal propaganda.
Should criminals face punishment, yes or no?
Should the legal system exist in the first place, yes or no?
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
Now explain in detail why it was politically driven and "used to put Trump out of the way". Don't point to a video, explain in your own words your world view. Don't dodge the question again, for once show some respect to the members of the forum and actually explain your position instead of these silly games.
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
Here's the thing...even that video says "Biden used the law" to go after Trump to get him out of the way. Isn't that...what...the law...is for? If these things are true to the word of the conspiracy theorists: isn't that still how you're supposed to handle things as political figures dealing with criminals? What should he have done? Something more justified like taking up bear spray and storming our nations capitol?
Hell, I wish Biden and the Democrats had done some wacky illegal crazy shit to get Trump out of the way and behind bars. He needs to be out of the way. He's a literal threat to democracy and the common good will of the people. He's a fucking cancer.
Note: I am in no way saying the Republicans should be done away with or silenced (no, no, no, save that kind of rhetoric for the far-right). But to use your own classic adage from about a decade ago, the Republican party needs to "drain the swamp" of Trump and all of his nut-job plants throughout government so it can get back to being a party that at least seems vaguely respectable.
Hell, I wish Biden and the Democrats had done some wacky illegal crazy shit to get Trump out of the way and behind bars. He needs to be out of the way. He's a literal threat to democracy and the common good will of the people. He's a fucking cancer.
Note: I am in no way saying the Republicans should be done away with or silenced (no, no, no, save that kind of rhetoric for the far-right). But to use your own classic adage from about a decade ago, the Republican party needs to "drain the swamp" of Trump and all of his nut-job plants throughout government so it can get back to being a party that at least seems vaguely respectable.
____no5
Free Man
I don't have time for that. Things that I see as obvious evidences, you don't even consider and I've said time and again. The mishandling of documents first president ever to be indicted for that. What's more, investigation started in Biden's time who had committed the same. The hash money case an obvious witch hunt, obvious even back then when I was very much anti-Trump I still raised an eye brow. How the things started to speed up after November 2022. The coincidences that mentioned in the video one week after Trump announced and also in my post in my own words that you didn't read. The 34 charges each for each check. The obvious reliance of Dems on the legal cases that side-blinded them and they didn't remove Biden earlier. The frenzy and built up in the press. The feeling of urgency to get the indictments in time for the elections that press was not too shy to hide. It's not that I don't explain is that you don't listen. Or you don't consider those enough evidence. But I do.
Yax
Ancient Mariner
He refused to give them back. They didn't go after them because he accidentally kept them. They came after him after months of back and forth, where Trump's lawyers lied for him through affidavits. Nobody has been indicted for that because nobody has remotely acted like Trump. Pence and Biden complied. Trump threw a tantrum and unilaterally tried to decide that they were his.
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
You have time to spread lies, disinformation and propaganda, even after you've been called out on that behavior dozens of times. So yes, you do have the time to show the bare minimum respect to your fellow users in the forum.
The word you are looking for is lies. Or do you prefer misinformation? You haven't given a single coherent argument so far.
And here you are brazenly lying and you know it. Biden cooperated from the get go. Trump didn't; he went out of his way to obstruct and lie to the authorities. These things are not the same.
No it is not "obvious". Explain, in detail, or stop posting these ludicrous statements.
Not even you believe that. No matter when it would've happened you would've cried foul. These things take time and the timeline was perfectly sensible. This simply proves that you don't understand the basics of the legal system.
There are no "coincidences", they followed the literal letter of the law, because Trump broke the law. Stop projecting; the only one here not reading what the other side is you.
That's how the law works. Someone who killed a single person gets a different sentence than someone who killed 34. This is obvious. Stop being obtuse on purpose.
Fox News is the largest network and it is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. Quit lying.
He's a literal felon. In a just world he'd be behind bars, not one of the most powerful men in the world.
No, you only bring conspiracies and lies to the table. Once again, you repeat your talking points, but you aren't fooling anyone. So start with some proper arguments and explain them in details, instead of stating lies with confidence as if you proved anything.
That you believe lies and misinformation instead of facts isn't anything new.
I feel compelled in my role as a moderator to step in here, point out that we've had this whole ball before, that once again it's starting to look like people are ganging up against 5, but this time around, @____no5, I'm sorry, but this is getting out of hand. What you're doing is starting to look like trolling. If I didn't know you and didn't know that you genuinely believed these things and genuinely think everyone else is the deluded one, I'd call you out for that right now.
But even so: People have been answering to your points in great detail, and you have refused to do the same thing, even after repeatedly being asked to do so. There may be the case of language issue here, maybe you should look up a few words like "policy" to understand what people mean, but honestly. Don't you understand why people are getting so enormously frustrated with you?
But even so: People have been answering to your points in great detail, and you have refused to do the same thing, even after repeatedly being asked to do so. There may be the case of language issue here, maybe you should look up a few words like "policy" to understand what people mean, but honestly. Don't you understand why people are getting so enormously frustrated with you?
Flaming Blimp Crash
Ancient Mariner
Forum was giving me issues logging in over the past week, but, in recap, yeesh.
Flaming Blimp Crash
Ancient Mariner
I do want to note that this could exactly go the opposite way I think it is, but I think the election of John Thune as Senate Majority Leader is definitely going to be a check on Trump. Trump's allies and surrogates made a major push for Rick Scott to be Majority Leader as Scott jumped at the chance to push recess appointments for him. Scott only got a quarter of the private vote in the first round of selection for leader amongst Republican senators. Thune is a McConnell deputy and both of them (remember, McConnell's still a senator until 2026) didn't have that great of a relationship with Trump at the end of his first term.
From what it sounds like, confirmation hearings will still be held for Trump's appointees. Gaetz, Gabbard and Hegseth I imagine will fall by the wayside - Gaetz will probably have his ethics investigation findings leaked prior to even getting that far.
Again, maybe I'm wrong and recess appointments are on the docket of the Senate's agenda, but you don't jockey for power to immediately yield it.
____no5
Free Man
@Vaenyr What you think you can achieve by loosing your temper like this? It doesn't give me the feeling to continue.
@Perun it's not trolling. I think I understand why some people are mad about me but what's wrong having each their opinions and co-exist?
I function with the feeling for good or bad. If it's mewling and it's on the roof is a cat. Someone else may want solid proofs that is cat, I don't.
For many things it's a matter of feeling there is no concrete evidence to stand in a court of law that there was a weaponisation. But still some people have a strong feeling that it is.
No way I can prove that it was a weaponisation beyond any doubt. If there was a way, it would have been a crime so the technicalities are there to prevent that.
I didn't call anyone a liar. Even the people I completely disagree with I trust they are honest to their word. And ok I understand someone loose their temper, but at least to recognise that it's not the best behaviour, nor promote their values or what they want to achieve. It's not a constructive way to engage.
Last time I mentioned weaponisation I made it clear it was my opinion to avoid having this discussion again. I considered to avoid it, but I didn't want to self-censor either.
I think it's ok to not agree sometimes. Jer has provided great detail on the subject and I understand why he is mad, he put a great effort but still I'm not convinced. Same with other members. And I didn't mean any disrespect by not giving much details, that's for sure.
In any case, it's not the end of the word. We can also face it with humour instead of anger.
@Perun it's not trolling. I think I understand why some people are mad about me but what's wrong having each their opinions and co-exist?
I function with the feeling for good or bad. If it's mewling and it's on the roof is a cat. Someone else may want solid proofs that is cat, I don't.
For many things it's a matter of feeling there is no concrete evidence to stand in a court of law that there was a weaponisation. But still some people have a strong feeling that it is.
No way I can prove that it was a weaponisation beyond any doubt. If there was a way, it would have been a crime so the technicalities are there to prevent that.
I didn't call anyone a liar. Even the people I completely disagree with I trust they are honest to their word. And ok I understand someone loose their temper, but at least to recognise that it's not the best behaviour, nor promote their values or what they want to achieve. It's not a constructive way to engage.
Last time I mentioned weaponisation I made it clear it was my opinion to avoid having this discussion again. I considered to avoid it, but I didn't want to self-censor either.
I think it's ok to not agree sometimes. Jer has provided great detail on the subject and I understand why he is mad, he put a great effort but still I'm not convinced. Same with other members. And I didn't mean any disrespect by not giving much details, that's for sure.
In any case, it's not the end of the word. We can also face it with humour instead of anger.
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
I also function with a feeling for good or bad. If it’s paying off pornstars, hitting on its own daughter, and “grabbing them by the pussy” then it’s a sex offender.
Conveniently, my feeling is built on evidence.
Ignoring facts for strong feelings is madness.
I also notice my questions about yesterday’s Trump plans have gone completely unanswered, which I can only assume is due to further lack of being informed.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
No, I’m not going to accept a false equivalence between a completely unsupportable opinion (yours) and an easily supportable one (mine). You haven’t even attempted to explain how your version of events could possibly be true, let alone be likely to be true, and you’ve made it clear with your later comments that you don’t even care whether it’s actually true as long as it feels true to you.
This proves that you’re a raving anti-intellectual, and literally everything you say should be viewed with suspicion because you don’t care what the truth is. It also makes any attempt at intellectual discussion with you pointless, because you reject the basic principles of reason. Thanks for wasting all of our time with your baseless rants, but I’m done.
I’ll be curious what happens here as well. It’s a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand, Trump should have a larger mandate and more political capital on the basis that he won a blowout in the electoral college and a sizable popular vote victory as well. On the other, the fact that Senate republicans lost in nearly every state that he carried is pretty embarrassing* and proves that Trump is still down ballot poison. Ditto on the house, which was really close to flipping. You’re going to have a lot of house people in swing districts who will basically be assuming a blue wave in 2026 and probably Murkowski/Collins acting as this senate’s Manchin/Sinema which means pretty much every other senator is going to need to stay in line for cabinet appointments. My gut is that he's going to struggle to control congress more than in 2016 when he had a larger congressional majority. Other than judicial appointments and tax cuts, I'm not sure what he'll be able to do there. John Thune as Senate Majority leader is the first sign that the Senate at least hasn't completely gone full MAGA. The other side to this is that I doubt Trump has suddenly become more interested in governing since last time he was there, so you have to wonder how much jockeying he will be interested in doing to get anything done. Also the fact that he is appointing a lot of people from congress to be in the cabinet is not going to help with the already slim majorities.
Rubio for Secretary of State also feels like both a concession to the establishment GOP and also more evidence that Trump just doesn't care about policy that much.
All this to say is that I expect Trump's time to be spent making his legal problems disappear, trying to open investigations into political opponents, mass deportations, and gutting the federal government (some of these are in conflict with each other). Oh, and golfing.
*Almost as embarrassing as failing to carry the presidential race in every swing state despite major victories from your party down ballot.
____no5
Free Man
I don't know anything about hitting own daughter. Paying off pornstars why not? Grabbing obviously is offensive except that it was a brag recorded 10+ years ago so going after that it's witch hunt in my view. Back then I was anti -Trump and thought strange to
Yes, but what I consider a fact you discard but still is valid for me so what I can do? I don't need to be a lawyer to know that an ex president receiving 34 charges for the same thing is hugely biased and political. Is it technically allowed? Yes. Am I convinced? No way.
I agreed with your scepticism with more than 2/3 which means I'm also sceptic about Gaetz but I understand why Trump wants to reward him. Of course not for what you think.
But I didn't find those questions relevant to the flow, first because I don't consider myself a Trumper so it didn't ring a bell and second I had so many to answer at that point that I skipped those. I definitely didn't like Musk in government even though I like Musk. And I raised my eyebrows with both with Vivek in same department, which own establishment also I found bizarre. Anyway, maybe it would be for the good, let's see.
Trump is the lesser evil that's it. De Santis would be better. But Democrats under Biden managed to shift my opinion for the parties too. Now Republicans are the better guys for me, new faces like Vance not the old school neo-cons.
If your definition of intellectual were the media claiming that Biden is sharp as a tack to literally threw him under the bus a week later, I don't want to be such. I could trust my own eyes that he was not as sharp.
What feels true is important in a world where everything is design to manipulate us. Our decisions are based on that since for most things we are not even remotely experts. Elections are based on that. The fact that Trump won the way that he did, despite this unprecedented war against him, should be a huge wake up call for you. Especially for this case. Because this is what got Trump elected. The perceived (I guess I'm allowed to use perceived) weaponisation of justice against him. He once again was in the spotlight and victim. Game over.
Obviously it's not possible to prove beyond any doubt that this was lawfare. It is designed not to. Then what we left with is our feeling. And especially in this case, even in Blue States there were significant shifts towards the GOP so people really didn't buy it.