Trump Statistics

[dorankj]

We’ve been over this Ray! You changed my posts because they ‘didn’t meet your standards’ and yet your political friends can post all sorts of hateful, vile incendiary rhetoric and you don’t care. Yes, “good grief”!

Like I say... show me an example of what you are butt hurt about.

[mister_coffee]

[pasayten]

You understand that changing people’s words is censorship, right? Or do you not “read very well”? ‘Heal thyself physician’!

So what word(s)/sentences/paragraphs/posts that were changed do you consider censorship? This should be illuminating... I am waiting... Good grief

[dorankj]

Donald Trump meets all constitutional qualifications to run for president. A invented ‘RICO’ charge from Fulton county does not!

[dorankj]

You understand that changing people’s words is censorship, right? Or do you not “read very well”? ‘Heal thyself physician’!

[pasayten]

Well Ray you certainly believe in censorship but only of those you don’t like, hypocrite!

What a bs statement…. Especially from someone that has 669 posts on this BB….

[mister_coffee]

I guess the constitution is fascist. Who knew?

[dorankj]

Well Ray you certainly believe in censorship but only of those you don’t like, hypocrite! As to the democracy point, you obviously support law-fair as opposed to people deciding who to vote for! Fascists

[mister_coffee]

We have a constitutional system which is more or less democratic.

A literal democratic system would have required the person who won the most votes in a presidential election to become president. I recall that did not happen in 2016. Or for that matter in 2000.

The 14th amendment section 3 clause which might prohibit Trump from standing for election as President is a self-executing qualification. Just like someone couldn't run for President if they were not old enough or were not a natural born citizen.

[pasayten]

Oh most of us believe in democracy... That's the point... It’s Just that Trump and his followers don't...

[dorankj]

So you guys here don’t actually believe in democracy! Can’t allow us “cousin f-ckers” to have a say. Piss -off Jim!

[mister_coffee]

Oh, and about that 14th Amendment Section 3.

Otero County, New Mexico commissioner Couy Griffin was barred from holding public office for life in September 2022 by District Court Judge Francis Mathew who found his participation as the leader of the Cowboys for Trump group during the attack on the Capitol was an act of insurrection under Section 3. This is the first conviction under Section 3 since 1869.

So a path for barring Trump from running could be through state courts. Which will be interesting and entertaining since the efforts could be focused on the handful of states Trump must win to have any chance of being elected (e.g. Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). And under the party rules once Trump won the nomination the Rs would be stuck with him, disqualified or not.

What this means is that the Rs are running a nonzero risk they may lose the election before campaign season even starts.

[Rideback]

No, again Chris, the point of the article by Luttig & Tribe is based on Trump's incitement, encouragement and aid of an insurrection. That is counter to your continuing point that he said at one point to act 'peacefully' which you seem to think then negates every other action.

[Fun CH]

Chris, this is an interview of the authors of a remarkable piece in the Atlantic that makes the case that Trump is not qualified to run for President. The authors, retired Federal court judge Michael Luttig who Mike Pence turned to regarding the J6 insurrection and Lawrence Tribe, a Constitutional law professor for over 50 years at Harvard. Note how they discuss the reasons that Trump's actions disqualify him.

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/ ... 1177797850

you don't have to convince me that Trump should never be POTUS again or before.

Just saying, the divisive derogatory BS carried out by a small minority on both sides is hurting our country.

Anyway, I'm out.

Carry on with the "our team's on the side of right" illusion.

[just-jim]

.
From a Heather Cox Richardson piece - in early June - right after the Russian bombing of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine. It is is worth repeating here…..she describes how ‘both-siding’ an issue doesnt hold water….

….CNN has parted ways with Chris Licht, its chief executive officer and chair, who had sought to move the network to what he considered the center of American politics. He had done so by highlighting “both sides” of today’s political arguments, firing leading journalists he thought too far on the left and centering Trump in a town hall that became the former president’s triumphant reentry to the political stage as he lied and bullied the interviewer. Some pundits have taken Licht’s fall as a sign that there is no longer a powerful center in American politics, but my own guess is the opposite: that most of us want news based in reality rather than media giving platforms to people who are openly lying.

Yale scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder today applied this idea to coverage of the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine, which has rained down humanitarian, ecological, and economic disaster on Ukrainians as they appear to be launching a counteroffensive to the Russian invasion of their country.

Snyder warned journalists not to “bothsides” the story by offering equal time to both sides. “What Russian spokespersons have said has almost always been untrue, whereas what Ukrainian spokespersons have said has largely been reliable. The juxtaposition suggests a false equality,” he wrote. “The story doesn't start at the moment the dam explodes. For the last fifteen months Russia has been killing Ukrainian civilians and destroying Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, whereas Ukraine has been trying to protect its people and the structures that keep them alive. “Objectivity does not mean treating an event as a coin flip between two public statements,” he said. “It demands thinking about the objects and the settings that readers require for understanding amidst uncertainty.”
.

[Rideback]

Chris, this is an interview of the authors of a remarkable piece in the Atlantic that makes the case that Trump is not qualified to run for President. The authors, retired Federal court judge Michael Luttig who Mike Pence turned to regarding the J6 insurrection and Lawrence Tribe, a Constitutional law professor for over 50 years at Harvard. Note how they discuss the reasons that Trump's actions disqualify him.

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/ ... 1177797850

[just-jim]

.

I knew Jim would weigh in with his threats and facsism because no one is allowed to support what this group doesn’t like and we ignore the current occupant, his corruption and obvious family grift. What were you saying about ignorance and gullibility? Shame on who?

.
Still getting your newzz from Faux Nooz are you, Ken?

That’s the place that ADMITS they make up stories and LIE to their viewers; WHOM they call “ignorant cousin f=ckers”, right?

So, yeah….the shame IS yours! Wear it proudly.
.

[pasayten]

Derice A. Madoux
August 8 at 3:52 PM
·
“Talented and well-practiced in every vice, a stranger to compassion or empathy, a liar and a cheat so complete in perfidy that he has elevated his dishonesty to hold it up as an ersatz moral principle, violent, so long as he can order someone else to do the dirty work, grotesque in body, graceless in action, in possession of a wounded self-regard so colossal as to smother any spark of grace, treasonous, not only to country, but to every ally he has ever had, the poisoned fruit and rankest flower of racism and contempt for women, and utterly devoid of shame for his moral and spiritual bankruptcy.
That is your leader. That is to whom you give your money. That is who you follow and laud. That is whose banner you willingly carry. Why? Because he is a mirror, not a lighthouse. You see yourselves in him. He is what you would be, if you had inherited money and could shed the last vestiges of conscience and shame.
No, I do not “respect your choices,” nor do I admire your loyalty and dedication to this miserific, demoniac vision. You have demonstrated not only a lack of civic virtue, loyalty to the Republic and to the rule of law, but a willingness to engage in violence and sedition at his slightest expressed wish. And you will never, ever admit you were wrong.
Because you see your dark, twisted, resentful dreams in him. And to renounce him is to renounce yourselves.”~ Advocatus Peregrini
Drawing
Stable Genius by Siegfried Woldhek, pen & ink, October 12, 2019.

[Rideback]

Another outlet, Newsmas, that brought lies about the '20 election to its viewers is is losing big time in the courts. BTW, this is the same outlet that joins Bannon, Fox and Tucker in spreading the Biden crime family disinformation. Who ya gonna believe?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/23/media/sm ... index.html

[Rideback]

Ken, too many times to count, the 'bribery' you're referring to is non existent.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump ... d-ukraine/

The prosecutor that Biden wanted gone was corrupt. It was a clean deal.

[dorankj]

But bribery is specifically enumerated as impeachment requirement and Joe specifically did that in Ukraine by withholding the billion dollars until the prosecutor (investigating his son’s corrupt company) was fired. And then they impeached Trump for asking about that incident and corruption of American officials! Boy, when will any sense of justice prevail?

[mister_coffee]

There is a general misunderstanding of exactly what "innocent until proven guilty" means in our society. It is very important to remember that the presumption of innocence only applies with respect to proceedings in the criminal justice system. Outside of that very specific context people are free to make whatever inferences they wish from the information available to them. As an example, if you were considering hiring someone who had serious criminal charges pending against them, it would not be discriminatory to decline engaging them as an employee based on that information.

The presumption of innocence has three practical components:

• With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.

• With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.

• The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

The other very interesting question here is how Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment will apply to Donald Trump. (This section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion or "given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof" from holding any public office). It is widely agreed that this prohibition would apply even if there was no criminal conviction (and during Reconstruction federal prosecutors did in fact bring civil actions to remove former confederate officials from public office). No doubt the legal proceedings will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

More information on the 14th Amendment:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... ection%203.

[realoldtimer]

Trump is already 'joking' that he'll go to Russia and share a penthouse with Putin.

https://h5.newsbreakapp.com/mp/0o5IWEIf ... platform=0

[Rideback]

Trump is already 'joking' that he'll go to Russia and share a penthouse with Putin.

[mister_coffee]

David, when you say at some point Trump is going to run, do you mean like OJ Simpson?

Yeah, pretty much. Although I don't know how that is possible given that he supposedly has Secret Service protection keeping an eye on him. Maybe he will fly his private jet to Cuba and ask for political asylum.