The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection

He stuck around shouting and tweeting long enough (Jan 5, 2021) to virtually hand over the Senate to the Democrats.He went out with a big bang on his adopted party's head.Democrats and their supporters can take the gift and profit the nation with it, or they can squander the nation's votes (surely voting for hope and change). Democrats need to move on and not use the nation's votes as toilet paper to wipe their excrement with.Forward we go, right?(Trump who?)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I still say that the 81 million pieces of voting paper, cast for Biden, should not be used as if they are pieces of toilet paper to wipe the congressional Democrat's butt holes with.Sorry.Move on!Solve some problems.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

One actually.It has 55% of respondents strongly or somewhat favoring removal from office, 37% opposed, and 7% not sure or without an opinion.20% of Republicans are at least somewhat supportive, and 50% of independents are at least somewhat supportive.But the poll was taken Jan 15-17, while Trump was still in office. We will see if these poll numbers hold up, post Jan 20.NBC also released a new poll showing that Trump has a 43% job approval rating and 55% disapproval. There was less Republican "crossover" in this poll; 87% of Republicans approved of his performance.That is about 15% more Republicans who approve of his job performance than are at least somewhat opposed to Trump being removed by the Senate.Just that difference in Republicans alone means that - at most - only 50% of Americans support removal AND disapproval of his job performance. I am sure that a close look at the 2 poll's numbers will , with a critical comparison, show that less than 50% of Americans BOTH support removal from office AND disapprove his job performance.Democrats:Beware!Or be aware.For real.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I don't think I want to comment on a post that invokes the Nazi word.

A twisted accusation that invoked a genocidal dictatorship.Democrats are lucky to have won each of the:Presidential officeSenateHouseEven with the worst Republican ( politically and electorally speaking, Trump was darn near unelectable, despite his 2016 win) for an opponent, it took Covid 19 to defeat Trump.The Senate was only won by Democrats due to Trump's antics which were almost openly admitted, by Trump, to damage the 2 Republican Senators .The House is easily going back to Republicans in 2022, and Trump is the reason Democrats barely held on in 2020.Democrats are ill prepared for a Marco Rubio type candidate as it is, and the impeachment crap is going to make it even worse.

Liz Cheny's father was called a war criminal and just about everything else by Trump.This is your evidence?All PaulK had was a quote of Trump telling people to protest at the Capitol.

You took a quote from one of Trump's biggest political adversaries, and presented that as evidence?Trump and the Cheney's are perhaps the 2 biggest political opponents of each other as you will ever find. It would be like taking a quote of Tsar Nicholas attacking Lenin, and somehow assuming it is evidence - in and of itself - against Vladimir Lenin.

Al Gore had the same dilemma, but he did not call the election "stolen", though his supporters sure did.Trump said "stop the steal", and, as PaulK offered, "pay the boys at the capital a visit", but the context shows Trump was making a call for protests.Similar to the plot to use Gen Smedley Butler to "overthrow " FDR.It was just about marching and protesting.I don't know of any solid evidence that Trump wanted a break in and violence.Feel free to present it.

More claims.More bluster.Out of context quotes welcome, regardless.

Trump was looking at the state by state results, not the popular vote.And your interpretations, of what means Trump was trying to get his supporters to employ, are coming from people like YOURSELF and Liz Cheney. Political adversaries. The types of people who would do anything to get to make Trump look as bad as humanly possible.It is evidence that you intend to use quite a few outside tactics to get somebody you oppose hurt.But you can feel free to present actual evidence, AGAIN.

Did you see his attacks on Luz Cheney, in the speech?He singled her out as a Republican who needs to be defeated, thus removed from the SenateHe was presenting her as a warmonger, and you used her attacks on his speech as evidence that he was doing something illegal.I saw nothing illegal in this speech .Nothing that even remotely supported violence.I read every word.You?Correction: Taq was the one who quoted Cheney, but you jumped into our exchange.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

So quote to your very best .I want to see your killer quotes, then, and ONLY THEN, your illuminated commentary .Don't just drop a line, "I hope you are reading that". Show me you read it.Show your work.Show your evidence.

Oops.Everybody here is already doing that.The scary thing is people here actually think that they have already made the case.I am not scared when people simply express a feeling of desire, while they know they are just engaged in wishful thinking. I do get scared when people uncritically believe a conclusion when no examination of the evidence has been made on the part of the believer.I am wondering if I should pretend this isn't as bad as I know it actually is.

Let me guess:The legal scholars and attorneys for Removal are your chosen authorities.Your filter is easy to spot.One other thing that I have noticed is that the more critically minded among Trump's legal critics , seem to admit that there is a search going on to find the exact crime he could be guilty of.See Slate article:There's A Big Hole In Trump's First Amendment Defense

I wonder what you feel is the exact crime?I know you are afraid to say much, because you don't want me demanding you provide quotations of Trump's words, but can you at least find a clever and evasive way to answer the question with at least a little genuine substance?