|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 46 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,609 Year: 931/6,935 Month: 212/719 Week: 0/204 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Second Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Trump's constant stream of denigration, insult, aggresion and ill will has deadened us to the sheer inappropriateness of it all. Nearly everything Trump has done since the election has been horrible (except for proposing the elimination of the twice-annual time change, and maybe he'll get rid of the penny, too), and he's not even president yet. He's threatened allies and enemies alike with retributive tariffs. He's pressuring Denmark to hand over Greenland, for Panama to surrender the canal unless they lower prices, and for Canada to sign on as the 51st state. He promised to use his Justice Department to go after political enemies. On Christmas Eve he vowed to still execute federal death row inmates whose death sentences Biden just commuted to life in prison.
But what's worse than all that is that he's normalized for all of us animosity and cruelty and hate and death and relentless pursuit of self-interest. We no longer look at his statements and say, "That's totally unacceptable." Now at most it's just, "There he goes again." We've resigned ourselves to Trump is just who he is and there's nothing we can do about it. He can only be endured, not changed. If Trump has taught non-MAGA people anything it's hopelessness. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
News outlets are reporting today that Trump's senior border advisor says he's bringing back family detention. Illegal immigrants with children born in the U.S. will be deported, and they must make the choice on whether to bring their children with them. Homan said, "You knew you were in the country illegally and chose to have a child. So you put your family in that position."
When confronted with a fait accompli most governments will behave in a compassionate and humane manner, but not the Trump administration. Trump himself calls Illegal immigrants a scourge that must be eliminated. His language often echos German antisemitism from the years leading up to and including WWII, dehumanizing illegal immigrants just as the Nazis did to the Jews. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
K.Rose writes in Message 137: It was a simple salutation and observance, meant to remind me and others that we are all here in this imperfect world and, to a great extent, our existence here depends on how we treat one another. Donald Trump on Illegal Immigrants: Where do see "good will toward men" in that?
The EvC Forum participants would look like very polarized belligerents to the non-EvC outsider civilian. Given Trump's cruel policies, how do you justify calling those opposing them as "very polarized belligerents"? Aren't they the ones who embody the sentiments you earlier expressed?
But, really, we probably have a lot more in common than it would appear since we are all spending precious time communicating ideas of shared interests passionately. What qualities do you see us having in common? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
You were responding to my Message 134 that was about the incoming Trump administration's announced intent to resume family detention. Nothing you said touched even remotely on that.
Also, this thread is about The Second Trump Presidency, and you barely mentioned Trump, either. If you have legitimate and meaningful criticisms of the Biden administration or the election then I suggest you take them to the The Biden Presidency and 2024 US Presidential Election threads. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
marc9000 writes in Message 141: Not only is there no case, formal charges would force discovery of all evidence, evidence that heretofore has not been presented, evidence that might tell a much different story, evidence that might impugn those who were all but certain they had evaded accountability. Yes, formal charges would have exposed the lack of security, and those responsible for it. (Nancy Pelosi). This is a PRATT that has been rebutted so widely and often and is so obviously untrue that anyone repeating it now is just lying. The Speaker of the House is not responsible for security. Nancy Pelosi was no more responsible for security on January 6th then Mike Johnson is now.
And the fact that the few policemen that were there invited some of the first ones to arrive inside. Any police who helped or assisted January 6th rioters were investigated for it: Capitol Police Suspends 6 Officers, Investigates Dozens More After Capitol Riots : Capitol Insurrection Updates : NPR. Invading the capitol broke the law, and anyone assisting those who invaded the capitol broke the law, including police.
Also would have been a much more thorough investigation on the murder of Ashley Babbitt. It's on video. After the window of the door to the House Speaker's Lobby was broken, through which Congressmen could be seen, Ashli Babbitt went through and was killed. The man who broke the window, Chad Barrett Jones of Kentucky, was found guilty of two felonies and various misdemeanors. His sentencing was set for November 8th of last year, then was rescheduled, and since I can find no mention of his actual sentencing it may not have happened yet. The maximum sentence for his offenses is 20 years, but the maximum has never yet been imposed on any January 6th rioter. Wikipedia doesn't list a sentencing for Jones (List of cases of the January 6 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia).
Trump will pardon some, possibly not all, of the rioters from January 6th. Yes, he probably will.
The mainstream media will be all over it of course, much more than they have been about Biden's lie about not pardoning his son, or about his recent commuting of most federal death row inmates death sentences. Yes, the mainstream media reported these events, as they will undoubtedly report on Trump pardons. But you're comparing apples and oranges. Hunter Biden was pursued relentlessly not because of what he did but because of who he was, and most of it was based on the lies of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded guilty early this month to lying about a phony bribery scheme involving Joe and Hunter Biden. The death row inmates weren't pardoned but only had their sentences commuted to life in prison. In contrast, any Trump pardons will free the insurrectionists who committed felonies against the government of the United States at the behest of then president Donald Trump. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
marc9000 writes in Message 143: I'm still optimistic given all the expected flak and roadblocks. Trump is much wiser, more prepared, and, yes, more introspective this time around. It's an interesting turn-around, he's generally more popular now than he was throughout his first term, and after all the fireworks after January 6th 2021. By fireworks, do you mean attacking our democratic institutions and even his own vice-president?
I trust Trump and Homan will do it right, they should be careful with too many deportations - it's not possible to perfectly correct all that Biden has screwed up. They just need to deport known criminals, and they're going to have to let a lot of illegals who don't seem to be a threat alone. I think everyone's on board with deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, but that's not what Trump and and border adviser Homan are saying. While Trump has whipped up hysteria about illegal immigrants bringing a wave of crime, statistics show that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population. If Trump wants to reduce crime he should let in more immigrants, not less.
A lot of them are good workers,... Any large group of people, like illegal immigrants, will be very similar in these types of qualities to any other large group of people, like American citizens. They'll all fit under similar bell shaped curves for qualities like intelligence, integrity, and so forth.
...and the news media will pounce if anyone other than a known criminal is deported. I don't know about that, but the news media will undoubtedly call attention to abuses like family detention, which Homan has vowed to resume.
The most important thing is to SEAL THE BORDER. I don't think you really want to seal the border. I think what you really want is to reduce the number of people crossing the border illegally, and I think we all want that. But echoing K.Rose's call for good will toward men, I want those who do cross the border illegally to be treated fairly and humanely, and I want requests for amnesty honored and heard fairly in a timely fashion.
The illegal that set the woman on fire was deported during Trump's first administration, then came back in during the Biden administration. That has to stop, once deported, they have to stay gone. How do you propose guaranteeing that never happens? Getting across any border is a crap shoot. A certain percentage will always get across. Who makes it and who doesn't is serendipitous. No border is 100% impervious.
It's so funny to see his haters claim HE'S out for revenge! K.Rose keeps mentioning transparency, what I called "think it/say it", and Trump has been very clear about his desire for revenge. For just one recent example, he spoke publicly about going after Liz Cheney for her participation on the January 6th committee. That's very transparent, and denials that Trump is seeking vengeance aren't consistent with what he says. But about haters, I think a more accurate term is "those who believe in accountability."
The recipient of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the attacks of Fani Willis, Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and others over the past 4 years. Didn't he do what he's accused of doing? Jack Smith is winding down his federal cases because they can't go forward against a sitting president, but Bragg won a conviction on 34 counts, and the Georgia election interference case will go forward, but without Willis.
The constant hauling him into court,... If he hadn't incited insurrection, committed election interference, engaged in illicit business practices, withheld classified documents he had no right to, sexually abused women, and used campaign funds for payoffs, then he wouldn't find himself in courtrooms all the time.
Colorado and other states trying to get him off the ballot,... Colorado applied a law that prohibits people who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from running for public office. The conservative Supreme Court ruled that only the federal government can determine who runs for president. They were silent about whether Trump had engaged in insurrection.
...it has gone on and on for the past 4 years. The length of time is unfortunate. Part of the blame must go to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who moved extremely slowly in moving forward on investigations and appointing a prosecutor. And part of the blame must go to Trump's legal teams who so successfully fought for delays across all the cases.
And they accuse HIM of revenge! I can't believe you're saying this. You've undoubtedly been listening to what Trump says on the news for months, so how can you deny that Trump has vowed vengeance, something he's done repeatedly. You shouldn't need reminding, but to cite just one instance, here's what he said in a June interview with Sean Hannity: “Look, when this election is over, based on what they’ve done, I would have every right to go after them, and it would be easy because it’s Joe Biden.” The public is less against him now than in the past, and they see through a lot of it. It makes no sense to me that the country has again elected Trump. They know not what they do. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix a couple grammatical errors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
K.Rose writes in Message 144: The point is that the coming Trump presidency will be ultra-transparent. Contrasting this with the current administration should give everyone relief in that regard, even if they disagree with some of Trump's actions. It's like you're living in an alternate universe. Trump can barely get through a sentence without uttering some lie or misrepresentation. When measuring honesty and integrity Trump doesn't even move the needle.
As far as Message 134, Trump and Homan are choosing to enforce the law rigorously. Cruelly even, one might say.
This is in response to years of rigorous abuse and neglect of the law. How so?
The situation has become very ugly because it was allowed to grow out of control due to Biden's policies. Yes, I know, you want to blame Biden for everything, even drones over New Jersey.
Correcting this will be ugly and difficult. Well, yes, cruelty is pretty ugly, but cruelty is what you're endorsing by supporting Homan's plans. The border problem isn't the fault of any politician. It was created by conditions in Central America that caused large numbers of people to flee deadly crime and/or desperate economic conditions. I hope that every administration deals with those trying to enter the country illegally as humanely as possible. People have to be pretty desperate to leave their homes with few possessions or resources and face unknown dangers, and we shouldn't be making their lives any more wretched than they already are.
Trump and Homan have solid public support on this front; people want to see the laws enforced. If you don't like the laws then change them. I think everyone wants the laws enforced, but not at the expense of their humanity. I hope everyone who understands a law is cruel would want to change it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
marc9000 writes in Message 150: marc9000 writes:
Yes, formal charges would have exposed the lack of security, and those responsible for it. (Nancy Pelosi). This is a PRATT that has been rebutted so widely and often and is so obviously untrue that anyone repeating it now is just lying. The Speaker of the House is not responsible for security. Nancy Pelosi was no more responsible for security on January 6th then Mike Johnson is now. Very good, you addressed two words out of the 17 that I wrote. You even lie about lying - I quoted and responded to every word you said. How do you live with yourself? What do you presume your supposed maker thinks of all this lying? You said Nancy Pelosi was responsible for the lack of security on the Hill, that was long ago established as untrue, you repeated it anyway, you lied, so own it.
SOMEBODY was responsible for the lack of security, and I doubt if it was Trump. You brought it up. I never said who was responsible for security. If you have a bone to pick with dwise1 then respond to him.
Any police who helped or assisted January 6th rioters were investigated for it: Capitol Police Suspends 6 Officers, Investigates Dozens More After Capitol Riots : Capitol Insurrection Updates : NPR. Invading the capitol broke the law, and anyone assisting those who invaded the capitol broke the law, including police. Unless the police were black, and murdered a white woman. Just can't address the point, can you? Have to use deflection.
It's on video. After the window of the door to the House Speaker's Lobby was broken, through which Congressmen could be seen, Ashli Babbitt went through and was killed. Right. She wasn't resisting arrest. She wasn't a big strong man with a threatening physical presence. She was a U.S. service veteran. No evidence that she was on drugs. LOTS of differences between her and George Floyd. Which of the two got more media sensationalism time? Wow, more deflection. Do you have any actual on-point response? You're bringing George Floyd into this? Seriously? Look, marc, if you can't defend what you say, if you have just throw up a wall of irrelevant issues in order to avoid responding, then mightn't it be a good idea to not say it in the first place?
Yes, the mainstream media reported these events, as they will undoubtedly report on Trump pardons. But there will be a huge difference in the amount of time and sensationalism spent on Trump events, versus the quick passing reports on Biden events and lies. You have a long history of delusion regarding the media. If you want to discuss the media, start a thread. This isn't new advice, I've said it many times, yet you never follow it. I'm pretty much the lone administrator here now. Administrators aren't supposed to moderate threads in which they're participating, but you're taking advantage by taking long absences and then just appearging again in threads I'm participating in. This is a longstanding pattern with you, and you should no longer expect your absence to reset the clock on violations of the Forum Guidelines you were committing the previous time you were here. There's no reason you should be permitted to commit the same violations again several times and then disappear before it rises to the level of administrative action. There will be no more recusals, no more resetting the clock. Action will be taken on your very next violation.
But you're comparing apples and oranges. Hunter Biden was pursued relentlessly not because of what he did but because of who he was, And Trump wasn't pursued relentlessly because of who HE was?? Trump's legal troubles stem from what he did, not who he was. There is a great deal of evidence that Trump did precisely what he is accused of doing. A couple of cases did complete, and he was found guilty of defamation in the way he denied guilt of sexual abuse, and of financial misdeeds. The federal cases cannot go forward, of course. The Georgia case will continue and we'll just have to see how that turns out.
The guy whose 2016 win was the biggest embarrassment to the mocking Democrat party that they've ever received? No difference between the apple and the orange man. If the seriousness of the charges in the Donald Trump indictments isn't apparent to you then you have a marked lack of discernment that no amount of discussion can remedy.
and most of it was based on the lies of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded guilty early this month to lying about a phony bribery scheme involving Joe and Hunter Biden. There are still a lot of questions about the schemes of Joe and Hunter Biden. Joe's claims of not knowing a thing in this world about his son's business dealings aren't getting any easier to believe, since recently released pictures of Joe and others have come to light. Only Fox News reports that, not the mainstream media. If you'd like to discuss Joe and Hunter Biden then please take it to the proper thread
The death row inmates weren't pardoned but only had their sentences commuted to life in prison. Yes with no possibility of parole. That's about as believable as Biden's claims that he wouldn't pardon his son. If they do get paroled, it will be covered up of course. Now you're just talking nonsense.
]In contrast, any Trump pardons will free the insurrectionists who committed felonies against the government of the United States at the behest of then president Donald Trump. Their "crimes" don't even compare to the heinous crimes that Biden's death-row-forgiven inmates committed. You just loved being wrong before about this so much you decided to be wrong about it again. Their sentences were commuted to life, not forgiven. And even if they received pardons, legally a pardon is not forgiveness, and many legal scholars see accepting a pardon as an admission of guilt, and Wikipedia quotes the Supreme Court as saying about one case that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it." In my own opinion I think it would be case-by-case dependent, but that you are wrong is clear. It would be great if there could be a rational conversation between people of opposing views. Please try to be one of those people. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
marc9000 writes in Message 151: marc9000 writes in Message 143: It's an interesting turn-around, he's generally more popular now than he was throughout his first term, and after all the fireworks after January 6th 2021. By fireworks, do you mean attacking our democratic institutions and even his own vice-president? No, I meant the news media frenzy, most of it after Trump already voluntarily left the White House. Trump is the first president in my lifetime, probably in the entire history of the U.S., to continue to be all over the news after becoming a former president. Obama, Bush 43, Bush 41, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, with the possible exception of Nixon, were all OUT of mainstream media attention shortly after leaving office. The 2016 election was still burning, as it still is today. If media coverage after January 6th is what you think of as fireworks, what adjective are you using for January 6th itself? Supernova? You're still delusional about the media. I continue to suggest you open a thread to discuss your impressions about the media and stop drawing other threads off-topic.
I think everyone's on board with deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, but that's not what Trump and and border adviser Homan are saying. That's EXACTLY what they're saying. I've WATCHED Homan speak on Fox News, undoubtedly more than you have. If the mainstream media is reporting some other things they're saying, it doesn't mean they won't make it a first priority to deport illegal criminals. I was referring to what I just quoted Homan saying a few messages ago in Message 134. Are you not reading this thread? Quoting myself from that message:
Percy: Moving on:
statistics show that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population. If Trump wants to reduce crime he should let in more immigrants, not less. So U.S. citizens arbitrarily set others on fire for fun more than illegal immigrants? So far we have only one case of an illegal immigrant committing this crime, so statistics cannot come into play.
More U.S. citizens are caught driving without licenses than illegals? Across all crime categories, illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens. I couldn't find any statistics for the specific category you mention, driving without a license, but here is a bar chart from the study Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas (Texas because it has a high immigrant population, as opposed to say, West Virginia):
As you can see, in these four crime categories American citizens have the highest rates, legal immigrants the middle range, and illegal immigrants the lowest. This is just one study. Multiple studies support this. You are not just wrong but are guilty of trying to whip up hysteria against a category of people because of unjustifiable prejudice.
More U.S. citizens have a language barrier that prevents them from reading road signs? You're not seriously lumping language literacy in with crime, are you? In many states you can take your drivers test in Spanish. Many tourists who can't speak English successfully drive on our roads. I've driven in Greece where I not only don't know the language, I don't even know the alphabet. Somehow or other I was able to find my way all the way from Athens to the Oracle and then back to Athens via Limnos, and then I drove all around Rhodes, at one point deep into the countryside. Somehow we're able to order and pay for a meal without being able to speak a word of each other's language. You're bigoted against immigrants and are just making up excuses for why they should not be permitted to be here. Don't forget that America was built by immigrants. You yourself are descended from immigrants, as am I. What you've got is "We got here first so it's ours now and all others should stay out" syndrome.
Statistics that only lump all "crimes" in one category just could be a little misleading. The bar chart above divides crimes into four categories. The only one being misleading here is you.
"Let in more illegals to reduce crime", can't respond to that one. You can't respond because the math is irrefutable. Immigrants (legal and illegal) commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens, so if your concern about crime were truly sincere then you'd be advocating for admitting more immigrants, not less.
Any large group of people, like illegal immigrants, will be very similar in these types of qualities to any other large group of people, like American citizens. They'll all fit under similar bell shaped curves for qualities like intelligence, integrity, and so forth. Not when they don't know the language. Not when they have no education or experience with U.S. liberty and morals - they know nothing about those things when they come from a communist or dictatorship country with brutal leaders. All they know is brutality. They know less about the U.S. than even the dumbest atheist who only watches ABC news to get their information. Your bigotry is showing again, as well as your ignorance.
I don't think you really want to seal the border. I think what you really want is to reduce the number of people crossing the border illegally, and I think we all want that. But echoing K.Rose's call for good will toward men, I want those who do cross the border illegally to be treated fairly and humanely, and I want requests for amnesty honored and heard fairly in a timely fashion. The U.S. is $36 trillion in debt. If it doesn't start watching its step now with costly compassion for illegals, any compassion for the next one or two future generations won't exist. The next economic crash could very well be the most catastrophic that the world has ever seen, by far. More "sky is falling" pronouncements. You're just trying to find any excuse you can for your inhumanity. Apparently money is more important to you than people.
How do you propose guaranteeing that never happens? Getting across any border is a crap shoot. A certain percentage will always get across. Who makes it and who doesn't is serendipitous. No border is 100% impervious. Isn't it common sense to do the best we can? What is your criteria for "the best we can?" For me it would be intercepting as many of those attempting to breach our borders as possible and then treating them fairly (e.g., processing amnesty requests) and humanely (no family separation).
There's nobody more suited for the job than Tom Homan. Why do you think he's suited for the job? Because he's already stated his intentions to treat illegal immigrants inhumanely? At least we're not hearing much about walls. Walls are an ancient technology. They started building the Great Wall of China around 300 BC. Hadrian's wall was built in the early 2nd century AD. In the modern world there are much more effective technologies than walls.
K.Rose keeps mentioning transparency, what I called "think it/say it", and Trump has been very clear about his desire for revenge. For just one recent example, he spoke publicly about going after Liz Cheney for her participation on the January 6th committee. That's very transparent, and denials that Trump is seeking vengeance aren't consistent with what he says. There's a lot of difference in saying versus actually doing. You're being very selective about what you think Trump is going to do once he takes office. You believe he's going to do what he says when he says he's going to deport lots of illegal immigrants because you don't like immigrants. You think good people only come from places like here, and that people from places that aren't like here are bad, but that's untrue, and that you believe it anyway just reflects your obvious uninformed prejudice. So you believe Trump on immigration, but you don't believe him on using his Justice Department to go after his political opponents because...why? Is it that you know that that would be wrong? If so then why are you defending someone vowing to do something you know is wrong? Just because you don't believe he'd really do it, he only said it because he knew it would gain him voters? Aren't these voters who believed him when he said this going to be upset when Trump doesn't do it?
The slightest little thing he says about vengeance is sensationalized by the news media far more than reports on the vengeance the Biden administration has actually done. It is the politician vowing vengeance on political opponents that is sensational, not the reporting of it.
Trump has also said a lot about tariffs, but that's just a negotiating tool,... Trump doesn't even understand tariffs. He actually believes foreign countries pay the tariffs rather than American citizens in the form of higher prices.
... it really gets the attention of foreign leaders who have been taking advantage of the U.S. during the Biden administration. And tariffs fix this how?
Best to wait and see what he actually does concerning tariffs and vengeance before criticizing him for it. That's what most of the public will do. Still seems strange - you believe he'll do what he says he's going to do regarding immigration, but not tariffs and vengeance. Why do you support a man who says such stupid (tariffs) and unethical and immorial (vengeance) things?
Didn't he do what he's accused of doing? Didn't Hunter Biden do what he's accused of doing? There is a difference, Trump is a former president. The only reason Hunter Biden is in the conversation is because he's the son of a president, and the charges against him are rarely brought. He's paid his back taxes and pleaded guilty to the tax and gun charges. Sentencing was scheduled for December 16, 2025, until his father pardoned him. Trump, on the other hand, never admits guilt about anything, and his crimes are far more serious. He's been found guilty of defamation regarding sexual abuse, and of illicit business dealings. He's been indicted for stealing and mishandling classified documents, and for election interference. He was impeached twice.
Jack Smith is winding down his federal cases because they can't go forward against a sitting president, but Bragg won a conviction on 34 counts, and the Georgia election interference case will go forward, but without Willis. All that he has been accused of doing has not one thing to do with how he can do his job as president. We pretty much know how Trump will do his job as president. He will run roughshod over democratic norms, and it is feared, with more than reasonable justification, that he will try to remain in office past the end of his term, or possibly pass the office on to someone of his choosing rather than an election's choosing.
That's where the concern should be. Most past presidents have a few skeletons in their closets. Everyone should be accountable for the wrongs they commit. In this country no man should be above the law, including the president. The only exception made is that presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office, or for official acts.
There used to be a little respect for past presidents,... I can't agree with that as a general statement.
...Bill Clinton got by with committing perjury,... He was disbarred in Arkansas and by the Supreme Court, in part for perjury.
Trump never committed perjury. He's invoked the 5th amendment over 500 times, and answered "I don't remember" and "I can't recall" equally numerous times.
The U.S. is facing some important issues. Third world countries getting closer and closer to having nuclear weapons, the fragile internet that world commerce depends on, environmentalists war on energy - U.S. existence doesn't coast along with no effort. Frivolous hatred of a U.S. president can be more dangerous than many people think. You're mistaking fear for hatred. Trump, along with Putin, Xi, Orbán, Erdoğan, Un and others, are currently the strongest anti-democratic authoritarian leaders in the world. They are all scary figures.
marc9000 writes:
The constant hauling him into court,...If he hadn't incited insurrection, committed election interference, engaged in illicit business practices, withheld classified documents he had no right to, sexually abused women, and used campaign funds for payoffs, then he wouldn't find himself in courtrooms all the time. If the judicial system wasn't bent, if the Democrat party wasn't overcome with hate and could think clearly about important issues facing the U.S. he wouldn't have been in court all the time either. I don't understand why Trump supporters carry so much water for him. When your guy does something wrong just concede the fact and move on. Constantly blaming Trump's transgressions on everyone else but him is just blind sycophancy. For example, the recorded phone calls with Zelensky and Raffensperger are the fault of no one but Trump. Why can't you admit that?
If the press would have only ignored him throughout 2021 and 2022, (like they did with all past presidents the first two years after they left office), he wouldn't be president elect today. Some former Biden voters who didn't have TDS saw the irrational hate. Someone who just incited insurrection and then continues to publicly challenge election results and attack other public figures and appear constantly on conservative news media pressing his claims cannot be ignored.
They saw the Democrat and press inspired multiple assassination attempts. Is there anything you don't blame on the press? Please open a thread to discuss your opinions about the media or I will take administrative action.
And attempts to get him off the ballot, while claiming to champion democracy. Colorado *was* championing democracy when attempting to remove Trump from the ballot for committing insurrection. Trying to overturn a free and fair election is about as anti-democratic as you can get.
Colorado applied a law that prohibits people who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from running for public office. Yes, and Trump wasn't charged with insurrection. Neither were any other people the law was applied to. That was why the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that being found guilty of insurrection wasn't required. And the Supreme Court of the United States didn't rule that they were wrong. It merely ruled that states didn't have the right to decide who could be on the ballot for president.
That he committed insurrection / rebellion is ONLY a Democrat talking point. No it's not. Last year somewhere around half of Americans thought Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election were very serious. Those who are so certain he did nothing wrong and that there's no evidence to convict him should have no qualms about what they think are baseless charges being heard in a court of law. The acquittal they're so sure of would only validate that they were right. What we do know is that at a minimum Trump incited insurrection in his speech on the Oval, he attempted to have false slates of electors empaneled, and he attempted to strong arm his vice-president into accepting those false slates. The country deserves to know whether the evidence would be sufficient to convict in a court of law. Unfortunately Merrick Garland moved far too slowly, and Trump lawyers were far too successful at fighting delaying actions.
It only took one Democrat to find that word in the Constitution, and it spread throughout the news media faster than Covid 19. Just because the term "insurrection" is repeated over and over and over and over again ad infinitum, it doesn't make it one bit more true. What drugs were you taking on January 6th?
And its actually a lucky thing for the Democrats that it's not, or it would call to attention the Democrat and news media inspirations of the 2020 riots, the George Floyd riots. You're a broken record.
The conservative Supreme Court ruled that only the federal government can determine who runs for president. They were silent about whether Trump had engaged in insurrection. Probably because he wasn't charged with it! Some things really do make sense! Yes, some things do make sense, but not what you just said.
marc9000 writes:
And they accuse HIM of revenge! I can't believe you're saying this. You've undoubtedly been listening to what Trump says on the news for months, so how can you deny that Trump has vowed vengeance, something he's done repeatedly. You shouldn't need reminding, but to cite just one instance, here's what he said in a June interview with Sean Hannity: “Look, when this election is over, based on what they’ve done, I would have every right to go after them, and it would be easy because it’s Joe Biden.” ]Vowing and ENGAGING are two different things. The Democrats and the media have been ENGAGING since 2016. Trump would have "every right" because he was declared largely innocent of the Democrat witch hunt by a pretty big jury, the U.S. voters. You're drawing a false equivalence between trials and elections.
Some voters like myself would like to see him "go after" a few, to hopefully educate future generations that a corrupt DOJ isn't good for the country, and there should be some accountability. Trump is vowing to have a corrupt DOJ that is loyal to him and behaves like his personal lawyer instead of having traditional judicial independence. If you'd like to discuss whether the Biden DOJ was corrupt then you should take it to the The Biden Presidency thread. All I'll say here is that there is no evidence that the Biden DOJ was corrupt.
It makes no sense to me that the country has again elected Trump. They know not what they do. There are a lot of reasons. Only one could be that they've been hearing the news media shriek about how prices will rise under Trump's tariffs,... Please explain how, if Trump does what he says he's going to do regarding tariffs, that it wouldn't cause the prices Americans pay to rise?
...while they're currently dealing with the rising prices of the past four years due to Biden's war on energy. It was only two years of the Biden administration that experienced high inflation, and it was a result of the deficits run to deal with the covid crisis. The entire western world experienced this inflation, not just the U.S. You can't blame covid-driven inflation on Biden. The Biden administration deserves credit for engineering a soft landing for the economy, bringing inflation down without causing a recession.
With Trump's new energy policies, even with a few tariffs,... A few tariffs? I hope you're right, that it's only a few, but that's not what he's saying.
...maybe they will balance out. Or more than balance out. However the change in policies turn out, the voters were ready for some changes. I think voters were convinced by Trump's terrifying rhetoric in two areas: that we were being overrun by dangerous immigrants because of Biden open door policies, and that the economy was in decline. Neither of these things were true, of course, but Trump convinced enough people that they were true. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
K.Rose writes in Message 157: An outsider reviewing a typical EvC forum would immediately notice two distinct groups, generally in direct opposition to one another on just about all subjects. He would not see thoughtful debate between opposing views, he would see insult, profanity, derision, impugning of character/motives, and general animosity between opposing sides, i.e., polarized belligerents. When you first came on board you were treated respectfully until it was discovered that you'd been hiding your background and motivations. Theodoric identified you as a troll immediately (Message 4), but most withheld judgement and engaged you in discussion. I didn't finally see that you'd been hiding your creationist proclivities until Message 77. You waited until Message 107 to mention your religious motivation. After that point it became a typical science/creation discussion with you either unwilling or unable to understand science arguments, calling them "arcane technospeak" and giving yourself an excuse to ignore them. Telling people you're going to, in effect, ignore what they say is not a way to win any popularity contests.
My MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too. I'm sorry your initial salutation was treated as it was - I think that given your recent posts it was interpreted as being as insincere as marc9000's "Happy New Trump Year." I think dronestar was especially frustrated that you had ignored his four replies to you mentioning Trump rape charges: Message 113, Message 125, Message 131, Message 145 I think what most of us who see Trump as wholly unqualified for office and a threat to democracy are wondering is why so many see Trump in a positive way. Arguing that January 6th and all the rest were actually the fault of the media and the Democrats or were insignificant is just absurd. When it comes to Trump, supporters seem affected by something analogous to the Steve Jobs reality distortion field. As I've often argued, Trump Derangement Syndrome applies most accurately to his own supporters. They're gazing upon an evil ogre but instead see an angel. And on top of all that you claim to be Christian. How can a Christian support the cruel treatment that Homan, Trump's border czar, has promised illegal immigrants? How can a Christian support Trump's stated intentions to inflict vengeance upon those he differs with politically. How can a Christian support a man who, even if you believe none of the accusations, clearly has a misogyny problem? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
K.Rose writes in Message 159: Percy writes in Message 158:
The source of a question shouldn't change the answer, but in my experience with these EvC-type discussions it does. ...until it was discovered that you'd been hiding your background and motivations... It didn't change the answer at all. What makes you think it did? What knowing you were a creationist did was explain your behavior, such as your failure to acknowledge simple realities, for example that there is no one way of defining anything, not physics, not chemistry, not astronomy, not evolution, not Christianity, not religion.
It was a sincere question looking for a straightforward answer. No it wasn't. When you found that different people and technical sources used different words and approaches to defining evolution you leapt upon it as proof that science didn't know what evolution was. Anyone could use the exact same approach to prove that no one knows what almost anything is. You engaged in a lengthy and insistent fallacy, which is just what creationists do.
Which I never did get, incidentally, also consistent with my experience in these things. You got your answer over and over and over again, you just refused, and apparently continue to refuse, to acknowledge it, which is just what creationists do.
quote:I have no interest in discussing past disputed events in which someone is simply trumpeting hearsay and which I know nothing about; this only leads to endless, pointless quarrel. The recording of Trump saying that when you're rich they let you grab them by the pussy, and the verdict that Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll (recently upheld), and the Trump payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, are not hearsay. You're denying reality.
quote:I don't look to political leaders for moral-spiritual guidance. No one suggested that you should. It just seems natural to assume that people of presumably good moral character would want people also of good moral character as president since they will have a significant impact on affairs within the country and be representing America internationally. Trump supporters seem to have a studied lack of concern about their support for someone who so readily engages in immoral activities. The phone calls to Zelenskyy and Raffensperger come to mind, as do the attempts to impanel false slates of electors.
In a one or the other election I simply select the person who holds the least animus toward my faith,... Trump is at best areligious. Biden's Catholic. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion?
...and who will be the most just in upholding the worldly law. Of all the people in government, what makes you think Trump belongs anywhere outside the bottom 10% of "most just in upholding the worldly law"? He's certainly not asking prospective members of the incoming administration to stop talking about ignoring judicial rulings, and Trump himself has oftern referred to the federal judiciary as "rigged": Roberts warns against ignoring Supreme Court rulings as tension with Trump looms --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar, typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
K.Rose writes in Message 160: A new political paradigm has come front and center this past election year, political in the sense of how our society interacts with one another, as opposed the tiresome political right-left democrat-republican shoutfests. The People are moving toward meaningful discussion, substantive questions & answers, and healthy skepticism of secretive authorities. What are you seeing that makes you say this? What I see is conspiracy theories and false claims increasingly dominating public dialogue. Snopes is busier than ever.
The Reids/Behars/Hannitys/Maddows/Scarboroughs/et.al. have become boring and unenlightening. You know exactly the position they will take on any issue, they simply megaphone their side’s talking points, they offer nothing new. Their formula is aggravated inflammatory diatribe in telling the audience what to think and demonizing those who disagree. They are losing influence and their ratings show it. I've never watched any of their shows, although I have seen some sound bites of Hannity and Tucker Carlson. I doubt they're any more "boring and unenlightening" than they ever were. Just to check the facts I looked up Hannity's and Maddows ratings. Maddows are down, but I couldn't find anything specific about Hannity. However, Fox News finished 2024 with the highest market share in nearly a decade, so Hannity can't be doing too bad since his ratings are part of the mix.
New information outlets – the likes of Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, Theo Von, and even Bill Maher, Tucker Carlson (yes, T.C.), Chris Como and others – have shot to the forefront. Their format is characterized by extended question-answer discussions with timely guests. They don’t spend a lot of time offering their own opinions, they are interested in getting to the bottom of things. This is what journalists used to do, once upon a time. I don't watch these people, either, but everyone you've mentioned are opinion commentators, not journalists, and Tucker Carlson has a solid reputation for misrepresentation. They offer opinions about the news - they're not often reporting it, though they are often distorting it.
The new Trump Administration promises to accelerate this new paradigm, not just in the podcast etc. formats, but from the Administration itself. Indeed, Trump himself has much to do with this. His habit of saying “outrageous” things (Can/Mex borders, Guatemala, Greenland, !!tariffs,….) sparks many questions and lots of discussion that he’s more than willing to engage in, and as the discussion evolves it more often than not becomes evident that Trump has a point, that maybe he’s not the most monstrous man in history after all. Since we're less than a century past Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, and so on, Trump isn't even close to being "the most monstrous man in history." No one said he was. The point being made here is that Trump is wholly unsuited for high office, or any office for that matter. He shouldn't be let anywhere near even a lemonade stand, let alone a country. What you described sounds more like you're looking forward to the entertainment value of discussions like the last time Trump was president when we discussed whether covid will really just evaporate by April, whether bleach is a good treatment, or whether the march in Charlottesville where they chanted "you will not replace us" was racist or whether there were "very fine people on both sides." This time around we're discussing whether we should levy tariffs right and left while annexing Canada, Panama and Greenland. At least this time there's no talk about Mexico paying for the wall. The American President has a prominent platform, and what Trump says over the coming years will have an outsized impact. He's not even in office yet and already some immigrants are self-deporting while allies are steeling their economies for a diminishment of the U.S. as a trading partner and NATO is preparing for America distancing itself from the defense of Europe. If Trump had been president as WWII began then the Nazis would likely still rule Europe, including Great Britain, which could not have stood without our help. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
The jury verdict form from the E. Jean Carroll case can be found in a number of places, here's one:
In the interests of accuracy I think the answers to questions 1 and 2 are important, which I reproduce here:
Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
A number of other questions follow. The judge later ruled that even though the jury hadn't found that Trump had raped Ms. Carroll, by the common understanding of rape he had. This is why George Stephanopoulos was so insistent that Trump had committed rape in an interview with Nancy Mace, but Trump sued ABC News and won and was awarded $16 million. So did Trump rape Carroll or not? Me, I'm going by the jury verdict form that says he did not. I'm mystified by the judge's comments. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
K.Rose writes in Message 169: quote:1. I disagree with the notion Physics/Chemistry/Astronomy – and Biology - cannot be defined, but we can take that up some other time. 2. Evolution is held out as a discrete process in the field of Biology and is based on biological principles, much like the Conservation of Energy in Physics. Evolution is therefore absolutely definable, or so it should be. 3. If Evolution is not definable, then how can it possibly be advocated for, much less demonstrated to be true? I think you might have misread what I said. Read what you quoted above from me again. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
K.Rose writes in Message 170: Percy writes in Message 162: The recording of Trump… The incidents you cite may be factual, but dronestar said “rapist” eight times or so, called me a rape-supporter multiple times, and called me a sociopath. This doesn’t strike me as someone who’s ready for thoughtful debate. I agree with you and think dronestar's been a bit over the top, but I understand dronestar's frustration that you haven't replied once, not even to ask him to please take it down a notch.
And maybe you overlooked all of this, but this is the hearsay he cites:
dronestar writes in Message 113: Since the 1970s, at least 26 women have publicly accused Donald Trump, of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.[1][2][3] Trump has a history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media.[4][5] He has made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearance, and referred to them using derogatory epithets.[5][6][7] You can take issue with the way dronestar is making his point, but if you don't say anything at all it leaves people wondering how a Christian wouldn't make a different choice regarding their vote for president. And it isn't hearsay that 26 women have publicly accused Donald Trump of "rape, kissing and groping without consent." Maybe you meant some other word, maybe you think they're all lying, but when someone publicly claims to have been sexually abused it isn't hearsay. Their names are listed in the article dronestar cited: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia. Here they are:
If you think all these claims are false then how do you explain that? Has any other public figure ever attracted this many false claims? Given the nature of the man, doesn't it seem far more likely that they're in essence true? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025