Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9217 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: chasebuchanan
Post Volume: Total: 920,717 Year: 1,039/6,935 Month: 320/719 Week: 108/204 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Second Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 176 of 469 (921157)
01-02-2025 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by dronestar
01-02-2025 10:36 AM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
dronestar writes in Message 173:
FACT, the former president was adjudicated for rape (using the judge’s words) by a jury of twelve people selected by the former president’s lawyerS. FACT, a jury awarded Carrol $5 million, and then upped it to $83.3 million dollars.
The jury found Trump guilty of only sexual abuse, see my Message 165. The judge's words in a filing responding to Trump efforts seeking a new trial were wholly unconvincing:
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan:
The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape’.
If many people commonly understand the word ‘rape’ to include digital penetration, then it is also true that many people do not. The judge's words were inexplicably definitive on an issue that is highly equivocal, namely how the common person defines ‘rape’.
Here's how this common person defines ‘rape’: penetration of the penis into the vagina. When a woman claims she was raped then to me she is saying that the perpetrator fucked her. I think many people see it the same way. In my opinion the judge erred when he said many people see digital penetration as rape without balancing this statement by stating what is equally true, that many people do not.
Legally, a jury found that Trump did not commit rape. The jury verdict form is pretty clear and easily supercedes the judge's comments in his filing, and that's probably why ABC News dropped their defense of George Stephanopoulos's comments and paid Trump $16 million.
Just because we do not support Trump doesn't mean we can claim that whatever we say about him is true, just as those who support Trump can't claim that whatever they say about him is true. We should hold ourselves to the same standards of truth that we hold everyone else to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by dronestar, posted 01-02-2025 10:36 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by dronestar, posted 01-02-2025 11:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 177 of 469 (921158)
01-02-2025 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by dwise1
01-01-2025 8:13 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
dwise1 writes in Message 168:
So there's nothing mystifying about the judge's comments. The general non-lawyer population's concept of rape would not be restricted solely to penetration by penis, so the general public would consider what Trump had done to her as rape. However, what he had done could not be considered rape legally.
But the judge's words only said that that is how many people define rape. But many people do not define rape as digital penetration. In my opinion the judge erred in not making clear the equivocal nature of public understanding on this issue.
Consider the argument in another context. Many people believe the world is only 6000 years old. A judge could be truthful saying this in a filing, but it's not even half the story. If you're going to argue that a judge saying that many people believe Carroll was raped and that that means she *was* actually raped, you would also have to accept that a judge saying in a filing that many people believe the world is only 6000 years old means that the world actually *is* 6000 years old.
It seems to me that neither argument could be considered true. Carroll was not raped, and the world is not 6000 years old. That's why we have a legal system, so that what is considered true isn't reduced to a layperson's level of understanding and knowledge.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by dwise1, posted 01-01-2025 8:13 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 179 of 469 (921160)
01-02-2025 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by dronestar
01-02-2025 11:45 AM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
dronestar writes:
ABC settled the lawsuit because they are afraid of future retaliations from the new administration.
It's likely much more complex than that, as a reading of https://www.cnn.com/...oulos-trump-settlement-abc/index.html makes clear. It concludes:
CNN:
Renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams told CNN “there is no escaping the reality” that the settlement was a “major victory” for Trump.
“The case undoubtedly posed a genuine level of risk for ABC since George Stephanopoulos had inaccurately summarized the jury verdict as one in which the jury had found Trump liable for rape when it had instead found him liable for ‘sexual abuse’ and not rape,” Abrams said. “But for a person, especially one now about to become our president, held by a jury to have committed an act of sexual abuse to receive an amount of this magnitude in settlement is disturbing.”
This excerpt cites the same issue I did: The jury found that Trump had not committed rape.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by dronestar, posted 01-02-2025 11:45 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by dronestar, posted 01-02-2025 9:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 184 of 469 (921170)
01-02-2025 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by K.Rose
01-02-2025 2:40 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
This should be pretty easy to resolve. You quoted the portion of my message where I said, "There is no one way of defining anything." Your response made it seem as if you had missed the word "one" and had read it as, "There is no way of defining anything."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by K.Rose, posted 01-02-2025 2:40 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 188 of 469 (921198)
01-03-2025 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by dronestar
01-02-2025 9:59 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
dronestar writes in Message 185:
The jury never said the former prez did not commit rape.
They pretty much did. I posted this earlier:
Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
  1. Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?
    Yes     No ✓
  2. Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll?
    Yes ✓   No
And this was a civil trial where the standard is only "a preponderance of the evidence", rather than the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" of a criminal trial. You're free to believe what you like, but the facts clearly show that Trump was not found to have raped Carroll in the civil trial. You can assert that he was, but then you're getting out over your skis.
But I share your view of Trump. I believe that he has raped women. I just don't believe that's ever been legally proven in a civil or criminal trial.
ABC probably would have won the libel case, it is very difficult to prove, and ABC caved.
I share this view, as do many political commentators.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by dronestar, posted 01-02-2025 9:59 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 190 of 469 (921200)
01-03-2025 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by K.Rose
01-03-2025 8:58 AM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 187:
Ah, yes, the silver bullet “Convicted-Felon-on-34-Counts!!!” that didn’t pan out, mainly because the electorate saw right through the outrageous, coordinated lawfare and were unimpressed by any accusations or outcomes.
While no one here actually used the term “Convicted-Felon-on-34-Counts”, the New York trial on 34 felony counts was a criminal trial. People found guilty of criminal felonies are considered felons. The result of a criminal conviction for felonies is often jail time. Sentencing was originally scheduled for November 26th, but after the election prosecutors requested that sentencing be postponed, and the judge agreed. One suggestion from District Attorney Bragg is to delay sentencing until the end of Trump's term in office.
But you again appear to be conflating trials and elections. Getting elected to any office, including president, doesn't void one's legal history. The felony convictions did "pan out", to use your phrase, meaning that Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts. Getting elected president doesn't change that. It just means that more people than not preferred him over Harris despite the felony conviction and all the other baggage.
The case and the proceedings were riddled with irregularities and the whole thing will be overturned on appeal, if for no other reason than no prosecutor will want to try and stand behind it.
Can you be more specific?
Trump says he will appeal his conviction, but an appeal can only take place after sentencing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 8:58 AM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 6:08 PM Percy has replied
 Message 198 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 8:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 203 of 469 (921236)
01-04-2025 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by K.Rose
01-02-2025 2:42 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 181:
Dronestar quoted someone who said something about yet someone else who said something about Trump, and presented this as some kind of evidence. This is hearsay.
What quote of "someone who said something about yet someone else who said something"? I see no quote of anyone except Trump himself in dronestar's Message 113. I do see an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia:
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.

Trump has a history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He has made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearance, and referred to them using derogatory epithets.

In October 2016, two days before the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which Trump was heard saying that "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy."
You called it hearsay:
K.Rose writes in Message 170:
And maybe you overlooked all of this, but this is the hearsay he cites:
Which parts of that Wikipedia excerpt represent hearsay? The first paragraph saying there are 26 women who have publicly accused Trump of one form or another of sexual misconduct is not hearsay. The second paragraph is merely a summary of the article, and that's not hearsay. And the third paragraph very specifically quotes what Trump said on a recording, which is not hearsay.
Dronestar didn't excerpt the rest of the article, of course, far too long, but it details one by one the accusations of each of the 26 women (or in a couple cases, group of women), and that is not hearsay either.
So why did you dismiss it as hearsay and offer that as an excuse for not responding to dronestar when it quite obviously wouldn't be considered hearsay by any casual observer of average discernment or better.
I have a couple questions. You're developing a history here of just casting out random accusations with no basis in fact (in this case dismissing very specific validated information as hearsay). Is that the kind of reputation you want? If Trump's a wonderful guy then the evidence will show that. But if the only way you can support your man is through misrepresentations and deflections then maybe you should reconsider your take on him. EvC Forum is not intended to mirror Congress where members lie for living. This is a place where truth is supposed to flourish.
And how does a Christian reconcile his beliefs with his support of such a man? Please let us not go in a circle with you repeating your claim that you "don't look to political leaders for moral-spiritual guidance." (Message 159). The issue is moral character and why a Christian would support a man who has none.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by K.Rose, posted 01-02-2025 2:42 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 204 of 469 (921237)
01-04-2025 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by K.Rose
01-03-2025 6:08 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 195:
Percy writes in Message 190:
The felony convictions did "pan out", to use your phrase, meaning that Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts.
The 4 coordinated prosecutions (Bragg, Smith, James, Willis) were designed to keep Trump off the ballot, and/or out of office.
What is your evidence that the prosecutions were coordinated?
Of course they couldn't say this directly or they would be in jeopardy of Conspiracy Against Rights (ironically, the same thing the Jan-6 committee was accusing Trump of).
You say they couldn't admit collusion publicly, so how do you know this?
They must have been very confident they would succeed because the things they said and did made their intentions very clear.
Any prosecutor bringing charges always has very clear intentions, which would be to conduct successful prosecutions of the alleged crimes. You have no evidence of anything more that.
The whole world knew what they were up to,...
I think those in the conservative echo chamber "know" plenty of things that aren't true.
...but any objections were squelched because hey, it's Trump, and we have to do whatever's necessary.
What objections are you referring to?
The felony conviction was successful; however, the end game was to crow about "convicted felon" and turn people against Trump. It didn't take long to realize that the end game wasn't going to work, wasn't going to pan out, and by the time Harris was running it was only mentioned infrequently and unenthusiastically.
It is true that the New York criminal felony conviction did not resonate with the public as much of a negative. That's on the public. They know not what they do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 6:08 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 205 of 469 (921238)
01-04-2025 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by K.Rose
01-03-2025 8:27 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 198:
Percy writes in Message 190:
Can you be more specific?
Percy, you are an informed and studious guy. I'm certain you know all about the case from all angles. But, if you must, you can find some info in these articles.
Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Should Have Been Dismissed | Opinion - Newsweek
ttps://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/
2024-07-09 Lawfare - How the Manhattan District Attorneys Office and a New York State Judge Violated the Constitutional and Lega.pdf
https://judiciary.house.gov/...nstitutional%20and%20Lega.pdf
You're not here to hand out reading assignments. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 8:27 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by K.Rose, posted 01-05-2025 4:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 206 of 469 (921239)
01-04-2025 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by K.Rose
01-02-2025 2:46 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 182:
Percy writes in Message 162:
Trump is at best areligious. Biden's Catholic. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion?
A man can say whatever he wants, but you’ll know a man by what he does.
That's not an answer. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion?
K.Rose writes in Message 159:
Percy writes in Message 172:
…it leaves people wondering how a Christian wouldn't make a different choice regarding their vote…
I don't look to political leaders for moral-spiritual guidance.
I already responded to this in Message 162:
Percy writes in Message 162:
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.
You ignored this in your two responses (Message 169, Message 170). This is an "already asked and answered" type of thing. You're just circling back without answering.
In a one or the other election I simply select the person who holds the least animus toward my faith, and who will be the most just in upholding the worldly law.
I answered this, too - my answer just happens to be the quote you opened this message with. You're just going in circles.
Once again, the vote is between two sides and you have to pick one, in this case Trump or Biden-Harris. Sitting out because “I don’t want to choose between the lesser of two evils” is a ludicrous position. It will always be between the lesser of two evils, unless you happen to get someone who is in 100% alignment with your views.
Trump is against many things a moral Christian stands for. How can you vote for him?
So……Trump wins handily in the “least animus toward my faith” category.
You said this before and then didn't answer the question asking what way this is so.
Considering the advantage in the “worldly/earthly/man’s law” category:
• Handling the illegal immigrant problem internally – Trump
• Fixing both the North and South border disasters – Trump
• Tangling with China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela – Trump
• Economy – Trump
• Straightening out the Regulatory and Bureaucratic agencies – Trump
• Weeding out corruption within the Power Structure - Trump
• Addressing the health care mess that is coming front and center – Trump
• Regaining our respect as the world leader, competent and strong – Trump
• Addressing domestic crime – Trump
Leaving aside the truth/accuracy of your list, none of this has anything to do with Christian morality. The question remains. How can a moral Christian vote for Trump.
Can’t think of an area where Harris-Biden has the advantage – can you?
How many times do I have to say that I'm not a supporter of anyone. I'm an independent. I vote for who I think will be best for the country. If you peruse The Biden Presidency you'll see I was often critical of Biden. In August of 2021 after Biden had been in office only a little over six months I began Message 126 like this:
Percy writes:
I'm very disappointed in the Biden administration's performance thus far, mainly because of the pandemic and Afghanistan.
And that wasn't the only message I posted criticizing him.
So why don't you stop the partisan nonsense and just answer the question. Given the measure of the man, how can a moral Christian vote for Trump?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by K.Rose, posted 01-02-2025 2:46 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Phat, posted 01-04-2025 3:08 PM Percy has replied
 Message 212 by K.Rose, posted 01-05-2025 5:11 PM Percy has replied
 Message 214 by K.Rose, posted 01-05-2025 6:50 PM Percy has replied
 Message 222 by K.Rose, posted 01-06-2025 3:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 209 of 469 (921257)
01-05-2025 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Phat
01-04-2025 3:08 PM


Re: Security Over Morality?
I'm not responding to a post where your words are outnumbered 427 to 59 by the words you quoted.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Phat, posted 01-04-2025 3:08 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Phat, posted 01-05-2025 2:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 221 of 469 (921271)
01-06-2025 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Phat
01-05-2025 2:52 PM


Re: Security Over Morality?
Phat writes in Message 210:
I counted 80.
I didn't count. I used the count-words-region function of Emacs. I just did it again, this time including the labels on your quotes, and I got 86.
But your point stands. You are encouraging *demanding* that I use more of my own words in a post.
Ideally you'd understand the issues and would write about them in your own words.
You will notice that I found quotes that defended Trump vs attacking and vilifying him.
I didn't read your quotes.
I know that the man is no saint, but I agree with the articles I quoted where they said
Tucker Carlson:
If you're wondering why so many Christians have been willing to support this president despite his personal life, this is why: It's because whatever his flaws, he's made it clear that he's not the enemy of Christians.”
Harris was less impressive in this area.
Harris was raised in a Black Baptist church and attended Hindu temple. She's a practicing Baptist and her husband is Jewish. The only time you'll see Trump in a church is if it's a campaign event. He's only telling Christians what they want to hear - they're being naive.
Christians in general feel that a mans character can change and evolve. We are more forgiving than secular humanists in general. It could, however, be to our detriment.
Yeah, no kidding. Trump's second-term vision for America is far darker than his first.
quote:
But let’s stop pretending that Trump is someone that he isn’t. The cards are on the table for all to see.
As I have said, the jury is still out.
Trump has been active politcally on the national stage since 2015. If the jury is still out for you then you must be deaf and blind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Phat, posted 01-05-2025 2:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 227 of 469 (921288)
01-07-2025 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by K.Rose
01-03-2025 8:27 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 198:
Percy writes in Message 190:
K.Rose writes in Message 187:
The case and the proceedings were riddled with irregularities and the whole thing will be overturned on appeal, if for no other reason than no prosecutor will want to try and stand behind it.
Can you be more specific?
Percy, you are an informed and studious guy. I'm certain you know all about the case from all angles.
I don't think it's accurate to say that I "know all about the case from all angles." I've been following the news. So, again, can you be more specific about these irregularities that the case is riddled with.
UPDATE
This partial list of observations apply to one or more of each of the 4 coordinated prosecutions against Trump:
  • The charges were filed to acheive a felony conviction of some kind - any kind - in order to prevent Trump from getting on the ballot, and/or winning the Primary, and/or winning the General Election.
Felony convictions are not disqualifying.
  • Charges were delayed and then filed to align with the beginning of the Primary and General Election campaigns.
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about the Letitia James civil case against Trump for misrepresenting property values for personal gain, or about the Alvin Bragg criminal case about misuse of campaign funds for hush money involving 34 counts.
  • The prosecutor(s) campaigned on "getting Trump".
I think you're referring to Letitia James. I don't think she ever used the phrase "getting Trump," but she made repeatedly clear her intent to prosecute Trump for fraudulent business practices.
  • The prosecutor(s) and their partners/enablers (DOJ, White House, DNC,...) stated publicly that Trump cannot be allowed to return to the White House
Do you have any references?
I'm going to stop here. Your list appears to be drawn from points made in an opinion piece. If you can back up any of the claims you make I'd be glad to respond.
When bringing charges against a sitting or ex-President it is incumbent on legal authorities to make the case perfectly clear and to follow all rules/laws/protocols/etc. to the letter to make clear to the world that the US is not a banana republic. These prosecutions were the opposite of that, they backfired spectacularly, and were a huge embarrassment to the US. They also put the prosecutors and their cohorts in jeopardy of Conspiracy against Rights.
Do you have evidential support for any of this?
16 Secretaries of the State across the US are also in this jeopardy for removing Trump from the ballot in their respective states based on obviously and legally misrepresented reasons.
Any support for this?
Trump could go after these people and probably be successful against many/all of them; however, Trump should come out and say "I could go after these people, but for the good of the country [which it would be] I am going to let it all go and focus on my agenda to MAGA."
That would be inconsistent with Trump's vows of vengeance during the campaign.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 8:27 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 229 of 469 (921290)
01-07-2025 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by K.Rose
01-05-2025 5:11 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 212:
So as you weighed the candidates in this election, what were the Harris advantages over Trump, and what were the Trump advantages over Harris?
The election was a couple months ago, let's see what I remember about my thinking then:
  • Trump is a liar.
  • Trump incited insurrection.
  • Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election using false slates of electors for his vice-president to approve. This might have worked but for the fact that VP Mike Pence refused to go along with the scheme.
  • Trump tried to strong arm state Secretaries of State for more votes in states where the tallies were close, as witness his phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger.
  • Given his history, a legitimate concern is that Trump might try to inappropriately influence the 2028 election. For example, he might try to remain in office, or he might try to hand off the presidency to his choice rather than the electorate's.
  • Trump mishandled the covid crisis. The US experienced a higher death rate than any other western country except Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechia and Slovakia. We did worse than the United Kingdom, Romania, Brazil, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Argentina, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, Ukraine, France, Mexico, Austria, Germany, Finland, Serbia, Ireland, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Philippines, India and Egypt. See COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer.
  • Trump tried to extort Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in order to politically hurt the person he thought most likely to face him in his 2020 reelection campaign.
  • Trump was impeached twice, once for extorting Ukraine, and once for his role in the January 6th insurrection.
  • Trump is a racist, for example, his comment that there were "very fine people on both sides" about the racist march in Charlottesville.
  • Trump is a misogynistic sexual predator.
  • Trump is an authoritarian who would likely prefer to be dictator rather than president.
  • Trump appointed extremely conservative judges to the Supreme Court who ignored stare decisis (adhering to precedent) to overturn Roe. Recent statistic: rate of abandoned babies is up in Texas.
  • Even prior to Trump the conservative court has made a number of dangerous rulings, such as the 2008 ruling that the right to keep and bear arms wasn't constrained by the militia clause, or the 2010 ruling that money was speech, thereby opening up the flood gates for money to flow into political campaigns and turning politicians into playthings for billionaires.
  • Trump has little respect for our democratic institutions.
  • Trump opposes free trade, as witness his advocacy for tariffs.
  • Trump is manifestly unqualified for the presidential role, in temrs of both temperament and knowledge.
  • Trump doesn't understand the importance of Ukraine to European security, nor the importance of NATO.
  • Trump understands how to exercise power, but he uses it to obtain what is good for him rather than what is good for the country.
  • Trump is a convicted felon who has little respect for the rule of law, as witness his over-the-top rhetoric criticizing any lawyer, prosecutor or judge who displeases him. Numerous Trump quotes are available.
  • Harris is honest.
  • Harris understands government.
  • Harris respects our democratic institutions.
  • Harris's time in court was as prosecutor, not as defendant.
  • Harris is an advocate for free trade.
  • Harris recognizes the importance of NATO and Europe to the United States.
  • Harris understands the importance of Ukraine to European security.
  • Harris is an advocate of women's rights.
  • Harris failed in her role as liaison to Central American countries to try to stem the flow of emigrants north.
  • Harris was practically invisible as VP, except on issues of women's rights.
That's what I recall.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by K.Rose, posted 01-05-2025 5:11 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2025 11:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 231 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2025 12:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 237 by K.Rose, posted 01-07-2025 7:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23170
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 234 of 469 (921303)
01-07-2025 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by K.Rose
01-05-2025 6:50 PM


Re: MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!
K.Rose writes in Message 214:
Percy writes in Message 206:
That's not an answer. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion?
Trump speaks regularly of his Faith, God, and The Bible. You can never know a man's heart, but at a minimum he is giving vocal support.
Yes, he's giving vocal support, because it gains him political support among Christians.
Biden claims he's Catholic.
That's because he is. He also regularly attends church services, something Trump does not do.
Biden has just awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Cecile Richards for women's reproductive rights, et al. Richards is a longtime ardent abortion supporter-activist. She was also the president of Planned Parenthood for over 10 years, during which time she oversaw ~4,000,000 abortions. Biden's actions are profoundly antithetical to Catholicism (and Christianity in general, Judaism, Islam,...)
A majority of Catholics in the US support abortion, as do a majority of Americans. At what week of gestation varies greatly.
Trump wins in the animus toward faith department hands down.
I understand that for you one's position on abortion is a measure of faith, but your views are not shared by a majority of Americans.
Please continue staying tuned for additional responses to 203 and 203. Thanks.
I guess you found 203 so nice you said it twice.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by K.Rose, posted 01-05-2025 6:50 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025