ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
The nuance seems important to me at this time. For example my mom doesn't care if he's a criminal, she wants the conviction and people to see him as such because she believes that if he becomes president then he will destroy the democracy...
So she believes we must block trump at all costs. I claim she gets this from CNN...does no one here share that stance?
I don't think he will destroy the Democracy, but hes implied he will if he gets reelected so its not coming from CNN its coming from his social media accounts and his own mouth.
There was also the 2020 "attack" on the capital.
I had a Brittish buddy get offended when I called someone else a trumper and I thought it was weird. I guess there is an implied insult as I think anyone who admires Trump is very likely to be a moron, but Trumper just means someone who admires Trump.
Are you offended when people say Trumper?
No I don't get offended. I don't admire him. I think hes an obvious choice over biden tho etc.
I just can't get people in my life that use the term trumpers etc to answer questions I have (this forum is kinda suspect in that regard ;p).
Another question is that I hear all the time that deep state will target people in CERTAIN legal jurisdictions, certain states, in order to get the type of trial and conviction they want...
(ie if true) Would this be fair/legal? I ask this to people that call others trumpers.
No I don't get offended. I don't admire him. I think hes an obvious choice over biden tho etc.
I just can't get people in my life that use the term trumpers etc to answer questions I have (this forum is kinda suspect in that regard ;p).
Another question is that I hear all the time that deep state will target people in CERTAIN legal jurisdictions, certain states, in order to get the type of trial and conviction they want...
Would this be fai
Jockying for jurisdictional priority is a tale as old as time. What does any of this have to do with people who use the word Trumper? I think the problem is you are either not doing a good job of communicating what you mean, or you are just asking bad questions that you think are good.
Yeah, the judge in both that case and the civil sexual abuse case could have thrown him in jail for constant violations of his gag order, but I didn't see that happen either.
I never thought he would be thrown in jail for violating a gag order.
However, I think throwing someone behind bars after being convicted of 34 felonies is far more likely to happen.
Of course people are already complaining he will be thrown in prison 4 days before the convention. Well maybe they should have picked a different candidate.
Jockying for jurisdictional priority is a tale as old as time. What does any of this have to do with people who use the word Trumper? I think the problem is you are either not doing a good job of communicating what you mean, or you are just asking bad questions that you think are good.
I explained, people that call others trumpers never seem to answer my questions.
Isn't it a problem tho if one can get convicted in one state and wouldn't be in an other since it becomes then a matter of who has the jockey power? We need to discuss who has the jockey power in that case no?
Of course people are already complaining he will be thrown in prison 4 days before the convention. Well maybe they should have picked a different candidate.
And to be clear, if much of the world sees this as part of deep state subverting the US constitution to rig their own democracy you would disagree right?
wait, you mean to tell me that the state that is the home of the new york stock exchange and nasdaq has more state financial laws on the books than other states like kansas???
I explained, people that call others trumpers never seem to answer my questions.
Isn't it a problem tho if one can get convicted in one state and wouldn't be in an other since it becomes then a matter of who has the jockey power? We need to discuss who has the jockey power in that case no?
No, because we give States a lot of governing autonomy. Its illegal to get an abortion in one state and not another so people cross State lines to get an abortion. Marijuana is decriminalized some places, legal recreationally some, legal medically some, and illegal others, all while still being illegal federally. Wrap your brain around that one.
Welcome to the US justice system
You should probably stop saying this. You've had your questions answered in this thread. You can even scroll back and read the answers again!
Isn't it a problem tho if one can get convicted in one state and wouldn't be in an other since it becomes then a matter of who has the jockey power? We need to discuss who has the jockey power in that case no?
I can't believe this is the smoking gun that you've been painstakingly working up to. GJGE
The republicans do this all the time when they route everything through that moron Kacsmaryk and the 5th circuit. And in that case it is a deliberate choice of venue.
Here the crime and his business were in NY. Can't take that to the northern district of TX, I'm afraid.
Jockying for jurisdictional priority is a tale as old as time. What does any of this have to do with people who use the word Trumper? I think the problem is you are either not doing a good job of communicating what you mean, or you are just asking bad questions that you think are good.
The word you are looking for is "and".
Button's inability to communicate and grandiloquent posturing are legendary in these parts. He tries to sound smart and intellectual, and succeeds in sounding like a total moron who can't construct a coherent sentence every single time. Most of his posts read like someone rolled a die to select random entries from a thesaurus and recorded the results.
No, because we give States a lot of governing autonomy. Its illegal to get an abortion in one state and not another so people cross State lines to get an abortion. Marijuana is decriminalized some places, legal recreationally some, legal medically some, and illegal others, all while still being illegal federally. Wrap your brain around that one.
Welcome to the US justice system
Well it creates a philosophical quandary tho when you are trying to decide if someone is a criminal, without prejudging, and you know that it matters which state they are tried in. It gets worse of course if someone has the power to influence which state, and coordi won't acknowledge that would corrupt the justice system.
You should probably stop saying this. You've had your questions answered in this thread. You can even scroll back and read the answers again!
Its certainly true irl. I think time would tell here.
I can't believe this is the smoking gun that you've been painstakingly working up to. GJGE
The republicans do this all the time when they route everything through that moron Kacsmaryk and the 5th circuit. And in that case it is a deliberate choice of venue.
Here the crime and his business were in NY. Can't take that to the northern district of TX, I'm afraid.
It happens all the time in the US I hear. That 'republicans do it to' I don't know how that would make the system not legit for this.
And to be clear, if much of the world sees this as part of deep state subverting the US constitution to rig their own democracy you would disagree right?
No. Deep state is some half baked RW online term. Most people wouldn't really know what you are talking about. I don’t think even most people who use the term have a clear concept of what they mean, which makes it hard to answer.
Moreover, even if they were on a partisan mission, i guess the prosecutor was doing it on his own, rather than on the orders of men in black.
Plus Trump could still run and win. And many Trump supporters think this helps him.
Well it creates a philosophical quandary tho when you are trying to decide if someone is a criminal, without prejudging, and you know that it matters which state they are tried in. It gets worse of course if someone has the power to influence which state, and coordi won't acknowledge that would corrupt the justice system.
Its certainly true irl. I think time would tell here.
What do you mean time would tell. You already got some response from people who have no problem saying 'trumper'. It's not never. Time has already told. You're just ignoring it.
It happens all the time in the US I hear. That 'republicans do it to' I don't know how that would make the system not legit for this.
Well, that fact alone wouldn't be enough. But seeing as how you seem to hate venue shopping (which again really isn't happening here because he is being prosecuted for a state crime where the thing happened) with a passion and this is definitely not a position you acquired in the last 24 hrs, any chance you could point us to the posts where you opposed when repubs have been doing it. FFS there was recently guidance from the Supreme Court that federal courts shouldn't be facilitating this and then 5th circuit straight up ignored it and said, "Nah, we're going to do it anyway".
No. Deep state is some half baked RW online term. Most people wouldn't really know what you are talking about. I don’t think even most people who use the term have a clear concept of what they mean, which makes it hard to answer.
Do you believe in the NSA? Here is Chomsky, I'm deferring to this definition etc as deep state:
I think much of the world doesn't see your election as valid. I think for a lot of people that use the term 'trumper' validity isn't important.
Seems plausible unless **** gets really bad.
Well it creates a philosophical quandary tho when you are trying to decide if someone is a criminal, without prejudging, and you know that it matters which state they are tried in. It gets worse of course if someone has the power to influence which state, and coordi won't acknowledge that would corrupt the justice system.
Its certainly true irl. I think time would tell here.
It happens all the time in the US I hear. That 'republicans do i
Who said the Justice system wasn't corrupt? Why do you think all of Trumps cases go under judges he appointed whenever feasibly possible. Are you just ignoring all the times Trump abused the corruption in his favor or are you unaware? Its always been that way though. Its not being manipulated to railroad Trump.
What do you mean time would tell. You already got some response from people who have no problem saying 'trumper'. It's not never. Time has already told. You're just ignoring it.
Well for one I just got back from a very unfair banning and I'm accusing the moderation of having a political bias. So its not really talking if I'm back for one day right? And someone said "what you said is gibberish". Am I supposed to count that as talking? Another poster insta ignored me...we can't count that right?
I have certainly had some responses, and I'm happy about that. I haven't gotten a chance to hear answers to some of my questions otherwise. You see then the nuances?
Well, that fact alone wouldn't be enough. But seeing as how you seem to hate venue shopping (which again really isn't happening here because he is being prosecuted for a state crime where the thing happened) with a passion and this is definitely not a position you acquired in the last 24 hrs, any chance you could point us to the posts where you opposed when repubs have been doing it. FFS there was recently guidance from the Supreme Court
I definitely am not a republican or a supporter etc in this regard. If both sides were doing it that would be equally problematic (other than it being naturally part of the game theory etc.).
It wouldn't change the question of the difficulty that the jockers really control the law. And its worse that its not a partisan thing (ie more hidden). What should we call the people that have control in an supra partisan way? Then we can refer to it.
Most people vote based on how they believe a candidate will govern.
If you lean Dem say their nominee is a scumbag and he had a standard Dem policy agenda. The R is an impeccable family man who works heavily with charities. He is pro life, anti-gay marriage, doesn't believe in climate change, etc. You're voting for the scumbag D.
I agree with those saying the forum is in an upper middle class bubble.
Yes the best way to help the poor is cut to tax for the rich and creating more debts .
Don’t believe in empirical evidences the last 40 years , at some points it will work …
Republicans policies works so great all the poorest states are republicans .
Yes go elected a crooked , bankrupting his own business over 7 times , surrounding himself by other criminals and convicted people’s …..even better to make the life better lol ….
Seem some people don’t realize that the only way u will feel better by knocking your head on the wall repeatedly is when you lose consciousness…
The jurors political leanings don't matter. I never brought it up. You obviously have no clue about the intricacies of this case. And your last "point" is completely moronic and incoherent.
Well it does matter because you own it you would of declare trump innocent .
I know my last point makes no sense to you , it’s too smart for you ….
Probably been covered multiple times but I haven't spotted it ... how does the secret service protection work in jail or prison? I'm kind of thinking it doesn't, and therefore it could be argued as a violation of his rights.
Do you believe in the NSA? Here is Chomsky, I'm deferring to this definition etc as deep state:
I think much of the world doesn't see your election as valid. I think for a lot of people that use the term 'trumper' validity isn't important.
Seems plausible unless **** gets really bad.
Dang. If Chomps uses that term, i'm surprised. Learn something new...
It's still not very precise, though in your passage he specifies intelligence agencies.
You could also speak of the bureaucracies that operate openly, and are often resistant to the influence of elected officials.
If you mean intelligence agencies, I'm not sure why they would need to be involved. A Dem prosecutor had a winning case against Trump. Why couldn't he pursue it on his own?
I don't even know why they'd have a major problem with Trump.
I guess because he tried to overturn the election and intelligence agencies prefer stability. But prior to that, it's not like he wanted to disband the CIA or was averse to intervention or wanted to cut the military.
Dang. If Chomps uses that term, i'm surprised. Learn something new...
It's still not very precise, though in your passage he specifies intelligence agencies.
You could also speak of the bureaucracies that operate openly, and are often resistant to the influence of elected officials.
If you mean intelligence agencies, I'm not sure why they would need to be involved. A Dem prosecutor had a winning case against Trump. Why couldn't he pursue it
I don't mean to say he uses the term. To me its generally a reference to organizations that have evolved to subvert the constitutional framework from within the US. The citation that this happens is chomsky as he begins with the explanation that the ORIGINAL intentional was foreign targets.
Probably been covered multiple times but I haven't spotted it ... how does the secret service protection work in jail or prison? I'm kind of thinking it doesn't, and therefore it could be argued as a violation of his rights.
I'm not sure it would factor in, but it would also suck for the agents to have to sit in a prison or jail all day. And be disruptive and maybe expensive for the prison.
I think it would have to be some kind of house arrest.
I read that it's mandatory for the POTUS and VPOTUS, not for anyone else. But that didn't say if it is mandatory for former POTUS and VPOTUS. Also, the not mandatory option is the covered person's option, so if prison denied it or its effectiveness to him against his will it seems a conflict and perhaps a violation of rights. Seems a realistic angle/issue.
