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?
Well it seems that a lot of people feel he IS criminal by the definition of 'he needs to be stopped from being president' and a lot of those people believe that the only just charges are as such. And those same people for example seem to think that Hilary Clinton (or Biden) are not culpable because they haven't been convicted.
Well the US constitution doesn't ban a felon from running for office, so people can have their moral preferences but they end up being just that, their preferences about how things should be, but aren't.
Biden acted unconstitutionally several times and is certainly culpable for that. My moral preference would be that if an abuse of executive powers is found to be unconstitutional, that triggers criminal charges against perpetrators, but that's not how the rules are either.
To
1. We have learned now that meta data means llm or pseudo ai.
2. peel through the legal process, the legal definitions, compare states etc.
3. dig through the jury processes and the jurors lives and so forth.
4. You could define reliable probabilities etc.
5. Its not constitutional. So that really matters here.
None of these words mean anything in the manner you have combined them and are concrete examples of gibberish.
What crimes have Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden committed? Why weren't they tried for these crimes? Please be very specific in your response.
HRC almost certainly commited perjury, when she lied under oath to congress about various "details". Comey went on record saying he didn't believe that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a trial, the Obama admin doj didn't act, Trump run on a campaign promise to do everything in his power to bring HRC to justice then broke that promise when he won the elections.
Biden possibly instructed federal law enforcement to strongarm social media companies into censoring information the democratic party disagreed with (ongoing litigation)
I don't understand how people put up with the "health care" system. Vision, dental, and health are separate. Doctors have to do a weird dance with some oracles who fight against them to save every penny (and kill patients in the meantime). Every step is designed against the consumer and health care providers to milk as much money from them possible. Nothing makes sense unless you're in the insurance business, then you see who makes the law.
People put up with it because you often literally can't vote for anyone who sides with the majority of voters on it, except 3rd party candidates. Like most Americans, I could tell you stories forever about it.
It's cool because the system requires tons of bankruptcies and deaths to function. Much insurance (like mine) only really covers the worst stuff. So if you were bailed out for the worst stuff, there would be no reason to buy the insurance. And it costs double the price! Each election, we get to vote between someone who thinks this is perfect, and someone who thinks it's too good for us.
Well it seems that a lot of people feel he IS criminal by the definition of 'he needs to be stopped from being president' and a lot of those people believe that the only just charges are as such. And those same people for example seem to think that Hilary Clinton (or Biden) are not culpable because they haven't been convicted.
No one (I have ever heard of, certainly not on this forum) thinks these things. Needing to be stopped from being president doesn't have anything to do with criminality, but what people think will be very bad for the country. And I have never heard anyone say, or even imply, that Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden are not guilty of doing anything wrong because they haven't been convicted of anything. Even strong Democrats mostly admit that both of these people have made some poor decisions, some poor decisions, and likely some actual crimes. Several people have pointed out than in the US the rich and powerful (and usually aged) are rarely stopped from doing whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt other rich and powerful people.
Where are you getting this "feeling" that people think these things which I have never heard anyone state. Is there someone in this forum who has stated these things?
Or are you being like Victor, who saw people say terrible things on Reddit and then somehow blamed people in this forum for thinking those same terrible things, just because they disagreed with him in most things?
Biden possibly instructed federal law enforcement to strongarm social media companies into censoring information the democratic party disagreed with (ongoing litigation)
This was when Trump was president, yet again some people think Trump's own political appointees would take instructions from the candidate running against Trump. 🙄 Biden held no office of authority in 2020 and so couldn't "instruct" any federal government employee to do anything. Trump, however, was the head of the entire executive branch of government, had personally appointed the head of the FBI, and could instruct those people what to do or not do, at the risk of, at a minimum, losing their jobs. I worked for the federal government under the Clinton administration, and if Bob Dole had called me and instructed me to do something, not only would I not have done it, but I would have reported it to the head of my agency. This has nothing to do with my political persuasion (I voted for Perot because I thought he would make DC way more entertaining), but because I was under the executive branch headed by the president, and had taken an oath that I support and defend the Constitution, on my first day of employment.
I, [chillrob] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.] last sentence is optional
People put up with it because you often literally can't vote for anyone who sides with the majority of voters on it, except 3rd party candidates. Like most Americans, I could tell you stories forever about it.
It's cool because the system requires tons of bankruptcies and deaths to function. Much insurance (like mine) only really covers the worst stuff. So if you were bailed out for the worst stuff, there would be no reason to buy the ins
There was Bernie and a couple Democrats who still aren't captured. Katie Porter comes to mind.
What crimes have Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden committed? Why weren't they tried for these crimes? Please be very specific in your response.
You haven't made a sincere comment towards me iirc. and have made many insincere ones.
Where are you getting this "feeling" that people think these things which I have never heard anyone state. Is there someone in this forum who has stated these things?
Or are you being like Victor, who saw people say terrible things on Reddit and then somehow blamed people in this forum for thinking those same terrible things, just because they disagreed with him in most things?
Its not an accusation of this forum per se.
Biden acted unconstitutionally several times and is certainly culpable for that. My moral preference would be that if an abuse of executive powers is found to be unconstitutional, that triggers criminal charges against perpetrators, but that's not how the rules are either.
what did you say here?
This was when Trump was president, yet again some people think Trump's own political appointees would take instructions from the candidate running against Trump. 🙄 Biden held no office of authority in 2020 and so couldn't "instruct" any federal government employee to do anything. Trump, however, was the head of the entire executive branch of government, had personally appointed the head of the FBI, and could instruct those people what to
Man i am not referring to hunter laptop, rather to covid "misinformation" censorship on social media.
Lousiana district federal judge agrees with plaintiffs, 5th circuit court of appeal agrees as well (that the government illegally actd to censor, violating the 1st amendment).
The constitution of the USA *does not* allow the executive power to call a company that as a business model allows people to talk about stuff, and tell them what to censor threatening them.
That's a fully unconstitutional, dictatorial use of executive power in direction violation with the most basic principles of the rule of law in the USA but ofc it's Trump who is a threat to democracy.
The case is Murthy vs Missouri et al (23-24 SCOTUS term, we are waiting for the decision) and as for now there is a stayed federal appeal court decision telling you that yes, the Biden admin (White house, CDC and FBI specifically) repeatedly and massively violated the first amendment rights of millions of americans in heinous ways abusing executive powers.
That when SCOTUS tells you executive power has been abused unconstitutionally, i would like for the perpetrators to go to jail or at the very minimum lose office (or employment if civil employees) and be banned from holding office for life (or for public employment).
Man i am not referring to hunter laptop, rather to covid "misinformation" censorship on social media.
Lousiana district federal judge agrees with plaintiffs, 5th circuit court of appeal agrees as well (that the government illegally actd to censor, violating the 1st amendment).
The constitution of the USA *does not* allow the executive power to call a company that as a business model allows people to talk about stuff, and tell them what to cen
The government didn't threaten social media companies. They're accused of asking social media companies to intervene on what they considered COVID misinformation. The case being argued at the SCOTUS is whether the act of asking represents informal censorship and also, whether it meets any of the legal standards of coercion. How you arrived at the government "threatening them" is a mystery to me.
Whatever merits the case may have, and I do believe it does have merits, the fact you would equate that with what others perceive as Trump's threat to Democracy demonstrates a complete lack of proportionality and reason.
The government isn't accused of threatening social media companies. They're accused of asking social media companies to intervene on what they considered COVID misinformation. The case being argued at the SCOTUS is whether the act of asking represents informal censorship and also, whether it meets any of the legal standards of coercion. How you arrived at the government "threatening them" is a mystery to me.
Whatever merits the case may hav
No they are accused of requesting (not asking) while threatening, and not only "covid misinformation".
//
Facts of the case
Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning speech on topics such as the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins, mask and vaccine efficacy, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants used public statements and threats of regulatory action, such as reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to induce social media platforms to suppress content, thereby violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The States of Missouri and Louisiana also alleged harm due to the infringement of the free speech rights of their citizens.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from meeting with social media companies or otherwise seeking to influence their content-moderation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion for an emergency stay and granted certiorari to review the case on the merits.
//
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411
On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s assessment of the evidence, which, in its words, showed the existence of “a coordinated campaign” of unprecedented “magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.” Missouri v. Biden, 2023 WL 6425697, *27. The Court of Appeals found that “the district court was correct in its assessment—‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’ ” Ibid.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt...
And at last let's see the 5th district appeal court decision on the topic
"how have i arrived at the idea that the government threatened the platforms", well it was public, repeatedly, it was the district court assessment and it's the appeal court assessment.
so we have 2 federal courts claiming various parts of the Biden administration, for years, violently coherced and threatened all the major social media companies in the USA to censor citizens' speech. That's direct use of executive powers to annihilate one of the most important rights of the US constitution, on a mass scale (not a few individuals, millions). Nothing that Trump ever did with executive power comes even vaguely close to this. Keep in mind that no matter what you think Trump role was on jan 6th, he didn't abuse executive power there. He didn't order militaries or agencies to profoundly violate any constitutional right of millions of individuals.
He might have had a role into attempting election interference and so on but not by massive blatantly unconstitutional abuses of executive powers. And threats to democracy are exactly that: that an elected official disregards fundamental constitutional rights and acts violating them for the masses, thus nullying the rule of law in the country.
OK. But that is different than a jury in one state acquitting while a jury in another state convicts when the law and the facts are the same. Your examples concern different states wanting different laws. That a difference in values. But if the trial in two different states go 12-0 one way in state x and 12-0 the other way in state y that is very problematical if the law and facts are the same. Basically anyone who is convicted of any crime
Complete nonsense. Should I feel completely screwed because I "somehow" knew a winning lottery ticket would be picked in Florida not Alabama? Trump's attorney spent days choosing this jury, striking potential members for cause and using their challenges.
That when SCOTUS tells you executive power has been abused unconstitutionally, i would like for the perpetrators to go to jail or at the very minimum lose office (or employment if civil employees) and be banned from holding office for life (or for public employment).
So you want every cop who has conducted an illegal search, every prosecutor who has tried to introduce "fruit from the poisonous tree" evidence, every clerk who has wrongfully rejected a public speaking permit or marriage license and every baker who refused a cake to a gay couple lose their jobs for life and go to jail?
No they are accused of requesting (not asking) while threatening, and not only "covid misinformation".
//
Facts of the case
Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning
Before your reply I had already reworded my post to state that the government didn't threaten the companies vs my older version you quoted of them being accused of threatening. People can make any accusation they want. Their accusations have no merit. They're connecting public statements the government made with the private communication the government had with these companies and claiming the two are connected and represented an implicit threat. It does not.
I see you're going all-in on equating the government asking the private industry to do something with what Donald Trump did. Like I said, that lacks all sense of proportionality and reason. Trump stood by on 1/6 and refused to intervene while the capital was being attacked while the government was attempting to perform a peaceful transfer of power. The constitution states the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
So you want every cop who has conducted an illegal search, every prosecutor who has tried to introduce "fruit from the poisonous tree" evidence, every clerk who has has rejected a public speaking permit and every baker who refused a cake to a gay couple lose their jobs and go to jail?
For the public employees you mention, if the action is found unconstitutional, at a very very minimum to lose their jobs yes (and be banned from public employment and office for life).
Cops and prosecutors in your list probably qualify, not sure a clerk has a mandate to allow anyone to use public space no matter what, it's a scarce resource that can be used according to the will of the people discriminating some users over others (i think).
As for private individuals, nothing of the sort applies not even sure why you think it should, refusing a client isn't a violationg of any constitutional right, at most of normal level laws.
A private individual can't violate the constitution, the constitution is literally just a list of what government can't do to you.
Before your reply I had already reworded my post to state that the government didn't threaten the companies vs my older version you quoted of them being accused of threatening. People can make any accusation they want. Their accusations have no merit. They're connecting public statements the government made with the private communication the government had with these companies and claiming the two are connected and represented an implicit t
The accusations have no merit until 2 courts found them convincing. After that, they certainly do.
We are literally saying one court finding Trump guilty is enough to call him a criminal (which it is). Biden admin and agencies had not one, but 2 courts, finding them in (mass, and completly unprecedented) violation of the first amendment.
Trump didn't abuse his executive powers on jan 6th, that's not even part of the indictment against him.
As for the mandate to take care that the laws are faithfully executed let's check if Biden did absolutely everything in his power to faithfully execute immigration laws shall we?
The accusations have no merit until 2 courts found them convincing. After that, they certainly do.
We are literally saying one court finding Trump guilty is enough to call him a criminal (which it is). Biden admin and agencies had not one, but 2 courts, finding them in (mass, and completly unprecedented) violation of the first amendment.
Trump didn't abuse his executive powers on jan 6th, that's not even part of the indictment against him.
As
The courts found the case had merits, meaning it can move forward. It was not an adjudication of the accusations. You keep adding your own interpretation and accusations to court findings as if they were what the courts actually said. For example, please provide a reference of a court finding that the government "violently coherced and threatened all the major social media companies"
Comparing immigration policy with attempts to overturn the results of an election? Absurd.
The courts found the case had merits, meaning it can move forward. It was not an adjudication of the accusations. You keep adding your own interpretation and accusations to court findings as if they were what the courts actually said. For example, please provide a reference of a court finding that the government "violently coherced and threatened all the major social media companies"
Comparing immigration policy with attempts to overturn th
Trump did NOT attempt to overtun the results of an election *by abusing executive powers*. It's not even indicted for that. Why do you keep claiming that? Trump might have tried to contoct a scheme outside of government to overturn the results of an election. Not an abuse of executive powers though. You are an insignificant non existent threat to democracy if you don't abuse the power of the state to dismantly democracy. You are an actual threat to the constitutional order if you abuse constitutional powers to rape the constitution.
//
The fifth circuit cour of appeal found that :
“Ultimately, we find the district court did not err in determining that several officials — namely the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI — likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions. In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.”
I am old enough to remember when Trump being found by a court to "likely have raped Carroll" allowed us to call him a sexual assaulter.
We aren't talking immigration policies, we are talking not applying the law to achieve different immigration outcomes than those voted by and approved by congress. In a country where: 1) federal representation in the house is based upon the number of residents in an area including illegal immigrants and 2) illegal immigrants having children in the USA creates new citizens (and so voters), immigration policies are core rule of law issues that determine electoral ie democratic outcomes in the long run and any violation of the enforcement of rules regarding immigration is *A DIRECT THREAT TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY*.
This is an attempt to conflate contexts. Trump is being tried for crimes he committed personally. The potential crimes name groups not an individual perpetrator. Trump context is way different and nothing is like it. It's unprecedented.
Thread ignoring the fact Trump raised $39 million in 10 HOURS (would have been more if his site didn't crash). 30% of which were first time donors. And a prominent lefty, Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) donated $300k.
.
To put this in prospective, 1 percent of the population gave him 10 bucks each. Where, by comparison, people spent 200-250 million on mega millions and power ball lottery tickets this weekend.
This is an attempt to conflate contexts. Trump is being tried for crimes he committed personally. The potential crimes name groups not an individual perpetrator. Trump context is way different and nothing is like it. It's unprecedented.
Actually Murthy is an individual name, he is the current surgeon general, and Biden admin representative to the WHO executive board.
And the case was previously filed as Missouri v Biden.
Actually Murthy is an individual name, he is the current surgeon general, and Biden admin representative to the WHO executive board.
And the case was previously filed as Missouri v Biden.
DT is being charged in several cases. He was found to be a rapist, and now a felon. So he's been found wrong in civil and criminal court now for 2 different events spanning decades. These patterns of behavoir continue and are obvious.
Compared with: Some citizens brought a lawsuit against the Biden administration for working with social media companies to combat covid misinformation.
These things are different. It's probably a bad idea to even give your **** ideas the time of day. It's what's burning our country down. **** off with the misinformation.
