Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 5
It doesn’t mean they won’t vote for him, but it does indicate that they get bored with his rambling BS.
A video filmed during Donald Trump's New Jersey rally on Saturday shows "thousands" of people leaving while the former president was still talking.
"You can clearly see that people are leaving while [Trump is] rambling incoherently," Masterson wrote in another post. "This happens at a lot of rallies, cultists show up thinking he will say something new and profound. Then they get bored and walkout." https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-new-jersey-r...
No. of Recommendations: 3
"A video filmed during Donald Trump's New Jersey rally on Saturday shows "thousands" of people leaving while the former president was still talking."
LOL
The cult members don't wanna hear about "the late, great Hannibal Lecter” or what a terrible President "Jimmy Connors" was?!
Or that the "United Stage, is a nation that’s no longer respectered?"
Or America’s missile defense system goes... "Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, Boom. OK. Missile launch. Woosh. Boom!"
No. of Recommendations: 1
A video filmed during Donald Trump's New Jersey rally on Saturday shows "thousands" of people leaving while the former president was still talking.
Well, "thousands" - perhaps 5k? - out of a 100k wouldn't be that significant. But how many attendees really did show up? I've seen the - probably optimistic - 100k number, but how many were really there?
No. of Recommendations: 7
even ~15k MAGA still classifies as high-DENSITY.
"While it's not clear exactly how many attended the rally, Wildwood's Republican mayor, Ernie Troiano Jr., earlier said that the beach could accommodate only about 20,000 people and that about that many tickets had been requested for the rally."
so yeah, off by 5X sounds right for a trump-related tally.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Is it possible that some portion of those attending these rallies -- not ALL, not a MAJORITY, but maybe more than a FEW -- are showing up out of some sense of morbid political and historical curiosity? That some are attending these rallies out of a strange desire to "be there" when Trump does SOMETHING, or says SOMETHING, that finally becomes his "Cricket the Dog" moment? Kind of the opposite of an "I have a dream" moment or an "Ask not..." moment or even a "Tear down this wall" moment. The kind of moment where that thing he does or says finally bursts this bizarre bubble we're in and everyone present suddenly realizes...
...WT (ahem) H are we DOING listening to this guy?
Have you ever THOUGHT much about what that act would have to be given what we've seen so far in politics over the last few decades?
* Presidential candidate chased from the race for a photo of a women on his lap on a boat (Hart)
* President selling banned arms to Iran to raise covert money to give Contras funds banned by Congress to fight Sandinistas (Reagan)
* Presidential candidate pays hush money to hide a child with a mistress (John Edwards)
* a sitting US Senator accepting bribes for favors to a foriegn national (Bob Menendez)
* Presidential candidate pays hush money to hide an affair with a porn star two weeks prior to election (Ttrump)
* extorting a foreign head of state for dirt on a rival (Trump)
* plotting a coup for two months and executing that coup after losing re-election (Trump)
* stealing and retaining highly classified docs and dodging a suppoena for re-possesion of said docs (Trump)
* sexually violating a woman then losing two verdicts for two cases of libel badmouthing said victim (Trump)
* getting forciblly removed from a musical play for drunk and disorderly handsy conduct (Boebert)
* shooting a dog, bragging about it in a memoir, recording your own audiobook, THEN realizing voters like puppies (Noem)
* lying about meeting world leaders in your memoir and getting crucified on live TV in interviews (Noem)
The ethics of many seeking public office have dropped exponentially over the past few decades, raising the curve as it were required to shock the public. It seems clear if there IS some offense capable of finally jolting the MAGA public awake, it's got to be a DOOZIE.
If I could predict with any accuracy when and where this event might occur, I'd pay a premium to fly there and attend to be able to say "I was there when it happened and watched America step back from the brink."
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
WTH, there is nothing Trump could do that would cause his followers to abandon him. Trump doesn't own a dog, as far as I know, and notching a hit on a dog seems to be the only thing that would cause MAGA to jump ship.
We just gotta outnumber/outvote them in November, cause they ain't straying from their chosen one.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If I could predict with any accuracy when and where this event might occur, I'd pay a premium to fly there and attend to be able to say "I was there when it happened and watched America step back from the brink."
Depends.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If I could predict with any accuracy when and where this event might occur, I'd pay a premium to fly there and attend to be able to say "I was there when it happened and watched America step back from the brink."
Given the realities of the situation, I’d say your quote would be more likely to be
“I was there when it happened and watched American step over the edge.”
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I was there when it happened and watched America step back from the brink."
It seems pretty obvious there is nothing that can shock a cultist out of their insane love for their cult leader.
As for those who support Trump in a more pragmatic way, they are either corrupt members of the oligarch class who see Trump as the best way to gain/retain wealth and power, or just plain old stupid folks (lots of those in the MAGA world).
No. of Recommendations: 2
As for those who support Trump in a more pragmatic way, they are either corrupt members of the oligarch class who see Trump as the best way to gain/retain wealth and power, or just plain old stupid folks (lots of those in the MAGA world). - ges
----------------
There is a third category of Trump supporter that you don't acknowledge, and it is the biggest category by far;
People who think Trumps policies and priorities are the better choice for our countries security and prosperity. We experienced generally good times under Trumps first term and no amount of calling him a turd will change that experience.
No. of Recommendations: 6
and no amount of calling him a turd will change that experience.
We experienced generally good times in the beginning of Trumps first term because it was good coming out of Obama's 2 terms.
Trump turned it to shit with his tax breaks for the wealthy, reversal of environmental safeguards, an inability to grasp the inevitable consequences of global overpopulation, and encouraging white nationalism, and science denial.
No. of Recommendations: 2
People who think Trumps policies and priorities are the better choice for our countries security and prosperity. We experienced generally good times under Trumps first term and no amount of calling him a turd will change that experience.
This. Trump’s policies are demonstrably better than Biden’s at pretty much every level.
This thread is a laugh riot. It features a lot of moral preening and selective memory. It’s a lot of insecure posturing and foolish foot stamping while simultaneously shoving heads in sand. It’s about not really understanding what upwards of half the country thinks and being arrogant enough to assume that doesn’t matter.
In short, libs gonna lib and that’s what this is.
No. of Recommendations: 10
"Moral preening"? Is that what we're calling being against a rapist? A would-be election stealer? A business fraudster?
I think that's just basic decency.
I would associate your terminology more with the serial adultery. Which I don't give a crap about. That's between him and Melania.
I will stick to our agreement all those years ago on tmf (no ad-hom). But I really can't talk to you anymore when we can't even establish a common framework of what is basic decency (good/acceptable behavior), what the actual facts are (as opposed to mus), etc. Before we just differed on policy, which was fine. That was healthy. This really isn't.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Moral preening"? Is that what we're calling being against a rapist? A would-be election stealer? A business fraudster?
I think that's just basic decency.
Really? Here's why I don't believe a word of it: *All* of you voted for - and support to this day - Bill Clinton. He did everything you claim Trump did and worse.
And yet...the lefties on this board twist themselves into pretzels defending the man and play the bbbbbbut Trump bit. Then there's Hillary!.
And oh, yeah. Joe Biden took showers with his daughter and has been credibly accused of sexual assault. Where's the outrage there?
So forgive me if I label all this as posturing, because that's what it clearly is.
That was healthy. This really isn't.
Welp, that's not a me thing given the above. I'd suggest you take a good hard look at who and what you're supporting before casting aspersions on others.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I didn't vote for Clinton. Either time.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I didn't vote for Clinton. Either time.
Good for you, that was back when you were a Republican, I assume.
What about his enabler Hillary!, did you vote for her?
And what about Biden, who has had inappropriate contact with a number of women (even as President he can't keep his hands to himself) and has been credibly accused (with as much evidence as has emerged about Trump)? Plan on voting for him?
Because if so, there's a saying about the speck in one eye versus a log in the other.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Before we just differed on policy, which was fine. That was healthy. This really isn't.
Nothing about Trumpism is healthy.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, I was a Republican at the time. That didn't stop me from voting Democrat sometimes (e.g. for Congress).
Neither Biden nor Hillary were convicted of anything. Not a valid comparison.
Yes, I voted for Hillary in the general, but not the primaries. It was Hillary or Trump. No contest which was the worst option.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Neither Biden nor Hillary were convicted of anything.
Neither was Trump, so yes, a valid comparison. That's a dodge, by the way.
No contest which was the worst option.
Which is the scenario we have today. Biden is a walking, senile disaster thus the choice is very clear.
If you want to argue over Biden's physical fitness for the job...I don't know what to tell you.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump has been found responsible for the rape of Carroll. Based on the evidence available, he is guilty of election tampering (or conspiracy to engage in same).
He's more senile than Biden, and probably was never as intelligent as Biden.
If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. It's plain as day.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You used the word “convicted”. Based on the evidence at hand, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are guilty of similar crimes.
As senile as Biden? Not even close. Watch the two of them walk someplace.
No. of Recommendations: 2
probably was never as intelligent as Biden.
Biden has never been especially intelligent or honorable. Let's remind everyone who the chair of the judiciary committee was that invented Borking and ruined confirmation of Supreme Court justices. Let's also remember his rampant plagiarism that doomed his first run at the Presidency.
He's also a shameless race hustler.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Neither Biden nor Hillary were convicted of anything. - 1pg
--------------------
Neither has Trump!
No. of Recommendations: 2
Neither has Trump!
These folks don't seem to understand the difference between civil and criminal trials; they're being fed this stuff through their left wing disinformation machines.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Neither has Trump!
Well, there is that rape, pesky little thing.
No. of Recommendations: 10
No. of Recommendations: 3
And I know none of it matters to the "law and order" crowd, simply because Trump hates all the same people they hate.
And no matter how many times all this is pointed out to Dope, he just keeps coming back with the same inverted reality and false narratives. Sheesh.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump has been found responsible for the rape of Carroll. Based on the evidence available, he is guilty of election tampering (or conspiracy to engage in same). - 1pg
---------------
Regarding Carrol, Trump was found civilly liable, which is different than being convicted.
Regarding based on evidence, he is innocent until proven guilty, and even when found guilty, hr is still innocent which will be born out on appeal. Either way, cheating on the next election is already underway with the Manhattan trial keeping him off the campaign trail, and the gag order preventing him from commenting on Cohen, etc. The deck is stacked and Biden will, during the critical pre-election time frame, will be able to say, who in their right mind would vote for a convicted felon. I might even agree if the crime was murder or pedophilia, but even as the defense rests, it remains unstated what election law violation, Trump is alleged to have committed, the one that Bragg twisted into an extension of a misdemeanor into a felony.
BTW, should not Trump have to be convicted of an election law violation before Bragg can make that assertion. If all that is required is a mere accusation, then innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't apply if you hate the defendant enough.
No. of Recommendations: 3
And I know none of it matters to the "law and order" crowd, simply because Trump hates all the same people they hate.
And no matter how many times all this is pointed out to Dope, he just keeps coming back with the same inverted reality and false narratives. Sheesh.
And Trump projects strength which solves all of the foreign relations problems, but somehow Trump can't win a debate because Biden is stronger. :)
No. of Recommendations: 9
".....even as the defense rests, it remains unstated what election law violation,.....
Astounding. But that's what a Fox fan is told, and that's what they regurgitate
It's as if BHM and Dope have their fingers in their ears, eyes closed, gurgling lalalalalalala.... until the next episode of Fox fantasy is on.
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>Neither has Trump!<<
Well, there is that rape, pesky little thing. - Lapsody
-----------------
And there is also a pesky little thing called civil liability.
No. of Recommendations: 2
>>.....even as the defense rests, it remains unstated what election law violation,.....<<
Astounding. But that's what a Fox fan is told, and that's what they regurgitate - sano
-----------------
OK, since you obviously listen to the correct sources, please state exactly what element of Federal election law that Trump violated and the specific act on Trumps part that proves he did it.
Thanks in Advance.
No. of Recommendations: 14
BTW, should not Trump have to be convicted of an election law violation before Bragg can make that assertion.
No. The NY statute for falsification of business records allows it to be considered a felony if it "includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The other crime need not actually have been committed, need not have been committed successfully, or have been committed by the defendant.
So if you falsify a business record intending to commit another crime, but then don't commit that crime, it's still a felony - you intended to commit a crime when you falsified the record. Similarly, if you falsify a business record in an attempt to commit a crime but fail to do it successfully, you would have still committed a felony. And if you falsify a business record to help someone else commit a crime or to conceal that someone else had committed a crime, it would be a felony. And, of course, if you falsify business records and do commit the other crime, the prosecution doesn't have to convict you of that in a separate proceeding if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this proceeding that you did that.
No. of Recommendations: 8
please state exactly what element of Federal election law that Trump violated and the specific act on Trumps part that proves he did it.There are four possibilities, all stated by Bragg, but it's true that we don't yet know which one (or several) will be used here. I agree that this is subtle "deep in the legal weeds" stuff, that I don't fully appreciate, which makes me wonder how the entire jury is going to be convinced.
Shortly before the 2016 election, Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, paid Daniels $130,000 to keep her from talking about the alleged affair. In a 2018 plea agreement, Cohen, who will be the main prosecution witness in Bragg's case against Trump, accepted the Justice Department's characterization of that payment as an illegal campaign contribution. But Trump was never prosecuted for soliciting or accepting that purported contribution. Nor was he prosecuted for later reimbursing Cohen in a series of payments.
There are good reasons for that. The question of whether this arrangement violated federal election law hinges on whether the hush money is properly viewed as a campaign expense or a personal expense. That distinction, in turn, depends on whether Trump was motivated by a desire to promote his election or by a desire to avoid embarrassment and spare his wife's feelings.
In any event, the statute of limitations for federal election law violations is five years, and Bragg has no authority to prosecute people for such crimes. Bragg instead charged Trump with covering up his reimbursement of Cohen by disguising it as payment for legal services. Trump did that, according to the indictment, through phony invoices, checks, and ledger entries, each of which violated Section 175.05 of the New York Penal Law, which makes falsification of business records "with intent to defraud" a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or up to a year in jail.
...
Under Section 175.10 of the penal code, that offense becomes a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, when the defendant's "intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The indictment, which was unveiled in April 2023, charges Trump with 34 counts under that provision but does not specify "another crime." A month later, Bragg's office suggested four possibilities:
- The Federal Election Campaign Act
- Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law
- Sections 1801(a)(3) and 1802 of the New York Tax Law
- Sections 175.05 and 175.10 of the New York Penal LawFor more details, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/alvin-bragg-says-trump-...
No. of Recommendations: 11
OK, since you obviously listen to the correct sources, please state exactly what element of Federal election law that Trump violated and the specific act on Trumps part that proves he did it.The below is a link to the Court's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss on this point - the discussion starting on page 11 lays out the criminal statutes alleged to have been violated and the evidentiary proffer that was made to support it.
Despite the fulminating by legal commentators, the dispute over whether there exists a sufficient "object crime" is not a new issue in this case. Early on in the prosecution, Trump's legal team tried to get the charges thrown out on the grounds that there was no "object crime." The prosecution identified four object crimes that they alleged Trump was trying to commit or conceal with the false business records. The judge ruled that three of them were correct legal arguments and supported by a proffer of evidence.
Specific to your question, the "object crime" consisted of Cohen and Pecker (at the direction of Trump) making a campaign contribution to Trump's 2016 campaign in excess of the statutory limits, in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Cohen ultimately pleaded guilty to that offense; Pecker testified that he made payments to McDougal on behalf of Trump. This constituted both an object crime that was sought to be concealed by the falsified business records on its own
and constituted an "unlawful means" of influencing an election under NY PL 17-152. The specific act on Trump's part was his making the payment to McDougal and Daniels
through Cohen and Pecker, and directing them in their own actions.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/20...To obtain a conviction, the prosecution will have to prove up that charge - that the payments to MacDougal and Daniels were in fact campaign contributions, that Trump was involved with/directed those payments, and that the records were falsified with intent to conceal those crimes. Both Cohen and Pecker have testified in open court as to those matters. If the jury disbelieves them
both, then obviously the elements of the crime will not have been proven and Trump will be acquitted. If the jury believes their testimony proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump
did in fact make these payments as an unlawful contribution to the campaign
and that he falsified the business records to conceal that, he can be convicted.
There's no real mystery here. It was laid out in a lot of detail in the Court's order on the pre-trial motions.
No. of Recommendations: 3
BHM"OK, since you obviously listen to the correct sources, please state exactly what element of Federal election law that Trump violated and the specific act on Trumps part that proves he did it. "
Asked and answered thousands of times since the charges were made and the defense's requests for dismissal rejected.
I will not waste time cutting and pasting for your trollish edification information that is readily available to every person with internet access....that Albaby1 has meticulously explained.....that you will ignore anyway, because you're pseudo-intellectually invested in the cult of an orange rapist who should be registered as a sex offender..
Thanks in Advance.
You're most welcome.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Albaby1: " There's no real mystery here. It was laid out in a lot of detail in the Court's order on the pre-trial motions."
Another attorney points out:
"...and let’s not forget that Trump can be found guilty if he simply knew about the scheme and authorized it or let it happen."</i
There's ample written evidence and testimony from Trump loyalists that Trump's micromanagement M.O. makes it not credible that something this important was not reviewed and approved.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Another attorney points out:
"...and let’s not forget that Trump can be found guilty if he simply knew about the scheme and authorized it or let it happen."
That's actually not correct.
Again, this is an intent provision attached to the falsifying business records crime. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor - but if the intent to defraud was also done with the intent to commit another crime, or aid or conceal another crime, then it's a felony.
So the prosecution has to prove a little more than Trump simply knowing about the scheme, or authorizing it or letting it happen. They still have to prove that when Trump decided to make or cause the false entry in the business records, he did so with the intent of committing, aiding, or concealing the scheme. Mere knowledge is not enough.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Astounding. But that's what a Fox fan is told, and that's what they regurgitate
You know the right/Trumpers/MAGA are prepared for a guilty verdict with all the usual BS. And it won't make a dent with the cult; it might even gain him support. Crazy.
No. of Recommendations: 1
BHM"OK, since you obviously listen to the correct sources, please state exactly what element of Federal election law that Trump violated and the specific act on Trumps part that proves he did it. "
Asked and answered thousands of times since the charges were made and the defense's requests for dismissal rejected.
I will not waste time cutting and pasting for your trollish edification information that is readily available to every person with internet access.- sano
--------------------
OK. So you don't know the answer as you claimed. Not unexpected, since there is no answer.
I think G01 provided an accurate and concise answer, one that eluded you somehow
"There are four possibilities, all stated by Bragg, but it's true that we don't yet know which one (or several) will be used here. I agree that this is subtle "deep in the legal weeds" stuff, that I don't fully appreciate, which makes me wonder how the entire jury is going to be convinced.".... G01
No. of Recommendations: 2
So the prosecution has to prove a little more than Trump simply knowing about the scheme, or authorizing it or letting it happen. They still have to prove that when Trump decided to make or cause the false entry in the business records, he did so with the intent of committing, aiding, or concealing the scheme. Mere knowledge is not enough. - Albaby
--------------
Intent aside, they still have to prove that "Trump decided to make or cause the false entry in the business records" which is not a given as your assertion implies.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Intent aside, they still have to prove that "Trump decided to make or cause the false entry in the business records" which is not a given as your assertion implies.
Of course. They have to prove every element of the crime.
But this isn't some subtle, mysterious, ineffable theory of criminality that legal minds are puzzling over. The prosecution's theory of the case is pretty straightforward. Trump paid two women not to disclose that he had affairs with them so that it wouldn't hurt his chances of getting elected. Therefore these payments constituted an in-kind contribution to his 2016 federal election campaign. In order to make sure that these payments were concealed, he deliberately structured them as if they were payments for something else, which caused them to be falsely recorded in the business records of the Trump Organization. Because these payments were illegal campaign contributions, the false records were intended to conceal another crime - and therefore constituted a felony.
Does the prosecution have good evidence to prove their case? We'll find out. It's indisputable that one of their key witnesses has serious credibility issues, and it's never easy to prove up a specific intent crime. The jury might not find that the evidence shows the payments to be a campaign contribution. They might not find Cohen credible. They might think that the prosecution lacked evidence of Trump's state of mind at the time the records were created. Etc.
But we're long past the time when anyone should wonder aloud what object crimes the prosecution is alleging took place, or what evidence they have to support those allegations. They made those arguments to the judge months ago, and it's not hard to find them.
No. of Recommendations: 3
BHM: "Not unexpected, since there is no answer.
I think G01 provided an accurate and concise answer"
I do not believe I've seen a poster kick themselves in the ass so quickly and accuratley
No. of Recommendations: 4
Regarding Carrol, Trump was found civilly liable, which is different than being convicted.
Yes, but since this point was being made, a judge found it necessary to point out that there is little difference, and Trump was guilty of rape. The difference I know is Criminal - 95% certainty, Civil - 51%+ certainty, and sometimes 70-80% certainty is required. But judges know this. So why the clarification?
No. of Recommendations: 17
They still have to prove that when Trump decided to make or cause the false entry in the business records, he did so with the intent of committing, aiding, or concealing the scheme. Mere knowledge is not enough.
That evidence is present.
There is audiotape of Cohen speaking to Trump describing the process of setting up a shell company to originate the payment to:
* not have the payment coming from the Trump campaign
* not have the payment coming from The Trump Organization entity
* not have the payment coming from Donald Trump's personal accounts
There are multiple checks signed directly by Donald Trump on Trump Organization accounts paying $30,000 monthly installments back to Cohen over the course of a year to spread out his repayment to Cohen to compensate Cohen for his $130,000 outlay + tax gross-up. This proves Trump was aware of the repayments being made (and had monthly reminders to refresh his memory) and that they were coming from Trump Organization accounts and reflected in Trump Organization books.
There is a written document explaining how the original $130,000 fee was grossed up so Cohen's repayment could be laundered as business expenses of The Trump Organization, thus triggering New York State accounting fraud charges for treating the "expense" as income rather than regular "expense."
The second-degree removed structure of the payment and repayment were kept out of the Trump Campaign and Donald Trump's personal account to delay or avoid completely any discovery of the payment prior to the election. Trump has been quoted by multiple witnesses, not just Cohen that all he wanted to do was prevent disclosure of the story until after the election. "If I lose, I don't care. If I win, I'll be President and I will have control to prevent any consequences."
David Pecker's testimony also provides as related proof of federal campaign finance violations because his arrangement to catch and kill possible negative stories itself was not illegal per se but WAS a valuable non-cash contribution that was not reported by the Trump campaign that was directly aimed at influencing the election. Pecker also cited multiple conversations that these efforts were not aimed at avoiding offense to wife Melania's innocent sensibilities but were PURELY related to aiding Trump's campaign.
This is really not complicated or subtle.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
David Pecker's testimony also provides as related proof of federal campaign finance violations because his arrangement to catch and kill possible negative stories itself was not illegal per se but WAS a valuable non-cash contribution that was not reported by the Trump campaign that was directly aimed at influencing the election.
LOL. Under this logic the entire mainstream media complex would be in jail for providing in-kind contributions to both Hillary! and Biden.
No. of Recommendations: 9
No. of Recommendations: 1
Everyone should rec Sano's post.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Thank You.
It was the only response that was possibly more vacuous than that to which it responded (and did not refer to TFG or Hitler).
No. of Recommendations: 2
Everyone should rec Sano's post. - Lapsody
----------------
Yes, that list of Biden accomplishments was spot on!
No. of Recommendations: 10
Yes, that list of Biden accomplishments was spot on!
And yet, incredibly enough, more than Trump’s accomplishments.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I still find it interesting that with the trifecta for his first two years, he could get almost nothing done. He seemed to want to rule by decree, and his EOs kept getting rejected by the courts.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Intent aside, they still have to prove that "Trump decided to make or cause the false entry in the business records"
Go back and reread. That's exactly what Albaby said.
No. of Recommendations: 6
"LOL. Under this logic the entire mainstream media complex would be in jail for providing in-kind contributions to both Hillary! and Biden."
LOL That you think those are the same thing.
Seriously, you are unable to tell the difference? Really? How can you not?
Too funny for the man who thinks everyone else stacks up the Ls against him..........
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is really not complicated or subtle.
It's a shame you and Albaby aren't on the jury!
No. of Recommendations: 2
I still find it interesting that with the trifecta for his first two years, he could get almost nothing done. He seemed to want to rule by decree, and his EOs kept getting rejected by the courts.
Trump there narcissist thought he was King, not POTUS. If he gets elected again he will do all that he can to ensure he can rule like one.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Strictly speaking, no. But he lost the civil action involving rape, and he has had to pay multiple fines from other illegal actions, mostly related to his businesses.
And there is no question about the hush money (though not convicted yet), the only thing that will save him is if they can't show he had intent to commit another crime related to the burying of the payments made.
Biden comes out on top in every comparison when looking at Trump. Even if he isn't pure as the driven snow. Competence, intelligence, lack of senility, least corrupt... Trump loses all of them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Biden comes out on top in every comparison when looking at Trump. Even if he isn't pure as the driven snow. Competence, intelligence, lack of senility, least corrupt... Trump loses all of them.
But Biden doesn't have a cult following. These are absurd times.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Lack of senility?
Okay.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I was comparing to Trump. Both are 80ish. I would not expect either to be as sharp as when they were 30.
No. of Recommendations: 2
In no universe is Biden either not senile or less senile than Trump. It's not even debatable.
Watch the upcoming debates and guess how many drugs they're going to have to pump Biden full of. His pupils are going to be absolutely microscopic.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I debate it. Trump is more severely impaired than Biden. No doubt
No. of Recommendations: 2
I debate it. Trump is more severely impaired than Biden. No doubt - 1pg
------------------
If you are talking about the swarm of lawfare designed to disrupt Trump's ability to campaign, that sort of impairment, then I agree with you.
No. of Recommendations: 2
LOL. Biden can't walk without pooping himself and his 'schedule' has him sundowning every day around 11AM. He's done.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They're pretty much down to just trying to convince themselves not to believe their own lyin' eyes. It's kinda sad and amusing at the same time.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If you are talking about the swarm of lawfare designed to disrupt
NO, he's mot talking about that, but a lot of that was caused by Trump's actions as he left office and after he left office. So Trump "designed" it himself.
No. of Recommendations: 16
If you are talking about the swarm of lawfare designed to disrupt Trump's ability to campaign, that sort of impairment, then I agree with you.
Sure, perhaps there is a (1) vast Jewish-space laser pizza-gate conspiracy across federal and various states to create a “swarm of lawfare” OR, (2) based on Trump’s past behavior, he’s committed a swarm of crimes.
I’m leaning towards (2).
No. of Recommendations: 1
Did Biden poop himself while walking? Or is that another made-up right wing talking point? I'm guessing the latter.
Biden is more competent than Trump in every way. Trump likely has dementia given his tendency to wander off on incoherent rants.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Did Biden poop himself while walking?
Who knows?
Biden is more competent than Trump in every way. Trump likely has dementia given his tendency to wander off on incoherent rants.
The world wasn't on fire when Trump was President.
Now it is.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The world wasn't on fire when Trump was President.
Now it is.
When Trump was President BLM was setting fire to the US, Antifa was everywhere, and violent protesters stormed the capitol. Now we have mild campus protests.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The world wasn't on fire when Trump was President.
Now it is.
Once again, I ask you, why do you think historians rate Trump very near the bottom of US Presidents? Why? Because his administration was a stinking dumpster fire of incompetence, cronyism and corruption.
Biden knows how to put together an Executive Branch that functions. All Trump cared about was having brown-nosing yes men and women serving him and his boundless ego. He sucked as POTUS to put it very mildly.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Correlation doesn't equal causation. It would be on fire regardless. Not everything is about us (USA).
A lot of the issues in the Philippines are because Duterte hated the US, and cozied up to China. Nothing to do with our POTUS. As just one example. I won't repeat what albaby said about Hamas, but he was correct. Etc.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of new jobs since Biden took over.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The world jumped on a weak leader. That's Biden, and that's why it's on fire right now.
The Chinese reminded the Philippines were they think they stand on the Asian Racial Pyramid. (Not very high). The Philippines decided to look West instead of East, and good for them.
The jobs for Biden? A great deal many of them were jobs reconstituted after all the blue state lockdowns.
He's been a disaster. Time for a chanage.
No. of Recommendations: 2
A lot of the issues in the Philippines are because Duterte hated the US, and cozied up to China.
Duterte flooded social media during the election and some of it was anti-US and pro-China. There were rumors that China funded part of his campaign in this area, but I saw no proof. But he gained control of social media and stayed there. I spent time arguing against the anti-US side. They had many expats scared that they would be deported if they made any comments during the election period.
Many articles on how Duterte's distrust of the US went back to an accidental explosion in a hotel that mangled a USian legs. While in the hospital (supposedly under guard) the US came in at night, flew him to Manila, then onto the US. The fellow's wife, a nurse, had flown out to get him and the embassy helped her. Duterte was livid, but his guards had screwed off and there were no orders in the hospital to keep him detained and the flight had been arranged by the US embassy. Duterte alluded to bombings done by rebels in the area, implying that man supplied the bombs, and declared the man CIA.
He was a treasure hunter and ran all over the island- sometimes diving into wrecks in the ocean or lakes, he and a friend went into caves the Japanese had occupied and blew open sections to see if the Japanese hid anything there. He got a pile of fake dollars made by the Japanese and used that to get into territory claimed by rebels. He made connections across Mindanao and had access, but there was no evidence of a big treasure trove find, just constantly searching. I think he did make it up into the gold mine areas too. He also went into some Moro Muslim areas where they are known to be fierce fighters, jurementado, and run amok. They'd get hopped up on opium, bind the body tight to inhibit blood flowing out and just attack rapidly slicing with a bolo knife. I saw a picture of one body that had been attacked this way and it was sliced open all over the body.
So this guy knew how to handle himself in dangerous areas, but there was ample evidence that he was what he said he was, a treasure hunter, and no evidence that he was CIA,just innuendo.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Chinese reminded the Philippines were they think they stand on the Asian Racial Pyramid
Would you expound on this Dope? What is the Asian Racial Pyramid, and how did the Chinese remind Filipinos of their place? How did they do the reminding? Who is on top of the pyramid? 2d? 3rd? 4th? 5th?
