Trump 2024 — The second term

[Shadow01]

Futile. As long as their are democrats, there will be no unification

 

[jamil]

You must be better at using every means available to destroy your opponents or you will be the victim. You either are willing to win with what is available to you to use or you are the loser. Taking the moral high ground in politics will only accelerate your demise. Just remember that in national politics your decision will affect more than just you and your convictions. Winners make the rules.

So, swatting then?

 

[jamil]

Futile. As long as their are democrats, there will be no unification

If he thinks Democrats are so bad that he has to quit the party, why is he still caucusing with them? Ideas so bad he can't stay in the party, but he still votes with them? Yeah, that's meant to be futile.

If he were serious, he's a ****ing coward for not flipping to weaken the party of ClownWorld™ in the Senate. Or, Idunno, maybe he's afraid of getting charged with ******** crimes.

 

[Ingomike]

LOL, some of you amuse me. If the Dems stole the last couple elections what makes you think suddenly they are going to be legitimate.

As Trump himself has said, winning is not enough, that was the outcome in 2020, he must win beyond the margin of cheating…

 

[jamil]

I mean…that sounds pretty good to me.

Prosecute Clinton? **** yeah…long overdue.

Prosecute Obama, Biden, Pelosi, AOC…whoever? Sure…go for it.

I don‘t view prosecuting politicians for their crimes as a bad thing…I sincerely hope we see much more of this type of thing.

Trump’s prosecution does more to drain the swamp than his presidency ever could.

What law did he break? Did he get a fair trial? Or does the end justify the means? You really make it sound like the latter.

 

[printcraft]

In before we are all called “conviction deniers”.

 

[jamil]

Trust the established media. Trust the science. Trust the court. Trust the system. Because no one would abuse their power. That would be selfish. And we all know humans aren’t selfish.

 

[Ingomike]

Surely you remember those conversations. Don't you? You guys talk about playing the same game they do, or to that affect. I say, nah. We don't have to sink to the same depths. You claim I want to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.

So I press you on it. Just what do you mean by that? What are you saying we should be willing to do exactly? So then you list things that aren't actually breaking any rules. Then why the claims about Marquis of Queensbury rules, if you're not actually advocating things that would break them?

So I have a couple choices how I could have interpreted that. Either a) you're blowing off steam with that "do what they do" shtick and didn't really mean it. Or b) you really meant it, but didn't want to admit on a public forum the things you think conservatives should do to fight as dirty as progressives do. I let it go because that seemed to be the end of the Marquis of Queensbury nonsense. But. Maybe I should ask. Which was it, a or b?

Time To Fight Dirty

pjmedia.com

 

[Tripp11]

Trust the established media. Trust the science. Trust the court. Trust the system. Because no one would abuse their power. That would be selfish. And we all know humans aren’t selfish.

All four of those you mentioned (media, science, court and system) have been screwing people over for decades. Especially prosecutors, who in my opinion, have more power than anyone else in our country and they wield it discriminately on the regular.

 

[Ingomike]

Did Judge in Trump Case Violate Constitution With His Jury Instructions? These Attorneys Think So.

The judge gave the jury a choice of three separate crimes that they could select to convict former President Donald Trump.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[Ingomike]

I don’t need to for my sake. You know yourself what you said.

I know what I said, the topic is what you are accusing others including me of saying and you have not produced the goods…

 

[LeftyGunner]

Interesting take.

Thank you. Most posters here seem to doubt my sincerety.

Do you have no unease about the basterdization of law that was used to prosecute Trump?

I have to answer this question in two parts.

1) Do I have any unease about the basterdization of law?

Yes, very much. I think there are far too many laws on the books already, and that the vagaries contained within those laws leave far too much wiggle room for “creative prosecution”. The criminal code should be clear enough for the layman to understand, else…how can we be expected to abide by it?

2) Do I have any unease about these laws being used against Trump?

**** no.

Trump has been abusing the New York court system to wage lawfare against his personal enemies (not to mention his customers, employees, and investors) for decades…filing ******** complaints, and dragging out proceedings until his targets exhaust their legal defense funding.

This is pure Karma, and it could not happen to a more deserving recipient.

Bonus question, per your post... What crime has 0bama committed that is worthy of prosecution (in your view)?

I do not have any personal knowledge of crimes committed by Obama, but I sincerely doubt his financials would hold up to forensic scrutiny.

Insider trading walks in the same circles as bribery…at the very least the optics are suspicious.

What law did he break?

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the first degree, a Class E felony under New York state law.

Did he get a fair trial?

Define fair…

…between 80-90% of criminal defendants in NY rely on the public defender system for council. Trump spends tens of millions of his supporter’s donations for private legal defense…if he didn’t get a fair trial who does?

 

[KLB]

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the first degree, a Class E felony under New York state law.

And what was the required crime that enabled that charge to be brought?

 

[printcraft]

And what was the required crime that enabled that charge to be brought?

Running for President again.

 

[LeftyGunner]

And what was the required crime that enabled that charge to be brought?

Are you trying for some kind of “gotcha” moment here?

The jury decided that the charges brought against Trump were appropriate, warranted, and supported by the exhibits entered into evidence when they chose to convict him 12-0 on 34 felony counts.

The appeals process exists to ensure any jury that gets seated act in good faith.

 

[printcraft]

Non answer noted.
Careful what you wish for.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Non answer noted.
Careful what you wish for.

Non answer? It’s a nonsense question, the whole point of a trial is to establish the validity of the complaint…and this jury found this defendant guilty as charged.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Non answer? It’s a nonsense question, the whole point of a trial is to establish the validity of the complaint…and this jury found this defendant guilty as charged.

Can you say with a straight face that that was an impartial jury, when chosen in a city that voted 10-1 against Trump? Can you say it was a fair trial when the Marchan wasn't even on the panel of 24 from whom the judge was to be chosen? Marchan, whose daughter works for the DNC? Who wouldn't let the defense call the witnesses they wanted to call? The whole thing was a sham from the beginning.

 

[rbhargan]

Trump's trial was just as fair as the one the Democrats held for the Scottsboro boys. Some things never change.

 

[Leadeye]

Did Judge in Trump Case Violate Constitution With His Jury Instructions? These Attorneys Think So.

The judge gave the jury a choice of three separate crimes that they could select to convict former President Donald Trump.

www.dailysignal.com

The constitutional legality of his instructions is irrelevant, the objective, convict Trump and make it stick until at least the elections are over was a guaranteed outcome. The question now is whether it's going to keep him from winning in November.

In the next few weeks, maybe sooner they will figure out their next step. Sentencing him to a year in prison is easily in the judges power I don't know what he can do to get around that. He can't really campaign on the lam, and the threat of being Epsteined is very real once he is inside.



We may start seeing tea in the water soon.