Trump 2024 ???

[Ingomike]

RINOs that gave us Fauci and bump-stock bans?
If your take is that anyone not named Trump is a RINO and that Trump, who is ideologically empty, is the conservative torch bearer, I have a whole lot of questions.

RINO’s definitely gave us Fauci starting with GHWB on forward. Then the RINO’s passed the unconstitutional patriot act and when the dust settled Fauci was controlling bio weapons research in labs across the country. In 2012 obummer pulled the plug on the research after a small bio leak in the US but Fauci just offshored the research. Guess where? Wuhan of course, but also in Ukraine. Small world isn’t it…

 

[KLB]

RINO’s definitely gave us Fauci starting with GHWB on forward. Then the RINO’s passed the unconstitutional patriot act and when the dust settled Fauci was controlling bio weapons research in labs across the country. In 2012 obummer pulled the plug on the research after a small bio leak in the US but Fauci just offshored the research. Guess where? Wuhan of course, but also in Ukraine. Small world isn’t it…

So pretty much all Republicans at the time were RINOs?

Don't forget to give the Ds their due too. The Senate was 98-1 for and the House was 357-66. Three of those that voted NO were Rs.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Trump canceled the presser where he was finally going to drop the evidence that Georgia was stolen. We were finally getting to the krakken, but Trump took it away. I guess we'll keep waiting for the evidence Georgia was stolen.


But this is just smart tactical politics, right? This is the sure thing that will bring swing voters over, right?

But that's not all folks- half the country thinks that Trump should suspend his campaign, 60% don’t want him to run, and 53% say they intend to vote against him means he’s over the target, according to folks on this board.

Majority of Americans think Trump's Ga. election interference case is serious: POLL

A majority (63%) of Americans say Trump's charges approved by a grand jury in Georgia are serious (47%) or somewhat serious (16%), according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll

abcnews.go.com

 

[jamil]

What dots do you need connected?

I need dots connected that make it more evident that Trump is intentionally pointing out targets than the simplest explanation, he's a petulant, narcissistic child. You've no doubt agreed when people make that observation about Trump when he behaves that way in his day to day life. I don't see why that's not a more provable, reasonalbe cause than you're assigning.

The pattern has repeated itself so many times it has become a matter of cause and effect…trump’s more moronic followers just can’t help themselves.

The MAGAs were just fine with Mike Pence until he refused to go along with trumps conspiracy to overturn the election…then, suddenly, they became all about hanging Mike Pence.

One of trumps loony followers got arrested at Obama’s house after Trump leaked the address.

Just yesterday one of Trump’s crazed zealots threatened to kill the judge overseeing his Jan6 criminal trial.

Did the people who leaked SCOTUS justices' addresses do so intentionally because they knew crazy people would try to harm them? You have no better evidence for Trump. And if you think they did, then where is your righteous indignation for that?

If you want to suspect that Trump is doing this intentionally, fine. But don't call people crazy that have a different opinion. And you should realize yours is an opinion.

It doesn‘t matter if Trump directly orders his followers to act out violently…or even if actually wants them to…his followers act out violently when they believe they have identified an enemy of Trump, and that is every bit as much of a problem as if he ordered the violent acts himself.

If you're arguing that Trump often acts foolishly, you'll get no rebuttal from me. My objection to you has been that you've been asserting that he's intentionally pointing to targets, which seems to me that you're at least implying that he does it purposefully and is criminally responsible. You've even been blaming him for intentionally instigating J6, which I think you have to inject a lot of instinct to connect those dots. If you want to back all these "intent" accusations off to be just him generally behaving irresponsibly, I have no problem with that.

That’s why the court has ordered him to leave the witnesses alone…his attention puts them in danger whether Trump is sophisticated enough to realize that himself or not.

I don't have a problem with that.

Fair enough.

I cannot point to video evidence that shows Trump telling his supporters to storm the capitol on Jan 6th. If that the burden of proof I need to meet, I cannot get there. I don’t think that bar is reasonable, though. Communication does not have to be overt or direct to be effective.

You don't need video. But to claim what you've been claiming, preponderance of real evidence would suffice. However circumstances + your own biases isn't preponderance of evidence. You've been claiming that the cause/effect of Trump saying stuff and then crazy Trumpers acting with violent intent is evidence enough that Trump was intentionally targeting people. That's a form of circular reasoning.

You have no better evidence for it, so you're claiming that what I'm asking for is unreasonable. But you're pulling a Bug move to claim that, that because it's difficult for you to cite such evidence, I'm imposing unreasonable standards. That's the problem with proving intent. It's difficult. It's not impossible.

I used Kamala Harris as an example, where a preponderance of evidence exists to show she intended for people to protest violently. She encouraged them with their "no justice, no peace" slogans all while violent riots broke out in cities across America, and then she offered to pay their bail when they get arrested. I think Biden offered the same. As well as many prominent Democrats. That wasn't just a dog whistle, that was overtly telling them to do violence, which they did. That was clearly an intent to incite violence.

Jan 6 all comes back to Trump. No one cared about the joint session of congress on Jan 6th until Trump seized upon that ceremonial event to try to overturn the election.

It was Trump that insisted, even before any votes were cast, that if he lost it had to be due to rigging the election.

When he actually lost, it was Trump that insisted the election was stolen.

If you're trying to say that Trump believing that he actually won, and that the Democrats stole the election, which also caused Trumpers to mindlessly believe it, okay, fine? I agree that if Trump had just accepted the defeat, there would not have been a J6 protest. Trumpers would be distraught but would probably not have protested. But Democrats did play some shenanigans in that election, for which there is sufficient of evidence.

Most obvious, they used covid as justification to change election rules prior to the election, without due process in some cases, that favored Democrats. I think if Trump had focused on what could be proven, and had not listened to his idiotic lawyers about the asinine scheme to switch electors, a protest of that would be justifiable. But, knowing that crazy people would still do crazy things, especially being instigated by what may have been "glowies", some people would have gotten violent anyway.

Why wasn't the Capitol police more prepared for it? Ask the Chief of Capitol police at the time. He has some pretty good reasons for it.

It was Trump who gathered his followers in DC on Jan6, it was Trump who worked them into an angry lather with lies of stolen elections, and it was trump who directed that angry mob toward the capitol.

Can you provide evidence that Trump believed that he lost fair and square? Every word and action I've seen that guy make has been as if he believes that Democrats cheated. I think it would be extraordinary if he thought he lost legitimately, yet continued to behave like he didn't. You gotta do better than you've done to make the other case.

I can’t really connect the dots for you…they are so closely situated together they are already indistinguishable from a direct line.

No. You can't. You can connect them for yourself though with belief. I'm skeptical of what you're trying to assert. So I do not have the same instincts taking the place of facts that connect the dots for you. I'm not saying this because I'm a die hard Trumper.

If there's an actual preponderance of evidence that says Trump did all that intentionally, okay. I have no fierce loyalty to Trump that prevents me from believing criticisms that are clearly true about Trump. Do you have a proportional fierce revulsion to Trump that rivals Trumpers' fierce loyalty? Is that what is connecting the dots for you?

 

[jamil]

Just to be clear…I was referring to a trump supporter who threatened to kill the judge of Trump’s Jan 6 criminal trial, not that of their own.

I can see where my post might have been ambiguous about what specific trial I was referring to…my apologies.

As for the speedy trial and extended detainment…I am glad to finally see conservatives start talking about penal reform. What you are seeing among the Jan6 defendants is emblematic of the issues that plague the system at all levels…it’s disgusting. I agree completely.

Most trials are reasonably "speedy". Higher profile trials often take longer because dream team lawyers from both sides are battling it out. But for people charged with crimes relating to J6, there's a strong appearance of weaponizing "justice". Some of the people who were detained for exceptionally long periods when the charges end up being trespassing, is really difficult to explain. You could chalk it up to incompetence of the system, but it seems the incompetence goes one way.

ETA: One oddly speedy high profile trial is Trump's. Coincidentally it coincides with J6. Don't you think that's an amazing coincidence? Or is the timing political?

 

[jamil]

So pretty much all Republicans at the time were RINOs?

Don't forget to give the Ds their due too. The Senate was 98-1 for and the House was 357-66. Three of those that voted NO were Rs.

I think RINO actually means Republicans I've Never Ordained. Because that's how it's used. The Republican Party as a whole, decides its platform. People who oppose that platform are literally RINO's. But no. We call them "RINO" because it's those people in charge of the part that we don't agree with. I think it's a silly term. Call them suck-asses. Call them chamber-o-commerce neocon ********ers. I don't call usually them RINO's because the Republicans I disagree with is what the Republican establishment is.

Trump kinda took "Republican" over by running as one, and having an America-first agenda and bringing working class democrats under the umbrella of Republican. It's still the party of Mitch McConnells and LIndsey Grahams, and Todd Young. Trump just borrowed it.

It's still filled with powerful people like Mitch McConnell, a chamber-o-commerce neocon establishment turtle-neck ********er. But he's the true Republican. He's what Republicans are, at least until the party gives over its real leadership and power brokers to people who put America first. I might use "RINO" occasionally as a shortcut for Republicans I don't like. It's faster than typing out chamber-o-commerce neocon ********ers. I guess in that sense, I might be the RINO because that party full of Republicans I don't like is the only party that has at least some people who want to put America first. But I'm no Republican if it's full of CoC neocon ********ers.

 

[Ingomike]

I wish a bunch of you self identified so called republicans were actually as riled up about actual illegal activities and unconstitutional acts as you are over the proclamations of an attorney with absolutely no power…

 

[red_zr24x4]

Trump canceled the presser where he was finally going to drop the evidence that Georgia was stolen. We were finally getting to the krakken, but Trump took it away. I guess we'll keep waiting for the evidence Georgia was stolen.
View attachment 293566

But this is just smart tactical politics, right? This is the sure thing that will bring swing voters over, right?

But that's not all folks- half the country thinks that Trump should suspend his campaign, 60% don’t want him to run, and 53% say they intend to vote against him means he’s over the target, according to folks on this board.

Majority of Americans think Trump's Ga. election interference case is serious: POLL

A majority (63%) of Americans say Trump's charges approved by a grand jury in Georgia are serious (47%) or somewhat serious (16%), according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll

abcnews.go.com

So if you were under indictment, you'd release your evidence before trial? Or would you use it during the trial for your defense?
As for the ABC link, from all the ******** the big 3 networks say ,I have a hard time believing any of it

 

[oze]

I think it's clear that I am not longer a Trump supporter, but I think that saying that he is orchestrating violence, coup attempts or what have you by using dog whistles and hand gestures stretches credulity. I agree with the explanation of him being a petulant, narcissistic child. His having access to the bully pulpit amplifies this for all the world to see.

 

[jamil]

So if you were under indictment, you'd release your evidence before trial? Or would you use it during the trial for your defense?
As for the ABC link, from all the ******** the big 3 networks say ,I have a hard time believing any of it

Why would Trump make such a big deal of having all this evidence, and scheduling a press conference, if he's weary about releasing evidence before the trial? Is he being strategic, or stupid?

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

So if you were under indictment, you'd release your evidence before trial? Or would you use it during the trial for your defense?
As for the ABC link, from all the ******** the big 3 networks say ,I have a hard time believing any of it

Trump and his lawyers are a joke. Do you really think they held onto the evidence of fraud this long? He didn't release it because they don't have anything! They just magically found the evidence on Georgia and are sitting on it?

Get out of your ecosystem here. It's a poll of likely voters with 3X the typical sample size. It's also consistent with prior polling, especially the fraudulent election claims polling, which has been way underwater for 2 years. Hard to win a national race when a majority of people won't even consider you.

 

[jamil]

Trump and his lawyers are a joke. Do you really think they held onto the evidence of fraud this long? He didn't release it because they don't have anything! They just magically found the evidence on Georgia and are sitting on it?

Get out of your ecosystem here. It's a poll of likely voters with 3X the typical sample size. It's also consistent with prior polling, especially the fraudulent election claims polling, which has been way underwater for 2 years. Hard to win a national race when a majority of people won't even consider you.

I agree with most of that. But. Speaking of reliable polling of likely voters, Trump is even with Biden in RCP averages.

 

[oze]

I think that the sooner Trump and his supporters put the stolen election trope behind them and start campaigning on his actual accomplishments and plans, the sooner his electability goes from a fantasy to a definite possibility. Biden's electability borders on Hillary Clinton territory.

 

[jamil]

I think that the sooner Trump and his supporters put the stolen election trope behind them and start campaigning on his actual accomplishments and plans, the sooner his electability goes from a fantasy to a definite possibility. Biden's electability borders on Hillary Clinton territory.

I think that Trump has a realistic shot at winning. But his chances starkly diminish if he’s convicted. That could be one explanation for why Democrat prosecutors are pushing for Trials during the primaries. Trump will still likely win the primaries, even if from prison. But campaigning from prison in a general election is not going to go his way.

And it’s impossible for Trump to let the “stolen election” go. So it will be impossible for the Trumpers to let it go. I think “winning” is as much about retribution as Trump’s policies.

 

[KG1]

Most trials are reasonably "speedy". Higher profile trials often take longer because dream team lawyers from both sides are battling it out. But for people charged with crimes relating to J6, there's a strong appearance of weaponizing "justice". Some of the people who were detained for exceptionally long periods when the charges end up being trespassing, is really difficult to explain. You could chalk it up to incompetence of the system, but it seems the incompetence goes one way.

ETA: One oddly speedy high profile trial is Trump's. Coincidentally it coincides with J6. Don't you think that's an amazing coincidence? Or is the timing political?

I think Smith's strategy to garner a speedy trial was narrowing the focus on Trump in the J6 indictment whereas the Ga. Indictment has Trump and 19 co-defendants. Even though the prosecutor wants the trial in March there is no way that trial will be speedy. Most likely won't occur until after the election because she went hog wild with the indictment.

 

[Ingomike]

I think Smith's strategy to garner a speedy trial was narrowing the focus on Trump in the J6 indictment whereas the Ga. Indictment has Trump and 19 co-defendants. Even though the prosecutor wants the trial in March there is no way that trial will be speedy. Most likely won't occur until after the election because she went hog wild with the indictment.

Based on the writing of several attorneys there will never be a trial in GA. They are federal officials and will have the case moved to federal court. The NY case was declined for this because is was a personal matter.

 

[KG1]

Based on the writing of several attorneys there will never be a trial in GA. They are federal officials and will have the case moved to federal court. The NY case was declined for this because is was a personal matter.

Possibly at least not for Trump and Meadows. Meadows already has a motion in the works to have it transferred to federal on those grounds. I'm sure Trump will be soon to follow.

 

[KG1]

Also, if those motions are successful that would set precedent and help to quell any other states like Arizona that are considering following Georgia's lead with their own indictments.

 

[DragonGunner]

Trump canceled the presser where he was finally going to drop the evidence that Georgia was stolen. We were finally getting to the krakken, but Trump took it away. I guess we'll keep waiting for the evidence Georgia was stolen.
View attachment 293566

But this is just smart tactical politics, right? This is the sure thing that will bring swing voters over, right?

But that's not all folks- half the country thinks that Trump should suspend his campaign, 60% don’t want him to run, and 53% say they intend to vote against him means he’s over the target, according to folks on this board.

Majority of Americans think Trump's Ga. election interference case is serious: POLL

A majority (63%) of Americans say Trump's charges approved by a grand jury in Georgia are serious (47%) or somewhat serious (16%), according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll

abcnews.go.com

Lmao….ABC news…. Good grief. We got another one of these in here. Done.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Lmao….ABC news…. Good grief. We got another one of these in here. Done.

Do you only believe things that Trump says?