• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Kandi1977 said:
Of course they can impeach after office. Otherwise the president could just do whatever he wanted during the last day's in office.
Also there is precedent in that former state officials have been trialed after leaving their position.
Click to expand...
When there's as much bias as there is in the SC, nothing without precedent is certain. Even with precedent it's not iron-clad but would be unlikely.

What states have done is under their own law. Whilst that's interpreted from federal law, it's not dispositive at that level.

The only case at federal level is someone (not a president) who retired hours before being impeached so that he could run again immediately after. But that was ruled the way it was because of the retirement. It's quite a sparse section of law as far as precedent is concerned.
 
scaramanga said:
I think there's a fairly important distinction that keeps him on the legal side of the line. He certainly incited a mob, he certainly wanted them to march on the Capitol Building. I think it's a stretch of the evidence to suggest he told them to attack or enter the building.

Again, people seem to think that his use of the word "fight" is what will condemn him. It wouldn't take anyone particularly long (although Trump's legal team might struggle) to find hundreds of speeches from entirely peaceful political leaders telling their base that they need to fight for what they want. In fact, Obama was a keynote speaker for the Fight For Freedom Fund. I'm fairly sure they're not advocating physical violence in that name, merely a moral and political fight.

There is one caveat with that statement though. Trump does appear to be beyond terrible at choosing his legal representation. If he's asked for evidence at any point and if he has his lawyers helping, it's entirely possible they'll all brick the bed.
Click to expand...

How many tens of thousands disagreed with you?
Were they all "misinterpreting" the message?
Did he at any time consider that his repeated use of phrases involving "fight", telling the Proud Boys to "stand by" and repeatedly telling people to march and fight to protect the USA (democracy - christ they think they invented it when actually, their version is weak-sauce these days) might need him to clarify his position? The answer to the last two is "no".
It happened, and it happened because of a rallying cry. The fact their "GHod" actually revealed himself as a giant fudging pussy who had no intention on being there when his "soldiers" stormed the gates for him is a crumb of comfort.
 
scaramanga said:
In that case he's unlikely to be convicted.

Many Republicans don't have to defend their seats against Democrats, they're fighting against other Republicans. For most of them it's a case of having to out-Republican the next guy.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
This is high-priced theater paid for by tax payer money.
He absolutely SHOULD be tried, but the end result will fail everyone for sure. Unless the GOP can wrestle control from that madwoman and turn their backs on him. I won't hold my breath...
 
thfcsteff said:
How many tens of thousands disagreed with you?
Were they all "misinterpreting" the message?
Did he at any time consider that his repeated use of phrases involving "fight", telling the Proud Boys to "stand by" and repeatedly telling people to march and fight to protect the USA (democracy - christ they think they invented it when actually, their version is weak-sauce these days) might need him to clarify his position? The answer to the last two is "no".
It happened, and it happened because of a rallying cry. The fact their "GHod" actually revealed himself as a giant fudging pussy who had no intention on being there when his "soldiers" stormed the gates for him is a crumb of comfort.
Click to expand...
You're operating at an entirely different intellectual level to Trump there - there's never been any thought behind anything he's said before. No need to attribute it now.
 
scaramanga said:
You're operating at an entirely different intellectual level to Trump there - there's never been any thought behind anything he's said before. No need to attribute it now.
Click to expand...

That is untrue and gives Trump a free pass.

He (and his team) know/knew exactly what they were saying and when. The choice not to concede the election, the choice not to have a peaceful transition, the choice to (still) not recognize Biden overtly - these are all deliberate actions to retain relevance, to retain money-making capability. To claim Trump doesn't think before he speaks is a walkaway. His thoughts are limited in how they are framed - he is certainly not a intellectual giant and he is culturally departed - but his words throughout the last 4 years but especially this election cycle and post-November 8th were deliberate and directed. And the outcome fairly predictable and what they wanted.
 
scaramanga said:
You're operating at an entirely different intellectual level to Trump there - there's never been any thought behind anything he's said before. No need to attribute it now.
Click to expand...

He is quite evidently smarter than you think. They called Lee "Scratch" Perry crazy, but h is crazy like a fox...
 
Lost Mango said:
That is untrue and gives Trump a free pass.

He (and his team) know/knew exactly what they were saying and when. The choice not to concede the election, the choice not to have a peaceful transition, the choice to (still) not recognize Biden overtly - these are all deliberate actions to retain relevance, to retain money-making capability. To claim Trump doesn't think before he speaks is a walkaway. His thoughts are limited in how they are framed - he is certainly not a intellectual giant and he is culturally departed - but his words throughout the last 4 years but especially this election cycle and post-November 8th were deliberate and directed. And the outcome fairly predictable and what they wanted.
Click to expand...
In terms of everything he says and does being directed at making him money, I agree with you.

But this doesn't, didn't and couldn't make him money.
 
Loved this paragraph from the guardians write up;

Wearing grey suit, white shirt, deep blue tie, and wielding a blue pen in his right hand, Raskin told the Senate: “He revelled in it and he did nothing to help us as commander-in-chief. Instead he served as the inciter-in-chief, sending tweets that only further incited the rampaging mob. He made statements lauding and sympathising with the insurrectionists.”
 
thfcsteff said:
Incredible.
I never saw you as having such faith in humanity.
Click to expand...
It's surprising how rarely it's wrong.

Sometimes I forget, but a general life rule of assuming other people to be even more stupid than you already think they are tends to work well.
 
scaramanga said:
In terms of everything he says and does being directed at making him money, I agree with you.

But this doesn't, didn't and couldn't make him money.
Click to expand...

I think this is a vital point.
It was his ONLY path of protection, to further cultivate and confirm an audience he could well have lost too early, not to mention make a final run for control of the GOP - which sadly seems to still be a possibility.
So he absolutely preserves money, makes money and maintains some clout in the far christian right financial circles. He knew exactly what he was doing there, always did, albeit that part of the plan was steered by others and he ham-fisted much of his crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back