[Politics] Donald Trump 2024

[Zeberdi]

You mean you can't be arsed to read something because it might conflict (or even change) your views. So, if your view is formed from only reading things that are shorter than @Peter Ward has supplied for you - you're not really getting a rounded or full picture are you? You're just forming your opinion from soundbites and headlines.

No wonder you come across as rather delusional.

It was a very long post tbh - I’ve frequently been bullied/ trolled/mocked on this forum by people (included certain mods) for the length of my posts (most of which have been much shorter than Peter’s above’ and often had TLDR at the end of something I have written - so CD isn’t the only one that has an aversion to long posts. No one called those NSCers that criticised the length on my posts ‘delusional’ so I’m not sure that is a valid reason to do so here. Some people just find it difficult to get through so much info on a football chat forum. At least that was the argument given to me a few months ago. Personally I am very conscious now of trying to keep the length down a bit. I have found bullet-pointing paragraphs and key points in long posts can make them less dense.

I think the problem for CD he is right in that more people respond to his posts than they do to anyone else’s simply because he is one of the small minority on the other side of the political debate, so he does has a much larger task in getting through them if he is to exercise his right to respond to criticism.

I don’t think anybody needs to be abusive though on either side.

Of course the obvious answer would be for him to just stop posting what have widely been proven to be outlandish claims about the 2020 election, conspiracy theories, misrepresentations about Trump’s indictments and glaringly poor judgment of character when it comes to the MAR-A-LAGO MAGA-MAN.

But that would turn this thread into an echo chamber and make it very boring

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It was a very long post tbh - I’ve frequently been bullied/ trolled/mocked on this forum by people (included certain mods) for the length of my posts (most of which have been much shorter than Peter’s above’ and often had TLDR at the end of something I have written - so CD isn’t the only one that has an aversion to long posts. No one called those NSCers that criticised the length on my posts ‘delusional’ so I’m not sure that is a valid reason to do so here. Some people just find it difficult to get through so much info on a football chat forum. At least that was the argument given to me a few months ago. Personally I am very conscious now of trying to keep the length down a bit. I have found bullet-pointing paragraphs and key points in long posts can make them less dense.

I think the problem for CD he is right in that more people respond to his posts than they do to anyone else’s simply because he is one of the small minority on the other side of the political debate, so he does has a much larger task in getting through them if he is to exercise his right to respond to criticism.

I don’t think anybody needs to be abusive though on either side.

Of course the obvious answer would be for him to just stop posting what have widely been proven to be outlandish claims about the 2020 election, conspiracy theories, misrepresentations about Trump’s indictments and glaringly poor judgment of character when it comes to the MAR-A-LAGO MAGA-MAN.

But that would turn this thread into an echo chamber and make it very boring

I like your first suggestion.

As for the second, there are others who put the 'not Biden' argument well. But they have put it, proper put it, put, putted, and moved on. They are not on a campaign trail. That's the problem with our friend who is according to himself, mostly on NSC for the football. And the fact that he seems to think he can persuade us to vote for Trump shows that he doesn't really understand how the American electoral system works.

 

[Bodian]

No one called those NSCers that criticised the length on my posts ‘delusional’ so I’m not sure that is a valid reason to do so here.

Criticising the length of a post is not delusional in itself. But not being willing to read anything of substance leads to deluding oneself into believing just headlines- which is the point I was making.

Of course the obvious answer would be for him to just stop posting what have widely been proven to be outlandish claims about the 2020 election, conspiracy theories, misrepresentations about Trump’s indictments and glaringly poor judgment of character when it comes to the MAR-A-LAGO MAGA-MAN.

Yes - but CD obviously believes these claims (presumably - otherwise why would they be posting them). And probably/possibly because they haven't read around them and are just going on the headline / soundbite (such as their posting the video of Biden quoting a report to 'prove' that Biden was racist - when any proper analysis would show that was a nonsense). Hence 'delusional', as above.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Criticising the length of a post is not delusional in itself. But not being willing to read anything of substance leads to deluding oneself into believing just headlines- which is the point I was making.


Yes - but CD obviously believes these claims (presumably - otherwise why would they be posting them). And probably/possibly because they haven't read around them and are just going on the headline / soundbite (such as their posting the video of Biden quoting a report to 'prove' that Biden was racist - when any proper analysis would show that was a nonsense). Hence 'delusional', as above.

Ah. I have a possible answer to that question

 

[Bodian]

Shallow delusional and brainless hey biggums.

Tyrone Biggums? I was wondering where they had gone to!

 

[lasvegan]

I thought Crawley Dingo was spence and Tyrone’s love child, no?

 

[Pevenseagull]

Damn


every time this bumps up I hope he's died after being hit by lightening playing golf.

in my opinion the world would be a better place

 

[lasvegan]

If you’re still wondering why Trump is still doing so well in the polls…

DAVID BOSSIE: Even The Justice System Has Caught ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Throughout history, tyrants and strongmen in banana republics around the world have chosen to abuse the massive powers of government to investigate, prosecute, and imprison their political opponents for fear of losing power.

dailycaller.com

 

[lasvegan]

Obama is still f**king up our country…

he

 

[Crawley Dingo]

No you're not prepared to see that your incessant bullshit has been fully debunked and face fact you are a racist apologist clown, who stumps for a facist whose real racism uses words of Hitler .

Shallow delusional and brainless hey biggums.

You appear not to know what those words mean. You and others have had ample time to prove your case but you are as partisan as it gets. Oh and your going on ignore, go outside and get some fresh air Citizen Smith.

To think a mod gave me a ban a month or so for "playing the player and not the ball", I suppose its whose team is doing it.

 

[Stato]

If you’re still wondering why Trump is still doing so well in the polls…

DAVID BOSSIE: Even The Justice System Has Caught ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Throughout history, tyrants and strongmen in banana republics around the world have chosen to abuse the massive powers of government to investigate, prosecute, and imprison their political opponents for fear of losing power.

dailycaller.com

Because right wing billionaires are funding right wing 'news' outlets designed to bolster his popularity? Presumably that's why you've provided a link to the Tucker Carson founded Daily Caller?

 

[Curious Orange]

All fun and games over in the Supreme Court as to whether Mr Trump can be on the ballot.

The answer is yes, unless congress says otherwise. Probably the right decision from a legal stand point but does rather highlight the lack of any legal process at the federal level for identifying and removing bad actors from related ballots.

BBC News - US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68470315

 

[vegster]

All fun and games over in the Supreme Court as to whether Mr Trump can be on the ballot.

The answer is yes, unless congress says otherwise. Probably the right decision from a legal stand point but does rather highlight the lack of any legal process at the federal level for identifying and removing bad actors from related ballots.

BBC News - US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68470315

The Constitution of the US was created in the expectation that their leaders would all be men of honour rather than Donald Trump. The irony is that, lacking any legal means to stop him standing, they could be signing their own political death warrants if/when Trump wins and becomes the dictator he has clearly stated he will be !

WE could see the collapse of the US if some refuse to obey his orders and others carry them out even if they are unconstitutional or criminal. Could even be Civil War #2 .

 

[Curious Orange]

The Constitution of the US was created in the expectation that their leaders would all be men of honour rather than Donald Trump. The irony is that, lacking and legal means to stop him standing, they could be signing their own political death warrants if/when Trump wins and becomes the dictator he has clearly stated he will be !

WE could see the collapse of the US if some refuse to obey his orders and others carry them out even if they are unconstitutional or criminal. Could even be Civil War #2 .

Yes, it is rather concerning.

Thoughts and prayers for our U.S. cousins. That seems to help with their gun crime issue after all.

 

[Stat Brother]

 

[beorhthelm]

All fun and games over in the Supreme Court as to whether Mr Trump can be on the ballot.

The answer is yes, unless congress says otherwise. Probably the right decision from a legal stand point but does rather highlight the lack of any legal process at the federal level for identifying and removing bad actors from related ballots.

BBC News - US Supreme Court strikes down effort to disqualify Trump from Colorado primary election - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68470315

as i read it, the basic point of law was he's not been convicted with insurrection (or i gather actually charged with). so amendment doesn't apply. the legal system is rather black and white, without a long list of possible good reasons to stop someone. the bad actor has to be proven to have been a bad actor, not just suspected.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

The Constitution of the US was created in the expectation that their leaders would all be men of honour rather than Donald Trump. The irony is that, lacking any legal means to stop him standing, they could be signing their own political death warrants if/when Trump wins and becomes the dictator he has clearly stated he will be !

WE could see the collapse of the US if some refuse to obey his orders and others carry them out even if they are unconstitutional or criminal. Could even be Civil War #2 .

So many mistakes.

There is a legal means, charge him and convict him under the insurrection act but they won't do that as they have no case.

He said he would be a dictator for 1 day, probably firing rogue judges and DAs.

Your paranoid and its a revolution not a civil war.

 

[Curious Orange]

There is a legal means, charge him and convict him under the insurrection act but they won't do that as they have no case.

There was enough evidence for the judge in the Colorado ballot case to conclude that Mr Trump had engaged in insurrection, so you are probably wrong to state that they wouldn't have a case if they were to bring charges.

Whether that case would be strong enough to obtain a conviction in a court of law I doubt we'll ever know, as I suspect the decision not to bring an insurrection case anywhere probably was a political one.

The Supreme Court notably didn't make any ruling one way or the other on whether Mr Trump actually did engage in insurrection, although he'll undoubtedly try and claim they exonerated him.

 

[Seagull58]

as i read it, the basic point of law was he's not been convicted with insurrection (or i gather actually charged with). so amendment doesn't apply. the legal system is rather black and white, without a long list of possible good reasons to stop someone. the bad actor has to be proven to have been a bad actor, not just suspected.

No, I think the basic point is that section 3 only applies to people standing for state level positions, not federal level positions. That's why the SCOTUS voted 9-0.

 

[Seagull58]

There was enough evidence for the judge in the Colorado ballot case to conclude that Mr Trump had engaged in insurrection, so you are probably wrong to state that they wouldn't have a case if they were to bring charges.

Whether that case would be strong enough to obtain a conviction in a court of law I doubt we'll ever know, as I suspect the decision not to bring an insurrection case anywhere probably was a political one.

The Supreme Court notably didn't make any ruling one way or the other on whether Mr Trump actually did engage in insurrection, although he'll undoubtedly try and claim they exonerated him.

Correct. They decided the case on the basis that section 3 only applies to state-level positions. They did not consider whether he is an insurrectionist.