US Politics The 2021 Former President Trump Thread - I look very much forward to showing my financials, because they are huge.

[birdup.snaildown]

Trump is responsible because he was the president and he used his position to rally people, convince them that their country was being stolen and created an environment where violence was evitable.

He didn't incite them on the day, legally speaking anyway. But his years of behavior in the lead up create an environment that foreseeably was going to result in this kind of domestic terrorism.

If you're president and you create an environment you know will cause domestic terrorism for your own political gain, you're a traitor to your country and should never hold office again.

It's too vague, Jess.

If you start prosecuting people for indirectly inciting violence, that sets a disturbing precedent. Everyone is guilty. You said he knew it would result in domestic terrorism. If it was so obvious, Twitter is also responsible along with every media outlet that published his statements (for profit) that "forseeably" contributed to the "inevitable" violence.

Is Obama responsible for deaths during BLM rallies?

Like I said, it's too vague. You need to construct a solid argument. If it wasn't the speech that incited violence, what did he say *exactly* that ensured the inevitability of domestic terrorism.

Saying he is guilty doesn't make it so.

 

[Xorkoth]

After listening to broad swaths of the impeachment trial, I actually do see the argument that Trump may not have intended for anyone to riot specifically, that it boiled over harder than he intended. However, in my mind the things he is absolutely guilty of, which are very serious and impeachment-worthy also in my opinion, are his egregious lying to purposely undermine the electoral process. He called and threatened/bribed Georgia election officials to "find" exactly enough votes to win the state. I heard that phone call, it's plain as day. His own justice department concluded there was no election fraud as well as election officials from both parties across the country. He began lying, when it could be imagined that he actually believed there was fraud, but then kept doubling down when the facts came out, despite clear evidence that this lying was causing unrest. He plainly and clearly attempted to undermine the democratic process and outright attempted to coerce election officials to overturn the election results in Georgia. It's a serious attack on our system by the president. It wasn't only him, either, but all of the Republican congresspeople who helped him to perpetuate the lies, even after election officials of both parties denounced the lies, with the purpose of their own guy "winning" despite the results of the vote. If lying about getting your dick sucked is an impeachable offense, surely knowingly undermining the electoral process and coercing election officials to falsify the results is impeachable, no?

The purpose of the impeachment is to avoid setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents. People act like spending a week on an impeachment trial is totally ignoring the problems we face. The government can, and IS, doing both at the same time. Since Biden got into office, there has been tons of work done to expedite the vaccination program and get aid to people. I don't buy the argument that it's an irresponsible waste of time.

Welcome back, I was wondering if you'd show up again.

 

[JessFR]

It's too vague, Jess.

If you start prosecuting people for indirectly inciting violence, that sets a disturbing precedent. Everyone is guilty. You said he knew it would result in domestic terrorism. If it was so obvious, Twitter is also responsible along with every media outlet that published his statements (for profit) that "forseeably" contributed to the "inevitable" violence.

Is Obama responsible for deaths during BLM rallies?

Like I said, it's too vague. You need to construct a solid argument. If it wasn't the speech that incited violence, what did he say *exactly* that ensured the inevitability of domestic terrorism.

Saying he is guilty doesn't make it so.

Yea actually I do think Twitter and Facebook and Google should be held accountable for spreading a lot of this stuff.

But regardless, trump was president, he should be held to a higher standard. People listen to the president and he told his supporters their country was being stolen, he told them they had to fight for it.

The rules of free speech for individuals aren't and shouldn't be the same as the rules for presidents and what they should be allowed to get away and stay in office.

I'm not saying trump should be put in jail for the riot, I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to hold office again because he betrayed his country and his oath of office.

I don't recall Obama telling people if they didn't riot they'd lose their country. I don't recall how he's much related to this at all.

Presidents should be held accountable if they tell people that they are sole trustworthy individual in government and everyone else is the enemy. When they tell the people the democratic system is fraudulent unless it elects them, that is treasonous.

 

[alasdairm]

1. They planted pipe bombs the day before the speech. Clearly the speech (in which Trump called for peaceful protest) didn't incite the violence.

2. The time it takes to walk from the speech to the capitol does not support his speech inciting the violence.

3. I don't care if an alien died (green lives matter?) because it has no bearing on whether or not Trump is directly responsible for another person's actions.

i guess this is where i agree to disagree.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

It was foreseeable that years of rhetoric about how any political efforts against trump were actually deepstate attacks and his political rivals are evil and outright want to destroy America, were going to incite extremist domestic terrorism if not outright insurrection.

He rightfully should be held accountable for that. He wasn't some loudmouth on YouTube he was the president. He has positive responsibilities for the country which he failed to meet.

He deliberately encouraged Americans to hate each other, he knowingly damaged the country for his political aims.

Impeachment is the least of what he deserves.

A part of me thinks he rightly deserves the ultimate punishment for betraying the country (for the record since we have strict rules about this now and rightly so, I'm talking about after an impartial trial and assuming he were found guilty, vigilantism is obviously unacceptable).

But ultimately my primary concern is for America, if it would be best to try and start building bridges, or at least stop burning the ones that remain, for trump to simply retire unpunished. So be it.

 

[alasdairm]

i don't think trump will run again in 2024.

now he is no longer protected by the office of the president, he's going to have his hands full with at least two major investigations, if not trials, involving the manhattan d.a. (trump organization finances) and the state of new york (value ot trump's assets). he also has two looming defamation lawsuits to defend as well as being sued by his own niece.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

i don't think trump will run again in 2024.

now he is no longer protected by the office of the president, he's going to have his hands full with at least two major investigations, if not trials, involving the manhattan d.a. (trump organization finances) and the state of new york (value ot trump's assets). he also has two looming defamation lawsuits to defend as well as being sued by his own niece.

alasdair

On the whole I agree it's unlikely.

But I underestimated trumps prospects in 2016 and I don't want to do it again.

 

[cduggles]

Let's keep in mind that the senators are only juror-like.

Yes, but it’s common parlance. Although technically incorrect.

NPR Cookie Consent and Choices

www.npr.org

I suspect that the republicans who voted against him are pussies, who are afraid their wives won't suck their dick anymore if they don't throw Trump under a bus.

Could we raise the tone here? This isn’t The Lounge.

You beat me to it. Teddy isn't doing anything against the rules by meeting with Trump's defence team.

Something being sketchy is different from being “against the rules”.

Apparently McCarthy and Trump were verbally going at each other while rioters entered the Capitol and Trump was refusing to call off his supporters or order the National Guard in.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

The purpose of the impeachment is to avoid setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents. People act like spending a week on an impeachment trial is totally ignoring the problems we face. The government can, and IS, doing both at the same time. Since Biden got into office, there has been tons of work done to expedite the vaccination program and get aid to people. I don't buy the argument that it's an irresponsible waste of time.

The impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. Not saying the government can't do both to some extent, but this impeachment attempt is certainly occupying the senate during a crisis and both sides agree it's very likely to be unsuccessful and therefore a waste of time and resources (not to mention money) that could be better spent elsewhere.

Biden is riding the coat-tails of the Trump administration as far as the vaccination rollout goes. When Biden announced his "ambitious" plan of vaccinating 100 million people in 100 days, the Trump administration was already vaccinating 900,000 people per day. The numbers were steadily increasing leading up to the new presidency. Trump's administration laid down a lot of the groundwork for the current level of vaccinations, not just by fast-tracking the development and approval of the vaccines but also by creating the delivery systems that Biden is now largely taking credit for... but that's kind of off topic.

I've never heard anyone suggest that the impeachment trial is occupying all of the US government's resources. Nobody (in this thread, at least) is saying that. So your response is a bit strawman. The question remains whether or not the collusion investigation was a waste of money and time. The question remains whether or not the impeachments are a waste of money and time. If the government happened to have infinite resources, I would agree with you that goose chases and witch hunts have no impact... but they don't. This impeachment trial - just like the last one - is a waste of time. Both of them began with little prospect of fruition. The democratic party, apparently, doesn't care about wasting extraordinary amounts of taxpayer money and occupying the FBI and the senate for as long as possible in order to achieve their own personal selfish political agenda.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

i guess this is where i agree to disagree.

I suspect that you failed to respond to the same points when TLB made them (despite responding at length to easier targets) because you can't. I've noticed that you have a tendency to do this.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Something being sketchy is different from being “against the rules”.

It is less sketchy than Pelosi and the entire democratic party doing everything in their power to overthrow the results of a democratic election for 4 years.

I honestly don't see how it is sketchy at all. Why does Teddy's meeting with Trump's defence team concern you?

 

[JessFR]

The impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. Not saying the government can't do both to some extent, but this impeachment attempt is certainly occupying the senate during a crisis and both sides agree it's very likely to be unsuccessful and therefore a waste of time and resources (not to mention money) that could be better spent elsewhere.

I don't think it sets a dangerous precedent. But there may be some truth that it's a waste of time and resources.

It's unlikely to succeed, may make little practical difference if it does,and would be bound to provoke further division between right and left.

Id actually argue that this is probably the best argument against this impeachment.

 

[JessFR]

It is less sketchy than Pelosi and the entire democratic party doing everything in their power to overthrow the results of a democratic election for 4 years.

Wtf are you talking about?

Trump tried to steal the election when he lost. I don't remember the democrats ever trying to prevent trump taking office.

Trying to impeach him is well within their constitutional rights. There's absolutely no constitutional right for trump to be asking state officials to find him exactly enough votes to win, or to pressure his vice president to break the law and try and declare him the winner regardless of the electoral college result.

Suggesting that previous impeachment attempts, or investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, are in any way like what trump tried to pull in 2020 is complete crap. They're not remotely alike and it's highly disingenuous to suggest they are.

One is politics, the other is fucking treason.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

They're not remotely alike and it's highly disingenuous to suggest they are.

I didn't compare Trump's election denial with the democrats attempts to dethrone the president. I was comparing Ted Cruz meeting with Trump's defence team (which is allowed) with the democrats impeachment trials and collusion investigation (also allowed). The latter is sketchier. I don't see how the former is sketchy at all.

Having said all that, what did Trump actually do - in terms of trying to "steal the election" - that was unconstitutional? It seems to me that everything he did legally, he did through the proper channels.

Treason is a bit much.

If he was guilty of treason (which means there is sufficient evidence) the democrats would be impeaching him for treason. They aren't. They are impeaching him for incitement.

If there isn't sufficient evidence of treason, insisting that he is guilty of treason is like him insisting that he won an election that he cannot prove he won. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

 

[alasdairm]

I suspect that you failed to respond to the same points when TLB made them (despite responding at length to easier targets) because you can't.

assume whatever you like. i have over 60,000 posts on bluelight - to how many of them have you responded? less than 1%? do i assume that you have not responded to the other 99% because you can'?

no, because it's a ridiculous assumption.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

I didn't compare Trump's election denial with the democrats attempts to dethrone the president. I was comparing Ted Cruz meeting with Trump's defence team (which is allowed) with the democrats impeachment trials and collusion investigation (also allowed). The latter is sketchier. I don't see how the former is sketchy at all.

Having said all that, what did Trump actually do - in terms of trying to "steal the election" - that was unconstitutional? It seems to me that everything he did legally, he did through the proper channels.

I'm not saying he's guilty of the legal crime of treason I'm saying what he did was treason in the casual sense.

And are you kidding me?

We have phone calls of trump applying pressure to state officials asking them to find exactly the number of votes he needs to win, and implicitly threatening them if they don't do it. That's illegal., and it's treachery.

They are impeaching for the capital riot because it's the most dramatic, it's a political choice not one based on legal merits. The whole thing is a political exercise.

Nevertheless, the president pressuring state officials to "find" enough votes to change the outcome is illegal, and as he's the president it's outrageous. And I would call it treason against the United States.

I heard the phone call, trump asked them to find exactly the number of votes to change the result.

If you want a fair and honest election you don't ask for someone to find exactly the number of votes you need to win. It's a disgrace and it's appalling that anyone would vote for a president that does that.

Honestly... I think anyone that supports trump knowing he tried to cheat in the election to remain president, to a degree is betraying their country too if they're American. Again I'm not using treason as in the legal charge of treason, I mean the casual English meaning of knowingly betraying the interests and laws of a country you are expected to hold allegiance to.

 

[alasdairm]

I heard the phone call, trump asked them to find exactly the number of votes to change the result.

If you want a fair and honest election you don't ask for someone to find exactly the number of votes you need to win. It's a disgrace and it's appalling that anyone would vote for a president that does that.

i've been asking myself for 4 years, jess, is this going to be where they - his supporters - draw the line? surely this is too much?

was it when, on day one of his term, he set the tone for his entire administration with the insane lie about the size of the inauguration crowd? nah, ok with that.

was it when he called some white supremacists "very fine people"? nah, they're ok with that.

was it when he fired his acting ag for refusing to defend his muslim travel ban? nope.

was it when he encouraged police officers to treat suspects roughly? no, that's fine.

was it when he attacked respected war veteran john mccain as a loser? no. of course they support the military but that's is ok.

was it when he told a sherriff he wanted to "destroy the career" of a state senator who opposed asset forfeiture? no. that's great.

was it when he revealed classified information to the russion ambassador? no. just fine.

was it when he retweeted anit-islamic videos from the deputy leader of the far-right group britain first? no. and by the way, he's not racist.

was it when he referred to other countries as shitholes? nope.

was it when he separated migrant children and families? no, c'mon how bad can that be?

was it when he had his protection pepper spray peaceful protestors for a bible-wielding photo stunt? no, he's a good christian (5 children from 3 different marriages).

was it when he said it was ok to sexually assault women by grabbing them by the pussy? no, that's just fine.

was it when he mocked a disable reporter? no, they're fine with that too.

that's just a dozen things off the top of my head. there are so, so many more.

so now he's pressuring state officials to magically find just enough votes to have him win a state election he lost. nothing wrong with that.

well, i got the answer to my question.

for some, maybe many of his supporters, there is nothing he could say or do which they consider problematic.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

i've been asking myself for 4 years, jess, is this going to be where they -his supporters - draw the line? surely this is too much?

was it when, on day one of his term, he set the tone for his entire administration with the insane lie about the size of the inauguration crowd? nah, ok with that.

was it when he called some white supremacists "very fine people"? nah, they're ok with that.

was it when he fired his acting ag for refusing to defend his muslim travel ban? nope.

was it when he encouraged police officers to treat suspects roughly? no, that's fine.

was it when he attacked respected war veteran john mccain as a loser? no. of course they support the military but that's is ok.

was it when he told a sherriff he wanted to "destroy the career" of a state senator who opposed asset forfeiture? no. that's great.

was it when he revealed classified information to the russion ambassador? no. just fine.

was it when he retweeted anit-islamic videos from the deputy leader of the far-right group britain first? no. and by the way, he's not racist.

was it when he referred to other countries as shitholes? nope.

was it when he separated migrant children and families? no, c'mon how bad can that be?

was it when he had his protection pepper spray peaceful protestors for a bible-wielding photo stunt? no, he's a good christian (5 children from 3 different marriages).

was it when he said it was ok to sexually assault women by grabbing them by the pussy? no, that's just fine.

was it when he mocked a disable reporter? no, they're fine with that too.

that's just a dozen things off the top of my head. there are so, so many more.

so now he's pressuring state officials to magically find just enough votes to have him win a state election he lost. nothing wrong with that.

well, i got the answer to my question.

for some, maybe many of his supporters, there is nothing he could say or do which they consider problematic.

alasdair

The man is a traitor to his oath, to the office, to the entire country and is a national embarrassment and disgrace.

I've honesty never felt more embarrassed by having an American accent in Australia as I have since trumps been president.

When people ask what I think, all I can say is "yeah a lot of Americans are idiots what can I say?" and try and explain the electoral college and that "we" as a whole didn't vote for him.

Thank christ he wasn't reelected. I think I'd have just started saying that my accents Canadian.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

We have phone calls of trump applying pressure to state officials asking them to find exactly the number of votes he needs to win, and implicitly threatening them if they don't do it. That's illegal., and it's treachery.

What law is he breaking?

They are impeaching for the capital riot because it's the most dramatic, it's a political choice not one based on legal merits. The whole thing is a political exercise.

They are impeaching him for incitement because *maybe* he incited violence. They aren't impeaching him for treason, because - as you said - he's not guilty of treason. They don't chose the "most dramatic" thing to impeach him for. They chose based on what is more likely to convict. Incitement is flimsy but it's less flimsy than treason.

I would call it treason against the United States.

I honestly don't know what casual treason is other than your vague unsubstantiated opinion. It's either treason (legally) or it isn't. What you would call treason is inconsequential.

trump asked them to find exactly the number of votes to change the result.

He (and everyone else on the planet) is entitled to know the vote count. I'm honestly not sure I understand what you're trying to say here?

I haven't heard the conversation, but I'm sceptical considering how often Trump's words and actions get twisted around and turned into fake news.

I think anyone that supports trump knowing he tried to cheat

How did he cheat?

He contested the results of the election, conducted investigations and filed numerous lawsuits. None of that is cheating. Maybe he did cheat. I don't know. I stopped reading the news a couple of months ago. Can you fill me in?

i have over 60,000 posts on bluelight - to how many of them have you responded? less than 1%? do i assume that you have not responded to the other 99% because you can'?

I try to respond when comments are directed at me in debate. Sometimes, I'm sure I miss a post or two. But, I don't just say "agree to disagree" when I have no counter-argument. Everybody has different styles. You tend to not get locked in to over long back and forth discussions, and that's cool. Life is short. It just seems to me that you gravitate towards easy targets and away from more challenging debates. After TLB posted, you acknowledged the quality of his post but you didn't really respond to any of it. Perhaps I am mischaracterizing you. If so, I apologise. It's just an observation.

 

[cduggles]

Why does Teddy's meeting with Trump's defence team concern you?

I have a problem with Senators meeting with the former president’s impeachment trial lawyers because they will be the ones voting on whether or not Trump is convicted or acquitted. I would have the same problem with any Senator meeting with the House impeachment managers.
Also the Senators are doubtless privy to private conversations and thinking of other Senators and could share that knowledge to sway otherwise more impartial votes.
Just because it’s a political process doesn’t mean anything goes.