Miscellaneous Trump (6 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[TampaJoe]

You continue to make unsupported claims, even after clear facts have been presented. Let's break it down:

1. Hunter Biden was a successful corporate lawyer with extensive international experience.
2. His compensation from Burisma was in line with what board members with similar credentials typically receive.
3. There is no evidence—none—that Joe Biden acted improperly or was influenced in any way by his son’s position. Joe Biden, at the time, was delivering a policy message that was backed not just by the U.S., but also by the EU and IMF, calling for the dismissal of a widely criticized Ukrainian prosecutor.

And yet, despite having zero proof, you continue to repeat the claim that Hunter was only hired because of his last name. That’s not an argument—it’s a talking point lacking substance or factual grounding.

At some point, willful ignorance becomes dishonesty. People here see through this bothsides narrative, and it’s not convincing anyone. Facts matter—even when they’re inconvenient to your preferred storyline.

Do you even understand what is meant by a “conflict of interest”. I don’t give a crap about Hunters qualifications or whether he was a government employee. The fact that he was the son of the VP who was making policy in Ukraine created the conflict. You wouldn’t know a potential conflict of interest if it bit you on the arse. That IS willful ignorance on your part. You demonstrate it post after post. So yes there was an obvious conflict of interest.

There is an obvious conflict of interest with Trump. There is a potential conflict of interest with Thomas as far as Harlan Crowe is concerned and a real conflict on interest with Thomas as far as cases where his wife is indirectly involved.

This is exactly why I don’t trust folks like you who claim Democrats would police their own. You are full of excuses and you can’t recognize potential conflicts of interest when they are starring you in the face. That why this won’t change. You have no standard that you are willing to hold when it comes to your party. You will just make the same excuses that your criticize the GOP for making.

 

[DaveXA]

Do you even understand what is meant by a “conflict of interest”. I don’t give a crap about Hunters qualifications or whether he was a government employee. The fact that he was the son of the VP who was making policy in Ukraine created the conflict. You wouldn’t know a potential conflict of interest if it bit you on the arse. That IS willful ignorance on your part. You demonstrate it post after post. So yes there was an obvious conflict of interest.

There is an obvious conflict of interest with Trump. There is a potential conflict of interest with Thomas as far as Harlan Crowe is concerned and a real conflict on interest with Thomas as far as cases where his wife is indirectly involved.

This is exactly why I don’t trust folks like you who claim Democrats would police their own. You are full of excuses and you can’t recognize potential conflicts of interest when they are starring you in the face. That why this won’t change. You have no standard that you are willing to hold when it comes to your party. You will just make the same excuses that your criticize the GOP for making.

I'll say it...both sides! The lengths you go to equivocate two obviously different scenarios is absurd. I don't understand why you're incapable of simply calling out Trump without bringing anything else up. It just sounds like you're trying to make excuses rather than hold him accountable.

 

[TampaJoe]

I'll say it...both sides! The lengths you go to equivocate two obviously different scenarios is absurd. I don't understand why you're incapable of simply calling out Trump without bringing anything else up. It just sounds like you're trying to make excuses rather than hold him accountable.

You seem like a smart man. There is a line. You either cross it or you don’t. There is no equivocation. You either have a conflict of interest or you don’t. How easy would it be for you to say

We should have high standards for public officials and if we can agree to those standards, I pledge to hold myself and anyone and everyone to those same high standards without excuse and without fear or favor or equivocation.

But you won’t or can’t simply say that. Neither will your elected representative. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Dragon]

Do you even understand what is meant by a “conflict of interest”. I don’t give a crap about Hunters qualifications or whether he was a government employee. The fact that he was the son of the VP who was making policy in Ukraine created the conflict. You wouldn’t know a potential conflict of interest if it bit you on the arse. That IS willful ignorance on your part. You demonstrate it post after post. So yes there was an obvious conflict of interest.

There is an obvious conflict of interest with Trump. There is a potential conflict of interest with Thomas as far as Harlan Crowe is concerned and a real conflict on interest with Thomas as far as cases where his wife is indirectly involved.

This is exactly why I don’t trust folks like you who claim Democrats would police their own. You are full of excuses and you can’t recognize potential conflicts of interest when they are starring you in the face. That why this won’t change. You have no standard that you are willing to hold when it comes to your party. You will just make the same excuses that your criticize the GOP for making.

Except Joe Biden was NOT making policy in Ukraine. He was a messenger forwarding the position of the US government and EU, making sure that a corrupt procecutor who did not want to procecute crimes were fired...

 

[DaveXA]

You seem like a smart man. There is a line. You either cross it or you don’t. There is no equivocation. You either have a conflict of interest or you don’t. How easy would it be for you to say

Making no distinction between murder and theft is silly. Which is essentially what you're doing here. And there's no evidence of actual conflict of interest on the part of Joe with Hunter. It's been pointed out numerous times and you've yet to refute that. Yet Trump is openly admitting it and yet excuses continue.

We should have high standards for public officials and if we can agree to those standards, I pledge to hold myself and anyone and everyone to those same high standards without excuse and without fear or favor or equivocation.

You're preaching to the choir. I've called out numerous politicians, both Democrats and Republicans for their reprehensible behavior. Interesting that Democrats have held several of their own accountable. Have the Republicans done the same?

But you won’t or can’t simply say that.

I have and more than a few times.

Neither will your elected representative. Therein lies the problem.

Who are my elected Reps?

 

[coldseat]

You seem like a smart man. There is a line. You either cross it or you don’t. There is no equivocation. You either have a conflict of interest or you don’t. How easy would it be for you to say

We should have high standards for public officials and if we can agree to those standards, I pledge to hold myself and anyone and everyone to those same high standards without excuse and without fear or favor or equivocation.

But you won’t or can’t simply say that. Neither will your elected representative. Therein lies the problem.

What TampJoe is auguring for is that if we don't live in a perfect polyynic society where every possible conflict of interest of Joe Biden or Democrats, err both sides, isn't avoided and/or prosecuted to fullest extent of the law (even when there isn't any supporting evidence for prosecution), then nobody (i.e. Republican's) can be held to any possible standard of conflict of interest. Much less prosecuted for rank corruption (like Trump is currently doing). We just need things to be fair and equal for BOTH SIDES.

I hope that was helpful to clear things up for all so that you all don't keep piling on TampaJoe.

 

[TampaJoe]

What TampJoe is auguring for is that if we don't live in a perfect polyynic society where every possible conflict of interest of Joe Biden or Democrats, err both sides, isn't avoided and/or prosecuted to fullest extent of the law (even when there isn't any supporting evidence for prosecution), then nobody (i.e. Republican's) can be held to any possible standard of conflict of interest. Much less prosecuted for rank corruption (like Trump is currently doing). We just need things to be fair and equal for BOTH SIDES.

I hope that was helpful to clear things up for all so that you all don't keep piling on TampaJoe.

What I said is that don’t ask me to live by a standard you aren’t willing to live by. It is really that simple.

 

[DaveXA]

What I said is that don’t ask me to live by a standard you aren’t willing to live by. It is really that simple.

Nowhere did he indicate he wasn't willing to live by a standard we agree we should live by. Maybe follow your own advice?

 

[coldseat]

What I said is that don’t ask me to live by a standard you aren’t willing to live by. It is really that simple.

So by your standard, since some murderer somewhere got away with murder (because either they weren't prosecuted or just got away with it), then it's okay for you to commit murder.

Also, what do you mean by "you aren't willing to live by"? Did anybody here indicate they weren't willing to live by a standard for conflict of interest or apply it evenly? I have to be aware of conflict of interest in my profession. I'm assuming many of us do, so we're obviously living by a standard for it.

 

[TampaJoe]

Nowhere did he indicate he wasn't willing to live by a standard we agree we should live by. Maybe follow your own advice?

So tell me Dave, what is the ethical standard we should apply to public servants like judges, legislators, cabinet secretaries, President and Vice President. I have asked what the standard should be. Only one person has answered. Haven’t heard from you.

 

[TampaJoe]

So by your standard, since some murderer somewhere got away with murder (because either they weren't prosecuted or just got away with it), then it's okay for you to commit murder.

Also, what do you mean by "you aren't willing to live by"? Did anybody here indicate they weren't willing to live by a standard for conflict of interest or apply it evenly? I have to be aware of conflict of interest in my profession. I'm assuming many of us do, so we're obviously living by a standard for it.

Not what I said. But all murders should be fully and professionally investigated. That IS what I’m saying. No excuses. No equivocation.

 

[Incumbent]

Not what I said. But all murders should be fully and professionally investigated. That IS what I’m saying. No excuses. No equivocation.

You're hung up on this point when nobody in this conversation is saying certain people should be able to get away with corruption while others shouldn't. You might believe that is happening but it isn't.

We all want a government free of corruption. Corruption doesn't benefit us. Nobody here is arguing for more corruption when certain conditions are met. You're arguing a point nobody else is arguing.

But...and this has been said over and over and over, the corruption that Trump is engaging in far exceeds anything we've seen before. If you can't see the significance of that, then I'm not sure you really care about corruption as much as you want people to believe you do.

 

[DaveXA]

So tell me Dave, what is the ethical standard we should apply to public servants like judges, legislators, cabinet secretaries, President and Vice President. I have asked what the standard should be. Only one person has answered. Haven’t heard from you.

You know, the law (both local and federal)? I mean, that's the minimum standard. And there's also ethics rules which federal employees are bound by. And a lot of that is pretty basic stuff. And to be clear, there are different ethics rules for different positions because they don't all deal with the same subject matter.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No. Not really. We aren’t speaking of comparing felonies to misdemeanor theft. We are talking about potential corruption and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of government. The fact you can’t understand speaks volumes.

So you admit that there are degrees of magnitude and severity when it comes to crimes. Good to know.

 

[coldseat]

Not what I said. But all murders should be fully and professionally investigated. That IS what I’m saying. No excuses. No equivocation.

You argument makes no sense in the context of this conversation because Biden, Hunter and that family was investigated to the inth degree. They just couldn't establish any prosecutable crimes other than the weak gun and tax charges on Hunter.

That only makes sense if you're pissed because Trump and his family have escaped any scrutiny for their rank, open air corruption.

 

[TampaJoe]

So you admit that there are degrees of magnitude and severity when it comes to crimes. Good to know.

I never said differently. But conflicts of interest and influence peddling at the highest levels of government isn’t stealing apples off the apple cart. It is no excuse able IMV to ignore such allegations. They should be thoroughly and professionally investigated whether the accused is a legislator, or a cabinet secretary or a judge or POTUS or VPOTUS regardless of party. No excuses. No equivocation. No running around whining about witch hunts. You cross that line, you should expect to be investigated. Period. Full Stop.

When you are a public servants, you commit to serving the public first and foremost. No self dealing. Most of us would get fired for that. We shouldn’t expect less of “public” servants.

YMMV

 

[TampaJoe]

You know, the law (both local and federal)? I mean, that's the minimum standard. And there's also ethics rules which federal employees are bound by. And a lot of that is pretty basic stuff. And to be clear, there are different ethics rules for different positions because they don't all deal with the same subject matter.

I can live with that as long as breaches are quickly, professionally and independently investigated and dealt with on a consistent basis. No excuses. No equivocation. No exceptions.

That is the only way we will “drain the swamp”.

IMO

 

[TampaJoe]

You argument makes no sense in the context of this conversation because Biden, Hunter and that family was investigated to the inth degree. They just couldn't establish any prosecutable crimes other than the weak gun and tax charges on Hunter.

That only makes sense if you're pissed because Trump and his family have escaped any scrutiny for their rank, open air corruption.

Congressional investigations are not the same. We both know that. Democrats insisted on special prosecutors for Trump. There is a reason for that. You can stonewall the Congress or avoid the investigation completely depending on whom controls. And as has been said many, many times, you cannot expect the administration to investigate itself.

Charges lapsed on Hunter due to interference. It took whistleblowers to get anyone to move on that. The investigation was still limited by the DOJ to only certain accounts. Investigations have to be allowed to follow leads wherever they may lead.