Miscellaneous Trump (9 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?

 

[Dragon]

Found an NPR article. The very first thing I noticed is that this event was supposed to be non-partisan and in celebration of America’s 250 year anniversary. It is taxpayer funded. Of course, Trump gave a completely deranged partisan speech where he said he thinks all Dems hate him, but that’s okay because he hates them too and he truly believes they want to destroy America. He also railed about “fake news” at least 7 times, which is a fascist tactic.

Okay, the NPR article didn’t go into the crazy assertion that Trump consented to a strike on an American base at all. So I read as much of the transcript as I could take.

The other thing he is going on about is that he is going to allow farmers to vouch for their farm workers who are undocumented and they will not be deported like everyone else. He really thinks this is just fine, that he can decide who leaves and who stays rather than the rule of law. He also says about it that his far right supporters (meaning white supremacists) won’t be happy about that, and he likes those supporters a lot.

These are on top of the run of the mill lies - he has eradicated inflation, there were zero illegal border crossing last month, gas and eggs are way down, tariffs have brought in something like $800M, which he still acts like that isn’t coming from us, but from foreign countries, oh and a general told him he is the best president ever including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Here is the link to the transcript.

Roll Call Factba.se - Speech: Donald Trump Delivers a Salute to America Speech in Des Moines, Iowa - July 3, 2025

Full transcript of Donald J. Trump: Speech: Donald Trump Delivers a Salute to America Speech in Des Moines, Iowa - July 3, 2025

rollcall.com

 

[MT15]

He repeated that story in Iowa then. Oh and claimed the economy added 800,000 jobs last month, and “illegals” lost 345,000 jobs.

 

[Dragon]

It’s in the official transcript. Along with a bunch of other crazy talk. I think maybe we need to start carrying these things live, so that people can see how deranged he is. As far as I can tell he’s gotten much worse than his first term.

Oh, and one thing I forgot - he says NYC will never have a communist mayor. By which he means Mamdani. He is planning to do something to him, I’m afraid.

He will probably try to rewoke his citizentship and deport him. He doesn't care one bit about the law and think that being president made him King

 

[Dragon]

He will probably try to rewoke his citizentship and deport him. He doesn't care one bit about the law and think that being president made him King

The problem with check and balances is that it only work if there is enought good (wo)men who actually DO SOMETHING

 

[SamAndreas]

Correct. They were well versed in English common law. They knew clearly that the Settlement Act of 1701 that specified that people appointed to offices of profit under the King, aka by the king, could not hold a seat in The House of Commons, an elected position. And the founders included that feature in the constitution.

My point flew over your head:

That point being that "plain meaning" is plain, unsifistacaded language, and any legal system needs the sophistication which extends well beyond plain meaning, or the 2nd amendment only insures that you have the right to bear arms, which I suppose in plain language means you can roll up your sleeves to bare your arms.

It might also mean you have a basic right to have arms.

I suppose with that, one could argue in court that you also have the right to have legs as well, because arms are kind of like legs. And if so, that would mean cut off shorts are also OK to wear as well. And that women can wear mini skirts.

 

[Sendai]

Firstly, no, that's simply false.

And, again, try to stop being so relentlessly dense.

The concept of an office of profit or trust is not dependent on it being appointed by a King. And in actual fact, offices of profit or trust did exist outside the King - as any office of profit, granted by a superior lord, such as an Earl for example, and typically held on condition of feudal homage. Hence why it specifies "under the King" in the 1701 act of settlement. As already said.

That's just as well for you, because by that 'logic' - i.e. the 'logic' you're trying to use here, that the meaning of an "office of profit or trust" is solely that which exists in the context of the 1701 act of settlement - not only would any office of profit or trust have to be appointed, it would have to be appointed specifically by the King. Doesn't really work in the US Constitution, that.

But that 'logic' is obviously, glaringly, wrong; the concept of an office of profit or trust exists outside the context of the 1701 act of settlement, can be an elected position, and obviously does not have to be appointed by a King, which we already know, because, again, we have founding fathers saying at the time that it applied to the President (which will remain true no matter how much you continue to ignore it), and because we have other examples showing that to be the case.

Even in the UK, the office of Prime Minister is an office of profit and both appointed by the King and elected, as the elected leader of the majority party, or largest party of a coalition, of government. (If you're wondering how that can be when the 1701 act of settlement says they can't be a member of the House of Commons, it's because - shockingly enough - it's not the 18th Century, laws have changed, and, once again for @Sendai, the definition of office of profit or trust was not fixed in all perpetuity by the context in which it was used in the 1701 act of settlement, because of course it wasn't, that's not how any of that works).

Have you finished embarrassing yourself yet?

In the constitution the congress legislatively created the offices of profit or trust and the president appoints, the senate confirms. And they are offices of profit or trust under the United States. Same concept. Parallels the offices of profit under the King. And they are all appointed.

And in the constitution those appointed by the president cannot be a representative or a senator. Just like the 1701 Act of Parliament.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

All those words and mental gymnastics — just to twist plain meaning...

It's clearly intentional on his part. It's clearly trolling which is a clear violation of the TOS.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

How did you miss the extraordinary influence of English common law on the constitution?

I didn't miss the influence. You're being false about it's actual influence. It influenced us to do some things very differently than the Manga Carta did.

When are you going to learn that I read people's sources, including yours? Here are some quotes from your own source that contradicts everything you are saying, bolding is mine for emphasis.

American diverged away from the English institutions like the Monarchy and Parliament. The founders diverged away from them, they did not seek to recreate them here in America.

"From the early eighteenth century (early 1700's) down to the present day American institutions have developed, in the main, along their own lines, largely upon the basis of English development in the seventeenth and earlier centuries, colonial development in the seventeenth century, and American political thought and constructive statesmanship of the eighteenth (1700's), nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.

This striking divergence of American from English institutions, dating from the early (early 1700's) eighteenth century, is in sharp contrast with the history of the law."​

Your own source says, the influence of English law on the founders most likely decreased with the Revolutionary War. Duh, you think?

"Throughout the eighteenth century, though perhaps less in the period of the Revolution, English Common Law continued to influence the development of colonial legislation and judicial decisions;..."​

​

You are right that the founders incorporated concepts of English Common Law into the Constitution laws, but you are completely wrong that copied English constitutional institutions into our Constitution. Everything you are wrongfully saying the founders were copying from the Brits are matters of constitutional institutions like the president, Congress and the courts.​

​

"So, too, in certain leading features of constitutional law—as distinct from constitutional institutions, such as the American system of three co-ordinate departments of government and the power of the judicature to declare an act of the legislature null and void because in conflict with the written constitution..."​

​

The founders of the American Constitution fought a war against the corruption allowed by England's constitutional institutions, so when they wrote our Constitution they wrote safeguards into our constitutional institutions to prevent corrupt profiteering from both elected and appointed offices.

If anyone tells you that the founders were okay with corrupt profiteering from elected and appointed offices, and that they wrote our Constitution in a way that allows corrupt profiteering from elected and appointed offices, then they are lying to you and they know they are lying to you.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It’s in the official transcript. Along with a bunch of other crazy talk. I think maybe we need to start carrying these things live, so that people can see how deranged he is. As far as I can tell he’s gotten much worse than his first term.

Oh, and one thing I forgot - he says NYC will never have a communist mayor. By which he means Mamdani. He is planning to do something to him, I’m afraid.

Absolute hubris and diminished mental capacity are a terrible combination.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The problem with check and balances is that it only work if there is enought good (wo)men who actually DO SOMETHING

A very important check and balance that good people need to do is to not give them or their supporters/enablers a platform to spread their intentional disinformation from. We need to stop letting people spread blatantly false information, because allowing the spread of blatantly false information undermines everything else we do.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

In the constitution the congress legislatively created the offices of profit or trust and the president appoints, the senate confirms. And they are offices of profit or trust under the United States. Same concept. Parallels the offices of profit under the King. And they are all appointed.

And in the constitution those appointed by the president cannot be a representative or a senator. Just like the 1701 Act of Parliament.

As I pointed out using this person's own source of information, all of the above is a lie.

The founders of the Constitution moved away from the institutions of England, like parliament and the monarchy. Our founders didn't want to allow the same corruption that England's institutions did. They didn't want anyone holding an elected or appointed office to profit off of their office.

In our Constitution, the founders of it structured our government institutions and the rules of those institutions in a way they thought would prevent any person elected or appointed to any office from profiting from their office. They didn't do enough to prevent, but they definitely didn't want it happening and tried to prevent it.

Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

 

[MT15]

More classy talk from our President. Deranged stuff.

'He wanted me in here': Trump calls Biden a 'son of a b----' in visit to 'Alligator Alcatraz' — USA TODAY

President Trump referred to Joe Biden as a "son of a b---" as he toured a detention facility in the Florida Everglades known as "Alligator Alcatraz."

apple.news

 

[Huntn]

Firstly, no, that's simply false.

And, again, try to stop being so relentlessly dense.

The concept of an office of profit or trust is not dependent on it being appointed by a King. And in actual fact, offices of profit or trust did exist outside the King - as any office of profit, granted by a superior lord, such as an Earl for example, and typically held on condition of feudal homage. Hence why it specifies "under the King" in the 1701 act of settlement. As already said.

That's just as well for you, because by that 'logic' - i.e. the 'logic' you're trying to use here, that the meaning of an "office of profit or trust" is solely that which exists in the context of the 1701 act of settlement - not only would any office of profit or trust have to be appointed, it would have to be appointed specifically by the King. Doesn't really work in the US Constitution, that.

But that 'logic' is obviously, glaringly, wrong; the concept of an office of profit or trust exists outside the context of the 1701 act of settlement, can be an elected position, and obviously does not have to be appointed by a King, which we already know, because, again, we have founding fathers saying at the time that it applied to the President (which will remain true no matter how much you continue to ignore it), and because we have other examples showing that to be the case.

Even in the UK, the office of Prime Minister is an office of profit and both appointed by the King and elected, as the elected leader of the majority party, or largest party of a coalition, of government. (If you're wondering how that can be when the 1701 act of settlement says they can't be a member of the House of Commons, it's because - shockingly enough - it's not the 18th Century, laws have changed, and, once again for @Sendai, the definition of office of profit or trust was not fixed in all perpetuity by the context in which it was used in the 1701 act of settlement, because of course it wasn't, that's not how any of that works).

Have you finished embarrassing yourself yet?

In other words @Sendai stop making excuses for despicable, inexcusable, and corrupt.

 

[Booker]

In other words @Sendai stop making excuses for despicable, inexcusable, and corrupt.

I’ve got a suspicion that “Send A.I.” is a bot programmed to be a contrarian Trump defender.

 

[SamAndreas]

I’ve got a suspicion that “Send A.I.” is a bot programmed to be a contrarian Trump defender.

Ha Ha, The first time I spoke with an AI we chatted for a while to set myself at ease and then I asked the really big one, I asked it Donald J Trump was an AI.

The AI knew I was joking with it, it replied Ha Ha, and then wrote a fun to read full page of romping about on that theme, at which point I realized that it used Hitchhiker's Guide to the universe as it's humor engine.

When I recognized that I asked the AI, (that was Grok), about that. It confirmed that was the case, but it added it was able to use other humours authors as it's humor engine as well.

I asked it to go more with Terry Pratchett when using humor was the correct response.

 

[MT15]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I’ve got a suspicion that “Send A.I.” is a bot programmed to be a contrarian Trump defender.

I believe A LOT of this board's members are nothing but "sock puppets". I find it very interesting that those members seem to be familiar with each other's participation on other forums.

 

[SamAndreas]

I believe A LOT of this board's members are nothing but "sock puppets". I find it very interesting that those members seem to be familiar with each other's participation on other forums.

DJ, Bird came here first, then I came here, and I brought another with me, she's since drifted off, then Tampa Joe came here, I've know all of those persons on another board, which while being a vigorous board 10 or so years ago with many members diminished down to just a handful.

I've known Bird and Joe for all of those 10 or so years. Keep in mind Joe and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum insofar as politics, but we're also friends with a long association behind us.

We're sure as hell not all "sock puppets." Nor are any of us hooked into a major conspiracy theory. Your theory is a mini conspiracy theory. My advice is knock that off before you become chemically addicted to conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are chemically addictive, they induce anger and anxiety, which involves a chemical release in you brain to cope with it, which one can become addicted to in the same way that working out excessively can addict a person to the brain chemicals endorphins and dopamine their body produce during times of stress.