Miscellaneous Trump (2 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?

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Alanis Morrissette wrote a song about this very nomination.

 

[SamAndreas]

Wow, wouldn't that be the name from hell to have during K through 12, "Stenchfield" would be a bully target for sure.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

LET'S CHECK IN WITH JAMES MADISON!

According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.​

​

On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States.​

​

- The Federalist Papers : No. 39​

Seems that Madison thought the President was an officer who was appointed by the people! But maybe he just didn't know the history. Surely no other framers were so ignorant as to think someone who holds the office of President might be an officer. Wait... what's that? It's ALEXANDER HAMILTON!

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years​

​

- The Federalist Papers : No. 69​

​

Oh. Well. That's pretty dang unambiguous.

So not Madison, not Hamilton, not Washington who as already mentioned referred to "the President and other public officers", and we've already covered - repeatedly - Edmund Randolph saying that the term "Office of Profit or Trust" did include the President such that the emoluments clause was "another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments".

Honestly, @Sendai, it's really starting to look like all these framers thought the Presidency was an office, and the President an officer, who was subject to the emoluments clause.

I predict crickets.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

As to #4 the constitution prohibits bribery. Washington accepted gifts.

What gifts, given by who, did he personally keep it, and sources? Otherwise, it's just more false statements from you.

And my discussion relates to emoluments and that those who claim the president doing business violates the emoluments clause.

You're lying about what people have claimed and you know you're lying about what people have claimed.

People have not said that the president can not do business while president. If I remember correctly, Jimmy Carter kept the family peanut farm while in office.

What people have shown to be true is that Trump is using his power as president to help his businesses and himself to profit directly from the use of his powers as president and some of that profit is coming from leaders of foreign governments. Trump is using his office to gain personal profit through his businesses and from leaders of foreign countries. That's at the very least a likely violation of the emoluments clause, if not a blatant violation.

Stop lying about what people have told you and stop lying about our constitution. You know you are lying and you either need to stop lying or stop posting here.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The presidency is an office. The president isn’t an officer. As Justice Roberts has stated officers are appointed, Congress, the President and Vice President are elected officials.

Since you have no issue saying things that are blatantly false. Quote Justice Roberts saying that the president is not an officer. Quote the decision, page number and paragraph number in which Roberts allegedly said that an "officer can only be appointed." See it can be true that some officers are appointed and some officers are elected.

If Roberts didn't say "officers can only be appointed" or that "the president is not an officer" then you are just being dishonest again. If you don't provide a decision reference to support your claim with both a page and a paragraph number in which you allege that Roberts said it, then you are being dishonest.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

All in deference to one man who has no business holding the office he currently holds. They twist themselves into knots to justify a crass conman who is fleecing all of us every day as he grabs more and more power for himself.

In my opinion, some are paid grifters working on Trump's behalf. The others are suffering from a psychological condition similar to Stockholm syndrome. Others have just been brainwashed by the cult. And a lot of them are just lonely, angry people who never learned how to get attention other than negative attention.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It is a long standing subject of debate

You already falsely claimed that the president is not considered an officer by Roberts and your falseness and wrongness was already exposed for it's falseness and wrongness below.

If you say it again after this. Then you are blatantly violating the TOS by trolling people by repeating things you know to be false.

Scalia said he was an officer. Roberts,Thomas,and Alito concurred.

What Justice Scalia Thought About Whether Presidents Are “Officers of the United States”

In a 2014 concurrence and a short letter elaborating on it, Scalia indicated that the president was an “officer of the United States.”

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I predict crickets.

They won't respond to RobF or Faceman proving that Sendai is repeating what he knows is false, but there's no way Sendai won't repeat the lie again and again, knowing full well they're lying every time.

 

[J-DONK]

They won't respond to RobF or Faceman proving they're telling a lie, but there's no way the won't repeat the lie again and again, knowing full well they're lying every time.

You are wildy overestimating the ability to take in new information, and change opinions based on that information. This is not the first time Sendai has tried to tell us the president isn't an officer. He "lost" that discussion last time as well, as Robf mentioned.

Most people on this forum probably would go silent, and change their opinion, even if slowly over time. You won't ever see that with the MAGA crowd. It really is a cult. Sendai can't have an opinion on a topic that would cast Trump in such a negative way. It's the most pathetic behavior ever.

 

[SamAndreas]

Alanis Morrissette wrote a song about this very nomination.

Was it this song?



An interesting thing, I told Gemini the AI at Google, Alanis Morrissette wrote a song about Trump's peace prize nomination.

I've been having better luck Making statements to AI's than asking them questions, I don't know why, but it works better. Gemini said it was unlikely that she had written such a song. When I looked at the links the AI used I found this song linked, not once, but twice.

It seemed possible that it's like Ai-dian slip, so that's why I'm asking. I'm trying to figure out the in's and out's and quirks of using AI's. It's fun.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

You are wildy overestimating the ability to take in new information, and change opinions based on that information. This is not the first time Sendai has tried to tell us the president isn't an officer. He "lost" that discussion last time as well, as Robf mentioned.

Most people on this forum probably would go silent, and change their opinion, even if slowly over time. You won't ever see that with the MAGA crowd. It really is a cult. Sendai can't have an opinion on a topic that would cast Trump in such a negative way. It's the most pathetic behavior ever.

I think the way I worded my post was confusing, because I was saying basically what you're saying. I edited it to make it more clear.

 

[Sendai]

I predict crickets.

“
Finally, Blackman and Tillman tentatively conclude: “[W]e do not think linguistic drift occurred with respect to the phrase ‘officer of the United States’ ” between the founding in 1788 and the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.39 They cabin this conclusion carefully, noting repeatedly that this conclusion was based on the lack of “direct, clear, or compelling evidence.”40 They cite two cases—United States v. Mouat(1888) and United States v. Hartwell (1867)—as evidence.41They also cite to statements from two individuals who viewed the President as not an officer of the United States:

In 1876, the House of Representatives impeached Secretary of War William Belknap. During the trial, Senator Newton Booth from California observed, “the President is not an officer of the United States.” Instead, Booth stated, the President is “part of the Government.”

Two years later, David McKnight wrote an influential treatise on the American electoral system. He reached a similar conclusion. McKnight wrote that “t is obvious that . . . the President is not regarded as ‘an officer of, or under, the United States,’ but as one branch of ‘the Government.’ ”42”

Evidence that the President Is an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – Southern California Law Review

AUTHORS’ NOTE This Article was written during the weeks before certiorari was sought in Trump v. Anderson in the aftermath of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot. An initial draft was uploaded to SSRN on Jan. 1...

southerncalifornialawreview.com

As previously stated, this is a subject of long, long standing debate.

 

[Dragon]

“
Finally, Blackman and Tillman tentatively conclude: “[W]e do not think linguistic drift occurred with respect to the phrase ‘officer of the United States’ ” between the founding in 1788 and the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.39 They cabin this conclusion carefully, noting repeatedly that this conclusion was based on the lack of “direct, clear, or compelling evidence.”40 They cite two cases—United States v. Mouat(1888) and United States v. Hartwell (1867)—as evidence.41They also cite to statements from two individuals who viewed the President as not an officer of the United States:

In 1876, the House of Representatives impeached Secretary of War William Belknap. During the trial, Senator Newton Booth from California observed, “the President is not an officer of the United States.” Instead, Booth stated, the President is “part of the Government.”

Two years later, David McKnight wrote an influential treatise on the American electoral system. He reached a similar conclusion. McKnight wrote that “t is obvious that . . . the President is not regarded as ‘an officer of, or under, the United States,’ but as one branch of ‘the Government.’ ”42”

Evidence that the President Is an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – Southern California Law Review

AUTHORS’ NOTE This Article was written during the weeks before certiorari was sought in Trump v. Anderson in the aftermath of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot. An initial draft was uploaded to SSRN on Jan. 1...

southerncalifornialawreview.com

As previously stated, this is a subject of long, long standing debate.

So you have to go 150 years back and find comments from an unrelated trial to try to justify Trumps flagrant corruption? Why are you even trying to justify Trumps corruption in the first place astounds me most of all? Especially given all your comments on Hunter Biden - who never held a public office!

 

[Huntn]

I don't think it's a bot, but I do think they are using some chat AI for their fact finding. Chat AI's are not a reliable source of facts and it's a mistake to believe anything that they write is true.

I think what Sendai is doing is running to a chat AI and asking "give me an article that supports Trump's corruption and unconstitutional acts as not be corrupt or unconstitutional and give me a brief summary of how that article supports that." Then they copy the summary and article link from the AI response and post it here, without ever reading the article for themself.

I say that, because every source they've cited as supporting his Trump excusing falsehoods actually contradicts the false excuses they make up. Their articles always contradict the false excuses they make for Trump. My guess is they are using Grok, because Grok is wrong on facts about 94% of the time which damn near being wrong all the time.

Maybe he’s using Parrot Trump AI?

 

[Huntn]

They are not christians in any sense of that word, I am however and I hope that they will see the errors of their ways and repent before it is too late, Such hate will destroy their very soul and I do not wish that for anyone - even hatefull biggots like them.

A fore lorn hope…

 

[Huntn]

Not often enough unfortunately. "Christianity" sure seem to have taken a long step away from the actual teachings of Jesus in many religious circles in the US. They seem so focused on the old testament that they have completely forgotten what Jesus actually said and did. As I had said before - if Jesus came back today as a dark skinned middle eastern man and preached what he did then - they would throw him in the Florida concentration camp within a day!

Which illustrates that Jesus is a white washed fantasy…

 

[Huntn]

Outside of their own child coming out or being visited by three ghosts how often does that really happen for people with that kind of hate in their hearts?

They’d just as likely toss their child to the wolves in rage, shame and embarrassment.