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?

 

[Sendai]

Yet this interpretation is directly contradicted by the words of the Founding Fathers.

Once again, you keep posting the opinions of people who didn't write the thing as though they negate the words of the people who did write the thing.

Early on the Senate took up the question of whether Senators were officers of the United States and they engaged in debate. They determined they were not officers of the United States. That is also in the “Commentaries on the Constitution “.

It is a long standing subject of debate.

 

[Sendai]

Yet this interpretation is directly contradicted by the words of the Founding Fathers.

Once again, you keep posting the opinions of people who didn't write the thing as though they negate the words of the people who did write the thing.

Obviously not the opinion of all the founding fathers.

A long standing subject of debate.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Early on the Senate took up the question of whether Senators were officers of the United States and they engaged in debate. They determined they were not officers of the United States. That is also in the “Commentaries on the Constitution “.

It is a long standing subject of debate.

Fun fact: senators are not the president, and the president is not a senator. Therefore, whether or not a senator is an officer is completely irrelevant.

Obviously not the opinion of all the founding fathers.

A long standing subject of debate.

You keep making assertions and providing the opinions of others, but none of that actually rebuts the views shared earlier (Madison, Hamilton, Washington). The people responsible for drafting the Constitution understood the president to be an officer of the United States. How does the opinion of people who came later negate that?

 

[Huntn]

From Mastodon:
If you are a supporter of MAGA and can recognize this as truth, where do you go from here? Have another swig of Koolaid!

 

[faceman]

Yet this interpretation is directly contradicted by the words of the Founding Fathers.

Once again, you keep posting the opinions of people who didn't write the thing as though they negate the words of the people who did write the thing.

Fun fact: senators are not the president, and the president is not a senator. Therefore, whether or not a senator is an officer is completely irrelevant.



You keep making assertions and providing the opinions of others, but none of that actually rebuts the views shared earlier (Madison, Hamilton, Washington). The people responsible for drafting the Constitution understood the president to be an officer of the United States. How does the opinion of people who came later negate that?

senators were also appointed by their state legislature until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1912. They were not always
an elected official

 

[TampaJoe]

Early on the Senate took up the question of whether Senators were officers of the United States and they engaged in debate. They determined they were not officers of the United States. That is also in the “Commentaries on the Constitution “.

It is a long standing subject of debate.

I view POTUS, VPOTUS and cabinet secretaries as officers. Whether elected or not, they are executive officers.

Members of Congress are more like members of the board of directors. They don’t run anything. They don’t manage anything. They make policy and have oversight over the executive branch.

Whether that dovetails with the Constitution can be debated I suppose. The relevant point to me is that all of the above have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the United States and its citizens. The point of the emoluments clause in my view was to prevent actual and potential conflicts of interest. It has failed miserably.

 

[Huntn]

Obviously not the opinion of all the founding fathers.

A long standing subject of debate.

What the Founding Fathers intended always has held a high bar among constitutional authorities. I’ll propose the FFs would not approve of the Trump Administration by passing the courts to kidnap people, rob them of their guaranteed Due Process, to have their civil rights expeditiously canceled, sending them to foreign prisons…thoughts? My thought is this is criminal.

 

[Sendai]

I view POTUS, VPOTUS and cabinet secretaries as officers. Whether elected or not, they are executive officers.

Members of Congress are more like members of the board of directors. They don’t run anything. They don’t manage anything. They make policy and have oversight over the executive branch.

Whether that dovetails with the Constitution can be debated I suppose. The relevant point to me is that all of the above have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the United States and its citizens. The point of the emoluments clause in my view was to prevent actual and potential conflicts of interest. It has failed miserably.

As I said, it’s been a long standing subject of debate. Likely to continue into the future.

 

[MT15]

As I said, it’s been a long standing subject of debate. Likely to continue into the future.

It’s not a debate currently except for people who want to excuse the naked corruption of Trump. Until Trump we held our presidents to a higher standard, but the modern GOP has thrown it all out the window.

 

[TampaJoe]

It’s not a debate currently except for people who want to excuse the naked corruption of Trump. Until Trump we held our presidents to a higher standard, but the modern GOP has thrown it all out the window.

The standard as you describe it has been steadily declining for decades and hasn’t been limited to POTUS. Trump has just taken it to the extreme.

I’m not 100 percent sure what was on the mind of the Founders when they drafted the emoluments clause. All I know is that it has proven to be ineffective and to my knowledge has never been enforced.

Our government is full of self dealing and corruption in every branch.

 

[MT15]

The standard as you describe it has been steadily declining for decades and hasn’t been limited to POTUS. Trump has just taken it to the extreme.

I’m not 100 percent sure what was on the mind of the Founders when they drafted the emoluments clause. All I know is that it has proven to be ineffective and to my knowledge has never been enforced.

Our government is full of self dealing and corruption in every branch.

Let’s limit it to POTUS. There’s nothing remotely comparable to Trump, at least in my lifetime. Nothing even comes close. He’s the dirtiest politician in multiple lifetimes.

Not only is he completely corrupt, this time he has surrounded himself with a cabinet truly as devoid of ethics as he is. His first term he at least started with some good cabinet members. This time it’s crooks and sociopaths all the way down.

 

[Sendai]

Let’s limit it to POTUS. There’s nothing remotely comparable to Trump, at least in my lifetime. Nothing even comes close. He’s the dirtiest politician in multiple lifetimes.

Not only is he completely corrupt, this time he has surrounded himself with a cabinet truly as devoid of ethics as he is. His first term he at least started with some good cabinet members. This time it’s crooks and sociopaths all the way down.

LBJ. He just hid it.

 

[Sendai]

The standard as you describe it has been steadily declining for decades and hasn’t been limited to POTUS. Trump has just taken it to the extreme.

I’m not 100 percent sure what was on the mind of the Founders when they drafted the emoluments clause. All I know is that it has proven to be ineffective and to my knowledge has never been enforced.

Our government is full of self dealing and corruption in every branch.

Actually it’s been very effective with the offices of profit or trust.

 

[SamAndreas]

LBJ. He just hid it.

GHB and GWB, they just hid it.

 

[Sendai]

It’s not a debate currently except for people who want to excuse the naked corruption of Trump. Until Trump we held our presidents to a higher standard, but the modern GOP has thrown it all out the window.

It was a discussion topic when I was in high school and college.

 

[Sendai]

GHB and GWB, they just hid it.

We forgot Hoover.

 

[SamAndreas]

It was a discussion topic when I was in high school and college.

Let's see you're 74 now, that would have been when Nixon was president.

 

[MT15]

LBJ. He just hid it.

LBJ never ran a hotel in DC where foreign governments understood if they rented entire floors of rooms they would get more attention from him. He never sold cheap Chinese goods at ridiculous markups to take advantage of his position. He never ran crypto schemes where foreign governments can curry favor by spending millions of dollars and there is no transparency.

LBJ never undercut the security of our elections with lies about voter fraud. He never sent a mob to break into the Capitol and trash it while threatening lawmakers.

I don’t know why you would even attempt to defend Trump here.