Miscellaneous Trump (3 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
    Huntn

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    938
    Reaction score
    985
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline

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

    www.yahoo.com

    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 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?
     
    DaveXA said:
    Doesn’t make it ok though.
    Click to expand...

    TampaJoe said:
    That would be incredibly ironic if Congress (many of whom profit greatly from their positions) passed legislation banning such activity expecting it to be signed by chief executives who also profit from their positions.

    You are 100 percent correct. It is all corrupt and unethical. That said, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on legislation. If it hasn’t happened by now, it won’t happen.
    Click to expand...
    Nothing Sendai says can be accepted as truth, because almost everything he says is false or a deceptive partial truth.

    It's false that our founders directly profitted off of their elected positions or that they thought it was okay.

    The founders wrote the emoluments clause and other provisions to limit directly profiting from elected office. The problem is not with the founders, it's with the jackholes who have been eroding our constitution.
     
    MT15 said:
    Please explain what you think of the hawking of various cheap goods trading on Trump’s name? As well as the blatantly corrupt selling of meme coins - where foreign governments can invest in Trump in an undetected manner. I could actually go on a while here.

    Are you suggesting the situation with Trump bears any resemblance to the business dealings of the Founders?

    Is there any corruption you won’t defend? (that’s a rhetorical question).
    Click to expand...
    Not defending it, it’s rather pathetic, but it’s simply not illegal. Just as it wasn’t illegal for the founders.
     
    LA 2 L.A. said:
    Nothing Sendai says can be accepted as truth, because almost everything he says is false or a deceptive partial truth.

    It's false that our founders directly profitted off of their elected positions or that they thought it was okay.

    The founders wrote the emoluments clause and other provisions to limit directly profiting from elected office. The problem is not with the founders, it's with the jackholes who have been eroding our constitution.
    Click to expand...
    The emoluments clause is written specifically to apply to the holders of “offices of profit or trust “ and they are appointed offices not elected.

    From the constitution

    “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”.

    The framers distinguished senators and representatives from offices of trust or profit, so clearly they are not elected offices.

    And there is the long history in Europe that offices of profit or trust were appointed which the framers were well aware.
     
    Sendai still hasn't even made an effort to backup his false claim that the founders directly profited, outside of government paid wages, from their elected positions. He hasn't made an effort to provide any credible support that they profited and how they profited. I told if he made no effort to back those false claims up, I'd have to assume he was being dishonest and deceptive. Here we are.

    Sendai said:
    The emoluments clause...
    Click to expand...

    The founders wrote protections against self-enrichment corruption for both the president and members of Congress into the constitution. They thought they had it covered but corrupt jackholes have eroded those safeguards. That's why bribery is an impeachable and removable offense for everyone. If the founding fathers were cool with profiting directly off of their elected office, they would have been cool with bribery.

    The founders didn't want any elected official to have the power to infringe on people's liberties and they didn't want them to be able to use their position for corrupt profiteering, you know, the things that the monarchy of Great Britain was notorious for and that we fought to get out from under.


    ​
     
    Sendai said:
    Just as it wasn’t illegal for the founders.
    Click to expand...
    You keep repeating that lie. I challenge you for a second time to provide credible sources that back up your false assertion that the founders directly profited from their elected positions and how exactly they directly profited. You haven't made any attempt to meet that challenge and you haven't even acknowledged that challenge.

    The founders made if very clear in the constitution that they weren't okay with directly profiting from their elected positions by making bribery an impeachable and removable offense. You split hairs all you want over the term "illegal," but the founders made if very clear in the constitution they were not okay with anyone directly profiting from their elected office.

    Prove me wrong, bruv, and no, just repeating yourself is not proof of anything, other than maybe dishonesty and trolling.
     
    LA 2 L.A. said:
    You keep repeating that lie. I challenge you for a second time to provide credible sources that back up your false assertion that the founders directly profited from their elected positions and how exactly they directly profited. You haven't made any attempt to meet that challenge and you haven't even acknowledged that challenge.

    The founders made if very clear in the constitution that they weren't okay with directly profiting from their elected positions by making bribery an impeachable and removable offense. You split hairs all you want over the term "illegal," but the founders made if very clear in the constitution they were not okay with anyone directly profiting from their elected office.

    Prove me wrong, bruv, and no, just repeating yourself is not proof of anything, other than maybe dishonesty and trolling.
    Click to expand...
    I didn’t say they directly profited from their elected positions. But They surely engaged in business. Washington distilled and sold whiskey.
     
    Sendai said:
    I didn’t say they directly profited from their elected positions.
    Click to expand...
    Trump using the official office and powers of the presidency for personal profit was what was being discussed when you chimed in to falsely say that the founders did it too.

    Sendai said:
    But They surely engaged in business. Washington distilled and sold whiskey.
    Click to expand...
    Finally, some truth you are speaking.

    Washington didn't use any of his powers of office to boost his whiskey sells business. Trump is using his powers of office to boost his profits. Two very different things and the founders didn't do what Trump's doing and they were very much against what Trump is doing. You knew your statement was deceptively false when you made it.
     
    Last edited:
    MT15 said:
    No, that is literally what you said. Literally.
    Click to expand...
    Thank you for catching and pointing out Sendai's blatant dishonesty.

    Why do people always have to be deceptive to defend and justify Trump's actions? Every single one of them, every single time.
     
    Last edited:
    LA 2 L.A. said:
    Thank you for catching and pointing out Sendai's blatant dishonesty.

    Why do people always have to be deceptive to defend and justify Trump's actions? Every single one of them, every single time.
    Click to expand...
    LA the nut doesn't fall very far from the tree.

    Trump is deceptive, and he's "daddy," so they're deceptive. I think they get high fives from the other MAGA's for being deceptive like Trump.


    Once in a while folks need a breather on a political board, a distraction, Today is one of those days. This is 60's political humor. Vaughn Meader became famous for his impersonations of John F Kennedy when he was President. When that bullet killed Kennedy, it also killed Meader's fame and fortune. This was his attempt to get his act together so to speak. His skits are very political, some of them are even political today, most of them. This was a 33 rpm record we had at home when I was about 10 years old.

     
    Sendai said:
    The emoluments clause is written specifically to apply to the holders of “offices of profit or trust “ and they are appointed offices not elected.

    From the constitution

    “but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”.

    The framers distinguished senators and representatives from offices of trust or profit, so clearly they are not elected offices.

    And there is the long history in Europe that offices of profit or trust were appointed which the framers were well aware.
    Click to expand...
    Oh no, not again.

    Reminder that @Sendai keeps pushing this line, and in pursuing this particularly bad argument, has previously found themself dumping an entire copy and paste of a website about offices of profit in India - where the Presidency is an office of profit - supposedly solely for the line "The office of profit concept has been adopted from the British Parliamentary model. This concept is based on similar lines with the English Act of Settlement 1701."

    This is because they think, apparently, that when the founders said "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" they didn't mean the President, even though founding father Edmund Randolph explicitly said, ""There is another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments... By the ninth section of the first article "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatsoever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people.""

    Which shouldn't even need to be said because it's forking obvious that the founders would not have been down with foreign Kings bribing the President.

    When we got down to it, @Sendai's argument came down to: The Founders intended the President to be able to accept bribes from Kings, because in 18th Century England they passed a law to stop the King bribing members of Parliament by giving them offices or places of profit. Which is obviously a terrible argument when stated - accurately - like that.

    And now they're going for, "there's a line that refers to senators and representatives specifically in addition to persons holding an office of trust or profit, therefore offices of trust and profit can't be elected." That's not how any of that works! It wouldn't even exclude senators and representatives from holding offices of profit or trust! It's not inherently exclusive! "Ohhh, but if Senators and Representatives are also people holding an office of trust or profit, then those parts would be superfluous," yes! It can be superfluous! There's literally no requirement for it not to be! Why would you think there is? And it doesn't define other offices of trust or profit at all, so it can't possibly be defining them as "not elected"!

    All we can conclude from this is that @Sendai is both really bad at this, and, at this point, it's safe to conclude that @Sendai is also really bad at being aware of how bad they are at this.
     
    Last edited:
    RobF said:
    Oh no, not again.

    Reminder that @Sendai keeps pushing this line, and in pursuing this particularly bad argument, has previously found themself dumping an entire copy and paste of a website about offices of profit in India - where the Presidency is an office of profit - supposedly solely for the line "The office of profit concept has been adopted from the British Parliamentary model. This concept is based on similar lines with the English Act of Settlement 1701."

    This is because they think, apparently, that when the founders said "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" they didn't mean the President, even though founding father Edmund Randolph explicitly said, ""There is another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments... By the ninth section of the first article "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatsoever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people.""

    Which shouldn't even need to be said because it's forking obvious that the founders would not have been down with foreign Kings bribing the President.

    When we got down to it, @Sendai's argument came down to: The Founders intended the President to be able to accept bribes from Kings, because in 18th Century England they passed a law to stop the King bribing members of Parliament by giving them offices or places of profit. Which is obviously a terrible argument when stated - accurately - like that.

    And now they're going for, "there's a line that refers to senators and representatives specifically in addition to persons holding an office of trust or profit", therefore offices of trust and profit can't be elected. That's not how any of that works! It wouldn't even exclude senators and representatives from holding offices of profit or trust! It's not inherently exclusive! "Ohhh, but if Senators and Representatives are also people holding an office of trust or profit, then those parts would be superfluous," yes! It can be superfluous! There's literally no requirement for it not to be! Why would you think there is? And it doesn't define other offices of trust or profit at all, so it can't possibly be defining them as "not elected"!

    All we can conclude from this is that @Sendai is both really bad at this, and, at this point, it's safe to conclude that @Sendai is also really bad at being aware of how bad they are at this.
    Click to expand...
    I often wonder how otherwise smart people can have so little self-awareness. It’s like they’re allergic to the truth.
     
    RobF said:
    Oh no, not again.

    Reminder that @Sendai keeps pushing this line, and in pursuing this particularly bad argument, has previously found themself dumping an entire copy and paste of a website about offices of profit in India - where the Presidency is an office of profit - supposedly solely for the line "The office of profit concept has been adopted from the British Parliamentary model. This concept is based on similar lines with the English Act of Settlement 1701."

    This is because they think, apparently, that when the founders said "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" they didn't mean the President, even though founding father Edmund Randolph explicitly said, ""There is another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments... By the ninth section of the first article "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatsoever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people.""

    Which shouldn't even need to be said because it's forking obvious that the founders would not have been down with foreign Kings bribing the President.

    When we got down to it, @Sendai's argument came down to: The Founders intended the President to be able to accept bribes from Kings, because in 18th Century England they passed a law to stop the King bribing members of Parliament by giving them offices or places of profit. Which is obviously a terrible argument when stated - accurately - like that.

    And now they're going for, "there's a line that refers to senators and representatives specifically in addition to persons holding an office of trust or profit", therefore offices of trust and profit can't be elected. That's not how any of that works! It wouldn't even exclude senators and representatives from holding offices of profit or trust! It's not inherently exclusive! "Ohhh, but if Senators and Representatives are also people holding an office of trust or profit, then those parts would be superfluous," yes! It can be superfluous! There's literally no requirement for it not to be! Why would you think there is? And it doesn't define other offices of trust or profit at all, so it can't possibly be defining them as "not elected"!

    All we can conclude from this is that @Sendai is both really bad at this, and, at this point, it's safe to conclude that @Sendai is also really bad at being aware of how bad they are at this.
    Click to expand...
    That was well worded Rob.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom