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?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump was accused of corruption as he returned to the White House days after launching a multibillion-dollar cryptocurrency meme coin. Former government ethics officials and presidential experts said the venture amounted to a “shameful” conflict of interest.

The president and his wife, Melania, each announced their own respective coins ahead of his inauguration. Both were valued at billions of dollars as Trump took the oath of office on Monday.

“There are shameful and major conflicts of interest with respect to his family business benefiting from his cryptocurrency policies,” said James Thurber, the founder and former director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.


Trump “does not seem to worry about the public interest with respect to cryptocurrency”, added Thurber. “He seems to be driven by profit and wanting to be a major part of the billionaire class in the US.”

“America voted for corruption, and Trump is wasting no time delivering it,” said Walter Shaub, the former director of the US Office of Government Ethics, who served under former presidents Barack Obama and Trump. “What was once a government ethics program, made partly of laws and partly of norms, is a smoldering crater.” The White House was approached for comment…….

Experts alarmed by Trumps’ crypto meme coins: ‘America voted for corruption’

President and first lady’s business ventures show ‘shameful conflicts of interest’, says ex-government ethics official

www.theguardian.com

 

[bird]

Donald Trump was accused of corruption as he returned to the White House days after launching a multibillion-dollar cryptocurrency meme coin. Former government ethics officials and presidential experts said the venture amounted to a “shameful” conflict of interest.

The president and his wife, Melania, each announced their own respective coins ahead of his inauguration. Both were valued at billions of dollars as Trump took the oath of office on Monday.

“There are shameful and major conflicts of interest with respect to his family business benefiting from his cryptocurrency policies,” said James Thurber, the founder and former director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.


Trump “does not seem to worry about the public interest with respect to cryptocurrency”, added Thurber. “He seems to be driven by profit and wanting to be a major part of the billionaire class in the US.”

“America voted for corruption, and Trump is wasting no time delivering it,” said Walter Shaub, the former director of the US Office of Government Ethics, who served under former presidents Barack Obama and Trump. “What was once a government ethics program, made partly of laws and partly of norms, is a smoldering crater.” The White House was approached for comment…….

Experts alarmed by Trumps’ crypto meme coins: ‘America voted for corruption’

President and first lady’s business ventures show ‘shameful conflicts of interest’, says ex-government ethics official

www.theguardian.com

Time for the left to understand that there are millions in the electorate that DO NOT CARE about Trump’s corruption or any possible corruption in a RW politician. In one of Heinlein’s stories he said that the people of America are as susceptible to charlatans as a dog is to fleas. This is true but it extends to people in general not just in this country.

 

[Neworleansfan]

Time for the left to understand that there are millions in the electorate that DO NOT CARE about Trump’s corruption or any possible corruption in a RW politician. In one of Heinlein’s stories he said that the people of America are as susceptible to charlatans as a dog is to fleas. This is true but it extends to people in general not just in this country.

There are tens of millions who care but don’t care to vote for either party. Dems need to figure out how to win those over.

 

[Dragon]

There are tens of millions who care but don’t care to vote for either party. Dems need to figure out how to win those over.

In Denmark, we have a saying: "Every non-vote is a vote for the things you fear the most." It’s also a reminder that abstaining from voting is an abdication of the responsibility we hold as citizens in a democracy.

 

[TampaJoe]

In Denmark, we have a saying: "Every non-vote is a vote for the things you fear the most." It’s also a reminder that abstaining from voting is an abdication of the responsibility we hold as citizens in a democracy.

I disagree. Voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t an answer either. Voting is an affirmation of support. Simply voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t improve the qualifications of or the quality of the candidates.

In my personal opinion, the Dems put forward Biden and then Harris because they believed they could beat Trump. Someone they considered evil. Biden shouldn’t have even been in the race to begin with and Harris IMV was far from their best most qualified candidate.

We need to figure out how to insure the parties are putting forward the “cream of the crop”. We haven’t seen that for a while.

 

[RobF]

I disagree. Voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t an answer either. Voting is an affirmation of support. Simply voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t improve the qualifications of or the quality of the candidates.

In my personal opinion, the Dems put forward Biden and then Harris because they believed they could beat Trump. Someone they considered evil. Biden shouldn’t have even been in the race to begin with and Harris IMV was far from their best most qualified candidate.

We need to figure out how to insure the parties are putting forward the “cream of the crop”. We haven’t seen that for a while.

That's an argument for electoral reform coupled with a naive approach to voting in the absence of it, that disregards what the best approach is. Hint: it's voting for the best option. If that means voting for the less of two evils, that's what you do. Because not doing that does not, as you may have noticed, magically reform the system, and in the meantime you get less evil.

 

[coldseat]

I disagree. Voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t an answer either. Voting is an affirmation of support. Simply voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t improve the qualifications of or the quality of the candidates.

In my personal opinion, the Dems put forward Biden and then Harris because they believed they could beat Trump. Someone they considered evil. Biden shouldn’t have even been in the race to begin with and Harris IMV was far from their best most qualified candidate.

We need to figure out how to insure the parties are putting forward the “cream of the crop”. We haven’t seen that for a while.

Harris isn't evil.

Justify it to yourself however you like, but in 4 years when our country is a shell of what it was, our institutions and the bureaucracy have been hollowed out and destroyed from within, corruption reigns supreme and there's more chaos in the world, those of us who voted for Harris will still be holding those who didn't vote and who voted for Trump responsible. Not that it will mean anything by then.

When there's an thief/arsonist at your door you don't invite them inside and then wonder what's going to happen. You chase them away and call the police. In case you're confused about the metaphor, Trump is the thief/arsonist.

 

[TampaJoe]

That's an argument for electoral reform coupled with a naive approach to voting in the absence of it, that disregards what the best approach is. Hint: it's voting for the best option. If that means voting for the less of two evils, that's what you do. Because not doing that does not, as you may have noticed, magically reform the system, and in the meantime you get less evil.

Not in my view. But you do you and I’ll do me.

I’m not going to pull the lever for someone I cannot or do not support. This isn’t the Price is Right. There is more to the job than simply being marginally better that the bottom of the class.

 

[RobF]

Not in my view. But you do you and I’ll do me.

I’m not going to pull the lever for someone I cannot or do not support. This isn’t the Price is Right. There is more to the job than simply being marginally better that the bottom of the class.

I'd ask you to describe how your approach leads to better outcomes, but we both know you can't.

 

[bird]

There are tens of millions who care but don’t care to vote for either party. Dems need to figure out how to win those over.

No argument. Dems had the 50 state strategy before. Need to revisit that.

Oh, and focus heavily on state and local elections. States are the meth labs of democracy.

 

[TampaJoe]

Harris isn't evil.

Justify it to yourself however you like, but in 4 years when our country is a shell of what it was, our institutions and the bureaucracy have been hollowed out and destroyed from within, corruption reigns supreme and there's more chaos in the world, those of us who voted for Harris will still be holding those who didn't vote and who voted for Trump responsible. Not that it will mean anything by then.

When there's an thief/arsonist at your door you don't invite them inside and then wonder what's going to happen. You chase them away and call the police. In case you're confused about the metaphor, Trump is the thief/arsonist.

I'd ask you to describe how your approach leads to better outcomes, but we both know you can't.

I don’t control outcomes. Neither do you. I only control what I do. You are welcome to whatever personal standard you wish. Have at it.

Tell me Rob. How do you like this outcome? How’s it working for you?

I recall a time when if the opposition won the election, you didn’t worry so much about the fate of the nation. Today, not so much. While I believe the nation will survive, I do think we are going to new lows when it comes to POTUS.

 

[RobF]

I don’t control outcomes. Neither do you. I only control what I do. You are welcome to whatever personal standard you wish. Have at it.

Read more carefully. I said your approach, Joe, not you. Which leads to better outcomes; people abstaining from voting even when they believe one candidate to be, to continue with your framing, "more evil", or people voting for the "not so evil" candidate. Which approach is likely to deliver the most evil, and hence worst, outcomes?

And try not to spin too hard, you'll get dizzy.

Tell me Rob. How do you like this outcome? How’s it working for you?

I recall a time when if the opposition won the election, you didn’t worry so much about the fate of the nation. Today, not so much. While I believe the nation will survive, I do think we are going to new lows when it comes to POTUS.

I'm British/Irish, Joe. The silver lining for me is that Brexit continues to drop down the list of "most stupid things a nation has voted for."

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Not in my view. But you do you and I’ll do me.

I’m not going to pull the lever for someone I cannot or do not support. This isn’t the Price is Right. There is more to the job than simply being marginally better that the bottom of the class.

If Harris was running against Satan, would you pull the lever for Harris?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t control outcomes. Neither do you. I only control what I do. You are welcome to whatever personal standard you wish. Have at it.

Tell me Rob. How do you like this outcome? How’s it working for you?

I recall a time when if the opposition won the election, you didn’t worry so much about the fate of the nation. Today, not so much. While I believe the nation will survive, I do think we are going to new lows when it comes to POTUS.

Yes, and that's because both parties put forward candidates that at least seemed to want the best for this country. Trump and his cronies clearly don't. Trump spent Day One trying to overturn the Constitution through Executive Order. You don't think actions like that are a threat to the fate of the nation?

 

[TampaJoe]

Yes, and that's because both parties put forward candidates that at least seemed to want the best for this country. Trump and his cronies clearly don't. Trump spent Day One trying to overturn the Constitution through Executive Order. You don't think actions like that are a threat to the fate of the nation?

I didn’t vote for Trump. But as I have said previously, I also didn’t vote for Harris because I would worry as much about her as I worry about Trump. That’s the problem when it’s a choice of the “lesser of two evils” or the “best of the worse”.

So while such a choice may not present problems to you, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t present problems for other folks. As some have mentioned, millions of people chose not to vote.

 

[brandon]

I don’t control outcomes. Neither do you.

Not individually, but collectively, we absolutely control outcomes. That’s the whole point.

 

[TampaJoe]

Not individually, but collectively, we absolutely control outcomes. That’s the whole point.

I get how elections work. But groupthink and playing follow the leader doesn’t work for me. Maybe it does for you.

Voting is a personal choice and one can spend that vote however one chooses. Personally, I refuse to vote for someone whose policies I cannot support. It’s that simple. I don’t control how you or anyone else votes.

It’s up to the parties and the candidates to make their case to the voters. As for me, they don’t get my vote by default. I don’t vote against a candidate by voting blindly for their opponent. Especially when their opponent has a political ideology I cannot support.

 

[J-DONK]

I didn’t vote for Trump. But as I have said previously, I also didn’t vote for Harris because I would worry as much about her as I worry about Trump. That’s the problem when it’s a choice of the “lesser of two evils” or the “best of the worse”.

So while such a choice may not present problems to you, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t present problems for other folks. As some have mentioned, millions of people chose not to vote.

This point of view makes no sense from anyone who isn't a progressive. Which I seriously doubt you are. I view Corp Dems as the lesser of two evils, but centrist? I have no idea what you are qualifying.

The worst thing you will get is pro-trade, pro-corporation stable admin.

If you have long term concerns about: housing, inflation, healthcare, and income inequality. You won't find solutions to any of those issues from Republicans.

I assume this view is coded for you are socially conserative, and abortion really matters that much to you.