Miscellaneous Trump (9 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 10 (members: 3, guests: 7)
    Huntn

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    836
    Reaction score
    883
    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?
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Yes your post is dishonest. I already said twice they were different cases and different facts. Twice. Now three times. Perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking.

    Bit if your ethical standard is based upon whether something is or is not legal, then it seems to me if you want people to support removing a duly elected sitting President, you need to prove illegality.

    So as I have said twice before and now for a third time, if you have such proof to sustain a conviction of criminal conduct as President , impeach him and prosecute him.

    I am sure I will probably have to repeat this yet again for you. Maybe ask a friend to read it to you.
    Click to expand...
    Impeachment would likely have occurred long ago if MAGA-aligned Republicans hadn’t openly supported or excused the unlawful actions taken by Donald Trump. The situation worsened when the Supreme Court granted him immunity—an alarming decision in itself—and many MAGA Republicans appeared indifferent to clear violations of constitutional principles like due process. Add to that the growing concern over Supreme Court justices allegedly accepting gifts and favors, and it's clear the United States faces a serious crisis of accountability and integrity at the highest levels.

    Chief Justice Roberts seems to be awakening to the danger, especially now that Trump has begun targeting the judiciary itself. But much damage has already been done.

    The U.S. government is built on a system of checks and balances across three branches. When one branch disregards this balance and acts unilaterally—without pushback from the others, or worse, while actively suppressing them—democracy is no longer stable. It’s under threat.
     
    Dragon said:
    Impeachment would likely have occurred long ago if MAGA-aligned Republicans hadn’t openly supported or excused the unlawful actions taken by Donald Trump. The situation worsened when the Supreme Court granted him immunity—an alarming decision in itself—and many MAGA Republicans appeared indifferent to clear violations of constitutional principles like due process. Add to that the growing concern over Supreme Court justices allegedly accepting gifts and favors, and it's clear the United States faces a serious crisis of accountability and integrity at the highest levels.

    Chief Justice Roberts seems to be awakening to the danger, especially now that Trump has begun targeting the judiciary itself. But much damage has already been done.

    The U.S. government is built on a system of checks and balances across three branches. When one branch disregards this balance and acts unilaterally—without pushback from the others, or worse, while actively suppressing them—democracy is no longer stable. It’s under threat.
    Click to expand...
    I don’t disagree that we need accountability and higher standards. We just have to agree on what that looks like and what happens when someone is accused of crossing the line. Therein lies the rub.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Nah. I asked you to set the standard. Unethical but not illegal gets a pass. So if you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed crimes as POTUS, he should be impeached and prosecuted for those crimes.

    I think that is a low bar ethically, but if that is the standard that everyone agrees is appropriate, I guess it will just have to do.
    Click to expand...
    It is not unethical to use connections to get ahead in business. Everyone does this. Corporations do this. Free market demands you take every advantage you have.

    there is even a saying for crying out loud: " it ain't what you know, it's who you know."

    Using connections becomes unethical if and when you use those connections as leverage against someone in a deal. This is still done all of the time, mind you, because it is just unethical, not illegal.

    In the instances being discussed here, Hunter used his connections to his powerful family to sell his business to customers. Not to even unethical.

    Ivanka's husband gave the Saudi's top secret information for two billion dollars and deals to be named in the future. Really illegal, highly unethical.

    Ivanka's merchandise got a boatload of trademarks in 2017 from Chinese government? Unless she threatened a trade war or something with them, this isn't even unethical.

    It does feel weird that Republicans need the free market explained to them, since it used to be their entire platform, but here we are.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Yes your post is dishonest. I already said twice they were different cases and different facts. Twice. Now three times. Perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking.

    Bit if your ethical standard is based upon whether something is or is not legal, then it seems to me if you want people to support removing a duly elected sitting President, you need to prove illegality.

    So as I have said twice before and now for a third time, if you have such proof to sustain a conviction of criminal conduct as President , impeach him and prosecute him.

    I am sure I will probably have to repeat this yet again for you. Maybe ask a friend to read it to you.
    Click to expand...
    You say they are different yet you want to treat them the same. That’s why you’re dishonest in your posting. You are also just making stuff up, nobody has mentioned impeachment until you just did.

    We were only talking about ethics and legalities, not impeachment.

    Everyone here sees through your false equivalency. Everyone. In fact, the very first reason you gave for disagreeing with Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million dollar airplane (that will require hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade so that it can even be used) was that you and other GOPers would lose the ability to complain about Biden and Clinton. That’s exactly how messed up your reasoning is here.
     
    CoolBrees said:
    It is not unethical to use connections to get ahead in business. Everyone does this. Corporations do this. Free market demands you take every advantage you have.

    there is even a saying for crying out loud: " it ain't what you know, it's who you know."

    Using connections becomes unethical if and when you use those connections as leverage against someone in a deal. This is still done all of the time, mind you, because it is just unethical, not illegal.

    In the instances being discussed here, Hunter used his connections to his powerful family to sell his business to customers. Not to even unethical.

    Ivanka's husband gave the Saudi's top secret information for two billion dollars and deals to be named in the future. Really illegal, highly unethical.

    Ivanka's merchandise got a boatload of trademarks in 2017 from Chinese government? Unless she threatened a trade war or something with them, this isn't even unethical.

    It does feel weird that Republicans need the free market explained to them, since it used to be their entire platform, but here we are.
    Click to expand...
    If you are a decision maker for an organization, you have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of that organization. If you take gifts or receive benefits, directly or indirectly, from someone outside your organization that has business with your organization, you have a conflict of interest. People who do such things are routinely fired all over this country. There are corporate policies that prohibit such things. It is considered a breach of ethics.

    Anybody who knows anything about ethics knows this. I am surprised you are so unaware.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    If you are a decision maker for an organization, you have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of that organization. If you take gifts or receive benefits, directly or indirectly, from someone outside your organization that has business with your organization, you have a conflict of interest. People who do such things are routinely fired all over this country. There are corporate policies that prohibit such things. It is considered a breach of ethics.

    Anybody who knows anything about ethics knows this. I am surprised you are so unaware.
    Click to expand...
    That’s not what he is talking about. Not even close.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    If you are a decision maker for an organization, you have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of that organization. If you take gifts or receive benefits, directly or indirectly, from someone outside your organization that has business with your organization, you have a conflict of interest. People who do such things are routinely fired all over this country. There are corporate policies that prohibit such things. It is considered a breach of ethics.

    Anybody who knows anything about ethics knows this. I am surprised you are so unaware.
    Click to expand...
    watch where you're swinging that goalpost

    I said nothing of gifts.

    I issue $150MM construction contracts all the time - I can't take a hard hat. But that is because I am a mid level exec with an oversized amount of spending ability.

    Taking a gift isn't necessarily unethical either. My brother is a doctor and owns his own practice. His pharma reps give him everything from MacBooks to trips to Hawaii. Unless he picks a medication base on the gift despite it being an inferior product, not unethical.

    I have to do some work but if you would like more lessons I am sure there is some good stuff on YT.
     
    MT15 said:
    You say they are different yet you want to treat them the same. That’s why you’re dishonest in your posting. You are also just making stuff up, nobody has mentioned impeachment until you just did.

    We were only talking about ethics and legalities, not impeachment.

    Everyone here sees through your false equivalency. Everyone. In fact, the very first reason you gave for disagreeing with Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million dollar airplane (that will require hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade so that it can even be used) was that you and other GOPers would lose the ability to complain about Biden and Clinton. That’s exactly how messed up your reasoning is here.
    Click to expand...
    I want to treat them by your standard. If you can prove illegal acts as POTUS then he should be impeached and removed from office. Isn’t that your standard? There is no equivalency. It is either illegal or it is not.

    I accepted your standard. It is much lower than what I would propose but I accept YOUR standard. I’m not sure what more you want. You appear to be complaining because I am agreeing to use your standard. Makes no sense to me. You appear to be confused.
     
    CoolBrees said:
    watch where you're swinging that goalpost

    I said nothing of gifts.

    I issue $150MM construction contracts all the time - I can't take a hard hat. But that is because I am a mid level exec with an oversized amount of spending ability.

    Taking a gift isn't necessarily unethical either. My brother is a doctor and owns his own practice. His pharma reps give him everything from MacBooks to trips to Hawaii. Unless he picks a medication base on the gift despite it being an inferior product, not unethical.

    I have to do some work but if you would like more lessons I am sure there is some good stuff on YT.
    Click to expand...
    Gifts or benefits. They can be direct or indirect.

    You brother the doctor. Owns his own business. That’s different and you obviously know it. You can’t take a hard hat. Public servants don’t own their own business. They have a fiduciary responsibility to those they serve. If you don’t understand the difference, I can’t help you.
     
    TampaJoe said:
    I want to treat them by your standard. If you can prove illegal acts as POTUS then he should be impeached and removed from office. Isn’t that your standard? There is no equivalency. It is either illegal or it is not.

    I accepted your standard. It is much lower than what I would propose but I accept YOUR standard. I’m not sure what more you want. You appear to be complaining because I am agreeing to use your standard. Makes no sense to me. You appear to be confused.
    Click to expand...
    He is in the middle east right now working as president of the US WHILE MAKING PRIVATE BUSINESS DEALS FOR HIS COMPANY!

    IF that was Biden you would be shouting to high heaven for impeachment
     
    TampaJoe said:
    Gifts or benefits. They can be direct or indirect.

    You brother the doctor. Owns his own business. That’s different and you obviously know it. You can’t take a hard hat. Public servants don’t own their own business. They have a fiduciary responsibility to those they serve. If you don’t understand the difference, I can’t help you.
    Click to expand...
    Maybe I missed it, but, didn't answer last time so I'll try again...do you think Trump should be impeached?
     
    Dragon said:
    He is in the middle east right now working as president of the US WHILE MAKING PRIVATE BUSINESS DEALS FOR HIS COMPANY!

    IF that was Biden you would be shouting to high heaven for impeachment
    Click to expand...
    So now who is bringing up Biden? I’m talking about Trump. The current POTUS. If you have proof he has broken laws, the legal constitutional process involves impeachment and then he is subject to what the law provides.

    Isn’t that what you seek?
     

    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