Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP
Options
Comments
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »It was registered lawsuit by the state of Texas, was it not? Interesting the lawsuit was from a state. The Supreme court declared Texas had no right to get itself entangled in other states election/decision results? Probably valid point made by the judges and they blocked the lawsuit move here. That still doesn’t mean the Supreme court can not hear evidence from different states about alleged voter fraud?
But it didnt have "evidence of voter fraud", the case was claiming extending the timelines for collecting and counting mail in ballots put in place by the states due to the Covid outbreak was unconstitutional. Except multiple other states did the same thing...including Texas!
The judges probably did read the affidavit and shot it down immediately as it had nothing. They are dead right too: one state cannot dictate how another runs its elections, to even consider the concept is ludicrous. And I will go out ona limb and say the other states that weighed in have equally as nothing as Texas did, so listening to them would be pointless too.
As for not hearing the case gives the illusion of a cover up...so far allowing all the BS cases filled with hearsay and delusional accusations have engendered the idea that theres a huge fraud that Trump and Co. and closing in on with their "elite strike force"0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Cases brought forward by Trump team have got turned down, and denied, this all worked out outside public witness though! Trump's team also claiming the judges are democratic leaning and denying his right in court?
I don't think you understand what has happened.
The trump cases failed because they lacked evidence to go forward to trial, this is a basic tenet of any case between two parties, you have to have at least some evidence to be able to go forward to trial. The problem is they have no evidence at all, and were dismissed on this basis, but were trying to get to trial anyway, that's not how the justice system works.
What they also tried was to bring back the same cases with no evidence, and then tried to appeal to higher courts, but higher courts can only be appealed to on a point of law, and they have no point of law on which to base their appeal, so they are immediately dismissed.
It's hard to know if it's all for show and being stupid deliberately to maintain appearances and cash flow, or just plain stupid.0 -
everlast75 wrote: »And that thought brought me along to Trump.
Specifically, the manner in which he is able to convince folk of untruths, be it rather mundane issues such as his business "success", or the ridiculous, such as his tan and hair being anything other than a joke, or moving into more political areas, for example that Obama wasn't American, and moving into his presidency lying about a deep state and so forth.
People may say the comparison to jim jones is hyperbolic.
However, we are now at a stage where this person is actively convincing his followers that facts aren't facts, truth isn't truth, that a pandemic which is infecting a million people a week and causing the deaths of 3000 people a day is either fake, or overblown.
His political allies have and still are hosting events where no one wears a mask, despite a vast percentage of his cabinet have contracted the virus.
He is not responsible for every death, but there can be no arguing that his stance and rhetoric has caused thousands and thousands of deaths, will continue to cause more and, like Jones, he doesn't care one jot that his followers, his devotees are dying.
In my view Trump is an anomaly in that he is where he is today almost by accident and mostly by virtue of the fact that he was in the right place at the right time.
His desire to run for President was fueled almost entirely by his hatred of Obama and a jealousy over the adulation which he received.
His manner and style during the primaries in 2016 and in to the Presidential campaign itself was built on his 'strengths' of not being burdened by the truth and promising everything he could while saying everyone else, including the establishment was the enemy. There was no savvy or clever political tactic, it was victory via blunt force populism.
He would have disappeared in March 2016 if he hadn't become Fox News's preferred Republican candidate and they just blew him up with 8 months of free advertising from there until November (and continued for 4 more years for the most part).
The final piece in the series of unfortunate events was Hillary being his opponent. She was quite unpopular and made the mistake of appearing to view the Presidential office as her right as opposed to something she still had to earn.
Trump is similar to Jim Jones in the devoutness of some of his followers but this is as a consequence of their desire for such a leader more so then it was his skill in making them love him like this.
What has become apparent since the election is just how large a group of very right wing people were sitting and waiting for someone who they felt embodied their feelings.
The nationalistic fervour, anti-PC, anti-science, anti-education, pro-gun, pro-military and borderline if not outright xenophobia and racism which we have seen over the last 4 years, and 10 months in particular, and 6 weeks specifically we always knew was there, but not that they were views held by so many in supposedly the greatest country on earth.
I still think that Trump, because of his age, health finances and legal issues will fade away as a political entity but I am concerned about the smarter neo-neocons who are sitting in the background and will be thinking of how to mobilise these 70M people. I wouldn't be as concerned but for the actions since the election and the clear apathy which these people obviously have for the ideal of the 'United States of America' and for so many elected representatives to have behaved in what has to be seen as a treasonous manner as they did over the last few weeks should be very very worrying for the long term safety of the country.
What is entertaining in a sad and kinda fcuked up way is that the ones so loudly screaming about their love of their country (remember their conniptions at the kneeling for the anthem protests) are the ones who have so quickly expressed a desire to rip it to pieces.
I hope there are some wise minds in the DNC who are looking at all of this and realising there needs to be a cohesive approach to diffuse this ticking time bomb which must be focused more on the future of the country which is at stake rather than short term personal career goals focused but I'm not holding my breath.
In the last 30 odd years we have seen George H Bush become President, largely after having been Vice-President for 8 years. Then George W who was narrowly elected twice (with the help of his brothers state in 00) and was said to have been heavily heavily influenced by his advisors who had strong military motivations, and now Trump who was only motivated by his own desires I am cynical as to what will come next from them but I am sure of one thing, 74M voting for Trump will mean future Republican candidates are very much going to try to tap in to this body of people and to speak their language.0 -
But - They were NOT alleging fraud -Other than Sydney Powell not a SINGLE court case has alleged Fraud , not one.
The Texas claim was that the 4 states made changes to their Election rules via Executive action (either the Governor or the State Secretary) and not via Legislation in the State house.
They claimed that this was unconstitutional as control of Elections is supposed to be within the sole jurisdiction of the State legislatures. There was some blather in there saying that the changes made Fraud easier , but they did not present any evidence that fraud occured.
The Supreme court basically said to Texas - You have no right nor authority to decide or complain about how another State runs it's elections. Each State can decide their own rules - That's the rule.
If people in PA etc. had a problem with the rules as set down , then they have to sue in PA - Which they did and they lost.
End of Story.
And again , just to re-iterate - Other than Sydney Powell (who even Giuliani thinks is too nuts for them) , not a single one of the 50+ Court cases that Trump and his cohorts have brought before the courts have made any allegations of Fraud , not once.
They have held Press Conferences aplenty claiming all kinds of shenanigans but they are not brave( or Stupid) enough to actually say those words in a court of law.
My position is Quin the courts are cutting off and stopping the challenges, therefore you giving Trump ammunition to cry foul. Air his supposed grievances in a public court setting, where everyone can see the supposed evidence on TV and then lets turn back to some normalization over there? Without it, can see from yesterday's scenes men in marine battle gearing up to remove Biden by force. It may end up going that way, ther’re literally shouting that battle cry at rallies.
We looking for cooler heads to prevail here hopefully, and Trump just decides to get out. Maybe i assume the worst here, and it work out fine and Trump and militant followers will just fade away by Jan we’ll see.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »My position is Quin the courts are cutting off and stopping the challenges, therefore you giving Trump ammunition to cry foul. Air his supposed grievances in a public court setting, where everyone can see the supposed evidence on TV and then lets turn back to some normalization over there? Without it, can see from yesterday's scenes men in marine battle gearing up to remove Biden by force. It may end up going that way, ther’re literally shouting that battle cry at rallies.
We looking for cooler heads to prevail here hopefully, and Trump just decides to get out. Maybe i assume the worst here, and it work out fine and Trump and militant followers will just fade away by Jan we’ll see.
The courts are absolutely correct in treating this applications with the contempt they deserve.
Allowing it to go further would lead to the narrative of 'There must be something there, they actually had their case heard in court' and must people would just hear the same outcome of 'oh the judge was corrupt' depending on whether they support Trump or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
Someone should go round and replace all Trump's Hotel Time Person of the Year fakes with this years true and current edition!0
-
Tell me how wrote: »The courts are absolutely correct in treating this applications with the contempt they deserve.
Allowing it to go further would lead to the narrative of 'There must be something there, they actually had their case heard in court' and must people would just hear the same outcome of 'oh the judge was corrupt' depending on whether they support Trump or not.
It's not even that, outside on the stage they say they are fighting one thing, and in the court what they argue is completely different.
The courts aren't cutting off the challenges at all, they are allowing them, but lack of evidence means the cases get ruled on quickly.
Cheerful Spring, do you really think that the courts aren't hearing these cases? What has given you that idea?0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »My position is Quin the courts are cutting off and stopping the challenges, therefore you giving Trump ammunition to cry foul. Air his supposed grievances in a public court setting, where everyone can see the supposed evidence on TV and then lets turn back to some normalization over there?.
Been there. Done that. It's been all over the news for a good 6 weeks.
What you are suggesting is to let Trump continue to try to put as many false allegations in front of the courts as he likes, ad nauseum, for even years or decades if he likes, in order to undermine American democracy, and want the courts to make special exceptions to all of these cases that they typically woudk not even entertain from Johnny Public. Which, to be blunt, is an absolutely terrible idea on many levels.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14805
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »My position is Quin the courts are cutting off and stopping the challenges, therefore you giving Trump ammunition to cry foul. Air his supposed grievances in a public court setting, where everyone can see the supposed evidence on TV and then lets turn back to some normalization over there? Without it, can see from yesterday's scenes men in marine battle gearing up to remove Biden by force. It may end up going that way, ther’re literally shouting that battle cry at rallies.
We looking for cooler heads to prevail here hopefully, and Trump just decides to get out. Maybe i assume the worst here, and it work out fine and Trump and militant followers will just fade away by Jan we’ll see.
There's no winning here for anyone trying to "Show" the Trump followers the truth.
No amount of their spurious claims being eviscerated in Courts of law will change their minds - It's a fools errand.
They believe NOTHING that anyone other than what Trump tells them.
Evidence and facts are beyond meaningless.
Just look at how people that were supposedly "solid" Trumpers have been utterly gutted the second that they attempt to accept reality.
Bill Barr is now a deep state lackey , the 3 SCOTUS picks are all Judas , Brian Kemp is a RINO etc. etc. ad infinitum.
It's a deeply sad, appalling state of affairs , but it's hard to see how it gets fixed.
It's certainly not going to get fixed between now and January 20th that's for sure.
Oh and by the way - This crap will kick off again after the Senate Run-off - If either Perdue or Loeffler don't win they will go down exactly the same pointless, vacuous , poisonous road again claiming Fraud in public but something different in Court such that McConnell stays in charge for as long as they can possibly string it out.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »My position is Quin the courts are cutting off and stopping the challenges, therefore you giving Trump ammunition to cry foul. Air his supposed grievances in a public court setting, where everyone can see the supposed evidence on TV and then lets turn back to some normalization over there? Without it, can see from yesterday's scenes men in marine battle gearing up to remove Biden by force. It may end up going that way, ther’re literally shouting that battle cry at rallies.
We looking for cooler heads to prevail here hopefully, and Trump just decides to get out. Maybe i assume the worst here, and it work out fine and Trump and militant followers will just fade away by Jan we’ll see.
I don't really think that the courts have much choice in tossing out these lawsuits. They are a total waste of court time. If the courts set a precedent to hear every poorly written, badly researched lawsuit then they'll spend the majority of their time in future listening to absolute nonsense, therefore cutting down on their time to deal with actual cases.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Cases brought forward by Trump team have got turned down, and denied, this all worked out outside public witness though! Trump's team also claiming the judges are democratic leaning and denying his right in court?
every case taken by trump is public record. records of hearings and evidence filed is available to view online. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as it is based on nonsense.0 -
I don't think you understand what has happened.
The trump cases failed because they lacked evidence to go forward to trial, this is a basic tenet of any case between two parties, you have to have at least some evidence to be able to go forward to trial. The problem is they have no evidence at all, and were dismissed on this basis, but were trying to get to trial anyway, that's not how the justice system works.
What they also tried was to bring back the same cases with no evidence, and then tried to appeal to higher courts, but higher courts can only be appealed to on a point of law, and they have no point of law on which to base their appeal, so they are immediately dismissed.
It's hard to know if it's all for show and being stupid deliberately to maintain appearances and cash flow, or just plain stupid.
you should have stopped after the first sentence. CS2 has a very flawed understanding of how the US legal system works. They think that all the cases taken so far have been taken in private.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I loathe to acknowledge the Republican argument, but preventing a court trial is hardly the way to go about it convincing the other side there was no citizen voter fraud? This only further intrenches them with the belief, the democrats don’t want to test the waters- the validity of each vote for Biden.
The squandered millions of dollars on the muller investigation and yet the don’t want to prove here once and for all the mail voting in was not meddled with in anyway. Shouldn't people be confident in it before they continue to use the dominion voting machines again with future elections
It would be better for all concerned for the state of the country to convincedly defeat Trump team in a court of law. Last thing you want is civil unrest over this.
Like i said before Trump team evidence shown online so far is very weak. It shouldn't take long for the procedure to be complete here. Blocking moves are just adding fuel to the fire.
To be utterly fair, cheerful, you also want AE911 to get its day in court to ‘prove 9/11 was an inside job.’ That’s just not how the courts work. The Supreme Court not going to sit there and entertain flat-earth like arguments. It is also NOT a trial court.
Lower trial courts have already heard dozens of lawsuits. Trumps lawyers simply aren’t even trying to allege fraud in them.0 -
Carfacemandog wrote: »Been there. Done that. It's been all over the news for a good 6 weeks.
What you are suggesting is to let Trump continue to try to put as many false allegations in front of the courts as he likes, ad nauseum, for even years or decades if he likes, in order to undermine American democracy, and want the courts to make special exceptions to all of these cases that they typically woudk not even entertain from Johnny Public. Which, to be blunt, is an absolutely terrible idea on many levels.
Which is EXACTLY why the Electoral Count Act exists, to put a finality on any and all accusations of impropriety in an election.
And Republicans should not be quick to declare the ECA bogus law either: the ECA is what also gives them the right, if a Senator sponsors them, to challenge the result in January 5 when the House meets to count the electoral college result.
If so challenged, both Chambers convene for a statutory maximum 2 hours and vote on whether the complaint is meritorious. With the majority in either chamber razor thin they need this option. So, at the same time, they know that the legal time limit for launching Court cases was last Tuesday. There’s nothing they can do to ‘de-certify’ the state certifications or their electors now though.
And for much the same reasons though they will still have trouble not being hypocrites about it: they will enjoy having more seats in the House for that event, for example, because of the outcome of this allegedly fraudulent election.0 -
To be utterly fair, cheerful, you also want AE911 to get its day in court to ‘prove 9/11 was an inside job.’ That’s just not how the courts work. The Supreme Court not going to sit there and entertain flat-earth like arguments. It is also NOT a trial court.
Lower trial courts have already heard dozens of lawsuits. Trumps lawyers simply aren’t even trying to allege fraud in them.
It’s judgemental to end a suit because you individually find the evidence uncompelling. Trump supporters are claiming many of the judges are not listening to their case because they are appointed by democrat leaders?
With 9/11 a unique situation with far more evidence to call upon to confirm an inside job. Only the powers at be don’t want to give it a public hearing right now.
I have previously said here the evidence shown so far about election fraud is weak. That doesn’t mean we should not allow the public to witness the evidence, whatever it is, examine it in court. States are not checking the software of the voting machines and confirming each vote was legitimate.. They're no investigation by the FBI so far in any states. I think we have to be careful here since it was none person voting that got biden elected. Millions of ballots but none of them voted in person. That raises some issues by itself. Maybe every vote was legit but its be monumental task to confirm every person signature on a ballot is real.
Trump if you like or don’t like him still holds the position of President of the United States. With that position/role you have to allow the event to unfold and occur in an actual court. Most people don’t have millions of followers and proponents and defenders. Courts are obliged to show transparency in thi unique case a presidental election. Otherwise you see events like you saw yesterday with mass crowds turning up maintaining one side cheated their guy.0 -
Another loss for Trump, this time in the Georgia Supreme Court. This is getting beyond ridiculous at this stage.
.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »It’s judgemental to end a suit because you individually find the evidence uncompelling. Trump supporters are claiming many of the judges are not listening to their case because they are appointed by democrat leaders?
With 9/11 a unique situation with far more evidence to call upon to confirm an inside job. Only the powers at be don’t want to give it a public hearing right now.
I have previously said here the evidence shown so far about election fraud is weak. That doesn’t mean we should not allow the public to witness the evidence, whatever it is, examine it in court. States are not checking the software of the voting machines and confirming each vote was legitimate.. They're no investigation by the FBI so far in any states. I think we have to be careful here since it was none person voting that got biden elected. Millions of ballots but none of them voted in person. That raises some issues by itself. Maybe every vote was legit but its be monumental task to confirm every person signature on a ballot is real.
Trump if you like or don’t like him still holds the position of President of the United States. With that position/role you have to allow the event to unfold and occur in an actual court. Most people don’t have millions of followers and proponents and defenders. Courts are obliged to show transparency in thi unique case a presidental election. Otherwise you see events like you saw yesterday with mass crowds turning up maintaining one side cheated their guy.
you're talking nonsense.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »It’s judgemental to end a suit because you individually find the evidence uncompelling. Trump supporters are claiming many of the judges are not listening to their case because they are appointed by democrat leaders?
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barret, are Trump appointees.
None of them indicated they would have granted cert. None of them filed dissents.
Lower Trump appointed judges have also been involved in the lawsuits. Republican state and election officials as well.I have previously said here the evidence shown so far about election fraud is weak. That doesn’t mean we should not allow the public to witness the evidence, whatever it is, examine it in court.
Then ask why none of the Trump lawsuits have included allegations of fraud. “This is not a fraud case.” “We are not alleging any fraudulent votes.”
It’s not at all the opportunity has not been there. Ask yourself why they shriek about overwhelming evidence of fraud at Four Seasons Landscaping but don’t dare to make such claims in court, when the opportunity is there when filing your lawsuit and having discovery.States are not checking the software of the voting machines and confirming each vote was legitimate..
That’s a complete lie. Ballots have been hand counted. In Georgia, hand counted 3 times. No election machine to involve.They're no investigation by the FBI so far in any states. I think we have to be careful here since it was none person voting that got biden elected. Millions of ballots but none of them voted in person. That raises some issues by itself. Maybe every vote was legit but its be monumental task to confirm every person signature on a ballot is real.
The Department of Justice and the Attorney General have explicitly said they have not found any evidence of fraud that would amount to a challenge to the election outcome.Trump if you like or don’t like him still holds the position of President of the United States. With that position/role you have to allow the event to unfold and occur in an actual court.
It already has!Most people don’t have millions of followers and proponents and defenders. Courts are obliged to show transparency in thi unique case a presidental election. Otherwise you see events like you saw yesterday with mass crowds turning up maintaining one side cheated their guy.
I strongly advise you research the 1887 Electoral Count Act.0 -
I don't really think that the courts have much choice in tossing out these lawsuits. They are a total waste of court time. If the courts set a precedent to hear every poorly written, badly researched lawsuit then they'll spend the majority of their time in future listening to absolute nonsense, therefore cutting down on their time to deal with actual cases.
If you not recognized this a unique situation. President declining to leave office that’s opens the door for the military to remove him. Why do you think happens if he declines to go? That’s why i think there should be a unique court event to air this out before its too late. Just hope Trump accepts defeat here, because if he refuses to open the doors to Biden in Jan things will get chaotic.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »If you not recognized this a unique situation. President declining to leave office that’s opens the door for the military to remove him. Why do you think happens if he declines to go? That’s why i think there should be a unique court event to air this out before its too late. Just hope Trump accepts defeat here, because if he refuses to open the doors to Biden in Jan things will get chaotic.
But it’s not unique.
Again, you should really, really do yourself a favor and research the 1887 Electoral Count Act, emphasis on its origin.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »If you not recognized this a unique situation. President declining to leave office that’s opens the door for the military to remove him. Why do you think happens if he declines to go? That’s why i think there should be a unique court event to air this out before its too late. Just hope Trump accepts defeat here, because if he refuses to open the doors to Biden in Jan things will get chaotic.
Nope. The courts aren't there to entertain the delusions of a man who won't accept reality.0 -
But it’s not unique.
Again, you should really, really do yourself a favor and research the 1887 Electoral Count Act, emphasis on its origin.
If a US president has to be pulled out from the White House it certaintly will be rare event and all unfolding on tv in real time. Events in 1887 is irrelevent for these days. Do you think Trump supporters not show up in Washington armed if he suggests it?0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »If a US president has to be pulled out from the White House it certaintly will be rare event and all unfolding on tv in real time. Events in 1887 is irrelevent for these days. Do you think Trump supporters not show up in Washington armed if he suggests it?
tell that to the originalists on the supreme court. and trump won't have to be pulled out. He is a coward so will slink off to florida before inauguration day0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »If a US president has to be pulled out from the White House it certaintly will be rare event and all unfolding on tv in real time. Events in 1887 is irrelevent for these days. Do you think Trump supporters not show up in Washington armed if he suggests it?
You’re talking about a hypothetical which has nothing to do with the certification and officiating of the election.
Weeks before we get to January 20, Congress will have already met to formally accept the result of the election. Anything Trump tries to do to disgrace himself after that will have nothing to do with the election not being finalized.
Also, events in 1887 are far from irrelevant (the fact that you’re referencing 1887, specifically, tells me you are still voluntarily ignorant of why the Electoral Count Act exists and still to this day has the full force of law).0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »If a US president has to be pulled out from the White House it certaintly will be rare event and all unfolding on tv in real time. Events in 1887 is irrelevent for these days. Do you think Trump supporters not show up in Washington armed if he suggests it?
If he refuses to leave then he will be escorted off the premises like any other trespasser. However I think it's much more likely that he'll head off to Florida over the Christmas holidays and not come back to Washington.0 -
namloc1980 wrote: »If he refuses to leave then he will be escorted off the premises like any other trespasser. However I think it's much more likely that he'll head off to Florida over the Christmas holidays and not come back to Washington.
Yeah he’s not going to stage that stunt. He’s already terrified of being indicted when he leaves and he won’t have the protection or trappings of executive privilege when he decides to declare himself ‘the true President’ or something. Federal agents would arrest him on the spot for insurrection. At noon on January 20, he is a private citizen. And nobody would be there to pardon him for that, not even himself.
For that matter he has to formally resign anyway if he hopes to have Pence pardon him for federal crimes while the opportunity is there to.0 -
namloc1980 wrote: »If he refuses to leave then he will be escorted off the premises like any other trespasser. However I think it's much more likely that he'll head off to Florida over the Christmas holidays and not come back to Washington.
Trump has the backing and authority now to mobilise others to do the destruction for him. He’s got nothing to lose in his mind the democrats did a witch hunt against him for 4 years and he may seek revenge. Trump can flip the revenge switch on at any time and things will become chaotic. Trump state of mind will decide the future course of America here.
You only need to see the look of some of the people in the crowd yesterday who are just a step away from shooting at people who support biden.. In their minds the democrats are threat to the Republic. This is scary stuff that people should be mindful of here. Maybe i am more concerned than i should be, and Trump and his armed supporters willl fade away we’ll see.
I’m left leaning outlook kind of person and side more with democrats views i think? Some policies of theres over the years have being worrying. Thats for another time0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Trump has the backing and authority now to mobilise others to do the destruction for him. He’s got nothing to lose in his mind the democrats did a witch hunt against him for 4 years and he may seek revenge. Trump can flip the revenge switch on at any time and things will become chaotic. Trump state of mind will decide the future course of America here.
You only need to see the look of some of the people in the crowd yesterday who are just a step away from shooting at people who support biden.. In their minds the democrats are threat to the Republic. This is scary stuff that people should be mindful of here. Maybe i am more concerned than i should be, and Trump and his armed supporters willl fade away we’ll see.
I’m left leaning outlook kind of person and side more with democrats views i think? Some policies of theres over the years have being worrying. Thats for another time
None of that compels the court to debase themselves to entertain his delusion. They’ve upheld the rule of law.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »If a US president has to be pulled out from the White House it certaintly will be rare event and all unfolding on tv in real time. Events in 1887 is irrelevent for these days. Do you think Trump supporters not show up in Washington armed if he suggests it?
Why would he need to be pulled out? Leave him there, Biden would still be president.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Trump has the backing and authority now to mobilise others to do the destruction for him. He’s got nothing to lose in his mind the democrats did a witch hunt against him for 4 years and he may seek revenge. Trump can flip the revenge switch on at any time and things will become chaotic. Trump state of mind will decide the future course of America here.
You only need to see the look of some of the people in the crowd yesterday who are just a step away from shooting at people who support biden.. In their minds the democrats are threat to the Republic. This is scary stuff that people should be mindful of here. Maybe i am more concerned than i should be, and Trump and his armed supporters willl fade away we’ll see.
I’m left leaning outlook kind of person and side more with democrats views i think? Some policies of theres over the years have being worrying. Thats for another time
what does any of this have to do with trumps court cases or have you given up your nonsense on that?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement