What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Just because your main interaction with the thread is to come in with link dumps that - you hope - paint Trump in a positive light?

Why on *earth* would people think someone who does that is a Trump supporter? Madness.

Both sides nonsense again.

Given that he is running for the highest office in the US (Americans would say, in the world) and you believe he is unhinged, why are you defending him? Can you be proactive rather than reactive, give us a reasoned argument why we should even consider him an option for president?

There is nothing partisan about my arguments, I don't care at all which party runs the US, if Trump had stood as a Democrat and behaved the way he has I would still be of the same opinion about him.

I have asked before, when he was first elected, if there was anything, anything at all, to be said for him as a President, and got no replies.

That's basically the question that I put above, which obviously has gone unanswered. If there's clear and obvious evidence of crimes committed, those crimes should be investigated and a prosecution should be laid if there's enough evidence. Which is what's happened here. Not charging Trump would simply set the precedent that a President is above the law and can do whatever they like.

OH **** ANGELS ARE REAL?

This changes my whole world view.

....or maybe polls aren't substitutes for evidence of facts. :O

On what basis do you expect anyone to believe you put "partisan preferences to one side"?

Your refusal to engage with facts pointed out to you which contradict your statements, and consistent whataboutery when it comes to Trump's actions clearly demonstrate that you are not, in fact, putting any such preferences aside.

If you want to convince others of your credibility, please address the facts which counter your assertions.

And quit with the pearl clutching.

No, it was scoffed at because you're not providing any evidence for your claim. A poll of opinion is not evidence of a fact.

So we should decide who to prosecute based on polling? Multiple grand juries have found there to be sufficient evidence to prosecute for serious crimes. They are more aware than the general public of the evidence. You and Eskimo will basically reject any conviction, that's the reality.

Super topical this morning, bashing his former AG because he demanded his AG conduct a bunch of politically motivated prosecutions.

The same AG has emphasized how serious the charges against Trump are, and that there is a there there.

Why? State your reasons and evidence otherwise I don't think you'll be taken seriously (as you so crave)

You aren't convincing anyone, because whenever someone challenges your posts, and you're unable to offer to rebut it, you hide behind your 'discussion' definition.

So if you don't respond, we can draw our own conclusion that your claims have no credibility.

The poll wasn't just scoffed at, the contradictions in it were outlined, and you had no answer.

Was there a reason why, when you referenced the poll, you left out these pertinent findings?

48 percent of the poll said the charges were legitimate.

Only 35 percent disagreed.

So who were the 47 percent who thought the charges were politically motivated.

It doesnt add up.

When I put this point to you several times... you offered zero response.

Here's the post you ran away from / refused to discuss last time out.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120947279#Comment_120947279

Multiple grand juries have found there too be ample evidence to convict. The main motivation for Trump running again is the hope that it could prevent prosecutions. By your logic, he could run and lose each time to prevent these cases from seeing the light of day.

Why should we believe you're centrist at this point? You seem to absolve Trump of everything he did while in office and after leaving it. Meanwhile you're accusing Biden of things you have no evidence for and think he's evil for all his bold language. 🤣