Donald Trump thread v2.0

[Muda69]

13 hours ago, BTF said:

That pretty much sums up the entire Democratic party. It's all a joke.......a game. Power first, America last.

Now that the Pandora's Box has been open, if Mr. Trump does win the presidency how soon before he suggests/cajoles/instructs his DOJ and other state's attorney's offices to investigate Mr. Biden and other prominent Democrats, looking for felony charges to bring against them?

Tit for tat.  'tis the way of the uni-party.

 

[BTF]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Now that the Pandora's Box has been open, if Mr. Trump does win the presidency how soon before he suggests/cajoles/instructs his DOJ and other state's attorney's offices to investigate Mr. Biden and other prominent Democrats, looking for felony charges to bring against them?

Tit for tat.  'tis the way of the uni-party.

 

Day one hopefully. Drain the swamp. Shouldn't every average American want the swamp drained? No more back alley deals at the expense of the taxpayers. Funny how how Biden has three multi million dollar homes on his former and current salary. Same with the Obama's and Clinton's. They became rich off of politics............again, at the expense of the tax payers. 

I find it comical that voters worship the political elite. We're nothing but ants to them. Trump is a non-politician, at least he was until he became president. If the people want "change", then why not vote for someone outside of the "good ol' boy club"? Obama became president because people wanted change. To them, a black president was change. He went to the same elite prep high schools that the Bush's and Clinton's went to, lol. He's a good ol' boy. That wasn't change. Trump is "change". And the politicians hate him because he's better at it than they are. 

Make America Great Again

[Muda69]

4 hours ago, BTF said:

Day one hopefully.

Democrat = Republican = Uniparty.

4 hours ago, BTF said:

I find it comical that voters worship the political elite. We're nothing but ants to them. Trump is a non-politician

Bullshit. The minute Mr. Trump thew his hat in the ring for POTUS he became a politician.

And if you think Mr. Trump views you as more than an ant you are right.  He views you as ant with money to give to him.

 

[BTF]

3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

And if you think Mr. Trump views you as more than an ant you are right.  He views you as ant with money to give to him.

You mean like the 53 million his campaign generated 24 hours after his guilty verdict? Good for him. Whatever it takes for him to drain the swamp. You should be on our side Muda, not the political elites. Something tells me you're more like us than them. I mean, you're allegiance is to Rossville, not Punahou. 

[Bobref]

56 minutes ago, BTF said:

You mean like the 53 million his campaign generated 24 hours after his guilty verdict?

 

[Muda69]

12 hours ago, BTF said:

You mean like the 53 million his campaign generated 24 hours after his guilty verdict? Good for him. Whatever it takes for him to drain the swamp. You should be on our side Muda, not the political elites. Something tells me you're more like us than them. I mean, you're allegiance is to Rossville, not Punahou. 

And frankly you are a fool if you think a member of the uni-party really wants to 'drain the swamp', whatever the heck that means.  Trump is just another big government lackey, bought and paid for by special interests and the military industrial complex.

Call me when Trump actually balances the federal budget and reduces the federal deficit.  That is a sign that he has actually done something as POTUS.

 

 

 

[Bobref]

14 hours ago, BTF said:

Whatever it takes for him to drain the swamp.

 

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

And frankly you are a fool if you think a member of the uni-party really wants to 'drain the swamp', whatever the heck that means. 

In this context, I believe “draining the swamp” means getting rid of the other guy’s alligators so you can stock the swamp with your own.

[BTF]

On 6/1/2024 at 8:52 PM, Bobref said:

 

Said like a true poor man. God blesses those who give back. But in this case, I was referring to campaign money. Goodness, you're hard work. 

[BTF]

13 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Call me when Trump actually balances the federal budget and reduces the federal deficit.  

Lol, no one can balance the budget. Not even Trump. Our "trustworthy" politicians corrupted the financial integrity of our country. We're at a point of no return. See Germany and Venezuela. 

[BTF]

12 hours ago, Bobref said:

 

In this context, I believe “draining the swamp” means getting rid of the other guy’s alligators so you can stock the swamp with your own.

So you're one of those guys? Comfortable with the status quo? Begging for someone with an Ivy League education to lead the way? A political elite? So you're a follower, not a leader? Noted. 

Edited June 3 by BTF

[Muda69]

11 hours ago, BTF said:

Lol, no one can balance the budget. Not even Trump. 

Two presidents over the last fifty years have done it:  Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton.

And Trump has spent federal money like a drunken sailor, just like your "trustworthy" politicians.  But I supposed that is different, right?

11 hours ago, BTF said:

So you're one of those guys? Comfortable with the status quo? Begging for someone with an Ivy League education to lead the way? A political elite? So you're a follower, not a leader? Noted. 

   It sure as hell can't be a member of the uni-party, and that includes Trump or Biden.  That much is clear.

 

[Muda69]

Trump's Conviction Requires Him To Surrender His Guns. Civil Libertarians Should Be Troubled.: https://reason.com/2024/06/02/trumps-conviction-requires-him-to-surrender-his-guns-civil-libertarians-should-be-troubled/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote

Last September, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung caused a kerfuffle by mistakenly reporting that the former president had bought a Glock 19 pistol decorated with his portrait during a visit to a gun dealer in Summerville, South Carolina. At the time, Trump faced four criminal indictments, which would have made him guilty of several federal felonies—the purchase itself, plus two more felonies related to falsely presenting himself as an eligible buyer—if he had actually completed the transaction that Cheung described. Now that a New York jury has convicted Trump of 34 felonies involving falsification of business records, he is barred from possessing firearms as well as buying them.

Trump, who had a concealed carry permit, owned at least two handguns prior to his conviction: a Heckler & Koch HK45 pistol and a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. As the New York Post notes, Trump will now have to surrender those guns and any others he has acquired or transfer them to someone (such as one of his sons) who is legally allowed to own firearms. The fact that Trump, a self-described "very strong person on the Second Amendment," has lost the right to keep and bear arms may add to the delight of opponents who welcomed his conviction. But however you feel about Trump, this detail is a reminder that federal law arbitrarily strips people of their Second Amendment rights for reasons that have nothing to do with public safety.

Leaving aside the shaky legal reasoning that allowed New York prosecutors to convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, falsification of business records, even to aid or conceal "another crime," is not the sort of offense that marks someone as apt to injure or kill people with a gun. 18 USC 922(g)(1), which prohibits receipt or possession of a firearm by anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, is "wildly overinclusive," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler notes, because it encompasses many people with no history of violence.

"Many felonies are not violent in the least, raising no particular suspicion that the convict is a threat to public safety," Winkler writes. "Perjury, securities law violations, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, and a host of other felonies do not indicate a propensity for dangerousness. It is hard to imagine how banning Martha Stewart or Enron's Andrew Fastow from possessing a gun furthers public safety."

The same goes for Trump. Even if you buy the dubious "election fraud" narrative that a New York jury evidently accepted, disguising a hush-money reimbursement as payment for legal services puts Trump in the same boat as white-collar offenders such as Stewart and Fastow. Notwithstanding Trump's joke that he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" without losing any votes, that is not the sort of crime that even his most vociferous opponents think he is likely to commit.

History "demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a 2019 dissent as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous." In that case, Barrett concluded that a mail fraud conviction did not justify permanently depriving a defendant of the right to arms.

Three years later, Barrett joined the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified the constitutional test for gun control laws. "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"

Applying that test in the 2023 case Range v. Attorney General, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit restored the gun rights of a Pennsylvania man who had been convicted of food stamp fraud. Although that crime was a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law and did not result in any jail time, it was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison, which triggered Section 922(g)(1).

Similarly, Trump may not end up serving any time in New York even if his appeals are unsuccessful. But the fact that first-degree falsification of business records is punishable by up to four years in prison is enough to make him a "prohibited person" under Section 922(g)(1).

The 3rd Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment requires more to deprive someone of his gun rights. "At root, the Government's claim that only 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from 'the people,'" it said. "We reject that approach because such 'extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.'"

The appeals court was quoting 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, who joined the majority opinion in Range. In a 2020 dissent, Bibas argued that the blanket ban created by Section 922(g)(1) "conflicts with the historical limits on the Second Amendment," which "protect us from felons, but only if they are dangerous." Because "the felony label is arbitrary and manipulable," he noted, many of today's felonies "are far less serious than those at common law." Like Barrett, he emphasized that "the historical touchstone is danger."

Applying Range later that year in Williams v. Garland, U.S. District Judge John Milton Younge ruled that it was inconsistent with the Second Amendment to disarm a Philadelphia man who had been convicted of driving under the influence. Although that offense was a misdemeanor, it triggered Section 922(g) because it was punishable by up to five years in prison.

The policy embodied in that provision is relatively recent. The original prohibition, established by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, applied only to violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. In 1961, Congress expanded the ban to cover nonviolent crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which maintains that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms, has expressed concern about the breadth of the current "prohibited person" categories. Those provisions "too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues," the ACLU's deputy legal director, Louise Melling, observed in 2018. One reason progessives should be concerned about those issues: African Americans are especially likely to be disqualified under Section 922(g)(1), even if they have never committed a violent crime, because they are especially likely to have felony records.

Last year, in an Oklahoma case involving the federal ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick highlighted the danger of giving legislators wide discretion to decide which Americans deserve Second Amendment rights. "Imagine a world" where a state "could make mowing one's lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed 'felons' of their right to possess a firearm," he said.

Wyrick posed that very hypothetical to the government's lawyers. "Remarkably," he said, "when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said 'yes.' So, in the federal government's view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm."

 

[Muda69]

[Bobref]

59 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Is that Charles Manson?

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Is that Charles Manson?

Yes, I believe it is.

 

[BTF]

6 hours ago, Muda69 said:

It sure as hell can't be a member of the uni-party, and that includes Trump or Biden.  That much is clear.

Trump is hardly status quo or political elite. He's hated in Manhattan because he's from Queens. He's hated in Palm Beach because he's "new money." He's not part of the good ol' boy club. Not sure how you can lump him in the same category as past politicians. He's different, he's "change", and he's smart. But I do respect your position for wanting another option versus what we currently have. 

[Bobref]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Yes, I believe it is.

 

So, in a single post you compared Trump to both Jesus and a psycho killer. Congratulations, I think you win the internet today.

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Congratulations, I think you win the internet today.

Thank you.  I try. 

3 hours ago, BTF said:

Trump is hardly status quo or political elite. He's hated in Manhattan because he's from Queens. He's hated in Palm Beach because he's "new money." He's not part of the good ol' boy club. Not sure how you can lump him in the same category as past politicians. He's different, he's "change", and he's smart. But I do respect your position for wanting another option versus what we currently have. 

Thank you for your respect,  but Mr. Trump is a member of status quo.  And he earns that by being a member of the Republican half of the uni-party.

 

[Muda69]

I usually find Indy Star opinion columnist Mr. Briggs insufferable, but he is correct about a number of things in this column:

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/james-briggs/2024/06/03/trump-verdict-has-jim-banks-mike-braun-tearing-down-the-legal-system/73957049007/

Quote

Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies because he had sex with a porn star while his wife was caring for their newborn child and later reimbursed his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, for money spent keeping the affair out of the news while Trump was running for president.

A prosecutor successfully convinced 12 jury members that Trump's hush money payment amounted to an illicit donation to his presidential campaign because the money was intended to help him win an election.

Reasonable people can disagree over the merits of the case, the prosecutor's tactics and the laws in question. Notably, though, the Republicans rushing to Trump's defense aren't expressing doubts about the basic fact pattern I described. They just don't think Trump should face consequences.

So, rather than engaging in discourse over whether the Republican Party might be better off exiling Trump in favor of someone who does not cheat on their wife with porn stars and then pay them off for silence, you have U.S. Rep. Jim Banks calling New York a "liberal s--- hole" because it happened to be the site of Trump's guilty verdict.

Banks posted that comment on Twitter/X, a platform where his bio refers to himself first and foremost as a "father" and "husband." Banks is a big family values guy, you see. When he's not declaring a city of 8 million people irredeemable over matters of politics, he's, say, recognizing National Catholic Schools Week and lauding those institutions for "instilling in their students the value of service and Christian morals."

It must be a dizzying walk for Republicans like Banks. On one hand, they probably sincerely want to help raise a new generation of people based on traditional Christian values. On the other hand, Banks has decided it is virtuous to cheat on your wife with porn stars and pay money to cover it up so long as you are also passing tax cuts and fighting wokeness to balance the heavenly ledger.

If the youth are paying attention, they'll have to conclude that Banks' situational ethics offer a path to success. Banks is running for Senate against a no-name Democratic challenger. At this point, Banks could call Indiana a "s--- hole state" while desecrating a pork tenderloin sandwich and still win.

Banks is running to replace Republican Sen. Mike Braun, now the frontrunner to be Indiana's next governor, who also had thoughts on the Trump verdict.

Braun called the Trump case a "blatant abuse of our justice system as a political weapon by a radical prosecutor trying to interfere in the election," adding, "the verdict proves that this was just a show trial all along."

Nevermind that 12 jury members unanimously found Trump guilty of 34 felonies and nevermind how hard it is to get 12 jury members to agree on any verdict, especially those involving famous people (see: Simpson, O.J.). Republicans who have leeched onto Trump to quench their thirst for power must delegitimize any institution that does not uphold their patron scoundrel as infallible.

Now, they're coming for the legal system and imparting a new lesson on America's youth. If anyone tries to hold you accountable for your actions, thrash around and whine like an incalcitrant victim. Blame the system, blame geography, blame anything tangible you can point to with a trembling finger.

As a father and a husband, that's not the kind of child I hope to raise. But I don't have a Senate or gubernatorial race to win, so I guess I just can't understand what it means to be a servant and a leader.

 

[BTF]

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Thank you.  I try. 

Thank you for your respect,  but Mr. Trump is a member of status quo.  And he earns that by being a member of the Republican half of the uni-party.

 

If you remember, he entered the race in 2016 as a Republican because he didn't think he had a chance as an independent. 

Politicians are groomed in elite prep schools, then typically Ivy League law schools. They're taught politics from day one. Then they somehow become rich after being elected............very, very rich. Trump doesn't fit that mold. 

[Bobref]

10 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Republicans who have leeched onto Trump to quench their thirst for power must delegitimize any institution that does not uphold their patron scoundrel as infallible.

This is the part of the so-called “debate” I find most objectionable. The demonizing of opponents and the trashing of institutions because the outcome was unfavorable. This is simply a substitute for critical thinking by those too lazy to actually have a reasoned discourse. Don’t agree with the jury’s verdict in the Trump case? Never mind analyzing the evidence and forming your own conclusion. Simply rail at the vindictive prosecutor, the political appointee judge, the 12 “woke” New York jurors. Intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty.

9 minutes ago, BTF said:

Trump doesn't fit that mold. 

No, he doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean the mold he does fit is any better.

Edited June 4 by Bobref

[BTF]

5 minutes ago, Bobref said:

This is the part of the so-called “debate” I find most objectionable. The demonizing of opponents and the trashing of institutions because the outcome was unfavorable. This is simply a substitute for critical thinking by those too lazy to actually have a reasoned discourse. Don’t agree with the jury’s verdict in the Trump case? Never mind analyzing the evidence and forming your own conclusion. Simply rail at the vindictive prosecutor, the political appointee judge, the 12 “woke” New York jurors. Intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty.

You're not stupid Bob, but certainly naive. You defend the court system the same way you defend every bad call a ref makes in football. The people, especially the "uneducated", aren't as stupid as the media makes them out to be. And it's going to show in the polls. The democrats only chance at victory is to throw Trump in jail. What's been thrown at Trump to derail his political run is an absolute disgrace. In the meantime, The Clinton Foundation is squeaky clean. And the Obamas and Bidens became rich on their own merits. God help anyone who actually believe that. 

[Bobref]

15 minutes ago, BTF said:

You're not stupid Bob, but certainly naive. You defend the court system the same way you defend every bad call a ref makes in football. The people, especially the "uneducated", aren't as stupid as the media makes them out to be. And it's going to show in the polls. The democrats only chance at victory is to throw Trump in jail. What's been thrown at Trump to derail his political run is an absolute disgrace. In the meantime, The Clinton Foundation is squeaky clean. And the Obamas and Bidens became rich on their own merits. God help anyone who actually believe that. 

Couldn’t have come up with a better example of what I’m talking about if I tried. And your reading of my posts is, apparently, very selective. But that, too, fits the pattern.

 

[BTF]

2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Couldn’t have come up with a better example of what I’m talking about if I tried. And your reading of my posts is, apparently, very selective. But that, too, fits the pattern.

 

God bless you Bob. God bless America. God bless every American........right, left, and everyone in between. The damage is done, there are no corrective measures, only bandaids to stop the bleeding.   Not even Trump can fix this mess. And thank God for high school football. We're going to need it during a very turbulent fourth quarter of 2024. Take care gents, I'm out. 

[Muda69]

12 hours ago, BTF said:

 In the meantime, The Clinton Foundation is squeaky clean. And the Obamas and Bidens became rich on their own merits. God help anyone who actually believe that. 

I don't believe that.  The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.  

Uni-party.