US politics

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 384 of 706 < 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 >

Teddy Eagle 01 Apr 23 10.18pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have absolutely no problem with anyone criticising the left. I believe there is a thread here in which people like you can rant and rave to your hearts content. Fine by me. If it keeps you occupied that's great. What I object to are attempts to avoid facing criticism via whataboutism. Suggesting the "left are far more guilty" is an example of that, as well as being obviously untrue. That the right claim, and Trump encourages them to believe, that him being indicted is a political act, doesn't make it so. Why on earth should he not be indicted just because he was a POTUS? Innocent men have nothing to fear from being prosecuted. He will have ample opportunity, and very expensive legal help, to clear his name. If any former POTUS had done anything that a Grand Jury (not the DA) had concluded constituted an indictable act, and then them not be indicted just because of who they are, it would be a gross abuse of the law. The law must apply equally to all, and it's vital that the powerful must always be held to account, lest they start to believe they are above the law. Johnson seemed to think that. Trump certainly does. I find it sad that so many in the USA, including senior Republicans, appear to agree with him. It's sad in the USA, but it's really both surprising and pretty disgraceful that anyone here does too. We are better than that. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Apr 2023 9.57pm) The Department of Justice doesn't seem as sure. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

01 Apr 23 10.18pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have absolutely no problem with anyone criticising the left. I believe there is a thread here in which people like you can rant and rave to your hearts content. Fine by me. If it keeps you occupied that's great.

What I object to are attempts to avoid facing criticism via whataboutism. Suggesting the "left are far more guilty" is an example of that, as well as being obviously untrue.

That the right claim, and Trump encourages them to believe, that him being indicted is a political act, doesn't make it so. Why on earth should he not be indicted just because he was a POTUS?

Innocent men have nothing to fear from being prosecuted. He will have ample opportunity, and very expensive legal help, to clear his name.

If any former POTUS had done anything that a Grand Jury (not the DA) had concluded constituted an indictable act, and then them not be indicted just because of who they are, it would be a gross abuse of the law.

The law must apply equally to all, and it's vital that the powerful must always be held to account, lest they start to believe they are above the law.

Johnson seemed to think that. Trump certainly does. I find it sad that so many in the USA, including senior Republicans, appear to agree with him. It's sad in the USA, but it's really both surprising and pretty disgraceful that anyone here does too. We are better than that.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Apr 2023 9.57pm)

The Department of Justice doesn't seem as sure.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

footythoughts Beckenham 02 Apr 23 12.47am
I saw a comment stating that Trump had finally won a popular vote. Though in all seriousness, he'd largely fallen out of the news cycle until this. Considering his entire previous campaign was based on free publicity, if I was Ron Desantis I'd be a little concerned about the prospect of becoming a footnote.
Alert a moderator to this post

footythoughts

Beckenham 02 Apr 23 12.47am

I saw a comment stating that Trump had finally won a popular vote.

Though in all seriousness, he'd largely fallen out of the news cycle until this. Considering his entire previous campaign was based on free publicity, if I was Ron Desantis I'd be a little concerned about the prospect of becoming a footnote.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 10.21am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle The Department of Justice doesn't seem as sure. [Link] I cannot access that article, so you will have to either explain or find another. It doesn't seem very likely to me that the D o J would express a political opinion. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 10.21am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The Department of Justice doesn't seem as sure.

[Link]

I cannot access that article, so you will have to either explain or find another. It doesn't seem very likely to me that the D o J would express a political opinion.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 10.29am
Originally posted by footythoughts I saw a comment stating that Trump had finally won a popular vote. Though in all seriousness, he'd largely fallen out of the news cycle until this. Considering his entire previous campaign was based on free publicity, if I was Ron Desantis I'd be a little concerned about the prospect of becoming a footnote. This is the strongest evidence that politics have nothing to do with this. If they did the Democrats would be pushing for it to be kicked into the long grass and off the headlines. This gives Trump the opportunity to again position himself as a victim and divert attention from his many failings. It's as if Al Capone was mounting a public campaign for sympathy for being targeted for tax evasion whilst other gangsters were being allowed to continue to shoot people. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 10.29am

Originally posted by footythoughts

I saw a comment stating that Trump had finally won a popular vote.

This is the strongest evidence that politics have nothing to do with this. If they did the Democrats would be pushing for it to be kicked into the long grass and off the headlines. This gives Trump the opportunity to again position himself as a victim and divert attention from his many failings.

It's as if Al Capone was mounting a public campaign for sympathy for being targeted for tax evasion whilst other gangsters were being allowed to continue to shoot people.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 02 Apr 23 11.44am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle This is the strongest evidence that politics have nothing to do with this. If they did the Democrats would be pushing for it to be kicked into the long grass and off the headlines. This gives Trump the opportunity to again position himself as a victim and divert attention from his many failings. It's as if Al Capone was mounting a public campaign for sympathy for being targeted for tax evasion whilst other gangsters were being allowed to continue to shoot people. What are his many failings? How is he comparable to Al Capone? Edited by georgenorman (02 Apr 2023 11.46am)
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

02 Apr 23 11.44am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's as if Al Capone was mounting a public campaign for sympathy for being targeted for tax evasion whilst other gangsters were being allowed to continue to shoot people.

What are his many failings? How is he comparable to Al Capone?

Edited by georgenorman (02 Apr 2023 11.46am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 02 Apr 23 1.11pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I cannot access that article, so you will have to either explain or find another. It doesn't seem very likely to me that the D o J would express a political opinion. Briefly that the DoJ declined to charge Trump on the Stormy Daniels payment case in 2018 and again in 2021.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

02 Apr 23 1.11pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I cannot access that article, so you will have to either explain or find another. It doesn't seem very likely to me that the D o J would express a political opinion.

Briefly that the DoJ declined to charge Trump on the Stormy Daniels payment case in 2018 and again in 2021.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 1.23pm
Originally posted by georgenorman What are his many failings? How is he comparable to Al Capone? Edited by georgenorman (02 Apr 2023 11.46am) As there have been books written on the subject it's not possible to list them in a few words. They are obvious to most. If you cannot see them, then read the books. I didn't directly compare him to Al Capone. I compared the situations. Nevertheless, there are some similarities in the way they both behave. Trump acts like a mob boss, terrorising his staff, not listening to others, belittling any who criticise and sacking those who dare to challenge him. He expects complete loyalty to himself personally, and not to either the country or the law. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 1.23pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

What are his many failings? How is he comparable to Al Capone?

Edited by georgenorman (02 Apr 2023 11.46am)

As there have been books written on the subject it's not possible to list them in a few words. They are obvious to most. If you cannot see them, then read the books.

I didn't directly compare him to Al Capone. I compared the situations. Nevertheless, there are some similarities in the way they both behave. Trump acts like a mob boss, terrorising his staff, not listening to others, belittling any who criticise and sacking those who dare to challenge him. He expects complete loyalty to himself personally, and not to either the country or the law.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 1.24pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Briefly that the DoJ declined to charge Trump on the Stormy Daniels payment case in 2018 and again in 2021. On what basis? That this wasn't a federal matter but something to be considered at state level? There were a number of issues that Robert Mueller sent to New York, after he had completed his enquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, because there is no Presidential immunity available for state level indictments. Deciding where best to bring charges is something that lawyers do all the time. That's not politics. It's deciding where the law is most likely to be effective. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (02 Apr 2023 1.30pm) For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 02 Apr 23 1.24pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Briefly that the DoJ declined to charge Trump on the Stormy Daniels payment case in 2018 and again in 2021.

On what basis? That this wasn't a federal matter but something to be considered at state level?

There were a number of issues that Robert Mueller sent to New York, after he had completed his enquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, because there is no Presidential immunity available for state level indictments.

Deciding where best to bring charges is something that lawyers do all the time. That's not politics. It's deciding where the law is most likely to be effective.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (02 Apr 2023 1.30pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 02 Apr 23 1.43pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle On what basis? That this wasn't a federal matter but something to be considered at state level? There were a number of issues that Robert Mueller sent to New York, after he had completed his enquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, because there is no Presidential immunity available for state level indictments. Deciding where best to bring charges is something that lawyers do all the time. That's not politics. It's deciding where the law is most likely to be effective. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (02 Apr 2023 1.30pm) Apparently the evidence isn't thought to be strong enough to indict him and it would be risky to try and prove anything more than a misdemeanor. In this case the politicisation is said to be coming from the District Attorney, Bragg, whose election was largely based on an anti-Trump platform.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

02 Apr 23 1.43pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

On what basis? That this wasn't a federal matter but something to be considered at state level?

Deciding where best to bring charges is something that lawyers do all the time. That's not politics. It's deciding where the law is most likely to be effective.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (02 Apr 2023 1.30pm)

Apparently the evidence isn't thought to be strong enough to indict him and it would be risky to try and prove anything more than a misdemeanor.
In this case the politicisation is said to be coming from the District Attorney, Bragg, whose election was largely based on an anti-Trump platform.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 02 Apr 23 1.57pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle As there have been books written on the subject it's not possible to list them in a few words. They are obvious to most. If you cannot see them, then read the books. I didn't directly compare him to Al Capone. I compared the situations. Nevertheless, there are some similarities in the way they both behave. Trump acts like a mob boss, terrorising his staff, not listening to others, belittling any who criticise and sacking those who dare to challenge him. He expects complete loyalty to himself personally, and not to either the country or the law. Can you list some of the books. How do the situations compare? What has Al Capone got to do with any of this? How does Trump act like a mob boss? Give some examples of Trump terrorising his staff. Give some examples of Trump not listening to others. Show where Trump has belittled anyone who criticises him (has he belittled you?) Who has he sacked for challenging him? How do you know that he expects complete loyalty to himself? How do you know that he does not expect loyalty to his country or the law?
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

02 Apr 23 1.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As there have been books written on the subject it's not possible to list them in a few words. They are obvious to most. If you cannot see them, then read the books.

Can you list some of the books.
How do the situations compare?
What has Al Capone got to do with any of this?
How does Trump act like a mob boss?
Give some examples of Trump terrorising his staff.
Give some examples of Trump not listening to others.
Show where Trump has belittled anyone who criticises him (has he belittled you?)
Who has he sacked for challenging him?
How do you know that he expects complete loyalty to himself?
How do you know that he does not expect loyalty to his country or the law?

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 02 Apr 23 2.11pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have absolutely no problem with anyone criticising the left. I believe there is a thread here in which people like you can rant and rave to your hearts content. Fine by me. If it keeps you occupied that's great. What I object to are attempts to avoid facing criticism via whataboutism. Suggesting the "left are far more guilty" is an example of that, as well as being obviously untrue. That the right claim, and Trump encourages them to believe, that him being indicted is a political act, doesn't make it so. Why on earth should he not be indicted just because he was a POTUS? Innocent men have nothing to fear from being prosecuted. He will have ample opportunity, and very expensive legal help, to clear his name. If any former POTUS had done anything that a Grand Jury (not the DA) had concluded constituted an indictable act, and then them not be indicted just because of who they are, it would be a gross abuse of the law. The law must apply equally to all, and it's vital that the powerful must always be held to account, lest they start to believe they are above the law. Johnson seemed to think that. Trump certainly does. I find it sad that so many in the USA, including senior Republicans, appear to agree with him. It's sad in the USA, but it's really both surprising and pretty disgraceful that anyone here does too. We are better than that. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Apr 2023 9.57pm) Your outrage only ever seems to flow in one direction. You talk about 'whataboutery' like it's an excuse for anyone, other than the people you oppose, to do what they like. You have a blind spot.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

02 Apr 23 2.11pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

What I object to are attempts to avoid facing criticism via whataboutism. Suggesting the "left are far more guilty" is an example of that, as well as being obviously untrue.

That the right claim, and Trump encourages them to believe, that him being indicted is a political act, doesn't make it so. Why on earth should he not be indicted just because he was a POTUS?

Innocent men have nothing to fear from being prosecuted. He will have ample opportunity, and very expensive legal help, to clear his name.

The law must apply equally to all, and it's vital that the powerful must always be held to account, lest they start to believe they are above the law.

Johnson seemed to think that. Trump certainly does. I find it sad that so many in the USA, including senior Republicans, appear to agree with him. It's sad in the USA, but it's really both surprising and pretty disgraceful that anyone here does too. We are better than that.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Apr 2023 9.57pm)

Your outrage only ever seems to flow in one direction.

You talk about 'whataboutery' like it's an excuse for anyone, other than the people you oppose, to do what they like.

You have a blind spot.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 02 Apr 23 2.17pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Your outrage only ever seems to flow in one direction. You talk about 'whataboutery' like it's an excuse for anyone, other than the people you oppose, to do what they like. You have a blind spot. A blind spot like a big black bag over Wisbech's head and fingers in the ears, shouting "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly