Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With news just in that the investigation committee voted for a criminal investigation the Question is, Will he go down people?? " it is up to the DOJ. I don't think it will happen. Even pence said the DOJ shouldn't for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With news just in that the investigation committee voted for a criminal investigation the Question is, Will he go down people?? it is up to the DOJ. I don't think it will happen. Even pence said the DOJ shouldn't for it." Should they do what Pence says, or should they decide if he broke the law or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With news just in that the investigation committee voted for a criminal investigation the Question is, Will he go down people?? it is up to the DOJ. I don't think it will happen. Even pence said the DOJ shouldn't for it. Should they do what Pence says, or should they decide if he broke the law or not?" that's up to the DOJ to decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see him slithering out of it. Plays into De Santis hands. It’s his time. " yes desantis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With news just in that the investigation committee voted for a criminal investigation the Question is, Will he go down people?? it is up to the DOJ. I don't think it will happen. Even pence said the DOJ shouldn't for it. Should they do what Pence says, or should they decide if he broke the law or not? that's up to the DOJ to decide." I think they should try to see if he broke the law and ignore Pence's advice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump is more use to the Democrats free and a thorn in the side of the Republicans. Ask yourself who will win in a Trump v DeSantis primary? If Trump wins the Democrats are running against a three time looser in 2024. If DeSantis wins Trump will run as an independent, splitting the Republican vote. Nice to see them between a rock and a hard place of their own making. In the meantime Trump has made probable the smartest move in his political career in telling the freedom caucus in Congress to vote for Kevin McCarty as speaker of the house. As king-maker Trump will have McCarthy's balls in his pocket so he'd better do as he's told. " Democrats need someone better than Biden. Is it possible that he can steps down and someone else can run for their party? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 20/12/22 18:02:26]" He won't go down | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 20/12/22 18:02:26] He won't go down " Somebody will,  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's too rich, he'll just tie it up in red tape from his lawyers it'll never go to court. " Have his tax returns finally been released? It'll be interesting if they reveal he actually has no money at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most US politicians are corrupt criminals. Never understood the vitriol over Trump. You prefer an elderly man who's going senile, or an outright crook like Hilary over Trump? Are so many folk really that easily programmable by media?" You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it?" That doesn't sound like an explanation, more like empty words because you don't even know why you don't like him yourself. Programmed.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it? That doesn't sound like an explanation, more like empty words because you don't even know why you don't like him yourself. Programmed. "I am giving you the opportunity to find out yourself. Why should I cloud your judgement for and give you my opinion for? Either you do or you don’t, Pat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most US politicians are corrupt criminals. Never understood the vitriol over Trump. You prefer an elderly man who's going senile, or an outright crook like Hilary over Trump? Are so many folk really that easily programmable by media?" They are all pretty bad. Trump was just worse and more brazen about it. Plus being openly bigoted didn't help. Didn't really need the media with Trump, he put all his mad thoughts on twitter for everyone to see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it? That doesn't sound like an explanation, more like empty words because you don't even know why you don't like him yourse lf. Programmed. "What would you say to those who knew more about him before he stepped down the gold escalator into the race for the hot seat. Like new yorkers knew exactly what he was like pre 2015, the Puerto Ricians and Scottish knew exactly what he was like Pre 2015, It seems to me the only programmed people are the ones who heard his hate speechs, his promote violence speechs his anti Women scrap etc etc and loved what they heard,, These people are the sheep, and they follow blindly a man (loose term) who can't even open bottled water and drink from it without looking like,,, (well the very same as he did when he mocked a disabled journalist back in 2015) remember that,, or maybe you have selective memories when orange panda comes to mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most US politicians are corrupt criminals. Never understood the vitriol over Trump. You prefer an elderly man who's going senile, or an outright crook like Hilary over Trump? Are so many folk really that easily programmable by media?" Are you one of those people who think the last presidential election was st*len from Trump? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it? That doesn't sound like an explanation, more like empty words because you don't even know why you don't like him yourself. Programmed. "Are you claiming that people who disagree with you only do so because they've been brainwashed? I have more respect for people than that, even if their arguments are batshit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it? That doesn't sound like an explanation, more like empty words because you don't even know why you don't like him yourself. Programmed. "I think most people know why they don't like him, he's corrupt, says a lot of mad confused stuff that emboldens Nazis, bigots etc. Doesn't understand climate change and pulled the US out of the Paris Climate accord. As some random examples. All of which was clear from the words he spoke and from his Twitter feed. None of which came from media opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You cannot understand? or you don’t want to understand?, which is it? That doesn't sound like an explanation, more like empty words because you don't even know why you don't like him yourself. Programmed.
I think most people know why they don't like him, he's corrupt, says a lot of mad confused stuff that emboldens Nazis, bigots etc. Doesn't understand climate change and pulled the US out of the Paris Climate accord. As some random examples. All of which was clear from the words he spoke and from his Twitter feed. None of which came from media opinions. "Mocking a disabled reporter. Blatant corruption (family in office? Be serious) Saying white supremacists are fine people. No, I absolutely don't know why I don't like the man. Clearly  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most US politicians are corrupt criminals. Never understood the vitriol over Trump. You prefer an elderly man who's going senile, or an outright crook like Hilary over Trump? Are so many folk really that easily programmable by media?" An outright crook like Trump.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be." I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that)" There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office." Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail " How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically." It would be a show of strength to hold all the citizens to the same standards of law regardless of whom they are. Plus the rest of the world think Trump is a clown. So they'd not look unkindly on him being subjected to the appropriate punishment, if found guilty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office." As soon as Trump is charged with anything you'll see a self pardon pulled from his pocket, and you can bet his kids and lawyers will have one too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically." Really? I think failing to prosecute him would be a sign of weakness. That the system is afraid to go after people without fear or favour as it so claims to do. Tinpot banana republics are the kind that don't prosecute powerful people who've broken the law. Do you want the US to look like a tinpot banana republic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. As soon as Trump is charged with anything you'll see a self pardon pulled from his pocket, and you can bet his kids and lawyers will have one too." Future presidents: and the 45th president is why we can't have nice things | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically. It would be a show of strength to hold all the citizens to the same standards of law regardless of whom they are. Plus the rest of the world think Trump is a clown. So they'd not look unkindly on him being subjected to the appropriate punishment, if found guilty." China and Russia would have a field day claiming that Democratic elections are inept.. Think geopolitical. The optics. They can easily say I am the chosen one loom at what democracy gets you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically. It would be a show of strength to hold all the citizens to the same standards of law regardless of whom they are. Plus the rest of the world think Trump is a clown. So they'd not look unkindly on him being subjected to the appropriate punishment, if found guilty. China and Russia would have a field day claiming that Democratic elections are inept.. Think geopolitical. The optics. They can easily say I am the chosen one loom at what democracy gets you." And every country where the US has lectured about the rule of law is watching. Does the rule of law really apply, or does optics matter more than justice? Look what democracy gets you - prosecuting criminals and the rules applying to powerful people. Oh noes, how awful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically. It would be a show of strength to hold all the citizens to the same standards of law regardless of whom they are. Plus the rest of the world think Trump is a clown. So they'd not look unkindly on him being subjected to the appropriate punishment, if found guilty. China and Russia would have a field day claiming that Democratic elections are inept.. Think geopolitical. The optics. They can easily say I am the chosen one loom at what democracy gets you." The power of POTUS blows my mind, everyone has an opinion, it's an amazing position and globally influential. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically. It would be a show of strength to hold all the citizens to the same standards of law regardless of whom they are. Plus the rest of the world think Trump is a clown. So they'd not look unkindly on him being subjected to the appropriate punishment, if found guilty. China and Russia would have a field day claiming that Democratic elections are inept.. Think geopolitical. The optics. They can easily say I am the chosen one loom at what democracy gets you. And every country where the US has lectured about the rule of law is watching. Does the rule of law really apply, or does optics matter more than justice? Look what democracy gets you - prosecuting criminals and the rules applying to powerful people. Oh noes, how awful "so applying 1 person to a global persona is a risk we should take ? No in my opinion. Too much anarchy otherwise. Let him suffer in silence on a global scale being rejected. That's is eorse than prison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? " This isn't "I know you are but what am I" If we abolished the monarchy tomorrow, or 500 years ago, that would change nothing about the question. The rule of law, a core principle of law in the US and other countries, means that people are held to the same legal standard as each other. The US has evangelised about the rule of law and its superior way of doing things for a long time. So... Now apparently it should not apply the rule of law to Trump because it might look bad. Yeah. Russia and China will definitely not take that as evidence of the hypocrisy and worthlessness of democracy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Technically the UK is still a monarchy. Otherwise you wouldn't have a king. .. " And, as always, this has nothing to do with anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump on the available evidence if he were Joe Soap would definitely be going down. Buta deal of sorts will keep him from a cell Instead he will go down in the history books as the cowardly piece of slime that most of us know him to be. I imagine the logistics of imprisoning a former president are insurmountable. (I'm not saying I know he's definitely guilty - although publicly available evidence seems pretty compelling to me - just musing how you'd even do that) There would be no imprisonment because of the optics. Most likely barred from running for office. Surely the optics of not treating like cases alike would be worse? Why should a former president be treated differently to anyone else? I was thinking the practicalities of the Secret Service detail How do you think it will look on a world stage If we prosecuted former President? To our adversaries? It would be a Show of weakness geopolitically. It would be a show of strength to hold all the citizens to the same standards of law regardless of whom they are. Plus the rest of the world think Trump is a clown. So they'd not look unkindly on him being subjected to the appropriate punishment, if found guilty. China and Russia would have a field day claiming that Democratic elections are inept.. Think geopolitical. The optics. They can easily say I am the chosen one loom at what democracy gets you." What does democracy have to do with Trump facing the appropriate punishment (if found guilty)? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Technically the UK is still a monarchy. Otherwise you wouldn't have a king. .. And, as always, this has nothing to do with anything." it has a lot to do with it. Your paying for a king for a lifetime. Yet we do 4 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? " You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Technically the UK is still a monarchy. Otherwise you wouldn't have a king. .. And, as always, this has nothing to do with anything. it has a lot to do with it. Your paying for a king for a lifetime. Yet we do 4 years." The question is about the application of the US principles of the rule of law in the United States. Which has nothing to do with the constitution in the UK or any other country. (The Australian constitution holds that you must vote in pencil. Therefore the rule of law doesn't have to apply to powerful people in the United States because... I dunno dolphins) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? " Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead." Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites?" who is our figurehead again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? " So our figure head should be prosecuted . yet your monarchy is immune. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? So our figure head should be prosecuted . yet your monarchy is immune. " yet we are not a democracy . we are a constitutional republic. You are a monarchy hybrid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? " Joe Biden, last I checked. Who's also not immune from the law for the rest of his life after his presidency ends. According to your laws. Which are what is relevant here. The Australian constitution holds that changes to the constitution must be passed by referendum of a particular majority. Therefore locking up Trump is necessary because elephant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? Joe Biden, last I checked. Who's also not immune from the law for the rest of his life after his presidency ends. According to your laws. Which are what is relevant here. The Australian constitution holds that changes to the constitution must be passed by referendum of a particular majority. Therefore locking up Trump is necessary because elephant." again look up if we are a democracy or a constitutional republic. You would be surprised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? So our figure head should be prosecuted . yet your monarchy is immune. " I thought that was why the US gained independence? To get away from such things. New Zealand doesn't have a written constitution therefore prosecution of Trump must happen in black pen because kakapos | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? Joe Biden, last I checked. Who's also not immune from the law for the rest of his life after his presidency ends. According to your laws. Which are what is relevant here. The Australian constitution holds that changes to the constitution must be passed by referendum of a particular majority. Therefore locking up Trump is necessary because elephant. again look up if we are a democracy or a constitutional republic. You would be surprised." What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Your laws set out a certain standard. You're arguing that that standard should not be met because a) it might look bad, b) other countries have different laws, and now c) the technically correct names for the political arrangements in different countries You might as well cite Mabo or the treaty of Waitangi | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? Joe Biden, last I checked. Who's also not immune from the law for the rest of his life after his presidency ends. According to your laws. Which are what is relevant here. The Australian constitution holds that changes to the constitution must be passed by referendum of a particular majority. Therefore locking up Trump is necessary because elephant. again look up if we are a democracy or a constitutional republic. You would be surprised. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Your laws set out a certain standard. You're arguing that that standard should not be met because a) it might look bad, b) other countries have different laws, and now c) the technically correct names for the political arrangements in different countries You might as well cite Mabo or the treaty of Waitangi" you are still a monarchy with a Democratic undertone. On a geopolitical scale it matters. If you fail to realize that to our adversaries then I can't help you on your monarchy assumptions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So tell me how is the monarchy any different? We can go with past transgressions . Does that count as being jailed? You want to be told how the monarchy is different to weather Trump facing the same punishment as anyone else in the US for the same crimes looks good internationally or not? Would your monarchy be held to the some standards? Seriously deposing your king ? No it would not. He is your figurehead. Constitutionally the monarch is exempt from the criminal law in the UK. I did read at one point that Elizabeth abided by the criminal law out of respect for the populace. Under the US Constitution, the US president is not immune for life. (There is/was a DOJ memo about not prosecuting current presidents, but I don't think that reaches a very high threshold of priority of law) So the UK is upholding its constitution, which includes a monarchy. Will the US uphold its legal order, or be hypocrites? who is our figurehead again? Joe Biden, last I checked. Who's also not immune from the law for the rest of his life after his presidency ends. According to your laws. Which are what is relevant here. The Australian constitution holds that changes to the constitution must be passed by referendum of a particular majority. Therefore locking up Trump is necessary because elephant. again look up if we are a democracy or a constitutional republic. You would be surprised. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Your laws set out a certain standard. You're arguing that that standard should not be met because a) it might look bad, b) other countries have different laws, and now c) the technically correct names for the political arrangements in different countries You might as well cite Mabo or the treaty of Waitangi you are still a monarchy with a Democratic undertone. On a geopolitical scale it matters. If you fail to realize that to our adversaries then I can't help you on your monarchy assumptions. " let's play .. Why the need for a king again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface." Yet crucify one of our x presidents to suffice your carnal needs. Not going to happen on a geopolitical scale. So why the land own age again if you are a democracy and not a monarchy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. Yet crucify one of our x presidents to suffice your carnal needs. Not going to happen on a geopolitical scale. So why the land own age again if you are a democracy and not a monarchy? " you are a monarchy. My land I own is mine on a local state and Federal level.no one has jurisdiction unless there us warrant. Castle doctrine. Explain your monarchy rule? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface." How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing." The first reply seemed to be to me on the logistics of imprisoning a former president. I was thinking about the secret service detail, not anything about the UK, but *shrug* | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing." It's called "clutching at straws". When you have no credible defense, go on the offence, and divert to something you think gives you traction, no matter how far out of "left field" it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing. It's called "clutching at straws". When you have no credible defense, go on the offence, and divert to something you think gives you traction, no matter how far out of "left field" it is. " Yes. I think in the case of classified documents, Trump can't be held accountable to American standards under American law because monarchy, too. It's a bit like saying that a football player shouldn't abide by the rules of football because in hockey they use sticks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump wont be getting locked up, simple reason being if they lock him up that leaves a whole load of other powerfull people on both sides who could head the same way, the ones who have asked the doj to prosecute him have no power, the ones that do have power will never let it happen, " Could be right there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump wont be getting locked up, simple reason being if they lock him up that leaves a whole load of other powerfull people on both sides who could head the same way, the ones who have asked the doj to prosecute him have no power, the ones that do have power will never let it happen, " Possibly. Ironically, if he were to be convicted, it might be the actual start of draining the swamp. I can see why the powerful don't want that, even if they wish Trump would disappear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump wont be getting locked up, simple reason being if they lock him up that leaves a whole load of other powerfull people on both sides who could head the same way, the ones who have asked the doj to prosecute him have no power, the ones that do have power will never let it happen, Possibly. Ironically, if he were to be convicted, it might be the actual start of draining the swamp. I can see why the powerful don't want that, even if they wish Trump would disappear." the swamp will never be drained all of them wallow about in it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing." Because Blu gets lost in meandering, confused anger. I think they've been inadvertantly trained by the likes of Fox news to respond to reality in this way. Yeah, but what about this?! What about that?! What about the moon landings, huh?! etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing. Because Blu gets lost in meandering, confused anger. I think they've been inadvertantly trained by the likes of Fox news to respond to reality in this way. Yeah, but what about this?! What about that?! What about the moon landings, huh?! etc" done with politics. I get frustrated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing. Because Blu gets lost in meandering, confused anger. I think they've been inadvertantly trained by the likes of Fox news to respond to reality in this way. Yeah, but what about this?! What about that?! What about the moon landings, huh?! etc done with politics. I get frustrated. " Just give yourself a break from this place/ news/ social media etc for a while. It might help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Queen Elizabeth II: 2.7 billion hectares. By far the world's largest non-governmental landowner, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth and therefore legal owner of around 2.7 billion hectares of land, as estimated by The New Statesman. That's as much as a sixth of the planet's land surface. How did we get to here from a discussion on Trump's potential sentencing. Because Blu gets lost in meandering, confused anger. I think they've been inadvertantly trained by the likes of Fox news to respond to reality in this way. Yeah, but what about this?! What about that?! What about the moon landings, huh?! etc done with politics. I get frustrated. " I think we all get frustrated. But it'd be nice to have a conversation with some level of logical flow, sometimes. Under the rules of the US, what does this mean for Trump? As the British monarchy is not under the rules of the US, it's not relevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. " We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted." It does if its a possibility of a civil war. It is much better if desantis beats him as a nominee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted. It does if its a possibility of a civil war. It is much better if desantis beats him as a nominee." Yes, there's a balancing act to be had between lots of factors. However, it's often been said that we don't negotiate with terrorists. That should include those committing domestic terrorism. If people threaten violence because the processes of law move forward, they should be monitored and if appropriate arrested. (One January 6th defendant has recently been arrested for planning to assassinate FBI agents involved in his case. I wish the FBI and DOJ luck in taking out the trash) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. " Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted. It does if its a possibility of a civil war. It is much better if desantis beats him as a nominee." we have division because of the Democrats are in charge. UK has division because of the Tories. Nothing screams change when the average families are hit in their wallet. No matter the political situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted. It does if its a possibility of a civil war. It is much better if desantis beats him as a nominee. we have division because of the Democrats are in charge. UK has division because of the Tories. Nothing screams change when the average families are hit in their wallet. No matter the political situation. " So you're cool with lawmakers breaking the law as long as inflation is reduced? Why don't the Democratic actions like negotiating oil prices, student loan relief, or the inflation reduction act play into it? Inflation is a problem globally at the moment. We still need to apply the law to everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted. It does if its a possibility of a civil war. It is much better if desantis beats him as a nominee. we have division because of the Democrats are in charge. UK has division because of the Tories. Nothing screams change when the average families are hit in their wallet. No matter the political situation. " The division was there when Trump was in charge, and the division would be here if Labour were in government. Division is a useful way to control the population. Further dividing people was one of the side benefits of brexit here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular." If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular." 80 million people think otherwise.even if not all 80 half that for a benefit of doubt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like." America will cause themselves a lot of problems if he's found guilty and "let off". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. We'll see. I don't think that any pretence of rule of law could be upheld if Trump is not prosecuted. It does if its a possibility of a civil war. It is much better if desantis beats him as a nominee. we have division because of the Democrats are in charge. UK has division because of the Tories. Nothing screams change when the average families are hit in their wallet. No matter the political situation. The division was there when Trump was in charge, and the division would be here if Labour were in government. Division is a useful way to control the population. Further dividing people was one of the side benefits of brexit here." Part of the division is about the rules being unfair. Students getting enormous fines during lockdown - Johnson getting a slap on the wrist that he denied was criminal. January 6 rioters getting jail time - but oh no, we can't prosecute people like Trump. That would be bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. 80 million people think otherwise.even if not all 80 half that for a benefit of doubt." Do you mean, the 80 million people don't give a fuck what crimes he committed, or do they not trust the system to give him a fair trial? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. 80 million people think otherwise.even if not all 80 half that for a benefit of doubt." The law is not a popularity contest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like." but we are not a democracy now are we? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we?" I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake." and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we?" But back to Trump since you sidetracked. Its not prudent to prosecute him in the current situation. Let Desantis get the nomination first. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors." Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? But back to Trump since you sidetracked. Its not prudent to prosecute him in the current situation. Let Desantis get the nomination first." So the rule of law should apply to everyone... except when it's inconvenient for Republicans? Please. That's almost as bad as the rule of law should apply to everyone except when they have domestic terrorists ready to die for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...)" well my county still are huge trump supporters. The difference between me and you is I live here and hear the general local politics. You just see national. In my opinion if the DOJ prosecutes there will be a shitstorm. That being said I try to convince people everyday that desantis is the better choice.Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. When its a choice between heating or food. Especially now during a bomb cyclone. Who do you think people are going to gravitate to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...) well my county still are huge trump supporters. The difference between me and you is I live here and hear the general local politics. You just see national. In my opinion if the DOJ prosecutes there will be a shitstorm. That being said I try to convince people everyday that desantis is the better choice.Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. When its a choice between heating or food. Especially now during a bomb cyclone. Who do you think people are going to gravitate to? " Oh yeah. You said you knew for certain that Mehmet Oz was definitely going to be your new senator and you laughed at the idea that anyone outside your area would know any better. How's that going for you?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...) well my county still are huge trump supporters. The difference between me and you is I live here and hear the general local politics. You just see national. In my opinion if the DOJ prosecutes there will be a shitstorm. That being said I try to convince people everyday that desantis is the better choice.Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. When its a choice between heating or food. Especially now during a bomb cyclone. Who do you think people are going to gravitate to? Oh yeah. You said you knew for certain that Mehmet Oz was definitely going to be your new senator and you laughed at the idea that anyone outside your area would know any better. How's that going for you?
"and I also said I voted for Shapiro a Democratic governor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...) well my county still are huge trump supporters. The difference between me and you is I live here and hear the general local politics. You just see national. In my opinion if the DOJ prosecutes there will be a shitstorm. That being said I try to convince people everyday that desantis is the better choice.Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. When its a choice between heating or food. Especially now during a bomb cyclone. Who do you think people are going to gravitate to? Oh yeah. You said you knew for certain that Mehmet Oz was definitely going to be your new senator and you laughed at the idea that anyone outside your area would know any better. How's that going for you?
and I also said I voted for Shapiro a Democratic governor. "why are you sidetracked? Midterms are over.You call me out for it yet you doing the same. You're such a hypocrite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. " So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...) well my county still are huge trump supporters. The difference between me and you is I live here and hear the general local politics. You just see national. In my opinion if the DOJ prosecutes there will be a shitstorm. That being said I try to convince people everyday that desantis is the better choice.Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. When its a choice between heating or food. Especially now during a bomb cyclone. Who do you think people are going to gravitate to? Oh yeah. You said you knew for certain that Mehmet Oz was definitely going to be your new senator and you laughed at the idea that anyone outside your area would know any better. How's that going for you?
and I also said I voted for Shapiro a Democratic governor. why are you sidetracked? Midterms are over.You call me out for it yet you doing the same. You're such a hypocrite."You said that you knew for a fact that Oz would win, and what would we know, we don't live in your area. Oz did not win, as we predicted. You're now saying we can't know what we're talking about, because we don't live here. So presumably since you have clearly superior knowledge, Oz won? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/" we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January." People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful." and how does me being a American have any bearing on your existence? What is your curiosity that you have to interject constantly just like others.I am curious. If our Olympic falls what is your concern. I stated the general feeling of local population. Yet I am wrong and you want to bw righteous right. Indulge me. In the end it has no bearing on your decisions just mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll be honest. I haven't seen any convincing argument that Trump shouldn't be puniahed appropriately if found guilty. Him being popular shouldn't be a factor at all. Also, I should think during ever increasing extreme weather conditions, people shouldn't gravitate towards someone who denies climate change. " climate change. People its not hot. The media narrative is heat. People remember this current situation over heat. Look at Texas grid last year. How you think this climate debacle going to play out. On Christmas eve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful. and how does me being a American have any bearing on your existence? What is your curiosity that you have to interject constantly just like others.I am curious. If our Olympic falls what is your concern. I stated the general feeling of local population. Yet I am wrong and you want to bw righteous right. Indulge me. In the end it has no bearing on your decisions just mine." You being American is irrelevant. It's a political forum where we're allowed to have political discussions. I'm having a political discussion, where I believe I'm relatively well informed on the issues. I never said you're not allowed your opinion. I disagree with you, we're allowed to disagree, I just hope the arguments make logical sense. You know better because you live there - maybe, but many people here predicted Senator Fetterman and you told us we didn't know what we were talking about. You have Fetterman. My argument centres on the rule of law - a concept that's trumpeted by Americans, has its origins (most likely) in the UK, and is also a key feature of law in my native Australia. The rule of law means, more or less, that the law applies to us all equally. The monarchy, inflation, Republican primaries, and the existence of people willing to become domestic terrorists for Trump are entirely irrelevant to the rule of law, if it is to be upheld. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do not think the rules are going to apply. Look at the Watergate scandal. Trump has a bigger following than nixon did. The division is much higher among Democrats and republican. People remember cheaper cost of living under Trump. I see it every day people wanting him to be back in charge.So a conviction will cause further division. Shouldn't the rule of law apply to him regardless of if people like things about him? He shouldn't be excused from punishment (if found guilty), just because he's popular. If he is, then the decades of the US lecturing the world about democracy and rule of law will be flushed. You little countries have to have standards - Americans can do whatever the fuck we like. but we are not a democracy now are we? I said "Americans lecturing the world *about* democracy" If I lecture you about carrot cake, I am not a carrot cake. and yet you consider yourself a democracy.Its all smoke and mirrors. Again. I'm talking about the rules of the US applying within the US according to the reputation and proclamations of the US. The UK is entirely irrelevant to this. (Although I'm pretty sure we're a constitutional monarchy... So...)" Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy I believe. Can seem confusing as the monarch is the head of state but not head of government. However on paper at least the government govern by consent from the monarch | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful. and how does me being a American have any bearing on your existence? What is your curiosity that you have to interject constantly just like others.I am curious. If our Olympic falls what is your concern. I stated the general feeling of local population. Yet I am wrong and you want to bw righteous right. Indulge me. In the end it has no bearing on your decisions just mine. You being American is irrelevant. It's a political forum where we're allowed to have political discussions. I'm having a political discussion, where I believe I'm relatively well informed on the issues. I never said you're not allowed your opinion. I disagree with you, we're allowed to disagree, I just hope the arguments make logical sense. You know better because you live there - maybe, but many people here predicted Senator Fetterman and you told us we didn't know what we were talking about. You have Fetterman. My argument centres on the rule of law - a concept that's trumpeted by Americans, has its origins (most likely) in the UK, and is also a key feature of law in my native Australia. The rule of law means, more or less, that the law applies to us all equally. The monarchy, inflation, Republican primaries, and the existence of people willing to become domestic terrorists for Trump are entirely irrelevant to the rule of law, if it is to be upheld." Did the law apply to Watergate? It didn't all it takes is a presidential pardon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful. and how does me being a American have any bearing on your existence? What is your curiosity that you have to interject constantly just like others.I am curious. If our Olympic falls what is your concern. I stated the general feeling of local population. Yet I am wrong and you want to bw righteous right. Indulge me. In the end it has no bearing on your decisions just mine. You being American is irrelevant. It's a political forum where we're allowed to have political discussions. I'm having a political discussion, where I believe I'm relatively well informed on the issues. I never said you're not allowed your opinion. I disagree with you, we're allowed to disagree, I just hope the arguments make logical sense. You know better because you live there - maybe, but many people here predicted Senator Fetterman and you told us we didn't know what we were talking about. You have Fetterman. My argument centres on the rule of law - a concept that's trumpeted by Americans, has its origins (most likely) in the UK, and is also a key feature of law in my native Australia. The rule of law means, more or less, that the law applies to us all equally. The monarchy, inflation, Republican primaries, and the existence of people willing to become domestic terrorists for Trump are entirely irrelevant to the rule of law, if it is to be upheld. Did the law apply to Watergate? It didn't all it takes is a presidential pardon." Presidential pardons are part of the law in the United States. If Trump is pardoned then that is also the rule of law applying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful. and how does me being a American have any bearing on your existence? What is your curiosity that you have to interject constantly just like others.I am curious. If our Olympic falls what is your concern. I stated the general feeling of local population. Yet I am wrong and you want to bw righteous right. Indulge me. In the end it has no bearing on your decisions just mine. You being American is irrelevant. It's a political forum where we're allowed to have political discussions. I'm having a political discussion, where I believe I'm relatively well informed on the issues. I never said you're not allowed your opinion. I disagree with you, we're allowed to disagree, I just hope the arguments make logical sense. You know better because you live there - maybe, but many people here predicted Senator Fetterman and you told us we didn't know what we were talking about. You have Fetterman. My argument centres on the rule of law - a concept that's trumpeted by Americans, has its origins (most likely) in the UK, and is also a key feature of law in my native Australia. The rule of law means, more or less, that the law applies to us all equally. The monarchy, inflation, Republican primaries, and the existence of people willing to become domestic terrorists for Trump are entirely irrelevant to the rule of law, if it is to be upheld. Did the law apply to Watergate? It didn't all it takes is a presidential pardon. Presidential pardons are part of the law in the United States. If Trump is pardoned then that is also the rule of law applying." So Biden would need to pardon Trump? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".Laws are not going to apply when the majority of people are hurting financially. So are you telling me that a) the United States is a failed state, or b) that its persuasion about correct governance and push towards democracy (including its massive armed forces) was all a lie? Note: the disclaimer on the top of the circuit applying to your state, seems to indicate that laws are still being applied even as people hurt. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/ we shall see. You forget who is taking the house in January. People are hurting now. The law seems to be being applied in the circuit above you. Laws not being applied seems to be indicative of a failed state. Alternately, everything that the US projects to the world about freedom and justice is just a lie and you don't apply it to yourselves. I'm just applying your logic here. It rather paints a picture that makes Sudan look orderly and peaceful. and how does me being a American have any bearing on your existence? What is your curiosity that you have to interject constantly just like others.I am curious. If our Olympic falls what is your concern. I stated the general feeling of local population. Yet I am wrong and you want to bw righteous right. Indulge me. In the end it has no bearing on your decisions just mine. You being American is irrelevant. It's a political forum where we're allowed to have political discussions. I'm having a political discussion, where I believe I'm relatively well informed on the issues. I never said you're not allowed your opinion. I disagree with you, we're allowed to disagree, I just hope the arguments make logical sense. You know better because you live there - maybe, but many people here predicted Senator Fetterman and you told us we didn't know what we were talking about. You have Fetterman. My argument centres on the rule of law - a concept that's trumpeted by Americans, has its origins (most likely) in the UK, and is also a key feature of law in my native Australia. The rule of law means, more or less, that the law applies to us all equally. The monarchy, inflation, Republican primaries, and the existence of people willing to become domestic terrorists for Trump are entirely irrelevant to the rule of law, if it is to be upheld. Did the law apply to Watergate? It didn't all it takes is a presidential pardon. Presidential pardons are part of the law in the United States. If Trump is pardoned then that is also the rule of law applying. So Biden would need to pardon Trump?" Yes, or a future president. I don't think it'd necessarily be a good look (outside the usual modern operation of the pardon power), but it'd be the operation of US law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president." If he is found guilty, he shouldn't be let off in case people are bonkers enough to vote for him again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president." You seem to have misspelled "holding people accountable for what appear to be crimes" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president. You seem to have misspelled "holding people accountable for what appear to be crimes"" Missed the point entirely. This time its Trump, but next time it could be someone else who powerful lobby groups don't want in. Look at our own government, who voted for Truss or Sunak?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president. You seem to have misspelled "holding people accountable for what appear to be crimes" Missed the point entirely. This time its Trump, but next time it could be someone else who powerful lobby groups don't want in. Look at our own government, who voted for Truss or Sunak? "So maybe people going into politics should be mindful of not breaking the law. Like we all should. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president. You seem to have misspelled "holding people accountable for what appear to be crimes" Missed the point entirely. This time its Trump, but next time it could be someone else who powerful lobby groups don't want in. Look at our own government, who voted for Truss or Sunak? "Shouldn't he just be tried for the alleged crimes regardless of who said what or how popular he is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president. You seem to have misspelled "holding people accountable for what appear to be crimes" Missed the point entirely. This time its Trump, but next time it could be someone else who powerful lobby groups don't want in. Look at our own government, who voted for Truss or Sunak?
Shouldn't he just be tried for the alleged crimes regardless of who said what or how popular he is?"If there are accusations backed with sufficient evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies, then of course there should be a trial. If the accusations are false then the accused person should welcome their day in court to prove their innocence and seek recompense against the false allegations. If there is no evidence then there is no cause for a court case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how current democratic systems are when there is such a push in stopping the American public from being able to choose a specific person as their president. You seem to have misspelled "holding people accountable for what appear to be crimes" Missed the point entirely. This time its Trump, but next time it could be someone else who powerful lobby groups don't want in. Look at our own government, who voted for Truss or Sunak?
Shouldn't he just be tried for the alleged crimes regardless of who said what or how popular he is?
If there are accusations backed with sufficient evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies, then of course there should be a trial. If the accusations are false then the accused person should welcome their day in court to prove their innocence and seek recompense against the false allegations.
If there is no evidence then there is no cause for a court case."Yup, rule of law etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
