Christians what do you think about Trump's convictions

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for the liberal talking point.

There weren't any talking points in that post.

 

[Laniakea]

Not around here. It's overwhelmingly in one candidate's favor. This is how our system works. The Electoral College and all that good stuff.

You mean California?

 

[Kathryn]

Nope.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't live in a swing state. If I did, or if it becomes a very very close race around here, I will change my mind and probably vote for the lesser of the two evils, but they are both evil in my opinion and frankly I don't want either one on my conscience.

 

[McBell]

On top of it being misdemeanor instead of felony, it was also beyond the statute of limitations.
Too bad the judge elected not to inform the jury about that. But then again, the law wasn't what was being upheld.

Some more truth for you to flat out ignore:

​

Trump's case was tried in New York, where the statute of limitations is five years for all but the most serious felonies and two years for misdemeanors. The charge against Trump, falsifying business records in the first degree, is a Class E felony. That means the statute of limitations is five years.​

​

Trump's lawyers moved to dismiss the case in its early stages based on the statute of limitations, but Merchan rejected the argument. In a pretrial decision, the judge said the pandemic extension stretched out the deadline for the prosecution by one year and 47 days.​

​

"In other words, this felony prosecution had to be commenced within six years and 47 days from when the crimes were allegedly committed," Merchan wrote.​

​

Trump was charged within days of the potential deadline. The extension "brought the conduct described in the indictment within the prescribed five-year time limit," Merchan wrote.​

After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

Trump and his team have said the statute of limitations may be an issue in appealing his convictions. Here's what we know about the unusual timing.

www.usatoday.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For example the case E.J.Carroll against Trump and Tara Reade against Joe Biden. If Biden would not be above the law, he would be judged the same way as Trump. But, interestingly in Trump case everyone believes Carroll's dubious claims, and Reade is defamed. It is disgustingly evil and hypocrite.

Reade was one of several women who accused Biden in 2019 of "physical contact that made them feel uncomfortable, such as unwanted hugs, kisses on the head, and standing uncomfortably close", according to ABC News.

So you actually imagine that unwanted hugs, kisses on the head, and standing uncomfortably close is on the same moral level as Trump shoving his fingers into a woman's ***** against her will?

 

[1213]

Reade was one of several women who accused Biden in 2019 of "physical contact that made them feel uncomfortable, such as unwanted hugs, kisses on the head, and standing uncomfortably close", according to ABC News.

By what I know, it was more than just hugs and kisses on the head.

Tara Reade: What are the sex attack allegations against Joe Biden?

A former aide to the presidential candidate finds support for her sexual assault claim against him.

www.bbc.com

 

[1213]

Killing babies? What's weird is that if you really had a solid moral case you wouldn't have to misrepresent what abortion services actually do for many women...

Are you saying abort is not the same as killing a baby?

There is no deep state.

I think this is quite good article about the matter. Obviously doesn't mean you have to believe it exists.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-fbi-intelligence-215537/

That's why women are suing Texas for their laws that prevent them from getting the reproductive care they need. You don't care about women where it comes to right wing ideological issues.

I care first of all the children, because I think it is not their fault that the woman got pregnant.

You don't understand what defamation is. It is a fact that Reid, Biden's accuser, has serious credibility problems.

Same could be said about the women who accuse Trump.

And I'm glad that you acknowledge that Trump did indeed defame E. Jean Carroll, twice. Her lawyer is considering filing another claim against Trump for yet another defmation statement he made. The guy just doesn't learn.

I think Trump should sue the woman for defaming him with false accusations, because it is not proven he raped the woman.

Well, Trump lied about the reimbursement to Cohen (which totalled $30,00 to cover taxes, meaning tax fraud) who had paid Daniels $130,000 for her silence about an affair Trump had with her a month before the 2016 election. Trump signed most of the checks to Cohen knowing the entire aim of the scheme. ...

It would be nice to hear Trump's response to these accusations. Unfortunately it seems the accusers have only voice, not the accused.

And what evidence do you have that Biden raped Reade? You sound heavily biased here, questioning Trump's affair, but buying into the dubious accusation by Reade.

Why are the accusations dubious? You could as well call E.J. Carroll's accusations dubious.

And yet another claim that Biden is in Nazi level evil? Based on what, exactly?

Based on what he did in Covid "war" (for example mandating vaccines).

Guilty of what?

Election interference by lying the laptop was not Hunter's.

 

[1213]

Those are two very bizarre statements. When was Biden convicted of rape? Where has Biden created election interference?

Of course he is not convicted, because he is above the law, unlike Trump.

But, if we must believe every woman who accuses Trump, we should also believe every woman who accuses Biden. And then Biden is also rapist. Obviously in civilized trial accusations alone are not good enough, because it is possible that people lie. Which is why both of the accused are innocent until otherwise proven.

Biden created election interference for example when he said the laptop was not Hunter's.

 

[1213]

Really? Any links to prove this?

It censors speech that tyrants don't like.

Numerous governments have asked Google to censor content. In 2012, Google ruled in favor of more than half the requests they received via court orders and phone calls

Censorship by Google - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Only tyrants needs to censor speech, because they can't defend their thoughts with logic and reason.

 

[1213]

Only for certain federal agencies, which was his right and obligation because the virus killed people.

The Nazis could have used that same excuse.

"Pressuring" is not the same as "disallowing" legally.

It is going against freedom of speech, which is wrong, regardless of how it is sugarcoated.

Maybe you don't actually get or watch the news, but Trump has said he would be a dictator on day 1 and would seek "retribution". That's what fascists do. This also is in opposition to even the most basic Judeo/Christian teachings.

Seeking retribution is not necessary wrong. It depends greatly on what it actually means.

 

[Secret Chief]

The replies in this thread are terrifying.

I've read a few. I think I've seen enough.

 

[PureX]

I don't live in a swing state. If I did, or if it becomes a very very close race around here, I will change my mind and probably vote for the lesser of the two evils, but they are both evil in my opinion and frankly I don't want either one on my conscience.

How "good" does one have to be to no longer be considered the 'lesser of two evils'? Are you waiting for the perfect candidate? If not, aren't you always going to be voting for the lesser of two evil candidates?

The imperfection of man is not your fault. Neither is the fact that our electoral system has been corrupted and both parties are engaging in that corruption.

Will your write-in vote send a message? Will not voting send a message? That's very doubtful. So what can we do? We can vote for the less corrupt candidate, and we can run for office ourselves, or become engaged in politics to support those who will run that we believe to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Or we can start a revolution. That's about it.

This corruption should have been nipped in the bud long ago, but we ignored it. And now it's become nearly impossible to stop it short of a violent revolution. We were all too busy being lazy, selfish, and stupid, and now we have a real mess on our hands. It's a sad state of affairs. But we all allowed it to happen and now we either have to suffer the consequences or take on the arduous task or trying to fix it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How "good" does one have to be to no longer be considered the 'lesser of two evils'? Are you waiting for the perfect candidate? If not, aren't you always going to be voting for the lesser of two evil candidates?

Ha! Good questions.

 

[metis]

By what I know, it was more than just hugs and kisses on the head.

Tara Reade: What are the sex attack allegations against Joe Biden?

A former aide to the presidential candidate finds support for her sexual assault claim against him.

www.bbc.com

Then please post that supposed evidence.

 

[metis]

The Nazis could have used that same excuse.

So? The reality is that the Biden administration did nothing illegal, nor did they push ingesting bleach as a cure like Trump did.

It is going against freedom of speech, which is wrong, regardless of how it is sugarcoated.

So Biden and the medical personnel don't have freedom of speech even though you, Trump, and everyone else does?

Seeking retribution is not necessary wrong. It depends greatly on what it actually means.

So, you're OK with Trump saying he would be a dictator on day 1? He's threatened to shut down MSNBC, which would be a clear-cut violation of free speech.

Even Trump's sister, who he says he's the closest to than any other person, and his niece said he is self-centered and cares not for anyone but himself. Do you honestly think that's compatible with even the most basic Judeo-Christian moral teachings?

 

[metis]

It censors speech that tyrants don't like.

Numerous governments have asked Google to censor content. In 2012, Google ruled in favor of more than half the requests they received via court orders and phone calls

Censorship by Google - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Only tyrants needs to censor speech, because they can't defend their thoughts with logic and reason.

Read your own post as it says "have asked...". That is not censorship, especially since your own link says only some were actually removed.

OTOH, Trump has threated some companies and some people with censorship, and yet that's OK?

 

[metis]

The Nazis could have used that same excuse.

Trump clearly has and is basically using the same tactics as we find in other cases of fascism. Note his praising of Putin, Kim Jung Un, Orban, etc. Note his talk of "retribution" and going after certain institutions and people. Note his telling of Hannity that he would make himself a "dictator on day1" and change the Constitution. And these are just for starters.

So, if one hates our democratic system and the rule of law and the Constitution, I can understand why they would endorse Trump.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course he is not convicted, because he is above the law, unlike Trump.

Convicted for what, exactly?

But, if we must believe every woman who accuses Trump, we should also believe every woman who accuses Biden. And then Biden is also rapist. Obviously in civilized trial accusations alone are not good enough, because it is possible that people lie. Which is why both of the accused are innocent until otherwise proven.

This isn't about just about accusations and "believing every woman."

The woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse and defamation has proven her case in court. It's done. Over. He did it, in the eyes of the law.

Biden created election interference for example when he said the laptop was not Hunter's.

How is that election interference?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you saying abort is not the same as killing a baby?

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

I think this is quite good article about the matter. Obviously doesn't mean you have to believe it exists.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-fbi-intelligence-215537/

I care first of all the children, because I think it is not their fault that the woman got pregnant.

Cool, so you support full healthcare coverage for pregnant women, free school lunches for kids, maternity leave, welfare programs for single mothers, daycare coverage, gun reform, access to contraception, etc.?

Same could be said about the women who accuse Trump.

Not E. Jean Carroll. She proved her case in court.

I think Trump should sue the woman for defaming him with false accusations, because it is not proven he raped the woman.

It was proven in a court of law that he sexually abused her and then defamed her many times over.

It would be nice to hear Trump's response to these accusations. Unfortunately it seems the accusers have only voice, not the accused.

We've heard Trump's responses.
He just pretends he doesn't know them, and then a photo comes out proving that he's a liar. And then he loses a court case and is found civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

Also, Trump could have taken the stand in any of his trials. He never has yet.

Why are the accusations dubious? You could as well call E.J. Carroll's accusations dubious.

Nope. You can call them proven in a court of law.

Based on what he did in Covid "war" (for example mandating vaccines).

Most world (responsible) world leaders did. He probably saved countless lives in doing so.

Election interference by lying the laptop was not Hunter's.

Huh?