Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[Wandering Monk]

Problem is, the MAGA deplorables are probably not experiencing this.

 

[Laniakea]

It doesn't matter what anyone posts with evidence for you unless you agree with it.

Are you accusing me of being a leftist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Problem is, the MAGA deplorables are probably not experiencing this.

The malevolent manipulators and indoctrinators that define MAGA (or as you and Hillary call them, the deplorables) with large stock portfolios and bank accounts are no doubt doing well under Bidenomics, unless they're people like Trump, Giuliani, Mike Lindell, and Alex Jones, who are going broke from civil judgments, and Fox News, which lost a $787 million judgment, wan can absorb the loss, but these probably aren't the best of times for Fox, either.

The rank-and-file low information MAGA that we see in the man-on-the-street interviews might be benefitting as well if he has a union job, works a fast-food restaurant in California, or has found a new and better job recently, but as you suggest, most won't.

But do they deserve to? They vote Republican. They vote against their own interests and almost everybody else's, and subsistence living with fewer rights and less of a social safety net is what the Republicans have in mind for them, so it is only right that they live paycheck-to-paycheck and are one uninsured illness or accident away from financial ruin. Don't weep for MAGA.

Are you accusing me of being a leftist?

That was a reply to, "It doesn't matter what anyone posts with evidence for you unless you agree with it."

I think he's accusing you of selectively filtering out information you don't like as commonly occurs with those ensconced in a faith-based confirmation bias.

You're a Trump supporter, which for me is a litmus test for character and judgment. Nobody's "accusing" you of having much in common with a humanist.

 

[metis]

Another thread of craven calumny and anti-Trump venom. <yawn>

But it does bring to mind one possible reason for Trump 2024. The prospect of multitudes of leftist liberal loony heads figuratively exploding upon his election.

At least we don't embrace corruption and fascism.

 

[Laniakea]

That was a reply to, "It doesn't matter what anyone posts with evidence for you unless you agree with it."

I think he's accusing you of selectively filtering out information you don't like as commonly occurs with those ensconced in a faith-based confirmation bias.

You're a Trump supporter, which for me is a litmus test for character and judgment. Nobody's "accusing" you of having much in common with a humanist.

Then he's accusing me of being a leftist.

 

[Ponder This]

You do understand that sedition which several were convicted of is insurrection by more than one cooperating person such that the claim of no insurrection is specious at best?

You mean seditious conspiracy, and, no, it is not the same thing as insurrection. You need to understand that seizing property or disrupting a session of Congress is insufficient to constitute insurrection.
Explain who you claim to be an insurrectionist, what they did that constitutes insurrection, and how this means the other 100,000 people who attended Jan 6 are also insurrectionists. Otherwise, accept that your argument is specious at best.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The rank-and-file low information MAGA that we see in the man-on-the-street interviews might be benefitting as well if he has a union job, works a fast-food restaurant in California, or has found a new and better job recently, but as you suggest, most won't.

But do they deserve to? They vote Republican. They vote against their own interests and almost everybody else's, and subsistence living with fewer rights and less of a social safety net is what the Republicans have in mind for them, so it is only right that they live paycheck-to-paycheck and are one uninsured illness or accident away from financial ruin. Don't weep for MAGA.

Geez, how heartless. "I don't like the way you vote, so you deserve to suffer." Yeah, that'll win us over!

 

[metis]

You need to understand that seizing property or disrupting a session of Congress is insufficient to constitute insurrection.

But trying to stop the process of what the electors and the V.P were legally doing per the Constitution is, and we well know now that this is what Trump wanted them to do and many said they were just doing what Trump told them to do

BTW, where we are fortunate is that the weapons stockpiled by the Oath Keeps and the Proud Boys weren't used, or things could have even been significantly worse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Geez, how heartless. "I don't like the way you vote, so you deserve to suffer." Yeah, that'll win us over!

Winning over MAGA is not a goal of mine. I've given up on reaching MAGA conservatives.

I won't argue with your use of the word heartless. I feel no connection to them either as fellow Americans, fellow human beings, or fellow sentient creatures. They've failed as citizens and as neighbors.

Nor do I mind offending them. That's pretty much the result of decades of comments like "mmm, liberal tears," "owning libs," "**** your feelings," and "woke snowflake."

Having said that, it's probably not surprising to read that I don't mind them suffering at the hands of the Republicans they keep voting for. Why shouldn't they? My only regret is that they harm the people who know better and vote against Republicans or not at all. I grieve for them.

It's impossible for me to understand why you support the Republicans. They hate you for wanting to live as a man. If they could, they'd make you dress like a woman.

And they want to keep you in a low paying, dead end job. If somebody wants to unionize where you work, they'll fight it. If somebody wants to rase your guaranteed minimum wage, they'll fight that, too. If you have public health care, they want to rescind it. Yet you carry water for them.

I have nothing for anybody who votes Republican or defends Trump except for disrespect and schadenfreude as they suffer vicariously with Trump. It's a litmus test.

I'll bet that many others feel the same way but feel uncomfortable expressing it out loud. Not me. I want you to know the effect that these things have on at least some people.

disrupting a session of Congress is insufficient to constitute insurrection.

It's interesting to see MAGA making arguments like this and the one about Trump not raping Carroll, only sexually assaulting her. So, if the violent mob rioting at Trumps behest attacking police, breaking Capital building glass, desecrating the halls, building gallows outside, and searching for Pence and Pelosi doesn't meet your definition of an insurrection, whatever you call it instead is alright?

This is why I can't respect MAGA, refuse to be friendly with any of them, and welcome their misfortune when the Republicans turn the screws on them along with their better neighbors, whose suffering I feel empathy for. Where are your values? Where is your patriotism? Why aren't you offended by whatever you call it? Why is your only interest in the subject that it not be called an insurrection, and likely, that Trump not be prosecuted for it? Rhetorical question. No answer needed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Winning over MAGA is not a goal of mine. I've given up on reaching MAGA conservatives.

I won't argue with your use of the word heartless. I feel no connection to them either as fellow Americans, fellow human beings, or fellow sentient creatures. They've failed as citizens and as neighbors.

Nor do I mind offending them. That's pretty much the result of decades of comments like "mmm, liberal tears," "owning libs," "**** your feelings," and "woke snowflake."

Having said that, it's probably not surprising to read that I don't mind them suffering at the hands of the Republicans they keep voting for. Why shouldn't they? My only regret is that they harm the people who know better and vote against Republicans or not at all. I grieve for them.

This is all pathological and quite sickening.

It's impossible for me to understand why you support the Republicans. They hate you for wanting to live as a man. If they could, they'd make you dress like a woman.

Excuse me? First of all, I'm not a Republican, a Democrat or member of any political party. I do not vote by party and never have. I've voted for Dems, Reps, Greens, Socialist, Independent, etc. I vote by candidate and policy.

No one wants to see me in a dress, and I notice it's only "the other side" that throw such rude comments at me or people like me. Not gonna win me over with that.

And they want to keep you in a low paying, dead end job. If somebody wants to unionize where you work, they'll fight it. If somebody wants to rase your guaranteed minimum wage, they'll fight that, too. If you have public health care, they want to rescind it. Yet you carry water for them.

Lol, don't patronize me. I live in a crappy crime ridden Democratic city where the gulf between rich and poor is growing all the time. The rich suburban snobs and the gentrifying yuppie whites driving up property costs in low income neighborhoods are all good little Dems who don't give two ****s about the poor and turn their noses up at them. The Dems are the party of the affluent, by and by large now.

I'm also in a union job and it sucks. Unions can be corrupt and next to useless. Still making low wages, still in a toxic workplace where there's abuse, bullying and corruption, still have no life outside of work because you are expected to be give up your life to the company, etc.

Basically don't try to lecture me when you don't know what you're talking about.

I have nothing for anybody who votes Republican or defends Trump except for disrespect and schadenfreude as they suffer vicariously with Trump. It's a litmus test.

I'll bet that many others feel the same way but feel uncomfortable expressing it out loud. Not me. I want you to know the effect that these things have on at least some people.

Most people don't want to come off as sociopaths.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is all pathological and quite sickening.

This is you dismissing what I thought were valid points with the wave of a hand. I'm explaining why I have the opinion of MAGA that I do, who I also find pathological and sickening. You might have addressed some of that, but you preferred an emotional reaction to substantive dissent.

First of all, I'm not a Republican, a Democrat or member of any political party. I do not vote by party and never have. I've voted for Dems, Reps, Greens, Socialist, Independent, etc. I vote by candidate and policy.

I've never seen a political comment from you that wasn't either pro-conservative or anti-liberal.

No one wants to see me in a dress, and I notice it's only "the other side" that throw such rude comments at me or people like me. Not gonna win me over with that.

I told you that I'm not trying to win you over. You detest people like me.

Also, there was nothing rude about saying that the MAGA authoritarians would have you in a dress if they had the power. You might have addressed the comment by agreeing or indicating why you disagree, but you preferred to just call me rude after calling me pathological and sickening.

And yes, liberals are "the other side" when you identify with conservative values.

don't try to lecture me when you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think I'm lecturing you. I'm not advising you.

I live in a crappy crime ridden Democratic city where the gulf between rich and poor is growing all the time. The rich suburban snobs and the gentrifying yuppie whites driving up property costs in low income neighborhoods are all good little Dems who don't give two ****s about the poor and turn their noses up at them. The Dems are the party of the affluent, by and by large now.

Your contempt for such people is palpable. And conservative indoctrination media likes you believing that. Liberals are the only ones in your corner.

I'm one of those people you detest. We are economically secure, moved to Mexico, and began fixing up our home. In our American days, we used to fly off to some western city like Las Vegas or Phoenix a few times a year for Grateful Dead weekends - a hotel, nice restaurants, and three shows. That's pretty yuppie I'd say.

But I worked hard for that. I got my undergraduate degree and went to medical school in your city in the mid to late seventies. I treated adults at University Hospital, children at Children's Hospital, and helped deliver babies at St. Anne's. The hours were long.

And I shopped at Kroger when I lived there (I believe that's where you said you work). I liked to hang out in German Village and was a habitue at Max and Erma's when I had free time. I played bridge in Clintonville on Saturday night as an undergrad but had to give that up by the time of med school. I guess I was already heading down yuppie lane. But that's the life I wanted for myself and was willing to do what it took to get it, as did many other people who became professionals or successful entrepreneurs who you seem to resent now.

But isn't that exactly how the conservative want you to feel? They want you to think in terms of class warfare, to be disgruntled and disaffected and to blame liberals. And to keep voting for them.

And because so many do, America has become unfit to live in for somebody like me. I simply refuse to share a country with people who would empower Republicans and exist in numbers large enough to be able to do that. And I resent them for that and for despising people like me as you do. And it's why I've lost interest in your plight or ever getting along with such people. Your assumption that I was interested in winning such people over was unfounded. That's simply not possible, and because of their feelings about people like me and their willingness to vote for Republicans, I don't really care what becomes of them anymore, nor if I offend them expressing such opinions. That's the price of all of that animosity directed toward liberals, at least it is with me.

I'm also in a union job and it sucks. Unions can be corrupt and next to useless. Still making low wages, still in a toxic workplace where there's abuse, bullying and corruption, still have no life outside of work because you are expected to be give up your life to the company, etc.

Sorry about that. All I can say is that without your union, you'd likely be making less, and without liberal ideas about workplace standards, your workplace conditions would be worse and your benefits fewer. That's the Republican vison for you. Your role is to serve that corporation in exchange for as little as you need to stay alive and with no concern for your safety or happiness. If anybody helps you with that abusive, toxic environment, it will be liberals, not the Republicans.

This is the paradox of MAGA - disaffected people who feel trapped and unhappy, but who look to and vote for Republicans for relief. "Inflation is too high under Biden, so I'm voting for Trump." Good thinking, Bubba.

Shaking my head. Four or five percent of the population can think that way and it causes little harm, but when it gets close to 50%, time for another country. Time to unhitch one's wagon from that star. The recent state supreme court rulings in Alabama (IVF) and Arizona (19th century abortion laws) tells you all you need to know about the Republican vision for women. They would not let you live as you prefer if they could prevent it.

 

[Ponder This]

if the violent mob rioting at Trumps behest

Trump didn't say to riot - nice try though.

attacking police, breaking Capital building glass, desecrating the halls, building gallows outside, and searching for Pence and Pelosi doesn't meet your definition of an insurrection, whatever you call it instead is alright?

It doesn't meet the definition of insurrection. It was a predominantly peaceful protest, as demonstrated by your inabiilty to make an argument against the other 100,000 attendees.

Where are your values? Where is your patriotism? Why aren't you offended by whatever you call it?

Such questions can easily be asked of those that engage in politically motivated prosecution with the intent to quell free speech.

Why is your only interest in the subject that it not be called an insurrection, and likely, that Trump not be prosecuted for it?

My interest? Others are the ones making the false claim that it was an insurrection with the intent to malign Trump or prevent him from running for office! The fact that it wasn't an insurrection is an easy push back against such fanaticism - a no brainer. It's a simple as recognizing what is an orange versus what is not an orange.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Trump didn't say to riot

Sure he did, just as he called for violence outside of the courthouse and has called for violence if he loses to Biden again. He uses dog whistles and stochastic terrorism to maintain plausible deniability, but as you will see, juries won't buy that or be fooled. Those MAGA weren't looking for Pelosi and Pence for their own reasons.

It doesn't meet the definition of insurrection.

"Insurrection - an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects."

organized - check
violent - check
revolt- check
against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state - check
by a group of citizens - check

Do you know the Duck Test (aka the Duck Razor? What you've got there is an insurrection.

Such questions can easily be asked of those that engage in politically motivated prosecution with the intent to quell free speech.

You have no evidence for either claim. A politically motivated prosecution looks like what the Republicans attempted with Mayorkas, which is why it failed. There was no evidence. With Trump, grand juries everywhere approved of the indictments. It's not Trump's politics that are at issue. It's his crimes against the people that are being adjudicated.

Others usually put election interference after politically motivated. You chose limiting free speech. It's neither. Nobody is limiting Trump's free speech, which doesn't include the right to be elsewhere speaking when on criminal trial, and does not include the right to try to intimidate jurors, judges, and prosecutors.

Nor is the election being interfered with. That's Trump's wheelhouse. Three of his criminal trials are for that. Trump is free to run, to campaign, to appear on ballots, and even to win if there are enough MAGA left to elect him. He can campaign on the courthouse steps a few rimes every trial date, and can have virtual or in person rallies evenings and weekends.

But he is not free to miss his trials.

My interest? Others are the ones making the false claim that it was an insurrection with the intent to malign Trump or prevent him from running for office! The fact that it wasn't an insurrection is an easy push back against such fanaticism - a no brainer.

You still didn't answer my question. Let me reword it. Why does to matter to you whether what happened on J6 meets your definition of insurrection? Go ahead and call it whatever else you prefer as long as it's a term that describes a violent protest, and then explain why you're OK with that whatever its name.

And didn't you make a similar argument about whether inserting fingers into a woman against her will constitutes rape? If it was you, please tell us what term you prefer, and why that OK as long as it isn't technically rape. How about sexual predation and assault and battery? Are you good with that term and that activity?

These questions expose the depravity of Trump and those who support him making such arguments, or did you think that the immorality of involved in doing such things and defending them wouldn't be noticed if you could get the words insurrection and rape expunged.

 

[metis]

It doesn't meet the definition of insurrection. It was a predominantly peaceful protest,

So easily proven false if one actually watches the footage taken at the Capitol, which you can access on YouTube btw.

Many who were arrested told the prosecutors that they did as such because of what Trump told them at the rally.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Do you support Donald Trump for president in 2024? Why, or why not?

I support Trump on this one.If he had an affair with Stormy Daniels that is his business.If he did not that's his business.The fact he paid hush money is no proof he had an affair.On Wall Street many people including evangelicals have affairs,get divorced multiple times and meet with prostitutes.

Trouble is legally it is cheaper to settle these cases.How one does the bookkeeping is no big deal.A lot of people have said Trump looks beat and exhausted -which might be the whole idea.

Both Democrats and Republicans have leaders caught with their pants down

Why is this trial coming out now? before election time.

If Trump,Ms Marjorie Taylor Greene etc are going to be criticized it should be for the substantial eg kneeling to Putin over Ukraine.The money USA sends means Russia burns up arms and money.Its threat is reduced.We need to be watchful for sleepers who wake to espouse the Russian agenda.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I support Trump on this one.If he had an affair with Stormy Daniels that is his business.If he did not that's his business.The fact he paid hush money is no proof he had an affair.On Wall Street many people including evangelicals have affairs,get divorced multiple times and meet with prostitutes.

The trial isn't about having an affair.

"The indictment centers on allegations that Trump falsified internal business records at his private company while trying to cover up an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election by arranging payments that silenced claims potentially harmful to his candidacy."

Trump charged with 34 felony counts in hush money scheme

An extraordinary moment in U.S. history is soon unfolding in a New York City courthouse. Former President Donald Trump will surrender in Manhattan on Tuesday to face criminal charges stemming from 2016 hush money payments. Trump will be escorted from Trump Tower to the courthouse by the Secret...

apnews.com

Trouble is legally it is cheaper to settle these cases.How one does the bookkeeping is no big deal.A lot of people have said Trump looks beat and exhausted -which might be the whole idea.

How one does book keeping is a big deal, apparently. Hence the criminal trials.

Both Democrats and Republicans have leaders caught with their pants down

And? Does that mean we shouldn't prosecute crimes when they occur?

Why is this trial coming out now? before election time.

It's always election time. Perhaps Trump only ran again so that he could claim "it's election time" like you've done here.
"It's election time" isn't a valid excuse to escape criminal charges.

If Trump,Ms Marjorie Taylor Greene etc are going to be criticized it should be for the substantial eg kneeling to Putin over Ukraine.The money USA sends means Russia burns up arms and money.Its threat is reduced.We need to be watchful for sleepers who wake to espouse the Russian agenda.

Not sure how this is relevant.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I support Trump on this one.If he had an affair with Stormy Daniels that is his business.If he did not that's his business.The fact he paid hush money is no proof he had an affair.On Wall Street many people including evangelicals have affairs,get divorced multiple times and meet with prostitutes.

Trouble is legally it is cheaper to settle these cases.How one does the bookkeeping is no big deal.A lot of people have said Trump looks beat and exhausted -which might be the whole idea.

Both Democrats and Republicans have leaders caught with their pants down

Why is this trial coming out now? before election time.

If Trump,Ms Marjorie Taylor Greene etc are going to be criticized it should be for the substantial eg kneeling to Putin over Ukraine.The money USA sends means Russia burns up arms and money.Its threat is reduced.We need to be watchful for sleepers who wake to espouse the Russian agenda.

This case was filed in February 2023, hardly election time. Trump declared in November 2022, an unprecedented TWO YEARS before the election and coincidentally three months after the FBI classified document search at Mar a Lago. He is running to avoid jail, intending also to make his prosecution a POLITICAL issue rather than a legal one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean seditious conspiracy, and, no, it is not the same thing as insurrection. You need to understand that seizing property or disrupting a session of Congress is insufficient to constitute insurrection.

But it isn't just about "seizing property or disrupting a session of Congress"; it's also about the fake electors Trump tried to have certified.

Disrupting a session Congress isn't an insurrection in and of itself, but disrupting Congress to buy time for Trump's coup attempt most definitely is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But it isn't just about "seizing property or disrupting a session of Congress"; it's also about the fake electors Trump tried to have certified.

Agreed, and more. There's also phone calls to Secretaries of State. Georgia's got him in its crosshairs, but it looks like Arizona will be next, and possibly Nevada. Also, the disinformation about Dominion voting machines, which is civil, but has been adjudicated against as well as the terrorism of election workers, which Rudy lot a huge judgment over. There was also a breach of a voting machine.

And that's just the thing they did. There are also the plans they opted against including eleventh hour firings of acting Attorneys General and a discussion about seizing voting machines.

I support Trump on this one.If he had an affair with Stormy Daniels that is his business.If he did not that's his business.The fact he paid hush money is no proof he had an affair.On Wall Street many people including evangelicals have affairs,get divorced multiple times and meet with prostitutes.

You were asked, "Do you support Donald Trump for president in 2024? Why, or why not?" - not just about one trial. He's also a known sexual predator, charities fraudster, Trump university fraudster, bank and tax fraudster, and liar. Is all of that also none of your and our business?

Trouble is legally it is cheaper to settle these cases.How one does the bookkeeping is no big deal.

Apparently it is. The bookkeeping was the crime, not the adultery or the hush money payment. The accounting cover-up was a campaign finance violation.

A lot of people have said Trump looks beat and exhausted -which might be the whole idea.

The whole idea is that crime is still illegal with some of the country such as the prosecutors and grand juries that have gotten Trump into courtrooms. It doesn't appear to be an issue for you or MAGA.

Why is this trial coming out now? before election time.

For four years while president, nobody could begin taking legal action. We had a new Attorney General by early 2021, and an indictment two years later, which was followed by a series of delay tactics that initially caused delays, but were finally ineffective following the last one that pushed the trial date from March 21 to April 15. That's about as quickly as such things proceed.

If Trump,Ms Marjorie Taylor Greene etc are going to be criticized it should be for the substantial eg kneeling to Putin over Ukraine.The money USA sends means Russia burns up arms and money.Its threat is reduced.We need to be watchful for sleepers who wake to espouse the Russian agenda.

But you haven't done that. Trump is considered Putin's useful idiot and fawning sycophant, although the use-by date of his usefulness appears to have expired. Greene is another lap poodle for Putin, known as Moscow Marge by a fellow Republican congressman who has recently quit his job.

 

[Ponder This]

Sure he did, just as he called for violence outside of the courthouse and has called for violence if he loses to Biden again.

Are you changing to talking about something besides Jan 6th now? Are you claiming that Trump is currently engaged in insurrection right now? What exactly is the speech you are referring to and when and where did this speech take place?

He uses dog whistles and stochastic terrorism to maintain plausible deniability, but as you will see, juries won't buy that or be fooled. Those MAGA weren't looking for Pelosi and Pence for their own reasons.

LoL. It seems to me that what you call "plausible deniability" is because calling Trump's words "dog whistles and stochastic terrorism" isn't a convincing argument. And that when you say "juries won't buy that or be fooled", it is really because these juries are formed from predominantly Trump-hating poltically Democrat populations caring more about getting Trump than being impartial jurors. I also don't trust anyone who claims he was listening to Trump on Jan 6th but, ironically, didn't bother to attend his speech! They can claim they went there to listen to Trump all they want, but if they didn't actually go to his speech... and instead went directly to the capitol building... then I don't believe them. They ignored his speech!

"Insurrection - an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects."

organized - check
violent - check
revolt- check
against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state - check
by a group of citizens - check

Do you know the Duck Test (aka the Duck Razor? What you've got there is an insurrection.

Of that list, the most obvious is that it is not a revolt or a rebellion.

But it isn't just about "seizing property or disrupting a session of Congress"; it's also about the fake electors Trump tried to have certified.

Disrupting a session Congress isn't an insurrection in and of itself, but disrupting Congress to buy time for Trump's coup attempt most definitely is.

LoL, what coup atttempt? Electors?!? The parties always keep potential electors around in case a contested vote is determined to go in their favor. Every election has a set of Democrat electors and a set of Republican electors. LoL. "Coup attempt"

With Trump, grand juries everywhere approved of the indictments. It's not Trump's politics that are at issue. It's his crimes against the people that are being adjudicated.

I was referring to the over-zealous prosecution of Jan 6th protesters. But we can talk about Trump's free speech being infringed also. There have been numerous gag orders issued against Trump to keep him from voicing his opinions.

Nobody is limiting Trump's free speech, which doesn't include the right to be elsewhere speaking when on criminal trial, and does not include the right to try to intimidate jurors, judges, and prosecutors.

Intimidation?!? I don't think so. Nothing Trump said was ever going to change Engoron's mind. The people have a right to hear Trump's opinion during an election. Full stop.

Nor is the election being interfered with. That's Trump's wheelhouse. Three of his criminal trials are for that. Trump is free to run, to campaign, to appear on ballots, and even to win if there are enough MAGA left to elect him.

Obviously, time spent in court is time Trump could've spent campaigning.

He can campaign on the courthouse steps a few rimes every trial date, and can have virtual or in person rallies evenings and weekends.

In such a situation, Trump is forced to campaign in that way.

But he is not free to miss his trials.

The decision by the New York State Court Judge that he will jail Trump if he attends the Supreme Court hearing on his Presidential Immunity case is perhaps one of the most disgusting examples of lawfare yet: use one court case to block Trump from attending another court case. LoL. "not free to miss his trials"

Why does to matter to you whether what happened on J6 meets your definition of insurrection?

Definitions matter. Something isn't an insurrection just because you say it is. And this particular event is obviously of great interest to the public.

Go ahead and call it whatever else you prefer as long as it's a term that describes a violent protest, and then explain why you're OK with that whatever its name.

? I didn't say I was okay with any violence that occurred on Jan 6th. Moreover, Jan 6th was predominantly a peaceful protest (as I explained). Explain why you're okay with smearing the people who protested peacefully by labeling them insurrectionists.

And didn't you make a similar argument about whether inserting fingers into a woman against her will constitutes rape? If it was you, please tell us what term you prefer, and why that OK as long as it isn't technically rape. How about sexual predation and assault and battery? Are you good with that term and that activity?

? I didn't make an argument that putting fingers into someone is or is not rape (by NYS law, it is not rape). If you believe a certain corrupt judge who spoke out (in a way he should've known he shouldn't do) in order to reframe the jury's verdict as rape, then you believe there were fingers in a vagina (which we don't know the jury thought), and you believe his twisting of the meaning of NYS law to mean there was rape.
I pointed out that E. Jean Carroll lied about being raped and that we shouldn't believe her story at all.
But if you believe E. Jean Carroll told the truth, then by all means add that to your list of reasons why you wouldn't vote for Trump in 2024.
However, the entire situation looks like lawfare to prevent Trump from being elected. If you think it is lawfare, then you really ought to add that to your list of reasons to vote for Trump in 2024.

These questions expose the depravity of Trump and those who support him making such arguments, or did you think that the immorality of involved in doing such things and defending them wouldn't be noticed if you could get the words insurrection and rape expunged.

You know that Trump was cleared on the question of rape by the jury's verdict. Are you insisting on reworking the definition of rape just so you can accuse Trump of "rape" instead of accusing him of "sexual abuse"? Why? Who's depravity is being exposed here?