Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[Wandering Monk]

And unacceptable that people get to openly malign and campaign against Trump while he is gagged from responding. The corruption needs to be called out for what it is. LoL. "Gag orders"

The gag order only applies to Trump speaking of witnesses, jurors, and families of court staff. Have you even read the gag order?

ORDERED, that the Court's Order of N{arch 26, 2024, is amended as indicated below. Defendant is directed to refrain from:​

​

a. Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding;​

​

b. Making or diecting others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) members of the court's staff and the District Attorney's staff, or (3) the family members of any counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel's or staffs work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and making or directing others to make public s)statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.​

​

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Clarification-OrderRestrictingES.pdf

 

[Nakosis]

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

No, only because if he does get elected and the republicans don't control both the House and Senate, the democrats will spend all of their time trying to remove him from office again.

I think it be better to avoid another 4 years of an ineffective government or what ever portion of that with a divided government.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, back-up electors as a contingency in the event that rulings on ballots alter the outcome of an election is standard in every election and when the outcome is contested you have electors from each side that are ready just in case. Famously, in 1960, there were two sets of electors from Hawaii. There were back-up electors in 2016. There were back-up electors in 2020. And there will be back-up electors in 2024. You can count on it. Claims about dumping ballots in rivers appears (as far as I can tell) to have no substance. You are talking a big fat nothing burger with a slice of nothing on top. Add this to the growing list of election year lawfare.

No.

"A Nevada grand jury on Wednesday indicted six individuals who submitted documents falsely attesting that they were the state's official presidential electors and that Donald Trump won Nevada in the 2020 election.

So-called "fake electors" have now faced criminal charges in three swing states: Nevada, Michigan and Georgia. A legal settlement was also announced Wednesday regarding false electors in Wisconsin.

Nevada Republican Party Chair Michael McDonald is among those charged in the state. The other five are: Jim DeGraffenreid, Jesse Law, Durward James Hindle III, Shawn Meehan and Eileen Rice. The defendants face two felony charges apiece — "Offering a False Instrument for Filing" and "Uttering a Forged Instrument" — according to a release from the state attorney general."

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1217680464/nevada-false-electors-charged

 

[wellwisher]

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

I believe that competence needs to come before PC. A moron that can dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" is still incompetent. This may appeal to shallow people, who want a TV series President. They want to like him, but not have to go too deep in the water.

This reminds me of a story from the Civil War. The Lincoln's Staff Generals were complaining about Field General Grant being a loud drunk who smoked cigars and cussed. They thought he was such a bore and they wanted him gone; insulted their refined tastes as Gentlemen. Lincoln turns to his general staff and says if drinking and smoking will make you as competent as Grant, I will buy the booze. Trump is like Grant, while the DNC are like the General staff, who are very shallow and are there by virtue of status and seniority.

Trump is a workaholic, which is why many people under him get frustrated with him. Top level Government jobs are supposed to be Country Club, where all the big wigs waste time in meetings. Their Aids do the work. Trump was about getting results and making people work again. This came down to the pretentious generals versus the competent bore. The left stays in the shallows, while the Right looks deeper at the results. Shallow has to censor to avoid the deep. I wonder how shallow versus deep impacts other issues?

Trump was ahead of the curve when it came to immigration. He saw the future problem of 2024, in 2016, and started to fix it. Biden, decided to do the opposite, without any common sense reason for why. The shallow people thought this had to be better, since Trump has orange hair and orange hair makes you stupid. This shallow strategy is now backfiring with the immigration problem a top issue that is harming the DNC. It is even causing problems in Democrat run city strongholds, who claimed sanctuary city status; shallow recognition, until applied life tested their shallow virtue signally.

When Trump became President he had to deal with the wars created by Obama and Biden; Arab Spring. This spread throughout the Middle East until Trump straightened out the area. Fake new had Trump as the new Hitler with his finger on the nuclear button. This was more appropriate to Obama and Biden. All the death and destruction in Crimea and Ukraine also came on the Obama and Biden watches, even though Obama had received a Nobel Peace Prize; shallow status symbol and less of a reward for being practical. Trump is sold as the war monger yet he was the one who gets us out of the DNC created wars. Being too shallow makes this less obvious.

The economy was booming under Trump with real wages increasing. COVID would sabotage this, but there was a strong regrowth. The DNC sabotaged the Trump economy re-boot, by shutting down Democrats run states, based on black box pseudo political science. Their goal may have been to harm the strengthening Trump economy, before the 2020 election. But this would make it harder for Biden; the two step disaster of the DNC shut down, and then the Biden money printing economy.

Think practical first, and personal last, if the goal is success.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not a source. Where is the idea that two sets of electors are chosen in EVERY election coming from? The only thing I can find is that electors are chosen for President and Vice President separately. Even so, they have to be under the seal and signature of the Governor.

It's a classic fascist tactic to argue whatever fits the narrative that best suits your purposes without worrying about whether it's factually true.

It suits @Ponder This 's aims for Trump's fraud and attempted coup to be no big deal, so they've adopted a narrative where it's no big deal.

 

[metis]

The DNC sabotaged the Trump economy re-boot, by shutting down Democrats run states, based on black box pseudo political science. Their goal may have been to harm the strengthening Trump economy, before the 2020 election. But this would make it harder for Biden; the two step disaster of the DNC shut down, and then the Biden money printing economy.

What nonsense, and it's obvious that the health & wellbeing of Americans is not very high on your list. Also, apparently you have not been keeping track of the fact that unemployment is at a 50-year low and the stock market has grown to its highest point ever.

Think practical first, and personal last, if the goal is success.

Instead, maybe think Judeo-Christian/humanistic morality first and right-wing partisan-politics last.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Can't say it much better than this:

The healing of the Republican Party cannot begin with Trump as president (and that’s aside from the untold damage that potentially awaits our country). Unlike Trump, I’ve belonged to the GOP my entire life. This November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass.​

​

Trump and his allies hatched cockamamie schemes that included fake slates of electors and have led to indictments (so far) in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Georgia. They spread wild-eyed conspiracy theories that resulted in defamation lawsuits, including a $148 million verdict against former Trump lawyer and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.​

​

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/former-georgia-republican-lieutenant-governor-endorses-president-biden

 

[Ponder This]

Also, it's impossible to be unfair to a person like Trump who has never been fair with anybody in his life. What would be unfair? Lying to him? Stealing from him? Besetting a sexual predator upon him?

Even imprisoning him for no better reason that objecting to his politics wouldn't be unfair.

Facts don't matter to you. Getting Trump is what you care about, plain and simple, and I appreciate your honesty in that regard. But, this is the problem, fundamentally, with all of the lawsuits: they are just about getting Trump and not about actual substance.

I don't believe that, but I wouldn't mind if it were true.

After you talked it up as if you find it disgusting to support someone who commits sexual abuse, you make it clear that you find it acceptable to falsely accuse people of sexual abuse if it achieves your desired ends? There is nothing more to say you.

The gag order only applies to Trump speaking of witnesses, jurors, and families of court staff.

All of whom have spoken out about Trump politically during election.
For example, here is Michael Cohen, a witness is one of Trump's trials, on MSNBC:
'A fool': Michael Cohen sounds alarm on national security threat of Trump's cash crunch
There is no gag order on Michael Cohen, but there is a gag order on Trump.
Trump has the right to respond. The gag order restricting Trump's right to respond is political lawfare during an election.

It's a classic fascist tactic to argue whatever fits the narrative that best suits your purposes without worrying about whether it's factually true.

It suits @Ponder This 's aims for Trump's fraud and attempted coup to be no big deal, so they've adopted a narrative where it's no big deal.

The claim is that this was a coup attempt, but the only substance offered is that some of the electors didn't get a signature from a Governor.

It was an analogy to help you understand the seriousness of Trump's crimes

An analogy... ...the evidence that Trump tried to perform a coup is so woefully flimsy that at this point it deserves no further response from me.

@Wandering Monk asked for evidence that multiple sets of electors get prepared at each election, in case they are needed...
the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election.
The two main political parties are the Republican and Democrat parties. That multiple slates of electors are prepared at each election is trivial basic information about the electoral process. If you were unaware of this basic fact, then you need to seriously reconsider your sources of information.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Facts don't matter to you. Getting Trump is what you care about, plain and simple, and I appreciate your honesty in that regard. But, this is the problem, fundamentally, with all of the lawsuits: they are just about getting Trump and not about actual substance.


After you talked it up as if you find it disgusting to support someone who commits sexual abuse, you make it clear that you find it acceptable to falsely accuse people of sexual abuse if it achieves your desired ends? There is nothing more to say you.


All of whom have spoken out about Trump politically during election.
For example, here is Michael Cohen, a witness is one of Trump's trials, on MSNBC:
'A fool': Michael Cohen sounds alarm on national security threat of Trump's cash crunch
There is no gag order on Michael Cohen, but there is a gag order on Trump.
Trump has the right to respond. The gag order restricting Trump's right to respond is political lawfare during an election.


The claim is that this was a coup attempt, but the only substance offered is that some of the electors didn't get a signature from a Governor.


An analogy... ...the evidence that Trump tried to perform a coup is so woefully flimsy that at this point it deserves no further response from me.

@Wandering Monk asked for evidence that multiple sets of electors get prepared at each election, in case they are needed...
the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election.
The two main political parties are the Republican and Democrat parties. That multiple slates of electors are prepared at each election is trivial basic information about the electoral process. If you were unaware of this basic fact, then you need to seriously reconsider your sources of information.

Trump is a criminal defendant, as such speech that would intimidate or threaten witnesses, court staff can be restricted.

BTW, the judge ruled that Trump COULD react to Cohen's extrajudicial insult. Additionally, the judge rejected a few of the prosecutions instances of violation of the gag order so Trump did not have to pay a fine for those.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Getting Trump is what you care about, plain and simple

I want him in prison. He's a criminal (soon to be a convicted criminal and felon), and that's where criminals belong. He severely damaged his country by breaking its laws to selfishly serve and enrich himself.

this is the problem, fundamentally, with all of the lawsuits: they are just about getting Trump and not about actual substance.

Grand juries disagreed. Let's see what the trial juries say. Have you been following the current criminal trial? Trump is toast. He'll be convicted by the substance you say doesn't exist - financial records.

you make it clear that you find it acceptable to falsely accuse people of sexual abuse if it achieves your desired ends?

What I said is that one cannot be unfair to a person like Trump, and that though I don't believe that Trump was falsely accused, if I knew that that were the case for a fact, there'd be no "Oh no!"s coming from me.

There is no gag order on Michael Cohen, but there is a gag order on Trump.

That's how it should be. Only one is a criminal defendant, and only one is illegally attempting to intimidate jurors, witnesses, and prosecutors.

Trump has the right to respond. The gag order restricting Trump's right to respond is political lawfare during an election.

No, he doesn't - not now if that response is in the form of a personal attack. Cohen is a witness against Trump. Trump can respond to him after the trial when he is no longer a defendant and the gag order expires.

The claim is that this was a coup attempt, but the only substance offered is that some of the electors didn't get a signature from a Governor.

You seem to have forgotten about the violent uprising on J6 and all of the testimony that has come from already convicted defendants.

There were also phone calls to Secretaries of State. Georgia's got Trump in its crosshairs. It looks like Arizona will be next, and possibly Nevada and Michigan. They're all investigating election tampering.

Also, the disinformation about Dominion voting machines, which is civil, but has been adjudicated against.

Then there's the terrorizing of election workers, over which Rudy lost a huge judgment.

There was also a breach of a voting machine.

The Big Lie itself was part of the coup attempt, but apparently not illegal.

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

And to repeat for the sake of clarity and accuracy, a coup refers to an out-party attempting to take over a legitimate government illegitimately. What Trump attempted is called a self-coup. He was the lame duck in-party attempting to maintain power illegally.

 

[Ponder This]

Trump is a criminal defendant, as such speech that would intimidate or threaten witnesses, court staff can be restricted.

BTW, the judge ruled that Trump COULD react to Cohen's extrajudicial insult. Additionally, the judge rejected a few of the prosecutions instances of violation of the gag order so Trump did not have to pay a fine for those.

FYI: The judge placed a gag order on Trump but did not place a gag order on Cohen.

 

[Wandering Monk]

FYI: The judge placed a gag order on Trump but did not place a gag order on Cohen.

Cohen is not a criminal defendant on trial, so his speech cannot be restricted. The gag order was put on Trump to prevent him from intimidating or threatening witnesses or jurors. Cohen is a witness.

 

[F1fan]

Facts don't matter to you. Getting Trump is what you care about, plain and simple

Yes, the USA is like many first world nations where law and order exists, and criminals are held to account. The USA is not an authoritarian nation where the corrupt get away with crimes. If you are unhappy I suggest you move to Russia.

 

[F1fan]

FYI: The judge placed a gag order on Trump but did not place a gag order on Cohen.

The judge did indirectly ask Cohen to limit what he says about Trump and the case on his podcast. When that did that did not work the judge told the prosecution to tell their witness to limit what he says.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Facts don't matter to you.

You've got that backwards. Facts don't matter to YOU. Trump is clearly guilty of crimes, but for whatever reason, you can't agree. You call these indictments politically motivated but ignore the role the grand jury plays in preventing that from going forward. If a grand jury were required to go ahead with impeachment proceedings against Biden, which ARE politically motivated, that effort would have been stillborn.

I suppose that you also agree with Trump that Biden is behind Trump's troubles, and it's because Biden wants to be reelected. That's a dreamworld entirely divorced from reality and the evidence. Biden doesn't run the Department of Justice. Garland does. And he certainly doesn't control what NY and GA did indicting Trump.

The gag order restricting Trump's right to respond is political lawfare during an election.

Trump has no right to attempt to intimidate the participants in his trial.

And the election isn't until November. Noris it being interfered with. Everything is proceeding according to schedule, and an election will very likely occur on time.

What Trump is complaining about might be called campaigning interference, but that's on Trump. He complains about his trial falling in the midst of campaign season, but that's his doing. Trump was indicted for the hush money fraud cover-up in March 2023. He has been trying to delay his trials until after the election but ran out of delay tactics this year. He could have stood trial last year for these crimes if he wanted his calendar clear now.

And it's the epitome of hubris for Trump to be complaining about election interference. Three of his trials are for election interference (NY, GA, DC). He talks about elections being rigged and now we see how he and Pecker rigged the 2016 election on Trump's behalf.

They say that virtually everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is projection and a confession. If he claims an election was rigged, he's telling you that he attempts to rig elections. He called Hillary Putin's puppet. He calls Joe "Sleepy" and "Crooked" as he sleeps through his own criminal trial.

You've got a touch of that yourself: "Facts don't matter to you."

And I really wish I could understand what motivates you to take Trump's side in this. I can't identify at all. A Democratic Senator is on trial now for crimes. If he's guilty - and it appears that he is - I want him convicted and imprisoned. Likewise with Hunter Biden. If he's guilty of crimes, let him be held accountable for them. Why would I take any other position? But MAGA is different, which is why it's called a cult of personality.

 

[Ponder This]

Cohen is not a criminal defendant on trial, so his speech cannot be restricted. The gag order was put on Trump to prevent him from intimidating or threatening witnesses or jurors. Cohen is a witness.

I think you are just making the point for me by trying to lawfare the way out of this. Cohen, a witness against Trump, is selling T-shirts of Trump in jail for his podcast and has publicly disparaged Trump on twitter and in other media as well. Trump ought to be free to defend himself against this publicly. The gag order is not confined to witnesses or jurors. The gag order has been applied to public statements as opposed to threats or intimidations. And, of course, the reality is that having a gag order of any sort in this circumstance is itself a questionable ruling.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Cohen, a witness against Trump, is selling T-shirts of Trump in jail for his podcast and has publicly disparaged Trump on twitter and in other media as well. Trump ought to be free to defend himself against this publicly.

Trump forfeited that right with his history of and propensity for stochastic terrorism, which he even attempted with the judge's daughter as he did with the last judge's female clerk.

If you think that they should gag Cohen as well, as far as I know, neither this judge nor any other has a right to gag Cohen, since he's not a defendant, nor any reason to do so, since Cohen is not a threat to anybody's physical wellbeing.

having a gag order of any sort in this circumstance is itself a questionable ruling.

Apparently not in the judge's eyes, and his opinion and any appellate judges that might have been involved are the only opinions that matter.

trying to lawfare

What's your complaint with this comment? If you're implying that the prosecution of Trump is politically motivated, that argument has been refuted. Grand juries are impartial panels, and they have indicted. Trial juries are impartial, and they will be the ones convicting. You've been told that and have disregarded it rather than attempting to refute it.

If you're implying that the prosecution of Trump is personal and vengeance seeking, then you're ignoring the duty of the Justice Department to investigate and litigate crime. I'm sure that there is plenty of schadenfreude to go around, and many including me are happy to say that they want to see Trump unhappy, but that doesn't change the fact that he is credibly accused of crimes and needs to walk this path of criminal trials and likely conviction and incarceration. You don't like that, but that doesn't matter, because you believe that Trump should be above the law, which is un-American.

Whatever your specific objection is, you seem to claiming that Trump is being treated unfairly - unjustly subjected to a double standard. Isn't that what the comparison to Cohen not being gagged was all about? If so, my answer to that is the same as with all of the rest of these kinds of objections about unfairness regarding Trump or the way that Biden and the Democrats are gaming the system to Trump's disadvantage: I don't accept that, but even if I did - even if I thought that everything done to Trump was shady and questionable, I wouldn't object. If you're looking for sympathy from the people that MAGA have been calling deranged and Trump has been calling far left lunatics for years now, we're past that now.

Is this all as painful for you to watch as it is enjoyable for others? It wouldn't be if your values were American. America prosecutes its criminals without fear or favor. You object to Trump being accused of crimes even when grand juries find the evidence for those crimes compelling. That puts you on the wrong team. You're rooting for the wrong side. You're rooting against your country in defense of one of its enemies. And fortunately, it looks like pro-law-and-order Americans will prevail.

 

[F1fan]

So, the SCOTUS just released a decision on the Bump Stock that the Trump administration had banned after the 2017 mass killing in Las Vegas. The SC overturned the ban with a party line vote, 6-3, with the conservatives allowing the Bump Stock to be available while the liberals supported the ban. This includes the "right to life" Barrett who I would have thought would consider America's children in her thinking. Imagine if Clinton had won in 2016 and she appointed moderate justices who would have recognized the threat of these machine guns. The Bump Stock is a replacement stock that converts semi-auto rifles to full automatic, firing anywhere from 400-800 bullets per minute. These were banned because they in essence create a machine gun out of a legal semi-auto gun. Machine guns are legal to own after a person aplpies for a Class C license from the BATF and gets permission from the county sheriff. These stocks render this limitation irrelevant.

I can see new arguments before the SC that machine guns should be allowed to any citizen as another stretch of the 2nd amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/14/bump-stocks-supreme-court-machine-gun-bruen-cargill/

 

[Laniakea]

So, the SCOTUS just released a decision on the Bump Stock that the Trump administration had banned after the 2017 mass killing in Las Vegas. The SC overturned the ban with a party line vote, 6-3, with the conservatives allowing the Bump Stock to be available while the liberals supported the ban. This includes the "right to life" Barrett who I would have thought would consider America's children in her thinking. Imagine if Clinton had won in 2016 and she appointed moderate justices who would have recognized the threat of these machine guns. The Bump Stock is a replacement stock that converts semi-auto rifles to full automatic, firing anywhere from 400-800 bullets per minute. These were banned because they in essence create a machine gun out of a legal semi-auto gun. Machine guns are legal to own after a person aplpies for a Class C license from the BATF and gets permission from the county sheriff. These stocks render this limitation irrelevant.

I can see new arguments before the SC that machine guns should be allowed to any citizen as another stretch of the 2nd amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/14/bump-stocks-supreme-court-machine-gun-bruen-cargill/

Bump Stocks: Banned under Trump, but brought back under Biden.

Where's that irony meter?

 

[Kathryn]

I am not for Trump or Biden because mainly I think they are too old for the job. Also, they both seem evil to me, in different ways. But this thread is about Trump and no, I do not support Trump for President because 1) I think he is too old for the job, 2) he seems inconsistent and not that bright to me, and 3) I don't know anyone I like who is supportive of him.