All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Joe]

His limitations have little to do with a statute

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'm not dodging anything. Do you think we disagree on something specific?

Dershowitz (who I thought a villain) was interviewed by a friendly interviewer, and I thought differently. He has been defense on some terrible cases, but terrible people are supposed to have effective lawyers...

I long ago accepted the fact that you habitually fail to answer direct questions and engage in various tactics to avoid answering. That's just how it is.

Dershowitz defended Trump's use of the power of his office (and taxpayer money that had been allocated by Congress) to advance his personal political fortunes. You either agree with Dershowitz on that or you don't, regardless of how 'reasonable' you think he is.

Dershowitz isn't a villain, and I haven't portrayed him as one. He's a bootlicker who concocted a bullshit excuse for Trump corruptly using his power as president. That is what I was clearly referring to, and you promptly defended him as 'reasonable.' At this point it looks to me like you failed to understand the reference and were just reflexively gainsaying because that's how you roll.

Now I take it you understand the reference, and agree that Dershowitz's line of bullshit was exactly that. You're correct; it has been soundly refuted by both conservative and progressive constitutional scholars.

I sneer at your opinion, because it doesn't align with the reality that happened. All the pro's looked at ALL the evidence (which we can't see) and arrived at a different conclusion than your opinion suggests. Their conclusion: Impeachment is CRITICAL, but wait a month or so, for holidays, THEN we'll impeach him forever. To no effect, because nothing was found to convince any non-Dem's of the importance of the events you are concerned with.

That might work, if you had a sound understanding of the facts. Going by your posts on this site, your version of 'the reality that happened' is often based on what you hear on some right wing vlog. You seem to have done a good job convincing yourself that the publicly acknowledged narrative is all lies concocted by a cabal of NPCs. You've repeatedly displayed a failure to comprehend what the publicly available evidence is, what it shows, and its inevitable implications. You refuse to educate yourself by going directly to publicly available sources (for instance by reading the Mueller report). This isn't just an occasional foray for you either--you're a pretty reliable parrot of whatever rubbish Trumpist gobshites and those in that orbit are spewing at any given moment.

I'm not sure where we disagree. Dershowitz IS a villain - until you consider him as a person. Justice IS unfair, until you consider what other systems have been more 'fair'. Dershowitz might be onto something about his statement. It sounds like something he could back up with law (what's his current job again?)

There isn't anything in the law that says a president of the US may use the power of his office to advance his personal political fortune. By any reasonable standard, that is nothing but corruption and abuse of the power of the office. Dershowitz didn't attempt to cite any legal precedent, because there are none that support his position. He was soundly rebutted by pretty much every other authority of the US Constitution that spoke up in response.

Perspective matters, and while I don't like Trump (OR the Dem 'alternative') I even more hate the dishonest attacks on him.

From reading your posts, one would conclude that all attacks on him are motivated by 'Trump-hate' and therefore are dishonest. You say you don't like Trump, yet you spend a significant part of your energy here denigrating those who oppose him, and as already mentioned, amplifying Trumpist noise.

It makes me trust less and less, what the media says. Since opening myself up to other opinions, I've found that simply discussing, or asking questions about some of these issues, is enough to get people to shut down.

Yes, you distrust some media, but you appear to find right wing 'alternative' media congenial and more trustworthy than mainstream media.

Think of all the 'bravery' shown by corporations who fly the rainbow flag, or BLM flag...is that an indication that these positions are brave? Or that they are pretty much accepted by the vast majority of customers?

Have any of these retail-goods producers taken a stand in favour of free speech?

The supply of hate seems to be WAY too low for most media, and they desperately seek more to showcase, often to their detriment. Examples are plentiful, if you care to look. (Smollett, Sandman, etc.)

Agreed, mainstream media are craven, and will generally go where the wind of public opinion blows. Public opinion in the US is running in favor of making the fine words of the US Constitution applicable to certain minorities that have previously been denied its protections. A real shame, eh?

One of the latest hoaxes was the Nacar thing, but while it's easy to find people accusing the fans of that sport of being racist, the org immediately moved to take away the offending flag, call in the FBI to investigate, and 'bravely' stood exactly in line with the majority.

It shouldn't be that controversial to say it, but most Americans are not racists. That's why Nascar can take such a position so 'bravely'.

It's like Mc.Donalds colouring their 'golden arches' teal. They don't give a fuck about colour, just revenue. Same goes for political trends.

NASCAR would not have lost much if any revenue if it had kept its head down and said nothing about the display of the Confederate battle flag at its venues. It's never been a particular issue with the demographic that's enthusiastic about NASCAR. In fact I'd wager that most NASCAR fans were OK with the display of the battle flag. There certainly is a vocal element among the NASCAR faithful that are now going to boycott NASCAR and are encouraging others to do so. Whether the decision will hurt or help its bottom line is debatable.

The noose in the garage used by Wallace was not a 'hoax.' Your use of the term bespeaks a particular skewed narrative, one promoted by the usual wingnut conspiracy mongers.

[Tero]

[Cunt]

Agreed, mainstream media are craven, and will generally go where the wind of public opinion blows. Public opinion in the US is running in favor of making the fine words of the US Constitution applicable to certain minorities that have previously been denied its protections. A real shame, eh?

Institutional racism is the claim. Please list the institutions, and which Democrats have been in control of them.

It shouldn't be that controversial to say it, but most Americans are not racists.

The noose in the garage used by Wallace was not a 'hoax.' Your use of the term bespeaks a particular skewed narrative, one promoted by the usual wingnut conspiracy mongers.

How long was the noose in place there before Wallace was placed in that garage?

The hoax isn't the noose, or Wallace being freaked out by it. It's the media attention.

[Svartalf]

7F1A3F44-DC52-47CA-B242-3A1293EE3886.jpeg

Seriously? it's not the Onion?

[pErvinalia]

Borowitz Report. Which is a satire site.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Agreed, mainstream media are craven, and will generally go where the wind of public opinion blows. Public opinion in the US is running in favor of making the fine words of the US Constitution applicable to certain minorities that have previously been denied its protections. A real shame, eh?

Institutional racism is the claim. Please list the institutions, and which Democrats have been in control of them.

Ah, so you don't understand what institutional or systemic racism is? How novel. Try reading up about it.

Being unaware of any claims that the Democratic party in the US is free of systemic racism and blameless for its continued existence, I regret that I'm unable to provide the list you propose.

Once you understand the concept you may begin to have a clue why your request is nonsensical. I'm not going to be holding my breath.

The noose in the garage used by Wallace was not a 'hoax.' Your use of the term bespeaks a particular skewed narrative, one promoted by the usual wingnut conspiracy mongers.

How long was the noose in place there before Wallace was placed in that garage?

The hoax isn't the noose, or Wallace being freaked out by it. It's the media attention.

In your quaint world, I suppose that media organizations should have such high principles that they'd refuse to report on the story because, well, reasons. Do tell.

[Tero]

Just assuming it's a real photo.

[Svartalf]

COBRAAAA !!

[Brian Peacock]

Needs to loosen that chin strap a bit.

[Sean Hayden]

Is he wearing a horn?

[Cunt]

The hoax isn't the noose, or Wallace being freaked out by it. It's the media attention.

In your quaint world, I suppose that media organizations should have such high principles that they'd refuse to report on the story because, well, reasons. Do tell.

You wouldn't see anything that didn't match your 'bias', in this, so its a lot easier to see it in the opposite way.

Take covid...whatever the facts are, some media promotes panic. You can stop trusting them based on that (unless you are biased about that particular fact about covid)

A school shooting can be a real event, and can also be manipulated by media to serve their larger agenda.

It's easy to see when they ignore the regular murders in a city like Chicago, while being laser-focused on one or two deaths which serve their political agenda.

Their facts aren't fake, but the news sure can be.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Is he wearing a horn?

The shako for that school apparently had a plume on it.

[JimC]

In our cadets, we wore a kilt!

[Animavore]

In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.

The calls caused former top Trump deputies -- including national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and White House chief of staff John Kelly, as well as intelligence officials -- to conclude that the President was often "delusional," as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders. The sources said there was little evidence that the President became more skillful or competent in his telephone conversations with most heads of state over time. Rather, he continued to believe that he could either charm, jawbone or bully almost any foreign leader into capitulating to his will, and often pursued goals more attuned to his own agenda than what many of his senior advisers considered the national interest.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/poli ... jOVH86fN-w