This is the ultimate test as to whether someone is in the Trump cult or not. If all these trump defenders who have been posting here can't bring themselves to post that they don't agree with Trump and that he is clearly wrong about claiming immunity, then they are in the CULT.
But these trump defenders are in the cult and will never post that Trump is clearly wrong about claiming immunity.
(This should be a real easy thing to do, unless you are in the cult)
I’m old enough to remember when “if Trump got indicted” was the simple test for our right wingers to quit Trump and prove themselves outside of the red cap cult.
They failed that one. And it looks like they will fail the Trump can commit crimes with full immunity test.
I think rather than taking that simple test, they decided to leave this thread for a while. And unfortunately there are millions of others who think just like our Trump cult members here.
I’m old enough to remember when “if Trump got indicted” was the simple test for our right wingers to quit Trump and prove themselves outside of the red cap cult.
They failed that one. And it looks like they will fail the Trump can commit crimes with full immunity test.
I think rather than taking that simple test, they decided to leave this thread for a while. And unfortunately there are millions of others who think just like our Trump cult members here.
That question silenced the trumpers for over 12 hours! All they had to say is that of course a president does not have total immunity for any illegal acts. They couldn't do it. Its not allowed for members of the cult to contradict orange Jesus.
Or, much less obvious, Biden can modify voting counts appoint fake electors, and have Harris declare him the winner. Really we won't need elections anymore.
If impeachment is required for prosecution then the President can ensure a Congressional majority by removing his political foes and ensure he will never be prosecuted.
Impeachment has been an almost purely party line vote until Trump. More of the president’s own party voted to impeach Trump than any other impeachment vote ever in the US. Many who voted gainst it cited that it is a court matter.
It can't be both ways and whichever suits the party in power at the moment. One party would just sieze control and end democracy. That is exactly why there is a separation of power and the judicial is as non political as possible by using grand juries and juries of citizens and judges elected with no party affiliation or appointed and approved by both parties (at least until recent partisan divisions). Judges are not supposed to receive lavish gifts, but this is being tested too.
This is a turning point for America. We either believe in democracy and law and order for ALL, or we flush it away for a dictator.
It’s almost as if our founders clearly saw in vision Donald J Trump as they structured these checks and balances against a despotic Wannabe dictator.
How did they see Trumps character so clearly 200 years ago while 30% of the country doesn’t get it today in real time?
I don't blame them for lack of vision given their time, but the checks and balances are nowhere near close to enough and they have not evolved at all. I would argue another huge risk carried forward in this backwards democratic system is the electoral college vote which is made even worse by states having too much power to direct electoral outcomes. The candidate with most total votes should win - simple. So much effort goes into winning swing states every time that they are vulnerable to the most vicious and corrupt tactics. IMO these are the top risks to our democracy:
1. Super PACs - foreign regimes buying candidates and no transparency
2. Flimsy and reactive controls - Trump proved POTUS is pretty much above the law - can be as corrupt as they want and disregard consequences.
3. Electoral college votes - not a real democracy if all citizens don't have equal voting power
I think rather than taking that simple test, they decided to leave this thread for a while. And unfortunately there are millions of others who think just like our Trump cult members here.
That question silenced the trumpers for over 12 hours! All they had to say is that of course a president does not have total immunity for any illegal acts. They couldn't do it. Its not allowed for members of the cult to contradict orange Jesus.
Judge Pan's hypothetical could have just as easily been 'can a president be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of 2 dozen judges?' That is what dictators usually do first thing after seizing power. And since citizen Trump has said he would be a dictator on day 1...
That question silenced the trumpers for over 12 hours! All they had to say is that of course a president does not have total immunity for any illegal acts. They couldn't do it. Its not allowed for members of the cult to contradict orange Jesus.
Amen
There is a great big wonderful world called reality that is open and welcoming to any Trumper willing to come back. Nobody is claiming they need to be liberals or even be a part of the diabolical “Democrat” party. All it takes is a little honest self reflection to realize that you have been misplacing your allegiance, adoration and some even say worship in a sociopath conman that doesn’t give a sh!t about you and never has.
There is a great big wonderful world called reality that is open and welcoming to any Trumper willing to come back. Nobody is claiming they need to be liberals or even be a part of the diabolical “Democrat” party. All it takes is a little honest self reflection to realize that you have been misplacing your allegiance, adoration and some even say worship in a sociopath conman that doesn’t give a sh!t about you and never has.
Well said! Add that Trump would be a dictator -- he is not really a Republican. Republicans, look again at Chris Christie and Liz Cheney and take some deep breaths.
I heard that Donald wants to give part of the closing argument at his civil fraud trial. Asking for a friend -- what could happen if a non-lawyer tells lies at closing arguments?
Judge Pan's hypothetical could have just as easily been 'can a president be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of 2 dozen judges?' That is what dictators usually do first thing after seizing power. And since citizen Trump has said he would be a dictator on day 1...
Remember, it's ONLY for building some wall, and a lot of drilling.
(and he'll be George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan all rolled into one for the next 3 years and 364 days)
Judge Pan's hypothetical could have just as easily been 'can a president be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of 2 dozen judges?' That is what dictators usually do first thing after seizing power. And since citizen Trump has said he would be a dictator on day 1...
Remember, it's ONLY for building some wall, and a lot of drilling.
(and he'll be George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan all rolled into one for the next 3 years and 364 days)
AND I BELIEVE HIM !!!!!!
Unfortunately, it's ALSO just another reminder (easily forgotten) of how much Trump has SUCCEEDED in normalizing the very-recently-unthinkable.
Like me above, the vast majority of the response to his dictator-for-day comments was a combination of 1) Humor, and 2) Fear/assumption that, of course, he would continue past Day 1.
But not TOO long ago, a politician would have immediately been destroyed if he proudly self-characterized as a dictator over ANY issue over ANY period of time. OF COURSE that certainly would have been politically deadly. No longer.
Former President Donald Trump on Monday lost an experienced defense attorney from his legal roster. Joe Tacopina told ABC News, "I withdrew on all matters." Tacopina accompanied Trump when the former president pleaded not gui...
Remember, it's ONLY for building some wall, and a lot of drilling.
(and he'll be George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan all rolled into one for the next 3 years and 364 days)
AND I BELIEVE HIM !!!!!!
Unfortunately, it's ALSO just another reminder (easily forgotten) of how much Trump has SUCCEEDED in normalizing the very-recently-unthinkable.
Like me above, the vast majority of the response to his dictator-for-day comments was a combination of 1) Humor, and 2) Fear/assumption that, of course, he would continue past Day 1.
But not TOO long ago, a politician would have immediately been destroyed if he proudly self-characterized as a dictator over ANY issue over ANY period of time. OF COURSE that certainly would have been politically deadly. No longer.
Well, his current "four years and beyond" seems likely to follow the usual pattern.
Some on the Right are likely to say, "Oh, you have DTS, and you're an idiot. He means that M*GA will be around that long and that conservatives will have a clear lead that allows them to win elections for years. He doesn't mean that he wants to hold on to power illegally."
And then ... (it's always subject to revision with some kind of backpedaling, lying, etc. -- Just like all the Republicans who considered J6 contemptible and acted as though it was the last straw ... then started getting mealy-mouthed a week later and have since been acting as though they never believed those things in the first place).
(FWIW, I don't think he has any grand scheme personally to do anything in particular in 2025 ... just that he doesn't have any principles that would prevent him from doing anything nefarious, and that all his words are just spouted to see what will garner him praise or attention in the current moment, but then sometimes wind up being test balloons to see what he might actually be able to get away with.)
(FWIW, I don't think he has any grand scheme personally to do anything in particular in 2025 ...
That is, no "grand scheme" in place for real dictatorial control. I do, of course, believe he'll make strong attempts to exact revenge on political enemies, but who would be targeted and how they'd be targeted depends on what he feels like he could get away with if/when that time rolls around, not that it's automatically some grisly scenario (i.e., not necessarily beyond ruining someone's political fortunes or trying to subject them to malicious prosecution).
You would think that the Republican Party would, at a minimum, not nominate for president a man who has broken multiple serious laws and many times broken his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution.
Since Republicans have not done that, we have to assume that Republicans in fact approve of serious criminality - or are criminals themselves - and do not care to protect and preserve the Constitution.
(FWIW, I don't think he has any grand scheme personally to do anything in particular in 2025 ...
That is, no "grand scheme" in place for real dictatorial control. I do, of course, believe he'll make strong attempts to exact revenge on political enemies, but who would be targeted and how they'd be targeted depends on what he feels like he could get away with if/when that time rolls around, not that it's automatically some grisly scenario (i.e., not necessarily beyond ruining someone's political fortunes or trying to subject them to malicious prosecution).
there absolutely is a grand scheme. There is an actual organization working hard on this as we speak. For dictatorial control? Dictatorial control is a spectrum, but by eliminating much of the Civil Service, and prosecuting political foes, they are pretty much there already. Add in the Republican nonstop swatting and intimidation of political foes and we're done for.
You would think that the Republican Party would, at a minimum, not nominate for president a man who has broken multiple serious laws and many times broken his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution.
Since Republicans have not done that, we have to assume that Republicans in fact approve of serious criminality - or are criminals themselves - and do not care to protect and preserve the Constitution.
Sad state this country has arrived at.
We are doomed.
Agip,
I love you, man...but I have some terrible news for you: there *is* no more Republican party. Remember when said party tried to organize and dump Trump the moment he was certain to be the nominee? If you can't here is a refresher:
That was the former nominee doing everything he could to stop the Trump train. He failed. Miserably.
What we have right now are a bunch of loosely-affiliated people with "-R" after there name, most of whom actually support Trump. Which is a good idea, because he kind of run the party. Yes, you have your Liz Cheney's and your Chris Christie's (and to be fair to you: you never brought them up). These people get heavy airtime on liberal news outlets. They also probably get hearty appearance fees. If you can follow my logic, I want to hazard a guess: hating on Trump gets viewers, which equals add revenue.
Now for the scandalous note: the same thing is about to happen to the Democratic party. You will have someone who is a strong leader, likely has a repulsive personality, and let's the party crumble under the intolerable stretching between your moderate democrats and the progressive wing. Time will tell, but, even if I'm wrong...don't worry: not much will change. Except the news outlets will reach a new low everyday. I can live with that. Hope you can, too.
there absolutely is a grand scheme. There is an actual organization working hard on this as we speak. For dictatorial control? Dictatorial control is a spectrum, but by eliminating much of the Civil Service, and prosecuting political foes, they are pretty much there already. Add in the Republican nonstop swatting and intimidation of political foes and we're done for.
Agreed. There are people much smarter than Trump that want an autocracy. Or at least a kleptocracy. And they view Trump as the vehicle to make it happen. They all have different personal motivations . But most motivations can be whittled down to either money or power or both.
Dictatorships can never develop because of one human being. Instead it is always a group working together toward a common goal. Trump would have been DOA after January 6th if it were not for smarter people around him resurrecting and whitewashing his actions daily. Look at how much of a difference we see in how the nation views Jan 6 today compared to right after it happened.
