No, no, no. He meant to say that Trump was healthier than President Taft was !! ( But Taft was a better golfer)
No, no, no. He meant to say that Trump was healthier than President Taft was !! ( But Taft was a better golfer)
Flagpole wrote:
Dr. Racket wrote:
Trump was never going to attend. You think the importance of the tradition set by George MF Washington matters to him?
None of it means anything to him. It's truly amazing how a man who cares so little for this nation managed to get its most important office - a total anti-patriot, a traitor.
Another 100% correct post. You're on a roll, dude.
I see the B team came in last night and was quite busy - lots of posts.
I may read through some of these posts, but it seems most, like the one I've quoted, lack substance.
verne wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Ummm. OK
Over your head.
Perhaps if I put on a tin foil hat it wouldn't.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Another 100% correct post. You're on a roll, dude.
I see the B team came in last night and was quite busy - lots of posts.
I may read through some of these posts, but it seems most, like the one I've quoted, lack substance.
Looks like a C team member just arrived. Welcome!!
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Nope, it is true. Losing 10% of those who voted for you just 2 months ago is significant. He was never going to be on Mt. Rushmore. In 7 days his support drops a ton more, and then it will be a steady and quick drop from there. These people don't love Donald Trump. The love what he represented...overt racism in a position of power that allowed them to say out loud what they felt. It's done when he's out of office. They are already talking that way.
You know I think differently, but I am mostly just curious what these perma disgruntled people will do. I do not think they can accept the pre-trump party anymore (they are livid at the trump backstabbing) and they will jump at the opportunity to back him again. If he creates a new party I think the first test will be how much money he's able to raise. We will see polling as well of course. I did not think he would $hit the bed this badly though after losing. It's like he's trying to destroy all his chances of staying out of trouble and keeping a strong following. I do think regardless of what trump is able to do, there will be a giant vacuum on the right and perhaps 20-40% of Rs would try a new, more radical party.
If he creates a new party, that will split the conservative vote, because there are a LOT of conservatives (think conservative Catholics for one) who will stick with whatever the GOP party is. SOME of the diehard Trumpers who voted for Trump but hadn't voted before in their lives have come to the realization that they were played...they are talking about it on TikTok. He already had a minority of the vote support, and now that is being lessened even. This nonsense is quickly coming to an end.
I don't see the GOP or ANY conservative party gaining strength in the near term unless they do this:
1) Back away from abortion as a political issue. It's settled law. Allow states to regulate rules.
2) Back away from homosexuality as a political issue. We have freedoms in this country, and whether you believe that's a choice (it isn't) or you are born that way, it's time to let people live their lives as they wish.
3) Actually DO have fiscal conservative views and follow through. Republicans have long talked a good game here (pre-Trump), but they never actually do anything. Democrats have actually been better with fiscal responsibility (though they still suck at it) than Republicans.
We are more and more liberal as a nation all the time. A conservative party can NOT continue to have any power for much longer holding on to the views of 75-year-old white men.
agip wrote:
two straight days of a declining 7 day average of new cases, in the US. That's good news even if very thin. Deaths continue to rise.
The UK has had a more meaningful drop in cases, with its 7 day average of new cases down around 10% from its high on January 10.
Nothing good out of Israel yet...continued sharply increasing case counts. 24% of that nation has been vaccinated.
Hope it's a trend.
Our positivity here has settled at ~20% for the past couple of weeks. And we're testing about 50K/day - 40% more than during Summer surge.
We're last in percent of doses adminstered at 20% (national average is 35%) and second to last (thanks Alabama) in percent of residents vaccinated at 1.9%.
WV has administered 69% of their doses and vaccinated 6.2% of its population.
Sally Vix wrote:
How can De Blasio and NYC terminate all the contracts with the Trump Org.? Whatever happened to due process?
Sally, this is pretty moronic. If Trump fights it, It would be a civil case and not criminal. If he did, it would be a tough sell to argue that N.Y.C. is not within it's rights to terminate a contract with a POTUS that attacked American democracy.
Actions have consequences.
Calamity Joe wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
I see the B team came in last night and was quite busy - lots of posts.
Looks like a C team member just arrived. Welcome!!
Deer Trolls: Sally Vix = Calamity Joe = Marietta Tar Heel
Your welkome.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How can De Blasio and NYC terminate all the contracts with the Trump Org.? Whatever happened to due process?
Sally, this is pretty moronic. If Trump fights it, It would be a civil case and not criminal. If he did, it would be a tough sell to argue that N.Y.C. is not within it's rights to terminate a contract with a POTUS that attacked American democracy.
Actions have consequences.
I am not saying that Trump will or should fight it. I am just saying it is not up to De Blasio to decide if there were breaches of contracts.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How can De Blasio and NYC terminate all the contracts with the Trump Org.? Whatever happened to due process?
Sally, this is pretty moronic. If Trump fights it, It would be a civil case and not criminal. If he did, it would be a tough sell to argue that N.Y.C. is not within it's rights to terminate a contract with a POTUS that attacked American democracy.
Actions have consequences.
Contract termination clauses are pretty standard, and everyone do work for a city gets the same clauses. They are cast in stone. You can't change any boilerplate clause. The only recourse Trump has is billing allowed termination costs, which are tightly controlled and carefully reviewed. City contracts have been built up by city lawyers over many decades and they have stood the test of time. Trump will lose any legal case he tries to brings, and the NYC might well withhold the allowed termination fees to recover their legal costs.
Calamity Joe wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally, this is pretty moronic. If Trump fights it, It would be a civil case and not criminal. If he did, it would be a tough sell to argue that N.Y.C. is not within it's rights to terminate a contract with a POTUS that attacked American democracy.
Actions have consequences.
I am not saying that Trump will or should fight it. I am just saying it is not up to De Blasio to decide if there were breaches of contracts.
Actually, it is.
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I've BEEN in that room and stood at the podium. It's smaller than you would imagine if you've not seen it.
Hey genius it's called a LECTERN. How many phone books were required so you could see over the damn thing?
Your post unread.
Paradoxical wrote:
Raggedman wrote:
God you’re daft.
I'm serious. If people are so confident that he's guilty of incitement, tell me how he did it. Unless *gasp* you don't actually know what constitutes incitement under the law, and people are just making baseless claims out of their ass. Incitement requires SPEECH that encourages someone to commit a crime. So then, what did Trump actually say that encouraged his supporters to commit violence?
The standard for criminal prosecution and for impeachment are much different, as the standard for impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors) has never been defined, and is left up to the Representative/Senator to figure out. With Trump's perfect call to Ukraine, while everyone agreed on what happened, most Democrats felt it constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, and most Republicans disagreed.
Here, Trump did the following:
You could say that Trump laid the groundwork for the attack on the Capitol at the debate in September, when he said "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
Since 11/3, he has claimed to be the victim of a stolen, fraudulent election, repeatedly (without basis, but I'm not sure that matters for this discussion).
Scheduled a rally in DC for the very day that Congress would be voting to certify the election. Timed the rally so that it would wrap up around the time that the vote in Congress was scheduled to begin.
Promoted the rally to his supporters, with at least 4 tweets. Suggested that something more than just speeches would happen - “Big protest in D.C. on Jan. 6. Be there, will be wild!”
Social medial postings indicate that his supporters had more in store for 1/6 than just attending a rally. "We've got our marching orders". Discussions of bringing weapons to DC. “The calvary [sic] is coming, Mr. President!” Trump affirmed this as “A great honor!”
At the rally on 1/6, Trump spoke directly to his supporters. This is some of what he said:
“If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more;”
“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules;”
The response from his supporters was to chant “Fight for Trump,” for which he thanked the mob.
Rudy G., Trump's lawyer, spoke of "trial by combat". If Rudy is Trump's agent, this statement could be attributable to Trump.
And Trump kicked off the insurrection with the following:
"We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. And we're gonna cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women. And we're probably not gonna be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."
In fairness, Trump did mention at one point keeping the protest non-violent, a suggestion which was ignored by his supporters. During the riot, the terrorists were heard to say “This is what Trump wants.” Earlier in this thread, someone posted a video of the riot, with someone yelling "Let us in, the President invited us!" or something like that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/opinions/donald-trump-prosecution-capitol-mob-honig/index.htmlhttps://www.brandeis.edu/now/2021/january/trump-language-capitol-riot-mcintosh.htmlA criminal prosecution of Trump for incitement would not be a slam dunk. Obviously, there is no "smoking gun" statement where Trump tells the mob to violently storm the Capitol. But there's enough circumstantial evidence here where I would be worried if I was Trump, and his relatively conciliatory statement yesterday seems like an effort to stave off criminal charges.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Is he going to be going on one of those day cruises to Alcatraz ? Barron will love that!
His whole career was about law and order, but there were early signs of an out-of-control ego and corruption. I'm trying to think of an adequate punishment for his bad deeds.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/12/rudy-giuliani-trump-cabinet-secretary-state-mayor/
He should be disbarred. Dominion should sue him into the stone age. He should go to prison for a long time.
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Hey genius it's called a LECTERN. How many phone books were required so you could see over the damn thing?
Your post unread.
lectern and podium are both correct.
Definition of podium (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a low wall serving as a foundation or terrace wall: such as
a: one around the arena of an ancient amphitheater serving as a base for the tiers of seats
b: the masonry under the stylobate of a temple
2a: a dais especially for an orchestral conductor
b: LECTERN
johnny99 wrote:
Paradoxical wrote:
I'm serious. If people are so confident that he's guilty of incitement, tell me how he did it. Unless *gasp* you don't actually know what constitutes incitement under the law, and people are just making baseless claims out of their ass. Incitement requires SPEECH that encourages someone to commit a crime. So then, what did Trump actually say that encouraged his supporters to commit violence?
The standard for criminal prosecution and for impeachment are much different, as the standard for impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors) has never been defined, and is left up to the Representative/Senator to figure out. With Trump's perfect call to Ukraine, while everyone agreed on what happened, most Democrats felt it constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, and most Republicans disagreed.
Here, Trump did the following:
You could say that Trump laid the groundwork for the attack on the Capitol at the debate in September, when he said "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
Since 11/3, he has claimed to be the victim of a stolen, fraudulent election, repeatedly (without basis, but I'm not sure that matters for this discussion).
Scheduled a rally in DC for the very day that Congress would be voting to certify the election. Timed the rally so that it would wrap up around the time that the vote in Congress was scheduled to begin.
Promoted the rally to his supporters, with at least 4 tweets. Suggested that something more than just speeches would happen - “Big protest in D.C. on Jan. 6. Be there, will be wild!”
Social medial postings indicate that his supporters had more in store for 1/6 than just attending a rally. "We've got our marching orders". Discussions of bringing weapons to DC. “The calvary [sic] is coming, Mr. President!” Trump affirmed this as “A great honor!”
At the rally on 1/6, Trump spoke directly to his supporters. This is some of what he said:
“If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more;”
“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules;”
The response from his supporters was to chant “Fight for Trump,” for which he thanked the mob.
Rudy G., Trump's lawyer, spoke of "trial by combat". If Rudy is Trump's agent, this statement could be attributable to Trump.
And Trump kicked off the insurrection with the following:
"We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. And we're gonna cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women. And we're probably not gonna be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."
In fairness, Trump did mention at one point keeping the protest non-violent, a suggestion which was ignored by his supporters. During the riot, the terrorists were heard to say “This is what Trump wants.” Earlier in this thread, someone posted a video of the riot, with someone yelling "Let us in, the President invited us!" or something like that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/opinions/donald-trump-prosecution-capitol-mob-honig/index.htmlhttps://www.brandeis.edu/now/2021/january/trump-language-capitol-riot-mcintosh.htmlA criminal prosecution of Trump for incitement would not be a slam dunk. Obviously, there is no "smoking gun" statement where Trump tells the mob to violently storm the Capitol. But there's enough circumstantial evidence here where I would be worried if I was Trump, and his relatively conciliatory statement yesterday seems like an effort to stave off criminal charges.
from what I understand there's almost zero chance trump will face charges for the riot.
Rudy is closer, but we have a very high bar to define incitement.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How can De Blasio and NYC terminate all the contracts with the Trump Org.? Whatever happened to due process?
Easy. The contracts have clauses. Trump org has breached. NYC can terminate.
Yep. Easy peasy. And, as if Trump has ever given a sh!t about contracts. I'm fine with NYC playing the same game as Trump has always played..."you don't like it, sue me." That's what he gets. He is a POS...human garbage. I have long said I want Trump to live a long life, and this is part of the reason why...I KNEW he would suffer greatly financially following his departure from the WH, and we are already seeing it happen. He deserves it for what he has done to our country. I hope he lives a long miserable life.
pathwayz wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Sally, this is pretty moronic. If Trump fights it, It would be a civil case and not criminal. If he did, it would be a tough sell to argue that N.Y.C. is not within it's rights to terminate a contract with a POTUS that attacked American democracy.
Actions have consequences.
Contract termination clauses are pretty standard, and everyone do work for a city gets the same clauses. They are cast in stone. You can't change any boilerplate clause. The only recourse Trump has is billing allowed termination costs, which are tightly controlled and carefully reviewed. City contracts have been built up by city lawyers over many decades and they have stood the test of time. Trump will lose any legal case he tries to brings, and the NYC might well withhold the allowed termination fees to recover their legal costs.
What are termination fees? N.Y.C. has stopped making payments to Trump and that will be the end of it.
This is only the beginning of Trump's financial problems. It's likely that some tenants of Trump Tower will also try terminate their leases. The owners of condos in the building are going to suffer a significant hit in market values and might sue Trump.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
For 4 years you guys have been whining about Trump acting like an autocrat and now you are celebrating when De Blasio acts like an autocrat. De Blasio doesn't get to decide that the contract was breached. The parties must go before a judge in a court of law. We ain't in the Wild West anymore.
DeBlasio has consulted with legal counsel. Trump may try to defend just to pretend he's got it under control, but we all know how this will end. Until then, no more mooching off NYC taxpayers.
Yep. I'm no DeBlasio fan, but he did the right thing here. Trump is a traitor. He should not be supported in any way by anyone.
Dr. Racket wrote:
L L wrote:
No, you're misunderstanding me.
It's OK to poke fun at Flagpole if we are in bipartisan agreement.
On the matter of LRC Resolution 24 - Making Fun of Flagpole, I cast my vote Yea
Methinks you are jealous. :)