Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[Ponder This]

We all know the dude had it done.

Actually, we don't know that. There is no direct evidence, only strong suspicion that he gave the order based on the relationship of the perpetrators to the Crown Prince and lots of media coverage strongly implying or outright stating that he did it or must have done it. News stories accusing someone of an act are often persuasive in the minds of the people who read it.

Oh! I'm sure that makes up for murdering and dismembering him just for writing unfavorable stories about them. Why didn't you say so before!

Perhaps you should state what it is that you expect as an outcome. Could you possibly have achieved a more favorable outcome than the outcome achieved by Trump? Suppose that despite no direct evidence (or "smoking gun" as Trump's advisors told him) and the Crown Prince's statement of denial of involvement, that you are somehow the one who is right about what happened by virtue of watching your favorite news media cover the story...
Do you want the Crown Prince killed in return? Not going to happen. Do you want him to abdicate? Not going to happen. Perhaps you don't care about the family members of the deceased at all and you just want to fume about the Crown Prince and Saudi Arabia? Well, you got that for free.
But this is what Trump got: the Crown Prince didn't do it, but he took responsibility anyway, paid a compensation to the family members, and punished everyone involved in the murder of Khashoggi. Basically everything you could've realistically wanted to have happen, happened, but all you have to say is that it will never make up for for the murder and dismemberment. That may be true, but it may also be true that you want to hold a grudge in your heart forever.
One wonders what action you would've taken as President. Would you have listened to your advisors, or relied on a news story in the Washington Post? Would you have given a speech condemning the Crown Prince, declaring diplomatic war, or would you have been the better man (like Trump was) and called the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia directly to hear what he had to say for himself? We know what Biden did when he got into office - the disgraceful idiot that he is.

Imagine how you would feel about that. I mean, you're here accusing Biden of taking money from foreign powers based on zero evidence while completely ignoring the millions of dollars that Trump himself demonstrably took from foreign powers.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy and double standard.

Hmm, I said that I don't have a problem with Biden owning a hotel in Washington D.C. And it sounds like all you have is that "foreign powers" stayed in Trump's hotel in Washington D.C. They had legitimate business in Washington D.C. (which was pointed out in the article) and it's entirely reasonable for people to stay at a hotel in Washinton D.C. when they have legitimate business there. There's no indication that they paid for anything other than their stay at the hotel or that they paid Trump to do something for them. Is that hypocrisy? Is that a double standard? Explain yourself.

I'm not surprised by your response. You don't seem to be at all interested in an honest examination of the evidence.

You need to do more than link articles and say "Emoluments Clause". It's up to you to make your argument. It's not on me to make your argument for you.

It's far beyond a mere accusation now. He's been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

This has been adjudicated already. Your musings here are meaningless and unsubstantiated. Though I'm not that surprised you refuse to face facts on this one either.

I see that you've discovered that the verdict was not "rape". Whose musings were meaningless and unsubstantiated?
But you've also missed the point that it's hard to believe that the lawsuit wasn't manufactured (regardless of the verdict).

I'm referring to his personality, behaviours and actions. They are those of a sociopath that does not experience empathy.
You haven't noticed yet that he only cares about himself?

If you are voting or not voting for him based on his personality, then I think it's not such a good reason.
If there is a behavior or action you don't like, then tell me what the behavior or action is and I hope you aren't referring to something like Kamala Harris' laugh. I understand that people seem to not like her laugh, but I think that that's not a good reason to not vote for her.

How about trying to overturn a democratic election because you don't want to give up power? You missed that one.

Hmm, it appears the Trump peacefully left office on Jan 20. He might not have wanted to leave, but he did. Perhaps you missed it.

That would be you if you don't see it. Giuliani followed Trump right down the sinking ship and guess where he is now? Bankrupt. Trump refusing to help pay his legal bills.
Remember Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen? He lied for Trump. He went to prison for Trump. Did Trump help him at all? Nope. Threw him right under the bus. Calls him names to this day.
Remember dear old Jeff Sessions? He licked Trump's boots every which way from Sunday. Advocated for him. Supported him. Voted on everything Trump wanted. What did Trump do? Fired him on Twitter one day because he didn't do an unethical thing Trump wanted him to do.

Trump constantly throws everyone around him under the bus. He gives loyalty to no one. But expects it in return. If you can't see that I'd have to say you're the delusional one here.

What's your argument here exactly? that Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen and Jeff Sessions are good people being wrongfully accused? or that they are criminals that Trump should be loyal to? I don't understand what you are trying to argue here... Are you trying to argue that sycophants (who lick your boots every which way from Sunday) should be rewarded for their obsequious behavior when they fail to defend you against the unscrupulous?
And what in the world does any of this have to do with your claim that Trump is "xenophobic and racist"?

Unfortunately for me, I've listened to a ton of his speeches.
They are mostly gibberish. Don't believe me? Pull up the transcript of any one of them and just try reading through it.
You'll quickly realize it's gibberish.
He never gets into policy, or details or anything at all.

For example, Trump talks about border policy. You say you've listened to his speeches and yet you are unaware that Trump talks about U.S. border policy. That's unbelievable. Somehow, you've epicly failed to pay attention to Trump speaking. It's easy to watch one of Trump's speeches. For example, there are plenty available on his Rumble account. He spoke in Las Vegas recently and one of the first issues he raised in that speech was the border issue. And, for example, he added a detail about the number of terrorists coming into the country in 2019 versus today. And I have no difficulty following his speech. The problem is on your end.

Wow, someone give him a cookie for doing what he's supposed to do.

We're in a new election now. Why is Trump so afraid to debate his opponents, I wonder.

His claim is that it's because he's so far ahead of the other candidates that there's nothing he can gain by engaging in a debate with them... which is actually probably true.

His personality is a good reason not to vote for him.

I think this is something we just disgree on. I just think that there are way better reasons to vote or not vote for a candidate.

That's not what I said though, was it.

"Because he's a wannabe fascist who admires and praises and falls in love with global dictators while denigrating and insulting democratically elected leaders."

I disagreed with your assessment and if I'm being entirely honest, your take sounds like it was fed to you from media you consume. But there is a bigger point and that point is that not all "democractically elected leaders" are worthy of admiration and praise and nothing is gained from hurling insults at "global dictators" simply because they are dictators. For example, Trump engaged Kim Jong Un in talks about nuclear weapons and relations between North Korea and South Korea were improving and greater stability was being brought to the entire region, but Biden ended that process and North Korea has expanded their missile testing to include waters near Japan. In the Middle East, Trump negotiated with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and others and progress was made on the Abraham Accords. Biden immediately insulted the Crown Prince and made any diplomatic effort in that region difficult again. It sounds to me like you get all gooey inside if people say dictators are bad people and are happy to let the world burn because of it.

Yes! So why do you people support him??????

Because you're wrong about Trump. I don't wonder so much why you hate Trump. It's clear you have a warped perspective of him. It's just astounding how out of touch with reality your perspective is.

Trump is all of those things and worse.

He's none of things.

It seems like the Biden escalation towards World War III that has been happening around the globe has gone unnoticed by you. China is getting more aggressive around Taiwan, Russia is stepping up attacks on Ukraine, and the Middle East has become a hot mess. And the U.S. is currently under an increased threat from cyber attack, with the FBI getting hacked while Christopher Wray was testifying to Congress just the other day.

Trump, on the other hand, is the first President in decades not to involve the U.S. in new wars.

 

[Kenny]

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

Depends… who is he running against? We still don’t know.

 

[metis]

Depends… who is he running against? We still don’t know.

Ya know, you could vote 3rd party or just nor vote on the president/vice president.

"To cooperate with evil is evil"-- Gandhi.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually, we don't know that. There is no direct evidence, only strong suspicion that he gave the order based on the relationship of the perpetrators to the Crown Prince and lots of media coverage strongly implying or outright stating that he did it or must have done it. News stories accusing someone of an act are often persuasive in the minds of the people who read it.


Perhaps you should state what it is that you expect as an outcome. Could you possibly have achieved a more favorable outcome than the outcome achieved by Trump? Suppose that despite no direct evidence (or "smoking gun" as Trump's advisors told him) and the Crown Prince's statement of denial of involvement, that you are somehow the one who is right about what happened by virtue of watching your favorite news media cover the story...
Do you want the Crown Prince killed in return? Not going to happen. Do you want him to abdicate? Not going to happen. Perhaps you don't care about the family members of the deceased at all and you just want to fume about the Crown Prince and Saudi Arabia? Well, you got that for free.
But this is what Trump got: the Crown Prince didn't do it, but he took responsibility anyway, paid a compensation to the family members, and punished everyone involved in the murder of Khashoggi. Basically everything you could've realistically wanted to have happen, happened, but all you have to say is that it will never make up for for the murder and dismemberment. That may be true, but it may also be true that you want to hold a grudge in your heart forever.
One wonders what action you would've taken as President. Would you have listened to your advisors, or relied on a news story in the Washington Post? Would you have given a speech condemning the Crown Prince, declaring diplomatic war, or would you have been the better man (like Trump was) and called the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia directly to hear what he had to say for himself? We know what Biden did when he got into office - the disgraceful idiot that he is.


Hmm, I said that I don't have a problem with Biden owning a hotel in Washington D.C. And it sounds like all you have is that "foreign powers" stayed in Trump's hotel in Washington D.C. They had legitimate business in Washington D.C. (which was pointed out in the article) and it's entirely reasonable for people to stay at a hotel in Washinton D.C. when they have legitimate business there. There's no indication that they paid for anything other than their stay at the hotel or that they paid Trump to do something for them. Is that hypocrisy? Is that a double standard? Explain yourself.


You need to do more than link articles and say "Emoluments Clause". It's up to you to make your argument. It's not on me to make your argument for you.


I see that you've discovered that the verdict was not "rape". Whose musings were meaningless and unsubstantiated?
But you've also missed the point that it's hard to believe that the lawsuit wasn't manufactured (regardless of the verdict).


If you are voting or not voting for him based on his personality, then I think it's not such a good reason.
If there is a behavior or action you don't like, then tell me what the behavior or action is and I hope you aren't referring to something like Kamala Harris' laugh. I understand that people seem to not like her laugh, but I think that that's not a good reason to not vote for her.


Hmm, it appears the Trump peacefully left office on Jan 20. He might not have wanted to leave, but he did. Perhaps you missed it.


What's your argument here exactly? that Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen and Jeff Sessions are good people being wrongfully accused? or that they are criminals that Trump should be loyal to? I don't understand what you are trying to argue here... Are you trying to argue that sycophants (who lick your boots every which way from Sunday) should be rewarded for their obsequious behavior when they fail to defend you against the unscrupulous?
And what in the world does any of this have to do with your claim that Trump is "xenophobic and racist"?


For example, Trump talks about border policy. You say you've listened to his speeches and yet you are unaware that Trump talks about U.S. border policy. That's unbelievable. Somehow, you've epicly failed to pay attention to Trump speaking. It's easy to watch one of Trump's speeches. For example, there are plenty available on his Rumble account. He spoke in Las Vegas recently and one of the first issues he raised in that speech was the border issue. And, for example, he added a detail about the number of terrorists coming into the country in 2019 versus today. And I have no difficulty following his speech. The problem is on your end.


His claim is that it's because he's so far ahead of the other candidates that there's nothing he can gain by engaging in a debate with them... which is actually probably true.


I think this is something we just disgree on. I just think that there are way better reasons to vote or not vote for a candidate.


I disagreed with your assessment and if I'm being entirely honest, your take sounds like it was fed to you from media you consume. But there is a bigger point and that point is that not all "democractically elected leaders" are worthy of admiration and praise and nothing is gained from hurling insults at "global dictators" simply because they are dictators. For example, Trump engaged Kim Jong Un in talks about nuclear weapons and relations between North Korea and South Korea were improving and greater stability was being brought to the entire region, but Biden ended that process and North Korea has expanded their missile testing to include waters near Japan. In the Middle East, Trump negotiated with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and others and progress was made on the Abraham Accords. Biden immediately insulted the Crown Prince and made any diplomatic effort in that region difficult again. It sounds to me like you get all gooey inside if people say dictators are bad people and are happy to let the world burn because of it.


Because you're wrong about Trump. I don't wonder so much why you hate Trump. It's clear you have a warped perspective of him. It's just astounding how out of touch with reality your perspective is.


He's none of things.

It seems like the Biden escalation towards World War III that has been happening around the globe has gone unnoticed by you. China is getting more aggressive around Taiwan, Russia is stepping up attacks on Ukraine, and the Middle East has become a hot mess. And the U.S. is currently under an increased threat from cyber attack, with the FBI getting hacked while Christopher Wray was testifying to Congress just the other day.

Trump, on the other hand, is the first President in decades not to involve the U.S. in new wars.

Wow!

 

[Kenny]

Ya know, you could vote 3rd party or just nor vote on the president/vice president.

"To cooperate with evil is evil"-- Gandhi.

If there is a viable third party.

And “who is good”?

 

[metis]

If there is a viable third party.

When I've done it [twice for president], I did so as a protest vote.

And “who is good”?

Beware of "false equivalencies".

On a scale of reflecting Judeo-Christian and humanistic values, do you really think Biden and Trump are pretty much the same? with their talk? with their actions?

However, as I said before, I would never tell anyone that they must vote for whomever. But voting for someone as morally bankrupt as Trump begs whether a person believes in and acceptances moral right over wrong as the Gospel tells us.

Take care, my friend.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is a viable third party.

And “who is good”?

Wow.

I've seen Christians spin their scriptures before, but even still, co-opting a verse about how nobody can deserve Heaven on their merits into the equivalent of "meh - it's all the same, so I don't have to worry about the consequences of my choices"... that's just... Wow.

 

[Kenny]

Wow.

I've seen Christians spin their scriptures before, but even still, co-opting a verse about how nobody can deserve Heaven on their merits into the equivalent of "meh - it's all the same, so I don't have to worry about the consequences of my choices"... that's just... Wow.

- I believe you didn’t understand the meaning on what I was trying to say. In other words, what I said isn’t what you heard.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If there is a viable third party.

And “who is good”?

I muse over that question many times, particularly the Forward Party which has pretty much fallen off the radar.

I don't know if it's by design or if they were forced to keep silent and not run against the two dominant parties that are in complete control of the country today and are arguably ripping it apart each election cycle that passes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, we don't know that. There is no direct evidence, only strong suspicion that he gave the order based on the relationship of the perpetrators to the Crown Prince and lots of media coverage strongly implying or outright stating that he did it or must have done it. News stories accusing someone of an act are often persuasive in the minds of the people who read it.

Then you would be the only one who doesn't know what happened. The rest of us know they killed the guy.

Perhaps you should state what it is that you expect as an outcome. Could you possibly have achieved a more favorable outcome than the outcome achieved by Trump?

Seriously?

Suppose that despite no direct evidence (or "smoking gun" as Trump's advisors told him) and the Crown Prince's statement of denial of involvement, that you are somehow the one who is right about what happened by virtue of watching your favorite news media cover the story...

Do you want the Crown Prince killed in return? Not going to happen.

This story just broke ...

House Oversight investigating $2B Saudi investment in Jared Kushner's firm

Kushner formed an investment firm right after Trump left office, and six months later, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, controlled by the crown prince, invested $2 billion.

www.nbcnews.com

"Your support for Saudi interests was unwavering, even as Congress and the rest of the world closely scrutinized the country’s human rights abuses in Yemen, the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi assassins tied to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Saudi Arabia’s crackdown on political dissidents at home," Maloney wrote."

House Oversight investigating $2B Saudi investment in Jared Kushner's firm

Kushner formed an investment firm right after Trump left office, and six months later, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, controlled by the crown prince, invested $2 billion.

www.nbcnews.com

See? Everyone knows what the Saudis did to that journalist.

Looks like Trump got something in return for letting the Saudi Crown Prince get away with torture and murder.

Do you want him to abdicate? Not going to happen. Perhaps you don't care about the family members of the deceased at all and you just want to fume about the Crown Prince and Saudi Arabia? Well, you got that for free.

Sounds good. He's a horrid person.

But this is what Trump got: the Crown Prince didn't do it, but he took responsibility anyway, paid a compensation to the family members, and punished everyone involved in the murder of Khashoggi.

No he didn't. Where'd you come up with that?

Basically everything you could've realistically wanted to have happen, happened, but all you have to say is that it will never make up for for the murder and dismemberment. That may be true, but it may also be true that you want to hold a grudge in your heart forever.

Nope. You don't even know the Saudis had the guy murdered in the first place.

One wonders what action you would've taken as President. Would you have listened to your advisors, or relied on a news story in the Washington Post? Would you have given a speech condemning the Crown Prince, declaring diplomatic war, or would you have been the better man (like Trump was) and called the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia directly to hear what he had to say for himself? We know what Biden did when he got into office - the disgraceful idiot that he is.

Yeah, Biden's the disgrace here.

Hmm, I said that I don't have a problem with Biden owning a hotel in Washington D.C.

Suuuure. You think Biden is involved in all kinds of corruption for which there is zero evidence for, all while completely ignoring the piles of evidence of Trump's corruption. Sorry, but you've got an obvious bias here.

And it sounds like all you have is that "foreign powers" stayed in Trump's hotel in Washington D.C. They had legitimate business in Washington D.C. (which was pointed out in the article) and it's entirely reasonable for people to stay at a hotel in Washinton D.C. when they have legitimate business there. There's no indication that they paid for anything other than their stay at the hotel or that they paid Trump to do something for them. Is that hypocrisy? Is that a double standard? Explain yourself.

Do you know how naive you sound?

You need to do more than link articles and say "Emoluments Clause". It's up to you to make your argument. It's not on me to make your argument for you.

Violating the emoluments clause is against the law. That's not good enough for you? You need more?

I see that you've discovered that the verdict was not "rape". Whose musings were meaningless and unsubstantiated?

The verdict was "civilly liable for sexual abuse." Like I just said.

The Judge himself stated that it was rape.

"District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll. "

A federal judge has gone to great lengths to make clear Trump really did rape E. Jean Carroll

Why state-level legal minutiae impacts what words are used to describe the former president's criminal conduct.

www.motherjones.com

Like a true Trump supporter, you're here nitpicking words instead of facing facts - you support a man who raped/violated/sexually abused a woman.

But you've also missed the point that it's hard to believe that the lawsuit wasn't manufactured (regardless of the verdict).

Because that's completely made up and not based on any facts or evidence. You just want it to be made up because ... you just love Dear Leader so much.

If you are voting or not voting for him based on his personality, then I think it's not such a good reason.

A person's personality is who they are, is it not?


Cont'd ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

If there is a behavior or action you don't like, then tell me what the behavior or action is and I hope you aren't referring to something like Kamala Harris' laugh. I understand that people seem to not like her laugh, but I think that that's not a good reason to not vote for her.

Uh no, that sounds like a weird problem you have. How weird to ask me not to point out such trivial things, while you're in the middle of pointing out a trivial thing about someone you don't like. LOL

Hmm, it appears the Trump peacefully left office on Jan 20. He might not have wanted to leave, but he did. Perhaps you missed it.

I think you missed the insurrection. Oopsy. The dude absolutely did not leave office peacefully. Hell, he still won't even admit he lost, to this day!

What's your argument here exactly? that Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen and Jeff Sessions are good people being wrongfully accused? or that they are criminals that Trump should be loyal to? I don't understand what you are trying to argue here... Are you trying to argue that sycophants (who lick your boots every which way from Sunday) should be rewarded for their obsequious behavior when they fail to defend you against the unscrupulous?
And what in the world does any of this have to do with your claim that Trump is "xenophobic and racist"?

This was in response to your claim that I'm delusional for claiming Trump "doesn't respect human beings. He demands utter and total blind loyalty but gives none in return. He is racist and xenophobic."

Trump is loyal to no one. Even those who he hired to sycophantically lick his boots and commit crimes on his behalf. They're all in prison now, or facing trials and/or prison. time.

He wanted a "Muslim ban" on every person entering the US. He also claims over and over that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US. I rest my case on the xenophobia.

Sorry, whose boots do you think I'm sycophantically licking? Sorry dude, but you're the one doing the licking of Trump's boots here.

For example, Trump talks about border policy. You say you've listened to his speeches and yet you are unaware that Trump talks about U.S. border policy. That's unbelievable.

His entire "policy" is build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. How did that work out the first time around?
Also, that's not a "policy."

Somehow, you've epicly failed to pay attention to Trump speaking. It's easy to watch one of Trump's speeches. For example, there are plenty available on his Rumble account. He spoke in Las Vegas recently and one of the first issues he raised in that speech was the border issue. And, for example, he added a detail about the number of terrorists coming into the country in 2019 versus today. And I have no difficulty following his speech. The problem is on your end.

I'm willing to bet the numbers he gave were completely made up and pulled out of his arse.

His claim is that it's because he's so far ahead of the other candidates that there's nothing he can gain by engaging in a debate with them... which is actually probably true.

That's the problem. It's not about HIS feelings and how HE feels about it. It's about the American people getting a chance to listen to what the candidates have to say about what they're going to do for THEM. Trump thinks everything is about himself.

I think this is something we just disgree on. I just think that there are way better reasons to vote or not vote for a candidate.

Sorry, I can't get on board with a guy who has zero redeeming qualities, and all kinds of terrible ones. And on top of that, he's a sexual abuser. If you're cool supporting that, I really don't know what to say to you.

I disagreed with your assessment and if I'm being entirely honest, your take sounds like it was fed to you from media you consume.

That would be projection, on your part. I "consume" media from all perspectives. I even watch Fox News from time to time.

But there is a bigger point and that point is that not all "democractically elected leaders" are worthy of admiration and praise and nothing is gained from hurling insults at "global dictators" simply because they are dictators. For example, Trump engaged Kim Jong Un in talks about nuclear weapons and relations between North Korea and South Korea were improving and greater stability was being brought to the entire region, but Biden ended that process and North Korea has expanded their missile testing to include waters near Japan. In the Middle East, Trump negotiated with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and others and progress was made on the Abraham Accords. Biden immediately insulted the Crown Prince and made any diplomatic effort in that region difficult again. It sounds to me like you get all gooey inside if people say dictators are bad people and are happy to let the world burn because of it.

BS. He sucked up to a dictator, claiming they "fell in love." I can only imagine what you'd be saying if Joe Biden or Barack Obama had said such a thing.

Trump negotiated with the Crown Prince of Saudi for personal financial gain and for the financial gain of his son-in-law.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia SHOULD have been insulted. He had a journalist murdered and dismembered!!

Because you're wrong about Trump. I don't wonder so much why you hate Trump. It's clear you have a warped perspective of him. It's just astounding how out of touch with reality your perspective is.

He's a horrible excuse for a human being with no redeeming qualities.
I don't support sexual abusers.

What's astounding to me is that anyone at all supports a sexual abuser.

He's none of things.

It seems like the Biden escalation towards World War III that has been happening around the globe has gone unnoticed by you. China is getting more aggressive around Taiwan, Russia is stepping up attacks on Ukraine, and the Middle East has become a hot mess. And the U.S. is currently under an increased threat from cyber attack, with the FBI getting hacked while Christopher Wray was testifying to Congress just the other day.

Trump, on the other hand, is the first President in decades not to involve the U.S. in new wars.

These are straight up Fox News talking points, not rooted in reality.

 

[Ponder This]

"Your support for Saudi interests was unwavering, even as Congress and the rest of the world closely scrutinized the country’s human rights abuses in Yemen, the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi assassins tied to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Saudi Arabia’s crackdown on political dissidents at home," Maloney wrote."

"Saudi interests" That's rather vague and unspecified. Like what interests? Peace in the Middle East? LoL.

See? Everyone knows what the Saudis did to that journalist.

And? Do you understand that under the Trump adminstration, the Crown Prince took responsiblity for the death of the journalist, gave generously to his relatives as compensation on behalf of Saudi Arabia, and held trials for all the murders involved?

Looks like Trump got something in return for letting the Saudi Crown Prince get away with torture and murder.

Yeah, he got compensation for the family of the deceased, made a peace deal in the Middle East involving Israel, and maintained good diplomatic relations.

No he didn't. Where'd you come up with that?

I guess you outright ignored the link I posted and quoted to you from the Washington Post in this post. There was a paywall, so I quoted it for you.

Nope. You don't even know the Saudis had the guy murdered in the first place.

Here are a few more links for you to peruse:
Saudi Arabia gave Jamal Khashoggi’s children homes, money: Report
Jamal Khashoggi's kids have reportedly received money and multimillion-dollar houses from the Saudis as compensation for their father's murder
Saudi Arabia Giving Jamal Khashoggi’s Children Money and Real Estate

 

[Ponder This]

Violating the emoluments clause is against the law. That's not good enough for you? You need more?

You didn't show he violated the Emoluments Clause. You suggested it and then stopped short of anything substantial.

The verdict was "civilly liable for sexual abuse." Like I just said.

The Judge himself stated that it was rape.

"District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll. "

This statement by District Judge Lewis Kaplan that Trump "raped" her is irresponsible and raises further questions about the fairness of the trial. The link you posted includes the instructions to the jury on the questions of rape and sexual assault.

Like a true Trump supporter, you're here nitpicking words instead of facing facts - you support a man who raped/violated/sexually abused a woman.

You're just upset that you were forced to downgrade your initiial assessment that he "raped" her when you learned the actual verdict from the jury.

Because that's completely made up and not based on any facts or evidence. You just want it to be made up because ... you just love Dear Leader so much.

And, of course, you've ignored what I've said about the evidence suggesting the case was part of politically motivated lawfare.

Uh no, that sounds like a weird problem you have. How weird to ask me not to point out such trivial things, while you're in the middle of pointing out a trivial thing about someone you don't like. LOL

As expected, you have nothing of relevant substance to say regarding personality.

I think you missed the insurrection. Oopsy. The dude absolutely did not leave office peacefully. Hell, he still won't even admit he lost, to this day!

More likely, you imagined Trump engaged in insurrection because of TDS. Hmm, what do you call it that Clinton still claims she won in 2016?

This was in response to your claim that I'm delusional for claiming Trump "doesn't respect human beings. He demands utter and total blind loyalty but gives none in return. He is racist and xenophobic."

Trump is loyal to no one. Even those who he hired to sycophantically lick his boots and commit crimes on his behalf. They're all in prison now, or facing trials and/or prison. time.

You can't defend your claim when I ask basic questions? LoL.

He wanted a "Muslim ban" on every person entering the US. He also claims over and over that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US. I rest my case on the xenophobia.

It's not xenophobic to acknowledge that there exist countries that that sponsor or support terrorism or that some countries are, in fact, getting rid of murderers, rapists, etc by sending them to the U.S. Those aren't comments about every person from another country or even statements about every person from one of the countries that sponsors terorism.

Sorry, whose boots do you think I'm sycophantically licking? Sorry dude, but you're the one doing the licking of Trump's boots here.

I don't know whose boots you are "sycophantically licking" and I have made no claims that you are "sycophantically licking anyone's boots.

His entire "policy" is build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. How did that work out the first time around?
Also, that's not a "policy."

"Build a wall" is a simplification. Although, that is policy also. You haven't been listening to him speak, because he talks about catch and release, remain in Mexico, etc. It's evident that you haven't been paying attention to Trump.

I'm willing to bet the numbers he gave were completely made up and pulled out of his arse.

Yeah, you didn't listen to him speak and you haven't tried to check any numbers yourself. You've already decided that there is nothing he can say or do that you would like. You have TDS.

That's the problem. It's not about HIS feelings and how HE feels about it. It's about the American people getting a chance to listen to what the candidates have to say about what they're going to do for THEM. Trump thinks everything is about himself.

But that wasn't a feeling. That was a realistic opinion. And it wasn't an opinion about himself. And he's given lot's of speeches saying what he plans to do for the American people.

Sorry, I can't get on board with a guy who has zero redeeming qualities, and all kinds of terrible ones. And on top of that, he's a sexual abuser. If you're cool supporting that, I really don't know what to say to you.

I understand that you will act according to what you believe. Your problem appears to be that you think I believe everything that you believe.

That would be projection, on your part. I "consume" media from all perspectives. I even watch Fox News from time to time.

Fox, eh? Do you question and analyze what's reported to you?

BS. He sucked up to a dictator, claiming they "fell in love." I can only imagine what you'd be saying if Joe Biden or Barack Obama had said such a thing.

Wait... you don't think that Obama or Biden has said anything nice about any foreign leaders?!? Or are you saying it is mandatory to insult all dictators? Come to think of it, I don't think Biden has spoken to Putin once since the start of the Ukraine War. Instead, Biden made public speeches calling for regime change in Russia and even said the point of funding the war in Ukraine was to degrade Russia's military (in other words, to make sure as many people die as it is possible to have die so that it will take a long time for Russia to recover its military strength). Do you get upset that Trump said Putin is actually a very smart guy? Would you be mad if Trump had a talk with Putin and ended the war in Ukraine? Do really think all Russians should die because of Putin?

Trump negotiated with the Crown Prince of Saudi for personal financial gain and for the financial gain of his son-in-law.

Really? You think that? And... what did Trump do for Saudi Arabia for this supposed financial gain? Not blame him for a crime that neither the Washington Post nor the CIA could prove?

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia SHOULD have been insulted. He had a journalist murdered and dismembered!!

Really? The CIA said they thought he maybe might've done it or "probably" he did it, but when it came time to prove it: they couldn't - and neither could the Washington Post. I'm glad you weren't President and ready to start a new war in the Middle East.

/s Regime Change! /s

He's a horrible excuse for a human being with no redeeming qualities.
I don't support sexual abusers.

What's astounding to me is that anyone at all supports a sexual abuser.

Surprise! Not everyone believes the same things that you believe.

These are straight up Fox News talking points, not rooted in reality.

Really? What new war did Trump involve the U.S. in during his Presidency, pray tell? Perhaps, if you are going to denounce it as "not rooted in reality" for the express reason that Fox News happens to agree, then I would say your efforts to listen to all perspectives aren't genuine. Is this why you're not aware of Trump's policies despite claiming to have listened to his speeches?

 

[metis]

... didn't show he violated the Emoluments Clause.

Early in the Trump administration, a novel dispute arose concerning whether the President had violated the Constitution by illegally profiting from his business ventures while in public office.

It triggered a fierce debate about a provision of the Constitution that most lawyers knew little about and laymen couldn’t pronounce: The Emoluments Clause.

But on Monday, with President Donald Trump no longer in office, the dispute fizzled. That’s because the Supreme Court dismissed the two cases in front of it and wiped away appeals court opinions that went against the former President because he is no longer in office... -- https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-trump-supreme-court-explainer/index.html

 

[F1fan]

If there is a viable third party.

And “who is good”?

Then don’t vote. Third party candidates are never viable. If anything they are spoilers to one candidate or another. The US voter is showing very poor judgment these days, and I mean that in regards to conservatives supporting an old corrupt conman.

 

[F1fan]

Early in the Trump administration, a novel dispute arose concerning whether the President had violated the Constitution by illegally profiting from his business ventures while in public office.

It triggered a fierce debate about a provision of the Constitution that most lawyers knew little about and laymen couldn’t pronounce: The Emoluments Clause.

But on Monday, with President Donald Trump no longer in office, the dispute fizzled. That’s because the Supreme Court dismissed the two cases in front of it and wiped away appeals court opinions that went against the former President because he is no longer in office... -- https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-trump-supreme-court-explainer/index.html

It’s amazing how important the constitution is when it comes to guns but in regards to the behavior of a popular corrupt president? It doesn’t matter.

 

[Kenny]

Then don’t vote. Third party candidates are never viable. If anything they are spoilers to one candidate or another. The US voter is showing very poor judgment these days, and I mean that in regards to conservatives supporting an old corrupt conman.

If I don’t vote, I have no authority to complain.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Saudi interests" That's rather vague and unspecified. Like what interests? Peace in the Middle East? LoL.

A lucrative deal with Jared Kushner, for starters.

And? Do you understand that under the Trump adminstration, the Crown Prince took responsiblity for the death of the journalist, gave generously to his relatives as compensation on behalf of Saudi Arabia, and held trials for all the murders involved?

Oh wow! That should make up for murdering and dismembering a journalist for writing negative things about him! Seriously, that's like, the least he could do. If you wanna murder a guy, all you have to do is pay off his family afterward and all is well!

Held trials? The Crown Prince had the guy murdered. Oh, he held trials for the people who carried out his commands? Wow, what a great guy.

Yeah, he got compensation for the family of the deceased, made a peace deal in the Middle East involving Israel, and maintained good diplomatic relations.

What makes you think Trump had anything to do with that?

Here's what actually happened:

"The US has determined that Saudi Arabia's de facto leader - Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman - has immunity from a lawsuit filed by murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi's fiancé.

Mr Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi critic, was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

US intelligence has said it believes Prince Mohammed ordered the killing.

But in court filings, the US State department said he has immunity due to his new role as Saudi prime minister.

Mr Khashoggi's ex-fiancé, Hatice Cengiz, wrote on Twitter that "Jamal died again today" with the ruling."

Mohammed bin Salman: Saudi leader given US immunity over Khashoggi killing

Mohammed bin Salman now has immunity against a lawsuit due to his new role as prime minister.

www.bbc.com

Peace deal in the Middle East? How's that going?

I guess you outright ignored the link I posted and quoted to you from the Washington Post in this post. There was a paywall, so I quoted it for you.


Here are a few more links for you to peruse:
Saudi Arabia gave Jamal Khashoggi’s children homes, money: Report
Jamal Khashoggi's kids have reportedly received money and multimillion-dollar houses from the Saudis as compensation for their father's murder
Saudi Arabia Giving Jamal Khashoggi’s Children Money and Real Estate

Everyone on the planet, save for you, apparently, knows the Crown Prince had Khasoggi murdered and dismembered.
You and Trump seem to be the only two people who don't know this. Or don't care.

So what if he compensated the families of the guy HE HAD MURDERED. Oh boy, what a wonderful person! Get out of here with this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You didn't show he violated the Emoluments Clause. You suggested it and then stopped short of anything substantial.

Loading…

www.npr.org

Every President is expected to divest their business interests upon becoming President. Like when Jimmy Carter divested himself from his peanut business upon becoming President. It can present a conflict of interest for a person who is supposed to be putting the country's interests above his own.

"Following his 2017 inauguration, Donald Trump decided to continue managing his business empire in tandem with his new position as Commander-in-Chief. This was notably done without the consent of Congress, raising serious concerns of corruption. America's anti-corruption statute, the Emoluments Clause, was created by the Framers of the Constitution to protect the country from the undue influence of foreign powers and, as such, a conflict of interest. The Emoluments Clause states that:

“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”.

The Framers included both foreign and domestic anti-corruption measures in response to the loose construction of the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, there were concerns that Virginia and its special domestic interests, as well as those of international governments, could purchase some sort of influence over the President.

Trump’s numerous violations of the Emoluments Clause are well documented. He has repeatedly broken the Emoluments Clause through the entanglement of his business affairs and presidential responsibilities. Foreign countries have paid millions of dollars for space in Trump’s buildings during his presidency. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, for example, has a $2 million (over £1.5 million) annual lease on one of his Manhattan properties. Throughout 2016-2017, the Saudi Arabian government charged up to $270,000 (approximately £205,000) in rooms at a Trump hotel in Washington D.C. Even officials, such as the Prime Minister of Malaysia, stayed in Trump’s properties during diplomatic visits to the country. Alleged Russian and Iranian election interference is also an example of undue influence corrupting the presidency and democratic processes in America."

Donald Trump’s Violations of the Emoluments Clause

Following his 2017 inauguration, Donald Trump decided to continue managing his business empire in tandem with his new position as Commander-in-Chief. This was notably done without the consent of Congress, raising serious concerns of corruption. America's anti-corruption statute, the Emoluments...

www.standrewslawreview.com

This statement by District Judge Lewis Kaplan that Trump "raped" her is irresponsible and raises further questions about the fairness of the trial. The link you posted includes the instructions to the jury on the questions of rape and sexual assault.

It's the truth.

What questions do you think this raises about the "fairness of the trial" exactly?

You're just upset that you were forced to downgrade your initiial assessment that he "raped" her when you learned the actual verdict from the jury.

Um no. I've been saying the same thing the entire time.
He is civilly liable for sexual assault. I made a point to say that the Judge stated that it was, in fact, a rape. Which is what we're talking about right now.

And, of course, you've ignored what I've said about the evidence suggesting the case was part of politically motivated lawfare.

What evidence?

As expected, you have nothing of relevant substance to say regarding personality.

Trump's personality is a dumpster fire. He's a proven con man, a pathological liar, and he cares for no one but himself. He threw the entire country under the bus because he's such a baby that he couldn't face the fact that he lost and had to give up his power. He's been throwing temper tantrums ever since.

More likely, you imagined Trump engaged in insurrection because of TDS. Hmm, what do you call it that Clinton still claims she won in 2016?

LOL No, I watched what happened on January 6th and everything Trump did and said during the months leading up to it. I watched the impeachment hearings. I watched the January 6th Congressional hearings (which you apparently have not - still!). It's obvious what Trump did for anyone who has been paying attention.

Hillary Clinton doesn't still claim she won and that's got to be one of the worst false equivalencies I've ever seen. Do better.

I have to submit that the TDS is all yours. You will apparently defend this horrible human being at all costs. Which he said his followers would do, by the way.

You can't defend your claim when I ask basic questions? LoL.

This was in response to, "This was in response to your claim that I'm delusional for claiming Trump "doesn't respect human beings. He demands utter and total blind loyalty but gives none in return. He is racist and xenophobic."

Trump is loyal to no one. Even those who he hired to sycophantically lick his boots and commit crimes on his behalf. They're all in prison now, or facing trials and/or prison. time."

It's not xenophobic to acknowledge that there exist countries that that sponsor or support terrorism or that some countries are, in fact, getting rid of murderers, rapists, etc by sending them to the U.S. Those aren't comments about every person from another country or even statements about every person from one of the countries that sponsors terorism.

This was in response to, "He wanted a "Muslim ban" on every person entering the US. He also claims over and over that other countries are sending their murderers, rapists and insane people to the US. I rest my case on the xenophobia."

What's xenophobic, is the stuff I just typed to you that you just ignored and twisted into something else.

You're just licking his boots again.

I don't know whose boots you are "sycophantically licking" and I have made no claims that you are "sycophantically licking anyone's boots.

Blindly loyal Trump supporters are the boot lickers.

"Build a wall" is a simplification. Although, that is policy also. You haven't been listening to him speak, because he talks about catch and release, remain in Mexico, etc. It's evident that you haven't been paying attention to Trump.

Yeah, that's not a policy. It's just a sentence. And of course Mexico never paid for the wall because that's not a policy of any kind. It's just a demand. And a stupid one, at that.

I've listened to him speak on and on and on. It's most gibberish, mixed in with some childish insults, and some "build the wall" stuff. None of which amounts to any sort of coherent policy about anything. Have you tried reading a written transcript of one of his speeches? It's borderline nonsensical.

Yeah, you didn't listen to him speak and you haven't tried to check any numbers yourself. You've already decided that there is nothing he can say or do that you would like. You have TDS.

I have heard him speak. A LOT. My opinion of him has been informed by watching him speak for years. That's how I decided he's a horrible human being. That and his many horrible actions.

You have TDS - you support a civilly liable rapist and a proven con man. What's more deranged than that?

But that wasn't a feeling. That was a realistic opinion. And it wasn't an opinion about himself. And he's given lot's of speeches saying what he plans to do for the American people.

This was in response to, "That's the problem. It's not about HIS feelings and how HE feels about it. It's about the American people getting a chance to listen to what the candidates have to say about what they're going to do for THEM. Trump thinks everything is about himself." [in regard to Trump refusing to debate].

Can you explain how your response addresses what I said?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand that you will act according to what you believe. Your problem appears to be that you think I believe everything that you believe.

Um nope. Definitely not.

Trump is a civilly liable rapist and a proven con man (Trump University, Trump Charity, Trump Organization). How anyone can support that is beyond my understanding.

Fox, eh? Do you question and analyze what's reported to you?

This was in response to, "That would be projection, on your part. I "consume" media from all perspectives. I even watch Fox News from time to time."

Your question doesn't make sense in light of what I said. Or rather, it's already been answered.

Wait... you don't think that Obama or Biden has said anything nice about any foreign leaders?!?

Dictators? Tyrants? Murderers? No. And they definitely have never said they've fallen in love with one. That's your boy.

Or are you saying it is mandatory to insult all dictators?

How about just not claiming you've fallen in love with them and going on about how much you admire them?

Do you admire tyrants and dictators? Do you think that's normal? Or good?

Come to think of it, I don't think Biden has spoken to Putin once since the start of the Ukraine War. Instead, Biden made public speeches calling for regime change in Russia and even said the point of funding the war in Ukraine was to degrade Russia's military (in other words, to make sure as many people die as it is possible to have die so that it will take a long time for Russia to recover its military strength). Do you get upset that Trump said Putin is actually a very smart guy? Would you be mad if Trump had a talk with Putin and ended the war in Ukraine? Do really think all Russians should die because of Putin?

Putin is a smart guy. Not an admirable guy though. He played Trump like a fiddle. And he played Tucker Carlson like a fiddle just the other day.

"If Trump had a talk with Putin and ended the war in Ukraine?" LOL

Do I think all Russians should die because of Putin? What a strange question. Of course not. My heritage is Russian, by the way. I definitely don't support Putin.

Really? You think that? And... what did Trump do for Saudi Arabia for this supposed financial gain? Not blame him for a crime that neither the Washington Post nor the CIA could prove?

See above.

You and Trump seem to be the only two people who don't seem to know that the Crown Prince had Khashoggi murdered.
It seems Trump thought it was a-ok too.

Trump boasted he protected MBS after Khashoggi hit: Report

Trump bragged to author Bob Woodward that he protected Saudi crown prince after 2018 assassination of Khashoggi.

www.aljazeera.com

Really? The CIA said they thought he maybe might've done it or "probably" he did it, but when it came time to prove it: they couldn't - and neither could the Washington Post. I'm glad you weren't President and ready to start a new war in the Middle East.

Who said anything about starting a "new war in the Middle East??"
I'm talking about holding a guy accountable for DISMEMBERING AND MURDERING A JOURNALIST.

/s Regime Change! /s


Surprise! Not everyone believes the same things that you believe.

This isn't an actual response to the content of what I said though, is it? Just a hand waving instead.

"He's a horrible excuse for a human being with no redeeming qualities.
I don't support sexual abusers.

What's astounding to me is that anyone at all supports a sexual abuser."

Really? What new war did Trump involve the U.S. in during his Presidency, pray tell?

He almost started a war with Iran. And China.

Trump’s reckless Middle East policy has brought the US to the brink of war | Brookings

Why the killing of Qassem Soleimani comes at precisely the wrong time.

www.brookings.edu

Loading…

www.reuters.com

Perhaps, if you are going to denounce it as "not rooted in reality" for the express reason that Fox News happens to agree, then I would say your efforts to listen to all perspectives aren't genuine. Is this why you're not aware of Trump's policies despite claiming to have listened to his speeches?

Trump doesn't have any coherent policies that he has ever laid out for anyone.