for those who oppose Trump

Fantine · Nov 27, 2023

I think that his legal troubles and his policies are interrelated.

For example, he is accused of corporate fraud. He has taken the 5th Amendment 500 times in one hearing (I believe the sexual abuse case in which the plaintiff was awarded $5 million...there are so many cases and I don't have a spreadsheet to refer to.)

A chronically dishonest person cannot be trusted to swear to uphold the Constitution and actually do so. Throughout his first (and hopefully last) term, he only upheld the Constitution if it coincided with his own opinions.

Does a President (indicted or not) who constantly refers to many Americans as "vermin" really intend to uphold "All men are created equal?" If so, why does he (and the Republican Party) seek to suppress votes through gerrymandering, closed polls, fewer voting dates, etc.

His quote:

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech, repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”

But who lied and stole and cheated on elections? Trump! The 19 indicted with him in Georgia!

As usual, he is attributing to the Democrats the crimes (yes, crimes) that he himself is guilty of.

If he were my only voting choice, I'd stay home or do a write-in.

dogs4thewin · Nov 27, 2023

Fantine said:
I think that his legal troubles and his policies are interrelated.

For example, he is accused of corporate fraud. He has taken the 5th Amendment 500 times in one hearing (I believe the sexual abuse case in which the plaintiff was awarded $5 million...there are so many cases and I don't have a spreadsheet to refer to.)

A chronically dishonest person cannot be trusted to swear to uphold the Constitution and actually do so. Throughout his first (and hopefully last) term, he only upheld the Constitution if it coincided with his own opinions.

Does a President (indicted or not) who constantly refers to many Americans as "vermin" really intend to uphold "All men are created equal?" If so, why does he (and the Republican Party) seek to suppress votes through gerrymandering, closed polls, fewer voting dates, etc.

His quote:

But who lied and stole and cheated on elections? Trump! The 19 indicted with him in Georgia!

As usual, he is attributing to the Democrats the crimes (yes, crimes) that he himself is guilty of.

If he were my only voting choice, I'd stay home or do a write-in.

and as an American he is allowed to take the fifth and it cannot be held against him if he does.

Fewer polling dates here in GA there are I believe 17 dates on which a person may vote maybe 16 NOT including election day, nor does a Georgian have to provide a reason he or she wishes to vote early. You simply show up during polling hours (usually these match business hours plus a few hours on at least one Saturday of the three during early voting time and cast your vote.

durangodawood · Nov 27, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
maybe so but several state courts have ruled otherwise which means unless the supreme court says he is off the ballot he may run and if he does so and he is the republican option I am voting for him because he is likely the only viable option other than the democrat likely Biden and me vote for Biden or any of today's democrats there is a higher chance of it snowing in Tampa than of that happening.

I mean disqualified in my opinion, regardless of how the courts rule on the constitutional issues.

Hank77 · Nov 27, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
and as an American he is allowed to take the fifth and it cannot be held against him if he does.

This is true in a criminal trial but not so clear in a civil trial.

Despite the Fifth Amendment’s focus on testimony in criminal cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right against self-incrimination extends to civil cases as well. See McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924). A witness or defendant in a civil case may assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she can show that there is a real possibility that criminal authorities could use the information sought in a pending or future criminal case against her.

Trump doesn't have that excuse to plead 440 times.

Pommer · Nov 27, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
On grounds related to his legal troubles not other grounds such as not liking his policies

Would you be OK if he won by OK I mean peaceful and the like not that you have to like it.

Another trip to Crazytown?
Sure, why not?

Desk trauma · Nov 27, 2023

Pommer said:
Sure, why not?

No guarantee of return.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Nov 27, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
In other words would you get violent/ Do you think it will get violent? if Trump were to win that is different than saying would you like the outcome of the election.

I never got violent the first time he won. And I don't know anyone, that I know that got violent.

keith99 · Nov 27, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
That assumes that his party ( particularly in the senate has the majority.)

Since it takes 2/3rds to convict he hardly need a majority.

DaisyDay · Nov 27, 2023

Hank77 said:
This is true in a criminal trial but not so clear in a civil trial.

It's clear in NY civil law - the judge (and jury if there were one) can make "an adverse inference" if the defendant refuses to answer or takes the Fifth - meaning they can infer he's guilty.

JustOneWay · Nov 27, 2023

Hank77 said:
This is true in a criminal trial but not so clear in a civil trial.

Despite the Fifth Amendment’s focus on testimony in criminal cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right against self-incrimination extends to civil cases as well. See McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924). A witness or defendant in a civil case may assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she can show that there is a real possibility that criminal authorities could use the information sought in a pending or future criminal case against her.

Trump doesn't have that excuse to plead 440 times.

Considering the judge has already determined Trump Org to be a corrupt organization it is probable that all of those Fifth Amendment pleas by Trump weighed negatively for Trump by the judge. With all the attacks on the judge's assistant, it is also probable that the judge will do his very best to justify the heaviest ruling he can hand out.

A2SG · Nov 27, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
and as an American he is allowed to take the fifth and it cannot be held against him if he does.

Maybe so. But...

"You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" (Donald Trump)

-- A2SG, from the horse's...er, mouth.....

dogs4thewin · Nov 28, 2023

Hank77 said:
This is true in a criminal trial but not so clear in a civil trial.

Despite the Fifth Amendment’s focus on testimony in criminal cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right against self-incrimination extends to civil cases as well. See McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924). A witness or defendant in a civil case may assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she can show that there is a real possibility that criminal authorities could use the information sought in a pending or future criminal case against her.

Trump doesn't have that excuse to plead 440 times.

Civil is different than criminal to begin with for one thing there is a MUCH MUCH lower burden of proof for another civil is mostly about money you cannot lose your freedom if you lose at a civil trial.

Hank77 · Nov 28, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
Civil is different than criminal to begin with for one thing there is a MUCH MUCH lower burden of proof for another civil is mostly about money you cannot lose your freedom if you lose at a civil trial.

True, but the information revealed in a civil case could be used against the defendant to build a criminal case against them as well as the civil case.

USincognito · Nov 28, 2023

keith99 said:
Uh, Trump is doing everything he can to DELAY the trials. Sadly he could hide behind the office because members of his party will not vote to convict no matter how strong the evidence is (with less than a handful of exceptions).

Well, except for the docs case. In that one he has his personal lawy... his personal judge Cannon doing it for him.

USincognito · Nov 28, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
In other words would you get violent/ Do you think it will get violent? if Trump were to win that is different than saying would you like the outcome of the election.

Is this the "liberals are inherently violent and will riot if they don't get their way" trope?

USincognito · Nov 28, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
Plenty of people are armed already with over 300 million guns, and there are areas of this country where if you break-in might well be the last thing you ever do. As to waiving your right to a speedy trial I am not sure that is a trick ( as often judges will not allow people to stall for the heck of it.

Or even drive up the wrong driveway or knock on the wrong door.

dogs4thewin · Nov 29, 2023

USincognito said:
Or even drive up the wrong driveway or knock on the wrong door.

If it is determined a person acted too quickly they are very likely to face charges. There is a such thing as the reasonable person standard.

dogs4thewin · Nov 29, 2023

USincognito said:
Is this the "liberals are inherently violent and will riot if they don't get their way" trope?

Actually, this was more aimed at the claims that if Trump loses there will likely be violence.

USincognito · Nov 29, 2023

dogs4thewin said:
If it is determined a person acted too quickly they are very likely to face charges. There is a such thing as the reasonable person standard.

That certainly helps bring the dead person who simply got lost back to life.

dogs4thewin · Nov 29, 2023

USincognito said:
That certainly helps bring the dead person who simply got lost back to life.

Well, it does not, but my point was that under the law shooting ( or otherwise killing someone for that matter too quickly does come with consequences it is not as if you can shoot someone out of irrational fear and get away with it (although the charges would likely be less than if you had no fear at all and just shot the person because under the law intent and motive are factors that can determine charges not JUST the result ( and that goes both ways sometimes you can be charged with something based on what could have happened but did not ( again these are usually lesser changes than one would face if the really bad thing had happened. For example, you will be charged with DUI even if no one was hurt by your action of driving drunk and there was no property damage ( although the charge would be less serious and carry less time than if either of those did occur.

for those who oppose Trump

Dona Quixote

dog lover

re Member

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

The pickles are up to something

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

sola dosis facit venenum

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

:)

Gumby

dog lover

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

dog lover

dog lover

a post by Alan Smithee

dog lover

Similar threads