The more details, the better. If you want me to better understand your point, that is.
Yes, that's the point. Civil trials won't result in that. Apparently from what I've heard, criminal trials won't start happening until towards the middle of next year. And will probably end up grinding to a halt when Trump gets re-elected.
Neither would criminal trials.
I guess we'll see.
When you get a wrong notion in your head you really can't let go of it. The people you've mentioned over and over again were former convicts, not current convicts while running. Now find someone who ran for president after having been convicted of a serious federal crime, but hadn't completed his sentence, and then you'll have come up with an applicable comparison.
Actually when it came to prosperity he wasn't a disaster, but Biden has been.
Nope. Both Debs and Larouche ran while imprisoned, and Joe Exotic is currently running while imprisoned.
How about three for three?
This isn't about Biden. For many of us, it's enough that he isn't Trump to make him the preferred candidate.
Okay, you've convinced me that Trump will be reelected even if he's in prison.
Yes let's all keep total focus on Trump.
There is/would be nothing should he imprisoned that would prevent his running. Whether he is elected should be up to the voters.
Yeah, he is the subject of this here thread.
Only if he gets the votes. I'm simply commenting on the theory that the multiple indictments he's facing is intended to bar him from running. That's not a credible theory.
That's the topic of the thread, dude.
I haven't been giving the they're only trying to keep him from being president again argument.
I already explained that. It's next to impossible to hold a conversation with you because you mostly keep asking questions regarding things that have already been explained, as if you're purposely trying to be annoying.
Yeah I get it, we can talk about him running, but we can't mention who he's running against. Unless it's DeSantis.
If you've already explained it, and I missed the point, perhaps you could aid me in pointing to exactly where you explained it, and I'll review the post to see what I missed. Perhaps your explanation was insufficient, or maybe I simply misread it.
Really? You say you already explained something, I simply asked to see that previously posted explanation, to see if I misunderstood it. Sounds reasonable to me. What, exactly, isn't "adult" about taking responsibility for possibly misunderstanding something you previously posted?
Sure, I get that. But, in this case, you say you already explained. So point to that post, and I'll reread it.
