Yeah, that was the other part of it, thanks. Being an atheist here is worse politically than pregnant out of wedlock.Oh, I think he was worried because she was pregnant out of wedlock.
To get prudishly worried about that sort of thing I think one has to imagine ones self living back in the 1920's and how people back then might have outwardly expressed their "dismay" on hearing such news. For dramatic effect put ones arm up, back of the hand pressed against one's own forehead (palm exposed) and gasp. For extra impact (extra points), faint by closing eyes and gently falling backwards into a soft couch or sofa.
This is not a question of persecution, it is a question of the rule of law. In this case a law that trump himself signed making a felony to possess classified documents outside of his rightful access which does not include his basement after he has left the presidency.
You seem to be joining the crew that says, no big deal, you are not claiming as do the MAGA crew that it is persecution yet, but you are playing into the hands of those promoting anarchy and inequality in the rule of law.
Trump is in violation of his own law, this is already confirmed by the documents he has turned over only under subpoena and only after much negotiation. The lawfully executed warrant is an extension of this. Nobody has presented evidence to the contrary so why are you soft-pedalling it.
That really is my complaint here. Can't we let him fade into irrelevance?
That doesn't answer my question.
In the context of the events of this week and specifically the search warrant (this thread), the folks who are making a lot of noise are those loyal to Donald Trump.
That was the expected response from them, was it not?
They could accuse him of something trivial like cheating at a golf game and his supporters will rally around him and talk about how he could beat Tiger Woods.
I'm saying if people were already losing interest in him, why mess up a good thing in the name of "satisfying a carnal lust to see him punished"? ...there by keeping him on everyone's mind and reigniting their loyalty.
Are you suggesting the DOJ should not have pursed the case referred by the National Archives? I'm not clear who you are referring to...
I don't think they have thought that far ahead. From what I am hearing there were talks going on and this was unnecessary. If they don't have anything of substance on him they have just furthered the narrative that he is the target of unfair investigations and fired up the base. God forbid if they arrest him I can only imagine what the reaction will be. Either way I don't think this ends well for the FBI. If something did come of this that stopped him from running again that would be the best thing that could happen for the Republicans. They should have left him alone.I'm not saying that it's "no big deal", I'm saying every action has consequences, and countervailing interests need to be carefully weighed.
I was recently discussing this concept in another thread where I was talking about the instances where presidents have authorized the "taking out" of certain terrorists. "On Paper", the notion of 'you commit terrorist acts that cost American lives, we take you out' sounds right, if you're not taking into account the fact that such interventions could serve to radicalize even more people and bite us in the butt later.
I propose that kind of careful decision making needs to be done for this as well.
"Let Trump slide on some stuff and fade away into irrelevance, even if it doesn't satisfy a carnal need you have to go after him and make him pay...and things can drift back toward normalcy"
vs.
"Go after him to the fullest extent on absolutely everything wrong he's done and spare no expense, with the potential effect of reinvigorating a base that was shrinking and losing interest, and now you run the risk of having him getting elected again in 2024"
I would go with the former option and let him slide on some stuff in hopes that maybe I'll get to pick between 2 relatively normal people next time around instead of listening to two old men have a shouting match in the debates.
Unless this is the democrats playing some of that "4d chess", where they're purposely doing things that will help him rise to the top of the GOP, because they think he's more radical, has more baggage, and would be easier to beat than DeSantis...and they'd probably be right about that part, in terms of Democrats who could go toe-to-toe with DeSantis, they don't have a very deep bench...but they have plenty of people who could beat Trump due to the baggage he's coming in with.
It wouldn't be the first time they tried that approach.
Democrats’ Risky Bet: Aid G.O.P. Extremists in Spring, Hoping to Beat Them in Fall
Being that Merrick Garland said he personally signed off on the operation (and he's an adjunct of the president), if the the president's own party had interest in self-preservation, they should've either
A) let it go
B) done it, but kept it quiet and not made a big deal about it.
IE:
This kind of stuff isn't helping
View attachment 319604
View attachment 319605
And to clarify, I'm not trying to absolve him of any wrongdoing here...I didn't vote for him, I don't like him.
...I don't like drug cartels either...but if the predictable outcome of "trying to take down" a cartel leader was more problems 6-18 months down the road, I'd say discretion is the better part of valor and sometimes it's better long term to just let some things go.
All of this is just fostering the environment that will make it easier for him to become president again. Sure, it may "feel good" to see people going after him...but sometimes you gotta play the long game.
They did keep it quiet. It was Trumping crying about it that brought attention. The subpoena that was issued to Trump months ago none of us knew about it. The FBI didn’t go to Mar-a-Lago with cameras or tip off the media about it. The FBI was gone before the public even knew they were there and the only reason the public knew was because Trump announced it.
They didn't keep it quiet, I posted two front page headlines from CNN and MSNBC...that's not "keeping it quiet".
If the left were keeping it quiet about this, then front page headlines about it would've been confined to Fox News, Brietbart, and Infowars.
Donald Trump issued the statement the morning after the FBI search. From there, the right wing media and his loyalist in Congress made all the noise....
Yes of course, God on his throne in Mar a Lago.This is a horrible abuse of power, an attack on God and country, and Joe and crowd will be held accountable.
I'm not saying that it's "no big deal", I'm saying every action has consequences, and countervailing interests need to be carefully weighed.
I was recently discussing this concept in another thread where I was talking about the instances where presidents have authorized the "taking out" of certain terrorists. "On Paper", the notion of 'you commit terrorist acts that cost American lives, we take you out' sounds right, if you're not taking into account the fact that such interventions could serve to radicalize even more people and bite us in the butt later.
I propose that kind of careful decision making needs to be done for this as well.
"Let Trump slide on some stuff and fade away into irrelevance, even if it doesn't satisfy a carnal need you have to go after him and make him pay...and things can drift back toward normalcy"
vs.
"Go after him to the fullest extent on absolutely everything wrong he's done and spare no expense, with the potential effect of reinvigorating a base that was shrinking and losing interest, and now you run the risk of having him getting elected again in 2024"
I would go with the former option and let him slide on some stuff in hopes that maybe I'll get to pick between 2 relatively normal people next time around instead of listening to two old men have a shouting match in the debates.
Unless this is the democrats playing some of that "4d chess", where they're purposely doing things that will help him rise to the top of the GOP, because they think he's more radical, has more baggage, and would be easier to beat than DeSantis...and they'd probably be right about that part, in terms of Democrats who could go toe-to-toe with DeSantis, they don't have a very deep bench...but they have plenty of people who could beat Trump due to the baggage he's coming in with.
It wouldn't be the first time they tried that approach.
Democrats’ Risky Bet: Aid G.O.P. Extremists in Spring, Hoping to Beat Them in Fall
They did keep it quiet. It was Trumping crying about it that brought attention. The subpoena that was issued to Trump months ago none of us knew about it. The FBI didn’t go to Mar-a-Lago with cameras or tip off the media about it. The FBI was gone before the public even knew they were there and the only reason the public knew was because Trump announced it.
Trump fell into a ton of new funding and unification of his party, is that a fall?Trump falling off the political cliff.
Are you kidding me? They weren't smart enough to figure out Trump.wasnt going to say something? This wasn't going to come out? They are not that dumb.
Good to Know you’re not one of the MAGA extremists calling for civil war.I'm saying TPTB've been trying to kick-start Another Civil War ...for yeeears... using several different tactics, including but not limited to: the removal of their industrialization to a newer communist-takeover, the internationalization of the food supply, the mostly-peaceful-demonstrations...
Me? I'm all about "Thou shalt not kill."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?