Immunity for Trump (Read 10791 times)

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #60 on: September 03, 2023, 09:29:40 AM »
As a thought experiment, let’s say the American Revolution failed and the colonies remained under British rule.  Do you suppose John Adams would have been able to hold any office of public trust in the British government?

I’m not saying what happened on January 6th, 2021 was or was not an insurrection or whether President Trump did or did not incite an insurrection.  From a practical standpoint, however,I think it’s safe to say that successful insurrections work out better for the insurrectionists than unsuccessful insurrections.

If the start of the Revolution had failed, the insurrectionists would have likely been arrested and tried for treason -- probably ending in execution.  They would not have held any office after that.   :shake:

The other side of the scenario would be they avoided arrest and continued to rebel for who knows how long.  The Revolutionary War lasted almost 8 1/2 years.  As long as there are people who believe in a cause, there's no limit as to how long hostilities and other forms of disobedience could last.  Look at the Irish and how long they fought for their freedom from GB.

Regardless, for anyone to says what Trump did has never been done in the history of the US downplays the even more extreme actions of those who rebelled against the crown and the local crown-placed governors.

The War didn't start because a few people sitting in a bar decided to break from England or because they thought an election was stolen.  it was a series of escalations, including economic blockades and the attempt to seize the Concord Armory (gun confiscation to prevent armed rebellion).  GB pushed the colonies into a corner, where the only solution was to break away from their colonial rulers.

The details are important, but they don't change the fact that our nation was born from rebellion and insurrection.  if Trump is accused of the same, then he's in good company.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2023, 11:15:54 AM by Flapp_Jackson »
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

hvybarrels

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #61 on: September 03, 2023, 10:08:46 AM »
If something happens to Trump before the election our government will likely be facing less of an insurrection and more of an insurgency.
That would destroy whatever’s left of our economy and open the door for foreign weapons and influence to tear us apart as a nation.
All the deep state cares about is staying in power no matter the consequences, and would prefer to burn it all rather than step down.
I’m with Roseanne on this. Not even sure there will be a 2024 electron.
Stop blaming lazy people. We didn’t do anything.

changemyoil66

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #62 on: September 03, 2023, 02:21:27 PM »
If something happens to Trump before the election our government will likely be facing less of an insurrection and more of an insurgency.
That would destroy whatever’s left of our economy and open the door for foreign weapons and influence to tear us apart as a nation.
All the deep state cares about is staying in power no matter the consequences, and would prefer to burn it all rather than step down.
I’m with Roseanne on this. Not even sure there will be a 2024 electron.
They have failed multiple times to convict him of anything. There is only 2 more options in their playbook.

We are in a communist/fascist type justice system if u are the one who bucks it too much.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #63 on: September 03, 2023, 08:46:12 PM »
That's not what you said:

"It isn't that Trump did anything that has never been done before, it is more that he combined all those things. That is what I meant when I said we had never seen in US history before."

Now you're changing it to "The founding fathers didn't commit insurrection against the USA," even after I proved that's not a required element of an insurrection.

Unless you've been studying up on 17th century laws in Great Britain and jurisdictional disputes among the colonies established by GB, what you have to say about legal versus dictionary definitions doesn't interest me.  You made the claim they are different, but just like you did at the beginning of this, you failed to explain what the differences are and where we can find sources for your assertions.

Face it, you posted an opinion that wasn't true, and now you're just digging that hole deeper with every comment!

 :popcorn: :popcorn: :rofl: :rofl: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:


So now you get to dictate whether opinions are true or not?

You brought up insurrection specifically so I responded accordingly on the issue of insurrection.

The issue is clearly the legal aspect of whether Trump is eligible to run if he is shown to have committed insurrection against the USA. Talking about the founding fathers insurrection is irrelevant to that question.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #64 on: September 03, 2023, 08:47:27 PM »
They have failed multiple times to convict him of anything. There is only 2 more options in their playbook.

We are in a communist/fascist type justice system if u are the one who bucks it too much.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Has Trump ever been tried criminally for anything before? What have they tried to convict him of before?

oldfart

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #65 on: September 03, 2023, 11:48:57 PM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/george-stephanopoulos-shocked-by-new-trump-biden-poll/ar-AA1gcpFj?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ebae3d96a3e046cba843a34506f8e66e&ei=10

=================
"ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos was startled by a new Wall Street Journal poll that showed former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden tied in a potential rerun of the 2020 election in 2024.
“It is kind of shocking in a way that despite all of the baggage that Donald Trump carries, he’s tied with Joe Biden right now,” Stephanopoulos said on Sunday’s broadcast of “This Week.”
Former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile admitted it “could keep me up at night.”
The poll, per the Journal, showed “Trump had 40% support to 39% for Biden, with potential Green Party and Libertarian candidates drawing a combined 3%. A significant share—some 17%—were undecided.”"
===================
What, Me Worry?

changemyoil66

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #66 on: September 04, 2023, 09:57:18 AM »
Has Trump ever been tried criminally for anything before? What have they tried to convict him of before?
Russia investigation
Ukraine investigation
Stormy investigation


All of which ended with no trial as their cases fell apart. But notice they "tried" to convict. This doesnt solely mean a trial and a not guilty verdict. But the process. Why investigate if the purpose/intent isnt to convict him? (Rhetorical question).

Now recent charges.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

changemyoil66

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #67 on: September 04, 2023, 10:00:05 AM »
Has Trump ever been tried criminally for anything before? What have they tried to convict him of before?
This is why i said "failed to convict". No trial means no conviction. I didnt say not guilty verdict. Thanks for trying.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #68 on: September 04, 2023, 10:53:36 AM »

So now you get to dictate whether opinions are true or not?

You brought up insurrection specifically so I responded accordingly on the issue of insurrection.

The issue is clearly the legal aspect of whether Trump is eligible to run if he is shown to have committed insurrection against the USA. Talking about the founding fathers insurrection is irrelevant to that question.

The issue is you made a statement (never before in US History), and now you want to pretend you were referring to the "legal aspect."

I call BS.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #69 on: September 04, 2023, 02:20:57 PM »
The issue is you made a statement (never before in US History), and now you want to pretend you were referring to the "legal aspect."

I call BS.
Does eef think someone cannot disprove a wrong opinion?

IMO, 2+2=8. How dare anyone show im wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

macsak

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #70 on: September 04, 2023, 02:32:12 PM »
he/she usually never states anything other than hypotheticals to avoid getting called out...

The issue is you made a statement (never before in US History), and now you want to pretend you were referring to the "legal aspect."

I call BS.

astroboy

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2023, 09:50:30 AM »

QUIETShooter

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #72 on: September 05, 2023, 01:10:34 PM »
"If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine"

Obi-Wan to Darth Vader in their final duel.

Substitute Trump for Obi-Wan and the deep state far left demorat pukes for Darth Vader.
Sometimes you gotta know when to save your bullets.

hvybarrels

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2023, 01:31:51 PM »
Tump is popular in Japan. Who knew?
Maybe with all the Nipponophiles on Oahu there might be some hope for us after all.

Stop blaming lazy people. We didn’t do anything.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #74 on: September 05, 2023, 01:43:01 PM »
Russia investigation
Ukraine investigation
Stormy investigation


All of which ended with no trial as their cases fell apart. But notice they "tried" to convict. This doesnt solely mean a trial and a not guilty verdict. But the process. Why investigate if the purpose/intent isnt to convict him? (Rhetorical question).

Now recent charges.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Investigation is not synonymous with "tried to convict". Sometimes investigations show no crime was committed, intent to convict does not have to be part of that equation.

No charges were filed relating to Ukraine or Russia.

As for the Stormy Daniels thing, I don't know why you say the case fell apart, that is one of the things Trump was actually charged for. A pretty weak charge in my opinion but too early to call it a failure.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #75 on: September 05, 2023, 01:46:37 PM »
The issue is you made a statement (never before in US History), and now you want to pretend you were referring to the "legal aspect."

I call BS.

The founding fathers didn't commit insurrection against the USA, thus it is not comparable to what Trump is facing. Saying but but but Britian and the war for Independance! does not make it relevant.

Don't make silly comparisons and I won't point it out.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #76 on: September 05, 2023, 01:48:01 PM »
he/she usually never states anything other than hypotheticals to avoid getting called out...

I didn't make any hypotheticals here, I pointed out with concrete reasons why Flapp's comparison was dumb.

BTW, I use hypotheticals for the purpose of illustrating things. Not getting called out is not part of that equation. If I feared getting called out I would never say anything controversial, I mean that should be obvious.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #77 on: September 05, 2023, 03:25:55 PM »
The founding fathers didn't commit insurrection against the USA, thus it is not comparable to what Trump is facing. Saying but but but Britian and the war for Independance! does not make it relevant.

Don't make silly comparisons and I won't point it out.

Yes.  They did.  The British Colonies did not up and move when the Declaration was signed and then get replaced with US citizens.  The USA was comprised of the same people living, working and governing in the 13 Colonies under British rule as they were when they became the first 13 states.

A rose by any other name ....

Cop:  Sally said you assaulted her.

EEF:  I didn't assault Sally.

Cop:  Well, she filed a complaint saying you did.

EEF:  When I assaulted her, her name was Jeff.  Sally didn't even exist then, so I couldn't have assaulted her.

Cop:  I don't think the law cares what a human being calls themselves.  Same person, same crime.  A name doesn't change that.  Hands behind your back."
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2023, 06:59:12 PM »


Investigation is not synonymous with "tried to convict". Sometimes investigations show no crime was committed, intent to convict does not have to be part of that equation.

No charges were filed relating to Ukraine or Russia.

As for the Stormy Daniels thing, I don't know why you say the case fell apart, that is one of the things Trump was actually charged for. A pretty weak charge in my opinion but too early to call it a failure.

Wow. So whats the point of doing an investigation, esp on trump if the end goal wasnt to find something to convict him?

Cop smells weed odor coming from the car

Cop:

Sir, i smell weed and i just will search ur car. Im not investigating to try to get u convicted, i just want u to know, that i know u have weed in the car. U are free to go. Even if i find said weed.

Driver:

Sounds good. Go ahead and search.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Immunity for Trump
« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2023, 09:31:35 PM »
Yes.  They did.  The British Colonies did not up and move when the Declaration was signed and then get replaced with US citizens.  The USA was comprised of the same people living, working and governing in the 13 Colonies under British rule as they were when they became the first 13 states.

A rose by any other name ....

Cop:  Sally said you assaulted her.

EEF:  I didn't assault Sally.

Cop:  Well, she filed a complaint saying you did.

EEF:  When I assaulted her, her name was Jeff.  Sally didn't even exist then, so I couldn't have assaulted her.

Cop:  I don't think the law cares what a human being calls themselves.  Same person, same crime.  A name doesn't change that.  Hands behind your back."


You are quite the gymnast with your reasoning here.
The founding fathers violated a crime in a country that didn't exist beyond a set of ideas, before that non existent country passed any laws?
Furthermore, using your logic, after the war for independence was won, the founding fathers should have been charged with insurrection by the USA because insurrection is insurrection regardless of which country... you must be the next Simone Biles here.