Was Al Capone a gangster, murderer & racketeer?
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Oh look, a certain someone is goal posting and making up lies about somebody's crimes and betraying the country, because the biatch ass ex-president didn't like the results.
C'mon. That's like saying Joker should have a reduced sentence because the leg work is done my his henchmen.
Just mentioning the word ''peaceful'' that one time is hardly a defence after spending months getting your supporters seething with lies and then give a speech getting them even more riled up before directing them to the capitol. It doesn't work like that. Trump isn't in problem for poorly trying to cover his ass for just saying the phrase ''peaceful'' one time. He's in trouble for everything else he said and did. And I kinda suspect you already know that.
The reverse Nuremberg defence; "I was only telling underlings what to do"
And if it was against the law to run for office as a murderer, Al Capone would be allowed to run. Do you not understand the massive issue that would happen if you could stop people from running for office if you just claimed they were murderers or traitors or whatever?
I was responding to people talking about the party (posts I've put in the spoiler below), not republican voters. If we're are talking about just voters, both sides have people that do very problematic things.
What about democrats saying the election was basically stolen with constant lies for 3 years ad nauseam?
100%, pure, unadulterated and utterly unfilling nothingburger.
You realize its the head of the party that caused them to go berserk right? And the rest of the party egging them on as well. The traitors that stormed the capitol weren't magically unconnected to the politicians that radicalized them and pointed them to a target.
False equivalence and you know it. No Democrat argued that Trump secretly did't win the election. They criticized the manner how. And given Trump only got elected due to a glitch in the system and never had popular support its not unreasonable to dispute his legitimacy. And as much as some dullards like to shriek ''Russia hoax' there in fact was Russian interference, and plenty of Trump's cronies indeed did get to jail for it.
Contrast this to the Republicans who went far further, shouting from the rooftop that secretly Biden had lost the election but hoodwinked the nation into not realizing it. And the only argument they had in their favor was that they really wanted this to be true. And unlike the Democrats Republicans couldn't even be grumpy about the democratic will of the population being cancelled out, because unlike Clinton Trump lost both the popular and electoral vote.
Not to mention that in 2017 Clinton didn't try to have Biden illigitimately crown her and send her supporters to lynch him when he refused. No real attempt was made to prevent Trump taking office, and no, Trump acting like a rogue entity and getting impeached as a direct consequence of it is not an attempt to ''steal'' his post.
Apples and oranges.
Unfortunately the guy clearly had an agenda.
He kept trying to convey Waltz as a "quiter", but couldn't dispute the fact that he had not received orders to deploy, stop-loss was not active, he did not go awol, he did not receive a dishonable and or even medical discharge. He just "retired". It was a qualified retirement and more complicated by the fact that retirement is normally 20 years. He stayed on for an additional 4 years. He was active during 9/11 - through 2005. He retired in may 2005, and his unit didn't mobilize in IRAQ until 2006.
Putting myself in the republican strategist shoes, he would have been better served to be more opaque with his description of events and leave it to insinuation.
Trump didn't say to riot and break into the Capitol.
The democrats have been trying to get Trump removed from office since he won in 2016, they keep dragging him through court for the exact same purpose, and they even removed him from ballots. Are you seriously defending them lying about RussiaGate? It's not apples and oranges. You do realize I don't find Trump or Biden/Harris as electable candidates for president. I don't know why you and many others are so fervent on defending the democrats (and same on the other side as well). I don't get why we (not just you and me but everyone) are even arguing about the democrats and republicans. They are both 2 sides of the same coin, acting like the republicans are some existential threat to democracy is beyond ridiculous and acting voting for either one of these parties is in fact proof that American democracy is indeed dead or at least in a coma. Vote for someone else if you do actually believe in democracy.
The image quality makes that look (and it probably is) super fake.
Man, imagine. This is the future communists want, apparently.
Lol you had me until Couches
Man, imagine. This is the future communists want, apparently.
it's also not unreasonable to dispute the legitimacy of any US president in living memory
can't get anything by you
You didn't answer my question. Was he those things or not? He wasn't convicted of them.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,610
- 3,141
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Look at the 2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 he's already been charged with. The whole bullshit immunity case was specifically to shield him from charges related to Jan 6.
There's also the 1 count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, 2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, 2 counts of false statements and writings, 2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings, 1 count of filing false documents and 1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents at the state level related to trying to overturn the election and I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable argument why Trump should be immune to state law.
Of course, if you argue the existing Trump immunity decision should make him totally immune to all charges on both topics, then we go right back to the whole "As Commander-in-Chief giving orders to the military is a core duty and thus absolutely immune, as is writing pardons. So Biden could order the military to do something illegal and pardon them from that conduct and be immune" thing. Such as executing 6 Supreme Court Justices. Though I know you'll be weirdly limiting on this particular sort of conduct, while things like the false electors scheme are definitely immune, somehow.
I'm just waiting for the arguments that Trump should be immune to state law for conduct that took place before he took office (aka the NY case) or federal law for conduct after he left (aka the documents case, presuming either DOJ wins an appeal or simply re-indicts the case without the special counsel in charge of it to resolve the issue). It will be entertaining to see how the 6-3 SCOTUS opinion in Trump's favor will argue that makes any kind of sense.
That describes basically every attack on Walz so far. He got arrested!...for speeding and a DUI 30 years ago. He put tampons in school restrooms? He quit the military!...by which we mean he retired after 24 years. They're flailing because they can't rely on people not being able to unsee Biden's debate performance as a campaign strategy and the only attacks they have against Harris are that she's not white, not male, voted with her party more often than most and has a weird laugh. If I were them, I'd be scrabbling too.
It's like Obama and the "tan suit" and "likes Dijon mustard" controversies.
Just recently somewhere else the conversation came up for why they're trying to hard to go after Walz, and the two theories that came up are "there's more enthusiasm for his pick from the left flank of the party" and "if they go all out on Harris, someone's just going to end up calling her the n-word on national tv".
Doesn't matter. He spend months stoking their anger and then pointed them to a target. And given the months of him pressuring Pence to illegally crown him this was clearly his way to intimidate him to still do so, or punish him for not doing it. Trump didn't tragically lost control of a mob that worshipped him.
Again. The impeachment were conditional of doing crimes. Had Trump not behaved as a rogue entity there'd be no impeachments. What choice did Trump even leave the Democrats after blackmailing a foreign leader to interfere on the election for him? Even if we were to accept the argument that the Democrats were dying to remove Trump then its still Trump who gave them the means to do it by behaving in the most corrupt way he could.
Because that's how the system works. The US is a de facto two party system. And while you can refuse to take part of this in disgust this does automatically surrender ground to the worse option by far. And given the fact that this is an objectively known fact I'd say the people who stick to this argument despite knowing this are suspicious. Perhaps the whole ''lol both sides!'' might have worked in the Romney vs Obama era but its severely outdated. They're simply not the same any longer. Even at their worst the Democrats simply aren't half as vile as Trump and the Maga movement.
The idea that the Republicans aren't a threat to democracy is just weird. Even if were were to ignore that Trump is almost cartoonishly vile, even if we ignore the coup then its simply a fact that he follows the same playbook as Putin, as Erdogan, and Orban and wherever those parties gain power democracy is always dismantled. That's just an objective fact. Their ideology and policies are incompatible with democracy, and their actions keep proving this. If all those parties are hostile to democracy then why should we pretend that the Republicans alone would somehow be different when they follow that playbook?
It might be unfair but I hate the way he, Trump, says "black" and "blacks". Like saying black is totally fine, but fuck the way he pronounces it just makes me squirm. Like at that rally when he said "We have a black!". Like hes trying to promote that he has the support of the African American community, but its like omg duuuude. You're implying ownership.
Please dude stop saying "The blacks". Say the black community or even black folks if youre a billy, he comes off old-timey racist.
It just feels like hes been coached to not say colored or the n-word.
Its hard to describe if you're not from a mixed background. Theres just an ok way to use that term and not ok.