I wouldn't know, I never met him. Everything I've ever heard about him is reported by other people. Hearsay, which people say isn't reliable. Would you base your opinion on someone solely on a political opponent's smear campaign?
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
If I may suggest a course of action...
-----
A quick overview of (some of) the lawsuits filed against Donald Trump, which will start to pose a real threat once his presidential immunity runs out:
* His niece Mary is suing Donald, as well as Maryanne and the late Robert Trump, for defrauding her of a share of family inheritance.
* Summer Zervos, a former candidate on The Apprentice, is suing Trump for defamation, following his denial of sexual assault. Columnist E. Jean Carroll is also suing Trump for defamation, following his denial of rape.
* Attorney General Karl Racine is suing the Trump Organisation for misusing non-profit funds for business enrichment.
* Disbarred Lawyer Michael Cohen is suing Trump for failing to pay his legal fees.
* A group of people is suing Trump and his adult children for their role in a marketing scam, in which they charged people to sell products for American Communications Network.
* Investment Fund owner Investes Fintiklis is suing Trump for fraud and breach of contract, specifically regarding his failure to pay tax on a hotel project in Panama, which Fintiklis took over from Trump.
---
Joe Biden was recently quoted as saying he "doesn't know why [Trump] wants the job", since he doesn't want to do the work. I previously believed that all this legal wrangling was mostly a money-making scam: they solicit donations to the "recount funds", which, as we know, don't actually fund recounts and just help his organisation pay off its campaign debt. I'm sure that's part of it.
But honestly, it's difficult to listen to the hour-long conversation with Brad Raffensperger and conclude that that's all there is. He actually sounds quite desperate.
The law has sided decidedly against Trump in the past. It was a New York State investigation and legal action that forced the Donald J. Trump Foundation to close, after it was found to have been lying repeatedly about its charity work.
I'm still thinking it's financially motivated, but now I think it's all about the avoidance of the poorhouse. He has had to settle in court before, paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's in mountains of debt. Deutches Bank, one of the very few lenders who was willing to work with him before, now won't go near him. With all these lawsuits awaiting him when he leaves office, he's going to be haemorrhaging money in fees, arbitration, and court-ordered payments.
-----
A quick overview of (some of) the lawsuits filed against Donald Trump, which will start to pose a real threat once his presidential immunity runs out:
* His niece Mary is suing Donald, as well as Maryanne and the late Robert Trump, for defrauding her of a share of family inheritance.
* Summer Zervos, a former candidate on The Apprentice, is suing Trump for defamation, following his denial of sexual assault. Columnist E. Jean Carroll is also suing Trump for defamation, following his denial of rape.
* Attorney General Karl Racine is suing the Trump Organisation for misusing non-profit funds for business enrichment.
* Disbarred Lawyer Michael Cohen is suing Trump for failing to pay his legal fees.
* A group of people is suing Trump and his adult children for their role in a marketing scam, in which they charged people to sell products for American Communications Network.
* Investment Fund owner Investes Fintiklis is suing Trump for fraud and breach of contract, specifically regarding his failure to pay tax on a hotel project in Panama, which Fintiklis took over from Trump.
---
Joe Biden was recently quoted as saying he "doesn't know why [Trump] wants the job", since he doesn't want to do the work. I previously believed that all this legal wrangling was mostly a money-making scam: they solicit donations to the "recount funds", which, as we know, don't actually fund recounts and just help his organisation pay off its campaign debt. I'm sure that's part of it.
But honestly, it's difficult to listen to the hour-long conversation with Brad Raffensperger and conclude that that's all there is. He actually sounds quite desperate.
The law has sided decidedly against Trump in the past. It was a New York State investigation and legal action that forced the Donald J. Trump Foundation to close, after it was found to have been lying repeatedly about its charity work.
I'm still thinking it's financially motivated, but now I think it's all about the avoidance of the poorhouse. He has had to settle in court before, paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's in mountains of debt. Deutches Bank, one of the very few lenders who was willing to work with him before, now won't go near him. With all these lawsuits awaiting him when he leaves office, he's going to be haemorrhaging money in fees, arbitration, and court-ordered payments.
Last edited:
My source was merely to point out the investigations turned nothing up.
Bill Barr authorised investigations shortly after the election. Whether Trump ordered him to or he did it on his own initiative is a moot point, but either way that's job done in terms of seeing to it that someone was looking at potential fraud.
That's how it works. You say you want cops to do their duty, that's basically what they do. They sit in a police station, wait until a crime is reported to them, and then go and investigate that crime. Otherwise they piss man hours and resources down the drain pointlessly on fishing expeditions, and it's hard enough for them to cover reported crime sufficiently.
Actually, as Raffensperger states in his call with Trump, the GA officials had the state police check some of the stuff out as well (liaising with the FBI) anyway.
Sure, but you're just wrong. He directly or indirectly ensured actual investigations took place.
Your argument really boils down to the fact that his power to force investigations is not limitless or cost-free.
And all the court cases, and many Trump cronies being jailed for crimes, and Trump very often talking like a mob boss and much more. The reports other people makes often lines up perfectly with what Trump proceeds to do.
Really? There are literally thousands of hours of footage of Donald Trump being Donald Trump (and I'm excluding presenting The Apprentice or Home Alone 2 cameos), unedited, available for free on the internet. You can read transcripts, listen to audio. He's right out there to see, in his own words.
There are decades of attested, documented history about what he's done to form an opinion on him. He's on official documentation such as court cases, which have been through the grinder of verification.
You can get a very good idea of what he's like straight from the horse's mouth, and it's not pretty.
"I picked up the phone call and listened as someone complained, looked into it, and didn't find anything" is not the same thing as "I ordered my team to go out an actively look for evidence of this thing". Both might technically fall under the umbrella of "I did my job", but they are on far ends of the spectrum.
For example, can you name one witness who had been interviewed by the FBI regarding fraud?
Yes, that is my argument. Trump does not have as much power for force investigations as you think he does, and you're content with saying "they just sat there, waiting for calls to come in, and put the barest amount of effort into it" is the extent of Trump's power, which I agree with.
Like I said, I only started paying attention a few months ago, so I haven't seen any of that. I have seen him speak a few times at rallies and at speeches. I expected him to be a much worse public speaker than what I heard (despite trying to avoid it) from the media in years previous. From those, he seems alright. Maybe I'll look through the archives one day.
Giving Up the Game, DOJ Argues in Court Filing That Trump Lost 2020 Election
"The official position of the lawyers representing the people of the United States is that there will be a new president on January 20," said one government watchdog.
www.commondreams.org
This is an obviously unreasonable demand.
Whether I can name one or not has no bearing on whether they did, and furthermore as the FBI do not tend to publicly release the names of most people they interview, it is deeply unlikely I could have any reasonable chance of knowing about most of the people they may have done anyway.
You have no more idea how much effort they put in than I have about FBI witnesses. Except of course you've long since got to the point where the argument rattling round your head is that if they didn't find anything, that only proves they didn't look hard enough.
He is not a bad public speaker in a sense - it's more what he's doing. His nature is to boast, exaggerate, swagger, show off; he's vindictive, bullying and aggressive, so he thrives on the attack. As long as he's free to do that, he's okay. He is, for instance, a pretty effective rabble-rousing demagogue.
However, he's poor at reading off a script: you can literally see the disinterest in his expression, plus the mechanical or bored delivery, often hurrying to get through it. That's usually when he needs to say something serious, informative, responsible and stay on-message. As a communicator of useful information without a script, he's a total bust: ignorant, chaotic, incoherent.
Is it? Don't we hear about witnesses being interviewed by the police all the time? Don't we know about an apartment building full of witnesses and what they did or didn't say in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor incident, and whether or not they heard the police announce themselves?
We know that from Melissa Carone's testimony, that she called the FBI, and was never called back.
So why should it be unreasonable that we should know about just one person that the FBI approached? The media would gladly make that a headline if it benefitted them. " Trump's FBI task force interrogates poor, innocent clerk on voter fraud finds nothing!"
I mean, I did ask the question because I knew you wouldn't be able to find any, not because the FBI is being secretive, but because it didn't happen.
I mean, I know the articles you linked didn't even say "The FBI and DOJ conducted a thorough investigation", so I'm erring on the side that they did not. Otherwise, the media would have gladly put that as the headline and made sure everyone knew about it. But the barest of journalistic integrity prevents them from lying like that.
---
For tomorrow:
I'll probably be posting a link to the speech
During a resurgence of COVID, a bunch of imbeciles will gather together, very likely without masks. It always makes things easier when the herd culls itself.
Related...
Unfortunately it's likely that other people are going to pay for this rather than (just) the people doing this kind of thing...
Last edited:
Holy crap, democrat are probably going to win both Georgia seat
www.nytimes.com
That's... wow, that changes a lot. Turtle might be an engendered specie. Everything from possible packing the court to impeachment and potentially more.
Election Needles: Georgia Senate Runoffs (Published 2021)
Modeling the Senate runoff election results.
That's... wow, that changes a lot. Turtle might be an engendered specie. Everything from possible packing the court to impeachment and potentially more.
It is way too early to call. I'll believe it when its actually called and the Trumpists don't call it a fraud too.
I won't say no to the Dems winning, but with Joe Manchin and the rest of the Dems, it's a pretty hollow victory.
It's pretty advanced and the votes that remains are in heavily democrat area (and mail in which are also heavily democrat).
- Status