• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
With due respect, while all of this smells of impropriety, it's not a smoking gun. The claim that the check came from the Foundation due to mistakes about who the recipient was is mighty fishy, but not obviously false. Nor is it clear enough that Trump bribed Bondi, or else there would likely be charges. It smells to high heaven, but it is not enough for an indictment, apparently.

In that respect, it is similar to at least how Clinton opponents characterize Clinton's scandals. Far as I'm concerned, Trump's donation to Bondi is fishier than anything I know about Clinton, but in each case, we're talking about non-indictable incidents (at this point).
Click to expand...

Who's going to indict her? She is the top law enforcement official in the State of Florida. My apologies, but your head is in the sand on this. The real problem is what happens after the election. The problem really is that the US Attorney General, a Republican doesn't want a partisan investigation DURING the election.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Saying the confiscation of guns is gun confiscation is misleading?...It doesn't have to be "all" guns. When people advocates encroaching on free speech, it is only on the speech they don't like...
Click to expand...

I don't want to turn this into a gun thread but I find your argument misleading. The context was a claim that Democrats are working to actively remove the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. At a community meeting my local state senator (a Democrat) told us, in response to a related question, that given the two SCOTUS decisions (McDonald and Heller), given the passion with which second amendment advocates defend the right to keep and bear arms, any law that significantly impacts on gun ownership, "Is going to be tough to pass and will probably have to withstand a court challenge." That only moderate restrictions, with broad-based support, have any chance of passing. This is from a downstate liberal Democrat. This is the real world.

You cited as evidence a proposal by downstate legislators in New York to make illegal the possession of guns classed as assault weapons. Existing weapons would not have been 'grandfathered' in thus, in theory, anyone possessing that type weapon could have it confiscated by police. The history of these kinds of laws -- where they've been passed -- suggests enforcing a ban by having the police actively seek out owners of the now banned weapons doesn't happen.

You also ignore the fact the proposed law was made by a group of legislators in the aftermath of the school shootings in Newtown Connecticut. I'm not aware of any subsequent effort by NYS legislators to enact an assault weapons ban though I could be mistaken.

The original point was, gun owners should vote for Trump because they won't have anything to worry about if he's elected, the way they will have plenty to worry about if Hillary Clinton is elected. That the worry they'll have if Hillary Clinton is elected is that she will try to ban all firearms. My point is that's baloney.
 
newyorkguy said:
I

You also ignore the fact the proposed law was made by a group of legislators in the aftermath of the school shootings in Newtown Connecticut. I'm not aware of any subsequent effort by NYS legislators to enact an assault weapons ban though I could be mistaken.

The original point was, gun owners should vote for Trump because they won't have anything to worry about if he's elected, the way they will have plenty to worry about if Hillary Clinton is elected. That the worry they'll have if Hillary Clinton is elected is that she will try to ban all firearms. My point is that's baloney.
Click to expand...

Newtown isn't mitigation of their infringement. Rights by design are suppose to be protected from these events. There will be another Newtown and I'm sure another city will make their move.

I agree with your last paragraph. Don't construe my pointing out those events as disagreement on this.
 
acbytesla said:
Who's going to indict her? She is the top law enforcement official in the State of Florida. My apologies, but your head is in the sand on this. The real problem is what happens after the election. The problem really is that the US Attorney General, a Republican doesn't want a partisan investigation DURING the election.
Click to expand...

I was referring to an indictment of Trump, not Bondi. But, of course, state officials can be indicted on federal corruption charges, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Mongrel said:
Because you can fit an image with loads of words into a tweet rather than splitting up a long quote to fit the character limit
Click to expand...

Twitter sucks. It leads to such stupid "fixes" of its arbitrary 140 character limit.
 
phiwum said:
I like that he complains about room service in a hospital. I'm with him. If you are suspected of a crime, then you should have to crawl to the hospital cafeteria. No coddling suspects!
Click to expand...
Alright but no complaining when they escape.
 
phiwum said:
I was referring to an indictment of Trump, not Bondi. But, of course, state officials can be indicted on federal corruption charges, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

He's more problematic. The appearance is that she blackmailed him. The problem is that the Justice department is going to be reluctant of effecting an election.
 
acbytesla said:
My mistake, I was thinking Comey.
Click to expand...
I wondered, if that might have been it.
Cool.


ETA: Interestingly I can find no source, stating her political affiliation. It seems apparent from her record, and background, but nothing concrete.
Anyone else?
 
Last edited:
"Today, we have caught this evil thug who planted the bombs."

The presumption of innocence has been tossed aside. Trump doesn't care, his supporters don't care. They're perfectly content with a presumption of guilt. One more way American ideals are wasted on these people.

If Hillary said the same thing, I'd say the same of her.
 
Minoosh said:
"Today, we have caught this evil thug who planted the bombs."

The presumption of innocence has been tossed aside. Trump doesn't care, his supporters don't care. They're perfectly content with a presumption of guilt. One more way American ideals are wasted on these people.

If Hillary said the same thing, I'd say the same of her.
Click to expand...

But isn't it okay for the president to say this? As the chief executive, he or she is the head cop and head prosecutor in a sense. those roles argue that a suspect and defendant are guilty. The judicial branch and legislative branch are the ones with the imperative to remain silent.
 
newyorkguy said:
The original point was, gun owners should vote for Trump because they won't have anything to worry about if he's elected, the way they will have plenty to worry about if Hillary Clinton is elected. That the worry they'll have if Hillary Clinton is elected is that she will try to ban all firearms. My point is that's baloney.
Click to expand...

Only because she won't have the house.

But what she will be able to do is appoint Scalia's replacement which will change the second amendment. They will say an individual does not have the right to a firearm. Changing our laws once again through the courts.

Trump of course will not do that.
 
Minoosh said:
"Today, we have caught this evil thug who planted the bombs."

The presumption of innocence has been tossed aside. Trump doesn't care, his supporters don't care. They're perfectly content with a presumption of guilt. One more way American ideals are wasted on these people.

If Hillary said the same thing, I'd say the same of her.
Click to expand...

Obama has people killed who haven't even been indicted, let alone convicted, of crimes. Americans even. Do you think American ideals are wasted on Obama and his people?
 
BobTheCoward said:
But isn't it okay for the president to say this? As the chief executive, he or she is the head cop and head prosecutor in a sense.
Click to expand...
Not in any sense.

ETA: And even if I granted that dubious premise, s/he still shouldn't be prejudicing a potential jury pool by talking about who's guilty or not.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
"Today, we have caught this evil thug who planted the bombs."

The presumption of innocence has been tossed aside. Trump doesn't care, his supporters don't care. They're perfectly content with a presumption of guilt. One more way American ideals are wasted on these people.

If Hillary said the same thing, I'd say the same of her.
Click to expand...

It could be people are tired of leftist sticking their necks out for the worst.
People are concerned about what this guy "allegedly" did but leftist are only concerned about us treating him fairly. Which of course is probably why islamist and leftist love each other so much. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom