The same group that had ODS (O for Obama) when he dared to wear a tan suit to work one day wants you to think you have TDS for not excusing all the crimes Trump has committed such as stealing and keeping sensitive nuclear secrets stored in a country club's open bathroom. I mean same, right?
The President is not in charge of security at the Capitol. I believe there are some bylaws that delegate that authority to the Speaker. I'm happy to dive deeper into that for you, but you may want to consider Pelosi didn't want troops at the Capitol.
I always found it interesting Trump was supposedly guilty of inciting an insurrection on Jan 6th, but voluntarily departed the WH two weeks later and left Joe Biden a gentleman's letter in the Oval Office desk drawer. In any event, that took some humility and class on his part and a great deal of restraint.
No, forum shopping is a very specific legal argument. The New York venue and choice of law was appropriate as far as I'm aware. I am arguing that the notion that because a New York jury finds Trump liable for something by a preponderance of the evidence, that does not confirm that he did it. And New York certainly isn't "friendly territory" for him.
You're either terribly misinformed or lying. Trump goes through a list of issues with every stump speech he gives. The irony is Joe Biden running on a platform of "I'm not Trump." Can you link his last campaign stop? His vision for 2025 and beyond? Because I can send you 100s of links of Trump giving his vision. What's Biden's plan?
Yep. And I said that. Biden deserves blame. But the one person that has no business pointing fingers here is the guy that creates the mess through his own arrogance. I know this point is not lost on you.
Didn't he already prove he'd leave office? Even if he thought the election was rigged? What's next? Is Liz going to tell us she has 51 intelligence officials who say the WH cocaine story was Russian disinformation?
That is true of every single civil lawsuit in every single forum in every single district in this country. You can choose to believe the evidence presented, or you can choose to not believe. I find it incredible,though, that you suddenly “disbelieve” because the jury was in New York. I mean, this is the same guy that was caught live on mic stating he felt he had a right to “grab the p**sy” because he was famous.
I completely agree, though I was being jocular. Trump has already proven he'll work with Democrats. If memory serves, he basically let Pelosi write the Covid relief bill. Worked closely with Newsom and Cuomo during Covid. And retained the uber-evil, super serpent Democrat Anthony Fauci. But yeah, he's going to silence dissent and make us a one-party state. Silly narratives Dems cling to...
I have no doubt that you can recite all of Trump’s speeches from memory, word for word. I have no doubt that you play them every night before you sleep and first thing when you awake. There are few posters more Trumpian than you, a true believer in every respect. And I say that with admiration because you truly “believe,” regardless of his actions. I am not a true believer in much, so you have that on me.
TDS is of course, a pejorative term intended to irritate or even infuriate those in opposition to Trump. It started as a taunt, a juvenile deflective ploy directed at Trump's critics to mock them and imply they are over reacting. Though it's backfired as the evidence of Trump's narcissism and other gaffes mounted to underscoring his own mental delusions or deficiencies. Below is a bit more added to my previous post #104 on page 6. Trump derangement syndrome - Wikipedia "Usage The term has been widely applied by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, accusing them of responding negatively to a wide range of Trump's statements and actions.[25][26][27] "The use of the term has been called part of a broader GOP strategy to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions, as a way of "reframing" the discussion by suggesting his political opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world. However, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of Annenberg Public Policy Center, the term could backfire on Trump supporters because people might interpret it to mean that Trump is the one who is "deranged", rather than those who criticize him.[2] Some Trump supporters have asserted that he plays a form of "multi-dimensional chess" on a mental level his critics cannot comprehend, which they say explains why critics are frustrated and confused by Trump's words and actions.[28][29][30][31] Fox News anchor Bret Baier and former House speaker Paul Ryan have characterized Trump as a "troll" who makes controversial statements to see his adversaries' "heads explode".[32][33] "The term has been used by journalists critical of Trump to call for restraint.[5][6][7] Fareed Zakaria, who urged Americans to vote against Trump calling him a "cancer on American democracy", argues that every Trump policy "cannot axiomatically be wrong, evil and dangerous".[5] Adam Gopnik, who takes a strong anti-Trump position, responded to these assertions that it is a "huge and even fatal mistake for liberals (and constitutional conservatives) to respond negatively to every Trump initiative, every Trump policy, and every Trump idea". Arguing that Trump's opponents must instead recognize that the real problem is "Deranged Trump Self-Delusion", Gopnik defined the "Syndrome" as President Trump's "daily spasm of narcissistic gratification and episodic vanity".[26] "Examples of use Senator Rand Paul has cited the so-called syndrome several times. In a July 16, 2018, interview he said investigators should simply focus on election security and stop "accusing Trump of collusion with the Russians and all this craziness that's not true"—accusations which he said were entirely motivated by "Trump derangement syndrome".[34] _______________________ It's a verbal grenade looking for a target - anyone who might be bothered or insulted or otherwise emotionally hurt. It has occurred to me the Trump supporters who accuse others of Trump DS might be doing so because they themselves would be or are offended if and when the charge is/ was lobbed at them. People who make offensive comments to others display their own vulnerability to being hurt when they are the recipients of similar insults. They project their own vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and hurts onto their political opposites. More could be said on that...
Pelosi couldn't have had troops at the Capitol, even if she wanted. There never was a formal offer from Trump, who as POTUS, is CIC. Moreover, internal docs show the 10k troops were potentially there to protect Trump from counter-protesters, and his people, and not the Capitol or anyone else. As for Trump leaving office peacefully on Jan 20, that's only because he had already lost the day on Jan 6. Different story had his people gotten to Pence, Pelosi, and others, and chaos had ensued. Or Trump's fake electors had been successful. But by the 20th, Trump was out of options, and any further interference and he likely would have been arrested on the spot. Just because he did ultimately leave peacefully should not excuse Trump's or anyone's actions on Jan 6.
I'm not familiar with what you brought up in this post. It brought to mind the Goldwater Rule, however. Psychiatric News “Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?” the editors of Fact magazine asked 12,356 psychiatrists during the 1964 presidential campaign between Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson. The responses set off a wave of reaction that resonated again most recently after media speculation about the mental status of the current Republican presidential candidate. Fact published numerous comments questioning Sen. Barry Goldwater’s psychological capacity for office, which ultimately led to the creation of APA’s “Goldwater Rule” in 1973. A look at the original episode reveals as much about psychiatry’s changes over the last half century as it does about politics then or now. _______________ Goldwater Rule Restraint of psychiatrists’ comments on political candidates is grounded in APA’s response to an attempt to question Barry Goldwater’s mental health during the 1964 campaign for president. “Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?” the editors of Fact magazine asked 12,356 psychiatrists during the 1964 presidential campaign between Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson. The responses set off a wave of reaction that resonated again most recently after media speculation about the mental status of the current Republican presidential candidate. Fact published numerous comments questioning Sen. Barry Goldwater’s psychological capacity for office, which ultimately led to the creation of APA’s “Goldwater Rule” in 1973.
I know about that episode and the Goldwater Rule. Krauthammer violated it regularly with the Clintons. Here is one example I could find with a quick Google Search but he did all the time. Used to drive me crazy. Think he was a hack https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-watch/8b10e24f-d04a-4b7f-8992-dfad3edb7c08/
Remind me what were Trump's remarks at the Biden Inauguration? Nevermind , the petulant child skipped it.
