Biden speech denouncing Trump, 'MAGA ideology' sparks threats, calls for violence

[Mac Mickmanus]

13 minutes ago, pomchop said:

Being a democrat does not make me blind to what Trumpers are trying to achieve with their lies, threats of violence, and refusal to accept the results of elections after all their legal avenues to challenge said elections are thrown out of court after court and proven invalid by recount after recount.

Move on, the election was two years ago and its history now.

Think about the next elections and stop living in the past 

*45 , Not my President* : Bring back any memories ?

[candide]

38 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Move on, the election was two years ago and its history now.

Think about the next elections and stop living in the past 

You should give this advice to Trump! ????

Edited September 4, 2022 by candide

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

You should give this advice to Trump! ????

And his supporters.

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And his supporters.

It seems to be the Biden supporters who keep going on about it 

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

*45 , Not my President* : Bring back any memories ?

Really? Can you share with us the number of Democratic legislators in the House of Representatives or the Senate who voted not to certify the Presidential election results after the 2016  elections?

Did Democrats bring 600 plus failed lawsuits to try to overturn the 2016 election results? And there's a lot more where these examples came from.

And you're seriously comparing all this to a slogan adopted by some unhappy Democratic voters?

Your point is a particularly flagrant example of both- sidesism.

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Really? Can you share with us the number of Democratic legislators in the House of Representatives or the Senate who voted not to certify the Presidential election results after the 2016  elections?

Did Democrats bring 600 plus failed lawsuits to try to overturn the 2016 election results? And there's a lot more where these examples came from.

And you're seriously comparing all this to a slogan adopted by some unhappy Democratic voters?

Your point is a particularly flagrant example of both- sidesism.

 

Did the Democrats accept Trump as their President ?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It seems to be the Biden supporters who keep going on about it 

Well, if you're talking about members of The forum who support Trump, they do have a way of ignoring all the awful things that Trump says and focusing on stead of the comparatively mild statements from Joe Biden. I cited Trump's recent speech in Pennsylvania which was as nasty a piece of work as you can find in American politics, and I don't think that elicited one comment from Trump supporters. I guess because not even they can find a way to mitigate, much less support, such rhetoric.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did the Democrats accept Trump as their President ?

What does this even mean?

Democratic legislators voted to certify the election. So of course they accepted Trump. There were no widespread accusations of election fraud against Trump.

Was there widespread resentment against Trump? Sure. But what did Trump do to reach out to those who didn't vote for him after the election? He took a victory tour after the election to thank voters in States that voted for him. And he ignored the states that didn't. What in Trump's rhetoric would ever have inclined those who didn't vote for him to regard such an openly vindictive person  favorably? 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/4/2022 at 8:04 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

"Fiery"; sure, if one thinks a damp squid is "fiery".

Apologies. That should read "damp squib".

 

Too late to use the edit function.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Umh, he was holding on to classified government documents, which as a former President he had no right to retain, and he was refusing requests to return them. That alone justified the raid.

So arrest him on that alone then. What's the hold up?

Could it be they are waiting till November to drop another "bombshell" in hope of derailing the GOP in the election? That'd be nothing new in the anti Trump saga- we've seen so many "bombshells" that turned out to be nothing burgers. I suspect this will turn out the same, but I'll wait till the elections to see if I'm right on that.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did the Democrats accept Trump as their President ?

Can't see that they did, given they impeached him twice.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, ozimoron said:

"The most reasonable inference is that Donald Trump disposed of those classified documents after unlawfully taking them from the White House," Kirschner said in a video posted on YouTube.

 

There is no compelling argument against arresting Donald Trump promptly."

So just do it already and stop messing around. Either there are grounds for arrest or there ain't.

Far as I can see it's just becoming yet another failed attempt to demolish the Donald.

Whatever the reasons for the assault on Mar a Largo, it's turning into a PR disaster for the FBI, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I am not from the USA , I have never been to the USA and I take little interest in what goes on in the USA , if it wasn't for this site I would ever read any news about the USA

I likewise took little interest in US domestic affairs, but the Trump saga, and the Democrat/ anti Trumpers attempts to negate and remove him are quite entertaining.

I couldn't find the post I made at the time in 2016, but I'm pretty sure I made some comment about it was going to be an entertaining experience, and it sure has been. If some script writer for a soap had come up with it, it would have probably been rejected as too OTT.

Likewise, the build up to the November events will probably prove to be "interesting", and the election results will be climactic. IMO the fate of the US and perhaps the world will be decided by that election. I'm pickin' the Dems will lose the house, and hopefully the senate, but I'll have to wait and see on that, like everyone else.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So just do it already and stop messing around. Either there are grounds for arrest or there ain't.

Far as I can see it's just becoming yet another failed attempt to demolish the Donald.

Whatever the reasons for the assault on Mar a Largo, it's turning into a PR disaster for the FBI, IMO.

It was an assault on Mar y Lago? Were weapons fired? Were people injured? Were doors battered open? It was a peaceful search authorized by a duly obtained warrant.

[nauseus]

47 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? Can you share with us the number of Democratic legislators in the House of Representatives or the Senate who voted not to certify the Presidential election results after the 2016  elections?

Did Democrats bring 600 plus failed lawsuits to try to overturn the 2016 election results? And there's a lot more where these examples came from.

And you're seriously comparing all this to a slogan adopted by some unhappy Democratic voters?

Your point is a particularly flagrant example of both- sidesism.

 

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It was an assault on Mar y Lago? Were weapons fired? Were people injured? Were doors battered open? It was a peaceful search authorized by a duly obtained warrant.

If it was so peaceful, why did it take 30, presumed armed, agents to do so? One agent with a warrant and some none FBI helpers could have done the job.

IMO it was indeed an assault, staged for maximum publicity

 

 

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/the-mar-lago-raid-what-happened-and-whats-next

On Aug. 8, roughly 30 federal agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump—an unprecedented action.

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So just do it already and stop messing around. Either there are grounds for arrest or there ain't.

Far as I can see it's just becoming yet another failed attempt to demolish the Donald.

Whatever the reasons for the assault on Mar a Largo, it's turning into a PR disaster for the FBI, IMO.

Why do Trump supporters have so much trouble grasping this simple fact:  Investigations take as long as is necessary to do them properly, and charges are file after that.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, heybruce said:

Why do Trump supporters have so much trouble grasping this simple fact:  Investigations take as long as is necessary to do them properly, and charges are file after that.

According to certain posters on this thread, the facts are already established and Trump is guilty.

So, are they wrong? Are the facts not yet established? Could Trump actually be innocent ( presumed innocent till proven guilty )?

 

[HighPriority]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to certain posters on this thread, the facts are already established and Trump is guilty.

So, are they wrong? Are the facts not yet established? Could Trump actually be innocent ( presumed innocent till proven guilty )?

 

As unlikely as it would seem he could be innocent, but let’s investigate to be sure huh ?

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, nauseus said:

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

Thanks for the correction. But how many house members actually objected? A very tiny number. And they certainly weren't backed by the Democratic candidate for president.

[placeholder]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it was so peaceful, why did it take 30, presumed armed, agents to do so? One agent with a warrant and some none FBI helpers could have done the job.

IMO it was indeed an assault, staged for maximum publicity

 

 

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/the-mar-lago-raid-what-happened-and-whats-next

On Aug. 8, roughly 30 federal agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump—an unprecedented action.

Actually, they were unarmed. Not only that but they were told to dress in casual clothing so as not to attract attention. As for the number of agents, they want to cover all the bases and not allow Trump's people to remove items before they got to them. Pfbi had information that Trump's people had already lied about the presence of classified information on the premises. That's a serious offense.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, they were unarmed. Not only that but they were told to dress in casual clothing so as not to attract attention. As for the number of agents, they want to cover all the bases and not allow Trump's people to remove items before they got to them. Pfbi had information that Trump's people had already lied about the presence of classified information on the premises. That's a serious offense.

You need to provide proof they were all unarmed. I can't find anything to say they were so, and the photo on this site shows an armed officer.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/09/1116575413/mar-a-lago-fbi-raid-trump-search

 

While he may not have gone into the building he is apparently part of the team that raided the place.

[EVENKEEL]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

The wealthiest 10% of Americans own a record 89% of all U.S. stocks

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html

So stock prices aren't much of a factor for most Americans.

What do you expect the federal government to do about high rent? One of the reasons that rent is so high is that hedge funds and such have accumulated so much cash that they are now buying up homes and renting them out. They can afford to pay top dollar thus crowding out the middle class. Trump's tax cut bill made commercial real estate investment even more profitable by allowing properties to depreciate over 10 years instead of 20. 

What do you expect the Federal govt to do about homelessness?

Or crime?

Or inflation?

 

 

Perhaps you're not familiar with 401 K, to say stock market effects only the top 10% is not correct. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pandemic-rental-assistance-program-federal-government/#:~:text=While relief efforts have staved off some of,has been extended to the end of June.

 

Biden could have addressed the things which effect Americans daily. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/politics/joe-biden-inflation-explainer/index.html

 

Instead him and his handlers chose to stage an ominous setting complete with the weird red background with joe looking crazy.

[heybruce]

56 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to certain posters on this thread, the facts are already established and Trump is guilty.

So, are they wrong? Are the facts not yet established? Could Trump actually be innocent ( presumed innocent till proven guilty )?

 

11,000 documents need to be reviewed.  Attempts must be made to learn if there are more unaccounted for documents.  This will take time.  Be patient, Trump isn't going anywhere.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

11,000 documents need to be reviewed.  Attempts must be made to learn if there are more unaccounted for documents.  This will take time.  Be patient, Trump isn't going anywhere.

Only needs to be guilty on one document to be arrested, and didn't posters on this forum claim that they knew exactly what they were looking for?

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only needs to be guilty on one document to be arrested, and didn't posters on this forum claim that they knew exactly what they were looking for?

Its not just Trump, he's part of a wider investigation, one of the biggest concerns here is who else had access to the documents, the FBI have cctv evidence that some were removed from a storage room at that residence in an effort to “obstruct the government’s investigation.”

 

Interviews and more detailed investigations into that still need to be carried out without compromising the identity of current witnesses.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only needs to be guilty on one document to be arrested, and didn't posters on this forum claim that they knew exactly what they were looking for?

Do you think it would be better if he is charged bit by bit, one illegal document at a time, over the weeks and months required to evaluate all these documents?

[EVENKEEL]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Do you think it would be better if he is charged bit by bit, one illegal document at a time, over the weeks and months required to evaluate all these documents?

If Trump is a threat to our National Security he should absolutely be charged and locked up. 

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did the Democrats accept Trump as their President ?

Yes, do you have any evidence they didn't? Did dems riot at the white house? The capitol? Cheat at the election? Anything? In the end they voted him out.

 

why? Because Trump didn't address the concerns Americans have. Americans rejected him, loud and clear. One term president, just like the Republicans swore they would do to Obama but failed.

[pomchop]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to certain posters on this thread, the facts are already established and Trump is guilty.

So, are they wrong? Are the facts not yet established? Could Trump actually be innocent ( presumed innocent till proven guilty )?

 

Let's hide behind the law, "presumed innocent until proven guilty"  but refuse to support the law as in peaceful transfer of power as upheld by 60 court cases no fraud etc when you LOSE an election.  Got it.