Jump to content

Honest Question: How is Trump a 'threat to Democracy'?


diceman

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How many committees did Trump need to appoint Bill Barr AG? How many committees did he need to appoint an oil industry executive as Secretary for the Environment?

How many committees did it take for Trump to fire James Comey from the FBI?

 

BTW, the Trump organisation billed the American taxpayer $240 million for the 300 times he played golf while President.

 

Your post is arrant nonsense.

appointing people does not change democracy. so your point is invalid. Why shouldn't the President be allowed to have some free time?

Show links proving he spent 300M playing golf using taxpayer money. I found nothing to support your nonsense

s

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The obvious answer is that he is NOT a threat to democracy.

 

IF Trump were the new Hitler, the fascist, the genuine threat....then Democrats would not be against his assassination. They would not send messages of support when he survived. I mean, who would cheer if Hitler survived an attempted bombing attack? 

 

It is obvious political hype.  You can't simultaneously call a man an "existential threat" and out of the other side of your mouth be happy that he is still alive. 

I don’t disagree (with your second and third paragraphs), and it rubs me the wrong way when Harris and other Democrats express such concern for Trump’s safety. But I’m pretty sure they’re taking the high-road approach so as to appear (at least) civilized, in the expectation that this will help them win the election fair and square.

 

Should Trump somehow legitimately win the election (and the possibility of that happening is rapidly vanishing), all bets are off, especially during the period of time between the election and inauguration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I see. So the Founding Fathers could foresee muskets would be replaced by weapons, which at Las Vegas killed 60 people and injured hundreds, wielded by a single person.
 

Perhaps Americans don't realize some of their cherished traditions are no longer fit for purpose.

The system survived the American cival war from 1861 to 1865 where over 600,000 soldiers lost there lives .

I am not seeing your point of 60 killed in Las Vegas 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Trump is a threat to "democracy" IMO because of the following:

- He and the Republican Party continually strive to limit the number of people who are allowed to vote;

- He and the Republican Party are guilty of reformatting the districts within a state in favor of their party (gerrymandering) ;

- He continually spreads false information, which wrongly influences how people vote;

- If elected, he will continue to strive to become a dictator;

- If elected, I am sure he will try to remove the limitations that would prohibit him from running for president again so he could remain president indefinitely. (Of course, he is now 78, so, thankfully, that wouldn't be for too much longer).

Trump is only trying to stop the Non-Americans from voting. What rubbish you post. 

The Democrats place other Dems in key positions as soon as they take office as well. More rubbish you post. 

He has never strived to become a dictator. This is a tactic used by the Democrats to turn the Republican votes to their party. More utter rubbish you post. 

He can not remove limitations set by the constitution. Maybe you can learn something if reading it. It also tells you he can never become a dictator using the laws in the constitution. It takes many other people to do all the things you accuse Trump of doing. So your reasons are now turned to garbage.  Try posting things with facts to support what you say. 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, diceman said:

I'm not here to be 'convinced' of anything. I would like hear truth and facts from both sides. You have given an argument for what is so bad about trump, would you like to add some negatives about the Democrats?

The question was about Trump not a question of comparison. Stay on topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Hmmm . . . "new" member, posting a very loaded question of a topic, trying to change the parameters of the argument mid-stream?

 

Yeah . . . nope, not gonna take this bait.

I had wondered about the number of newcomers arriving at the same time as we see documentation as to foreign/domestic plants to continue the attacks on each other as we approach a most critical clear and present danger to my country. I agree with you, most do not deserve our time and attention.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

I had wondered about the number of newcomers arriving at the same time as we see documentation as to foreign/domestic plants to continue the attacks on each other as we approach a most critical clear and present danger to my country. I agree with you, most do not deserve our time and attention.

 

 

 

Initially I totally agreed.....but living in Isaan, having a bot to argue with gets me through the day without self harming.

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

How many committees did Trump need to appoint Bill Barr AG? How many committees did he need to appoint an oil industry executive as Secretary for the Environment?

How many committees did it take for Trump to fire James Comey from the FBI?

 

BTW, the Trump organisation billed the American taxpayer $240 million for the 300 times he played golf while President.

 

Your post is arrant nonsense.

Arrant nonsense ? Really ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

I take it you know it was JD Vance who called him America's Hitler?

 

 

Yes, he did. And he also took it back when he saw Trump's performance as president.  Now, have the major players in the Democratic party "taken back" their overheated and dangerous rhetoric about Trump? Or do they still call him a threat to 'our democracy' and a dictator from day one? Because unless their actions and words align, they are just hypocrites. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

That seriously calls into question his judgement, don't you think?........from America's Hitler to the best president we ever had.......deary me!!!

Possibly, but that is a topic that has been done to death elsewhere, don't you think?

So, back to THIS topic, why don't Democratic party leaders try a little honesty when discussing Trump? Their pearl clutching screeching is making things worse for everyone.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

This is sarcasm, right?

 

When he says something clearly... he is clearly lying... otherwise he speaks in a most disorganized manner.

 

Have you even read the Agenda 2025? Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography?

 

What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy, he couldn't even implement that if he wanted to.

Edited by Cameroni
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Possibly, but that is a topic that has been done to death elsewhere, don't you think?

So, back to THIS topic, why don't Democratic party leaders try a little honesty when discussing Trump? Their pearl clutching screeching is making things worse for everyone.  

 

 

 

...or at heart they might just be decent human beings......no, what am I thinking.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography?

Trump is up for anything that will get him into power.  He could care less about any policy unless it clearly costs him more votes than it gains.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Have you even read the Agenda 2025? Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography?

 

What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy, he couldn't even implement that if he wanted to.

 

 

"What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy"

 

 

Project 2025 takes a strongly pro-life position on abortion, advocating for significant restrictions on abortion at the federal and state levels. 

 

 

....and Trump is diametrically opposed to this?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

"What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy"

 

 

Project 2025 takes a strongly pro-life position on abortion, advocating for significant restrictions on abortion at the federal and state levels. 

 

 

....and Trump is diametrically opposed to this?

 

"Project 2025's proponents maintain that life begins at conception. The Mandate says that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should "return to being known as the Department of Life"

 

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby leaving it to the states to create their own legislation on the matter, but Project 2025 encourages the next president "to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support".[116] The Project also says, "The Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives ... should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America."

 

Severino says that the HHS should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method"."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 

None of this is workable as Trump has done the exact opposite, he has devolved to the states how abortion is handled. States decide how abortions are tracked, if at all. The way the laws work now there is no way in hell any president could do what Project 2025 wants.

 

They also want to criminalise sending abortion pills via mail, which the Supreme Court has already decided against.

 

Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it. So he is actually diametrically opposed to what Project 2025 wants, a concerted presidential push to achieve maximal pro-Life policies, criminalising abortion pills in the mail etc.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my observation but I have yet to see anything published where Ms Harris has insulted her opponent or demonized entire subsets of completely legal members of US society.

Kindly post any remotely believable, i.e. NOT right wing rags, counter examples.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

"Project 2025's proponents maintain that life begins at conception. The Mandate says that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should "return to being known as the Department of Life"

 

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby leaving it to the states to create their own legislation on the matter, but Project 2025 encourages the next president "to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support".[116] The Project also says, "The Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives ... should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America."

 

Severino says that the HHS should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method"."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 

None of this is workable as Trump has done the exact opposite, he has devolved to the states how abortion is handled. States decide how abortions are tracked, if at all. The way the laws work now there is no way in hell any president could do what Project 2025 wants.

 

They also want to criminalise sending abortion pills via mail, which the Supreme Court has already decided against.

 

Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it. So he is actually diametrically opposed to what Project 2025 wants, a concerted presidential push to achieve maximal pro-Life policies, criminalising abortion pills in the mail etc.

 

 

"Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it".

 

A total abdication of responsibility. Having loaded the SCOTUS, then pushed for and claimed victory for overturning Roe v Wade..... he walks away from it all.

 

Not only is it despicable, it shows a total lack of moral leadership....... leaving the States to decide they can murder babies after birth to demand no abortions whatsoever is atrocious.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

...or at heart they might just be decent human beings......no, what am I thinking.

 

 

 

Yeah, give your head a shake.  Now, back to the topic if possible...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 93

      Game over

    2. 93

      Game over

    3. 2

      Now I'm getting older: I worry that my aging brain is making me feel crazy. (You too?)

    4. 93

      Game over

    5. 93

      Game over

    6. 53

      PM Faces Pressure Over Thaksin's Alleged Hospital Fake-Out

    7. 2,205

      Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II

    8. 93

      Game over

    9. 35

      Thai Khmer - is it alive anywhere in South Isaan?

    10. 93

      Game over

    11. 2,205

      Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II

    12. 93

      Game over

    13. 0

      Does Donald Trump Have Dementia?

    14. 46

      Russian Disinformation Campaign Targets Kamala Harris with False Accusations

    15. 93

      Game over

×
×
  • Create New...
""