USA news & politics

[Vaquer]

"thoughtful and careful analysis"

I could go on and debunk your drivel but you are happily defending a criminal and a judge who had repeatedly acted in Trumps interest.

Let's just make it very simple then, 2 questions:

1) Do you think Trump was the prime cause of January 6th? Ie without Trump it wouldn't have happened?

2) Do you think Trump illegally held onto a huge stash of classified documents, lied about it and then intentionally and illegally tried to obstruct their retrieval?

Pro-Trump types are cooked you won't get answers that are cogent and satisfying

 

[Vaquer]

This could go badly for Trump. How long does the trial go for? Is it a show trial? If it's a proper trial what happens if he's found not guilty? Where does Maduro go then?

 

[Vaquer]

But an equally big problem is that Americans’ struggles just don’t interest him. That’s why he can’t stay focused on them. That’s why he rolls his eyes when he says the word “affordability.” It’s also why in every recent speech, when he’s not lying about the affordability problem, he’s changing the subject. Trump raises the issue only to pivot to his preferred topics: tariffs (which he said recently was his “favorite word”), immigration, his personal beefs, himself, Ilhan Omar, Somalians in Minnesota, and so on. In his December 17 speech on the economy, he opened with three sentences on the cost of living, and immediately after saying the word “affordability,” he launched a rant about immigrants, as if to wake himself up. Two days later, in a speech in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, he shifted from affordability to his weird obsession with immigrants coming from insane asylums (presumably he is equating those seeking “asylum” with mental patients, a long-standing Trumpian muddle) without even the pretense of a logical transition, just because he couldn’t wait to get there.

Hardship bores Trump. And why wouldn’t it? He’s a rich guy who likes to hang out at Mar-a-Lago with other rich guys. He doesn’t have any answers to the affordability crisis because he doesn’t care—he really should borrow his wife’s infamous jacket—and because some of the easiest and most obvious solutions to the crisis involve rolling back his own policies, not to mention alienating Republican donors. No wonder he’d rather rant about Somalis in Minnesota—or reminisce about the good old days of his attempted assassination.

Trump’s utter disengagement and mendacity on the affordability crisis create a huge opportunity for Democrats, and some have been running with it. On Thursday, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as the new mayor of New York City. He campaigned on making New York more affordable through universal childcare, free buses, a rent freeze for rent-stabilized buildings, as well as increasing the supply of housing for poor, working-class, and middle-class New Yorkers. He is backed by a grassroots campaign to tax the rich to make all this possible. On January 20, Mikie Sherill, the Democratic governor-elect of New Jersey, will also be sworn in. She too campaigned on lowering costs while also strongly opposing the construction of new data centers, which will increase energy bills, line tech billionaires’ pockets, and only flood the world with more slop.

In a sense, they will face the same challenge that Trump is facing: how to deliver on their campaign promises to address the affordability crisis. The difference is that they have actual policies they plan to advance in their respective legislative bodies. All Trump ever had was his favorite word, and every respected economist knew back in 2024 that astronomical tariffs were certain to accomplish one thing: higher prices on American consumers. But the president is not one to acknowledge his mistakes, let alone learn from them. So it’s a safe bet that he’s not going to suddenly find any solutions to the affordability crisis, not when he can barely bring himself to say those words.

Trump Is Bored to Death by the Affordability Crisis

He’s finally started to acknowledge the struggles of ordinary Americans, but he’s incapable of staying focused on them.

newrepublic.com

 

[dirty harry]

"thoughtful and careful analysis"

I could go on and debunk your drivel but you are happily defending a criminal and a judge who had repeatedly acted in Trumps interest.

Let's just make it very simple then, 2 questions:

1) Do you think Trump was the prime cause of January 6th? Ie without Trump it wouldn't have happened?

2) Do you think Trump illegally held onto a huge stash of classified documents, lied about it and then intentionally and illegally tried to obstruct their retrieval?

Ill just forget you ignored my questions and absolutely comply with answering yours (despite answering these questions over and over lol). For the record, i checked, no Connan has received no sanction or reprimand outside of being criticised by Dems and media, so a final lie. I just dont know where your gal to be so vile AND be so wrong at the ssme time comes from?!

1. Of course Trump was the prime cause of Jan 6th, he was the election nominee who ran and lost, he proposed the protest, and he was irresponsible in his messaging and language, even on the day. Ive said this maybe 50 times in the last 2 years lol.

2. I think Trump was caught with classified documents, he didnt think would be an issue due to the possible hundreds of instances of politicians taking classified documents home over the last 3 decades or so (combined with hubris and his lack of interest in minor legalities when it comes to him). When he was caught, he probably thought he would be made an example of for this, due to the aggressive nature and weaponisation of organisations like the DOJ, and was advised not to pull a Joe Biden and put his hands up and play senile, but go an an agressive defence strategy, which ultimately was successful.
What he did, while illegal has a trend to be ignored en masse, and if you allow a precident like that someone as ruthless and Donald Trump will absolutely use it, as he has shown for over a decade.

You know i cant help but feel partly vindicated with Trump, hes an absolute knob, andni tried to warn people when Obama extended presidential power in loads of ways that that power would be weilded against democrats at some point, they seemed oblivious that a Republican could ever win again (and ill be honest i felt the same 2015). Ill feel just as vindicated in 5 - 10 years when a Democrat sits on the throne using the same extensions of power Trump has created, and the Republicans are screaming that everything they are doing is illegal lol.

If you paid attentiin to American politics for decades, younwould see this trend of waves, one president does something, extends power, curtails the oppositions ability to compete, then the next on thebopposing side does the same thing, theres always the 'but this is different' newcomers tonpolitics who dont understand thenworld changes, and every new president seems uniquely bad, or uniquely oversteps, but its not real, its just the establishment long term plans coming to fruition.

As bad and an egotistical bell end Trumpnis and has been, 2016 was the first time i felt the long term establishment plan faltered for a second, i mean, before he then started to rev the engine back up and charge forward.

 

[dirty harry]

Fifa aren't exactly big on ethics and anti-corruption me thinks

WHat are the chances Trump just approached a Fifa official with a brown paper bag filled with cash, like Qatar and Saudi did?

50/50?

 

[dirty harry]

This could go badly for Trump. How long does the trial go for? Is it a show trial? If it's a proper trial what happens if he's found not guilty? Where does Maduro go then?

What trial?

 

[dirty harry]

Pro-Trump types are cooked you won't get answers that are cogent and satisfying

I wholeheartedly agree, they act as irrationally as anti Trump types, i wouldnt cook them tho

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Snip

Ill just forget you ignored my questions and absolutely comply with answering yours (despite answering these questions over and over lol). For the record, i checked, no Connan has received no sanction or reprimand outside of being criticised by Dems and media, so a final lie. I just dont know where your gal to be so vile AND be so wrong at the ssme time comes from?!

1. Of course Trump was the prime cause of Jan 6th, he was the election nominee who ran and lost, he proposed the protest, and he was irresponsible in his messaging and language, even on the day. Ive said this maybe 50 times in the last 2 years lol.

2. I think Trump was caught with classified documents, he didnt think would be an issue due to the possible hundreds of instances of politicians taking classified documents home over the last 3 decades or so (combined with hubris and his lack of interest in minor legalities when it comes to him). When he was caught, he probably thought he would be made an example of for this, due to the aggressive nature and weaponisation of organisations like the DOJ, and was advised not to pull a Joe Biden and put his hands up and play senile, but go an an agressive defence strategy, which ultimately was successful.
What he did, while illegal has a trend to be ignored en masse, and if you allow a precident like that someone as ruthless and Donald Trump will absolutely use it, as he has shown for over a decade.

You know i cant help but feel partly vindicated with Trump, hes an absolute knob, andni tried to warn people when Obama extended presidential power in loads of ways that that power would be weilded against democrats at some point, they seemed oblivious that a Republican could ever win again (and ill be honest i felt the same 2015). Ill feel just as vindicated in 5 - 10 years when a Democrat sits on the throne using the same extensions of power Trump has created, and the Republicans are screaming that everything they are doing is illegal lol.

If you paid attentiin to American politics for decades, younwould see this trend of waves, one president does something, extends power, curtails the oppositions ability to compete, then the next on thebopposing side does the same thing, theres always the 'but this is different' newcomers tonpolitics who dont understand thenworld changes, and every new president seems uniquely bad, or uniquely oversteps, but its not real, its just the establishment long term plans coming to fruition.

As bad and an egotistical bell end Trumpnis and has been, 2016 was the first time i felt the long term establishment plan faltered for a second, i mean, before he then started to rev the engine back up and charge forward.

1) And since then he has pardoned those involved, showing even in hindsight he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Also refusing to condemn death threats against your own VP, in fact studying with them, for refusing to carry out an illegal act is not simply "irresponsible".

2) You honestly want to blame Trumps criminal behaviour on Democrats and fictional weaponisation of them DoJ? Are you aware he wasn't prosecuted for having the documents originally but for his lying and refusal to hand them over? He was given multiple opportunities to hand them back with absolutely no threat of prosecution, that went on for months. To claim he acted his he did because it threat of prosecution is laughable. Other presidents have had classified documents after leaving office and no-one have been prosecuted because 1) the scale is WAY smaller than what Trump had. Honestly have you even seen the pictures of the amount of documents he had? 2) None have then obstructed attempts to get them back.

You act like somehow the DoJ was weaponised against Trump, can you name any cases that even came close to what Trump did? What we see now is real weaponisation.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

This could go badly for Trump. How long does the trial go for? Is it a show trial? If it's a proper trial what happens if he's found not guilty? Where does Maduro go then?

If he's found not guilty that becomes very interesting. I don't know enough about this either way and it's certainly believable he is guilty. It raises questions about the reach of US law too. Unless he's involved directly in the criminal acts that occurred in the USA, I struggle to see what they could charge him with. US laws don't apply in other countries.

 

[Which Tyler]

So much for the Nobel Peace Prize. Can FIFA ask for theirs back?

Honestly, it's disgusting how brazen Trump and America have behaved. Absolutely zero respect for a nation's sovereignty or international law. Imagine the condemnation if Russia or China did the same.

FFS.
Illegal, arrogant and entirely inevitable.
FFS

 

[Gavin]

 

[Ddanno]

I see we're calling an illegal abduction a "capture"

Yay Team America: World Police is back. Happy new ******* year.

 

[dirty harry]

1) And since then he has pardoned those involved, showing even in hindsight he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Also refusing to condemn death threats against your own VP, in fact studying with them, for refusing to carry out an illegal act is not simply "irresponsible".

2) You honestly want to blame Trumps criminal behaviour on Democrats and fictional weaponisation of them DoJ? Are you aware he wasn't prosecuted for having the documents originally but for his lying and refusal to hand them over? He was given multiple opportunities to hand them back with absolutely no threat of prosecution, that went on for months. To claim he acted his he did because it threat of prosecution is laughable. Other presidents have had classified documents after leaving office and no-one have been prosecuted because 1) the scale is WAY smaller than what Trump had. Honestly have you even seen the pictures of the amount of documents he had? 2) None have then obstructed attempts to get them back.

You act like somehow the DoJ was weaponised against Trump, can you name any cases that even came close to what Trump did? What we see now is real weaponisation.

1. Yes he pardoned those involved, what does that have to do with your question about whether i thought he was a primary cause of jan 6th?

You asked me a question, i answer it, it aligns with your view, however it doesnt go ferally far enough for your liking, so you create an argument based on further actions that arent directly related to your question.

You see how this is radicalisation? Not only must i agree with your pointnof view, i have to drag my agreement to the most extreme version to fully align with your rage, and anything less makes me *insert any name youve called me recently*.

2. When did i blame Trumps behaviour on anyone other than his ego, and experiences of seeing this crime go unpunished dozens of times?

He absolutely acted the way he did based on threat of prosecution, its why you dont walk into a bank and just take all the money. When you are under indictment, there is a threat of prosecutuion, thats how that works.

As i said, "he probably thought he would be made an example of for this, due to the aggressive nature and weaponisation of organisations like the DOJ, and was advised not to pull a Joe Biden" the "he probably thought" is a pretty big clue that i am kot acting like anything. It genuinely feels like you read these posts through tear filled eyes and just smash the keyboard in fury without cinsidering whats being said, i hope thats not the case. Trump has complained about weaponisation of the DOJ for years, so it would make sense for him to act like the DOJ are weaponised against him, when getting legal advice on what to do when caught breaking the law.

Trumps claims that there is an establishment and Democrat run cabal, or process that is out to get him is similarly radicalised thinking like yourself, taking mistakes and flaws the FBI and DoJ have made against him, and calling it weaponisation.

The key thing i need you to think about, is that when you take a fact, and twist it into a narrative agreeing non fact, your noy doing yourself or those who oppose Trump any favours, when you buy into manipulative content that tells you every decision Cannon made was criminal, and benefitted Trump, that they are all just criminally negligent fascists, of the like the US has never seen before, you have been coerced into a chinese whisper style peddling of that lie, the exact same way MAGA fans do the exact same thing. Youve been proven inaccurate over and over today, you can takenit on board, and undersyand that my position doesnt have to be as extreme as yours, and that we can see the same things, and your extreme implied intent you put on Trump doesnt have to be the only way of thinking, or you can accept that truth (no not your truth) and facts are just not something that leads your opinion, and thats ok, itll make you in the 95% of voters.

 

[Which Tyler]

Good luck Taiwan.
I'm afraid you're going to need it

 

[Ddanno]

1) And since then he has pardoned those involved, showing even in hindsight he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Also refusing to condemn death threats against your own VP, in fact studying with them, for refusing to carry out an illegal act is not simply "irresponsible".

2) You honestly want to blame Trumps criminal behaviour on Democrats and fictional weaponisation of them DoJ? Are you aware he wasn't prosecuted for having the documents originally but for his lying and refusal to hand them over? He was given multiple opportunities to hand them back with absolutely no threat of prosecution, that went on for months. To claim he acted his he did because it threat of prosecution is laughable. Other presidents have had classified documents after leaving office and no-one have been prosecuted because 1) the scale is WAY smaller than what Trump had. Honestly have you even seen the pictures of the amount of documents he had? 2) None have then obstructed attempts to get them back.

You act like somehow the DoJ was weaponised against Trump, can you name any cases that even came close to what Trump did? What we see now is real weaponisation.

 

[Ddanno]

Good luck Taiwan.
I'm afraid you're going to need it

Yeah Xi Jinping basically announced an invasion is happening this year

 

[TRF_Olyy]

View attachment 25286

Didn't they pardon the ex Honduran president who was convicted of the same things like a month ago

Make your mind up!

 

[dirty harry]

I see we're calling an illegal abduction a "capture"

Yay Team America: World Police is back. Happy new ******* year.

This is where the conversation around Maduro gets fascinating...

Was this an illegal act like Corbyn calls it? Or are there legalities to consider?

On the surface its cut and dry, moved into someone elses territory, grabbed the head of state, took him... illegal.

However US dont recognise Maduro, will claim hes a criminal and there is evidence of his illegal actions on the US, and may even use others comments or consent to deem they could go in and remove him.

Will be interesring to see what Urrutia says, hes called for Maduros removal previously, and is recognised by the US as headnof state. He was in Spain in exile, rumours are he has been in the US for weeks, wont that be interesting.

Who knows wtf is going on? Someone posted on another forum that they hoped there was a Noriega style stand off and story to make some movies about in 10 years lol

 

[dirty harry]

Didn't they pardon the ex Honduran president who was convicted of the same things like a month ago

Make your mind up!

Oh thats right Trump pardoned him last year lol, see if Maduro would only have played the politics game, and bought Trump a jet hed be sitting pretty right about now!

Isnt Hernandez fighting for his life now after being indicted by the Honduran AG on a host load more charges?

 

[Reiser99]

This could go badly for Trump. How long does the trial go for? Is it a show trial? If it's a proper trial what happens if he's found not guilty? Where does Maduro go then?

I guess it will be a test of the American judicial system. If he does get a fair trial, which I'm not entirely convinced he will, I imagine there will be many legal issues to deal with.

I don't see it going badly for Trump unless Maduro is found completely innocent and he's forced to apologise.

The only way it was going to go badly was if they failed, American soldiers were captured and the US had to negotiate for their release. Then Congress certainly would had scrutinised the legality of his actions.