Trump vs. Biden debate

[Eight Legger]

Ummm... President Trump was acting within his official capacity as President. He is immune from any prosecution.

Trump v. United States (2024) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

President Biden is now free to hang all members of the Trump campaign, including Trump himself, firebomb their headquarters and booby trap the car engines of MAGA Republicans in Congress. And guess what? You can’t do a damn thing to him if he does.

 

[KE Spider]

You know. I know, this is a gross distortion of the ruling. Sadly, many of our fellow citizens will drink swill similar to this.

The ruling was not a surprise. It mirrors how the official acts of a President have been handled since the nation's founding. To rule otherwise would result in lawfare on steroids regardless of the President's party.

A commonsense ruling being spun into something it is not. Part of the on going quest to delegitimize SCOTUS bc their view of the Constitution does not comport to the Left's. Funny. Recall seeing billboards as a kid saying "Impeach Earl Warren". Same sentiment expressed by both far ends of the political spectrum. Commonsense resides in the middle.

 

[Eight Legger]

Literally Trump’s own attorney suggested it would be legal to do this very type of thing. Do you think Biden should have the right to be above the law and do whatever he wants? Should Trump? Should anyone? This is EXACTLY what the ruling was about. Read up on the Enabling Act of Nazi Germany and see where we’re headed.

 

[Long Time Spider Fan]

You know. I know, this is a gross distortion of the ruling. Sadly, many of our fellow citizens will drink swill similar to this.

The ruling was not a surprise. It mirrors how the official acts of a President have been handled since the nation's founding. To rule otherwise would result in lawfare on steroids regardless of the President's party.

A commonsense ruling being spun into something it is not. Part of the on going quest to delegitimize SCOTUS bc their view of the Constitution does not comport to the Left's. Funny. Recall seeing billboards as a kid saying "Impeach Earl Warren". Same sentiment expressed by both far ends of the political spectrum. Commonsense resides in the middle.

Sorry, there is nothing "in the middle" about the Supreme Court saying a President can convince his VP to try to overthrow an election and convince state officials to "find votes" by calling each of those an official act. And it will be fine for a President to take bribes from foreign officials, nominees and those seeking pardons. The Founders are turning over in their graves, they tried to do everything to prevent this country from being ruled by a dictatorial criminal.

 

[urfan1]

IF trump wins, I wonder if we will ever know how much money he makes from selling Ambassadorships and other appointments, Even worse selling our secrets and giving favorable deals to other countries.

 

[KE Spider]

Like you guys...a lot, but when it comes to governance and politics find you absolutely blinded by hatred. Don't let it cloud your good judgment.

This decision would have been the same regardless of which party's President brought it. It wasn't about Trump, it was about good governance. If every Presidential decision or Executive action is subject to criminal court challenge by the minority, whomever they may be, the Nation would be dead in the water. This is the way we have operated for over 200 years. Not breaking new ground here just defining what has always been assumed.

 

[urfan1]

Like you guys...a lot, but when it comes to governance and politics find you absolutely blinded by hatred. Don't let it cloud your good judgment.

This decision would have been the same regardless of which party's President brought it. It wasn't about Trump, it was about good governance. If every Presidential decision or Executive action is subject to criminal court challenge by the minority, whomever they may be, the Nation would be dead in the water. This is the way we have operated for over 200 years. Not breaking new ground here just defining what has always been assumed.

How were 45 other Presidents able to perform the job without issue? I like you and enjoy your comments, but you've been drinking the DJT Kool-Aid.

 

[KE Spider]

How were 45 other Presidents able to perform the job without issue? I like you and enjoy your comments, but you've been drinking the DJT Kool-Aid.

Do not support DJT or Biden. Don't have a dog in this hunt. My vote will be 'wasted", but refuse to vote for either for different reasons. Hate to appear as sometime defending Trump, just believe both sides of the story should be told.

Answer to the question you pose is, because the previous 45 Presidents were never confronted by this issue nor a hate filled mob blinded to distort the law to take out an opponent. The same gang that believed that individual states could bar a presidential candidate. Off the reservation positions, not supported by law, reason or common sense. Hate driven.

 

[Gallipoli]

How were 45 other Presidents able to perform the job without issue? I like you and enjoy your comments, but you've been drinking the DJT Kool-Aid.

Nixon and Clinton faced similar legal issues. Clinton had the chance to take out Osama Bin Laden. He was afraid of the legal ramnifications. The Trump vs. US case was just an extension of the Nixon litigation, post-watergate. Wilson and FDR had physical issues similar to Biden.

 

[Spiderwiz]

In Nixon's case, Republican lawmakers held him to account and forced the resignation. The current crop of Republican politicians (I cannot in good faith call them lawmakers) kissed Trump's, ahem, ring and said atta boy. Sadly, Nixon's actions were "official" in the eyes of today's court.

 

[KE Spider]

Nixon's actions were "official" in the eyes of today's court.

Not what the decision said at all. Not even remotely close. Not saying to tune into Fox, but tune off MSNBC.

 

[Gallipoli]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), the former House speaker, said on MSNBC: “I think it’s a legitimate question to say, is this an episode or is this a condition? When people ask that question, it’s completely legitimate—of both candidates.”

 

[Gallipoli]

Obama vaporized an American citizen through a drone strike in Yemen. Obama needed the immunity, as well as Trump.

 

[KE Spider]

Correct. Denied him due process. Shhhh. They don't want to hear this and won't on MSNBC.

 

[Long Time Spider Fan]

Do not support DJT or Biden. Don't have a dog in this hunt. My vote will be 'wasted", but refuse to vote for either for different reasons. Hate to appear as sometime defending Trump, just believe both sides of the story should be told.

Answer to the question you pose is, because the previous 45 Presidents were never confronted by this issue nor a hate filled mob blinded to distort the law to take out an opponent. The same gang that believed that individual states could bar a presidential candidate. Off the reservation positions, not supported by law, reason or common sense. Hate driven.

Hate driven? Do you not think Trump tried to overthrow our government? Is it not true that Trump took classified documents to his residence/country club, turned over a few after repeated asking for them, then lied and said he had no other classified documents in his possession? My understanding is that the FBI found quite a few classified documents after his sworn affidavit that he had none. If he had simply turned them all over when asked, he would not have been prosecuted. But I'm sure Trump wanted the documents for some reason, probably to sell them to another country or show them off to some of the billionaires he hangs around with. No other Presidents have tried to overthrow our government nor lied about having classified documents after being given every chance to turn them over, but if you think he was prosecuted because of hate, you keep watching Fox.

 

[KE Spider]

Actually, I alternate between CNN, MSNBC and Fox. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of their slated reports.

Can't support Trump precisely because of January 6. His refusal to accept the voters voice and promotion of what I consider a false narrative on a "stolen election" are a bridge too far for me. As to policy and record, comparing his to Biden, the Trumpster wins hands down. Blindfold someone, leave out the names, read them the statistics, and Trump would swamp the President.

If all hell broke out and there was a 3 AM call to the President, would you want the Biden we saw at the debate making decisions? Not sure I would want Trump making decisions either, but at least he is cognitively capable of assessing the situation.

 

[urfan1]

I believe I have posted this before, but I lost all respect for DJT approximately 30 years ago when I happened to hear his interview on the Howard Stern show. First he bragged that he had lots of women, they wanted him because of his money, upon being questioned about those that didn't volunteer, he said he got what he wanted with alcohol and when that did not work he would have to get rough. In short he made it clear he got what he wanted, he would not be refused.

 

[Spiderwiz]

Not what the decision said at all. Not even remotely close. Not saying to tune into Fox, but tune off MSNBC.

Nixon worked through his AG and other officials in the White House. See John Dean’ s comments and opinion.

BTW, I never watch MSNBC.

 

[Gallipoli]

It is crazy that Democrats are suppressing any dissent from inside their own party. Joe Manchin was going to call for Biden to withdraw. Then Dems turned up the heat.

“Nobody wants to be the first one to knife Julius Caesar,” one Democratic Party official said.

Manchin’s reversal illustrates Democrats’ rapid tamping down of internal dissent over the 81-year-old Biden remaining their presumptive nominee as the campaign and party leaders argue that only the president and his family can decide his political future. Urging drastic action before examining post-debate polling is unwise, party leaders have argued, and Democrats are aware that being the first prominent Democratic official to do so could come with a political cost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/02/election-2024-campaign-updates/

 

[Gallipoli]

Want to beat Trump, then Joe can't be your guy. Said this months ago here. To run him is elder abuse.

I am concerned about Biden's health. He is under a tremendous amount of pressure. The strain will only weaken him and I believe will endanger his life.

 

[urfan1]

It is crazy that Democrats are suppressing any dissent from inside their own party. Joe Manchin was going to call for Biden to withdraw. Then Dems turned up the heat.

“Nobody wants to be the first one to knife Julius Caesar,” one Democratic Party official said.

Manchin’s reversal illustrates Democrats’ rapid tamping down of internal dissent over the 81-year-old Biden remaining their presumptive nominee as the campaign and party leaders argue that only the president and his family can decide his political future. Urging drastic action before examining post-debate polling is unwise, party leaders have argued, and Democrats are aware that being the first prominent Democratic official to do so could come with a political cost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/02/election-2024-campaign-updates/

Like the Rs tamp down internal dissent about Donald?

 

[Wood Hall]

Nixon and Clinton faced similar legal issues. Clinton had the chance to take out Osama Bin Laden. He was afraid of the legal ramnifications. The Trump vs. US case was just an extension of the Nixon litigation, post-watergate. Wilson and FDR had physical issues similar to Biden.

How convenient of you to overlook Reagan, who was totally out to lunch for much of his second term.

And Manchin is no longer a Democrat. Why should anyone in the party listen to a thing that moron says?

 

[KE Spider]

Were it not for Manchin's opposition, the Dems would have poured huge more sums of borrowed money on an already overheated economy. Did the Party a favor. Without him, inflation would have been much higher than we have seem and continue to see.

 

[Spiderwiz]

Please do not forget the Republicans (Trump most certainly) added to the deficit with a focus on tax cuts without the willingness to slash spending. Both parties have their own form of bread & circuses. One raises taxes and spends more and the other cuts taxes and either maintains spending or raises it as well. It all comes down to an unwillingness to come clean with the public re the need for sacrifices to get the fiscal house in order. Of course, getting reelected while being honest is hard as only a small subset of voters would buy it.

 

[KE Spider]

Fair assessment.

 

[Gallipoli]

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.