Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

1159160162164165714

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Nixon drove the coverup. You're not the only one here that lived through Watergate. Plenty of his aides went to prison.


    Keep your revisionism to Trump. Remember that Ford pardoned Nixon.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Do you hold the view that BLM protests were nothing really and only for a few overzealous individuals were nothing to even think about?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    lol overzealous police officer. Not sure what female has to do with it but she was female. Given over 100 police officers were hospitilised that day do you think he should have stuck around to find out how peaceful this group forcing themselves through a window to get at the elected representatives. The ones shouting murder with a nice noose outside? The same ones who had been calling for violence against Pelosi, Biden and Pence beforehand and during?


    You are correct the death I was thinking of was later ruled natural though the events of that day affected. I change my statement to the "overzealous" people who hospitilised over 100 police officers.



    Other people's lies? Are you going with that with a straight face? Aside from pushing the big lie on here and supporting the man whose main constant is lying?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    As in the case of the few overzealous protestors that caused destruction of property in the capital should be prosecuted, the same should have happened with the many BLM and antifa protestors that caused destruction of property and harm from their violent actions.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse



    "But Trump" is not a good look, to signal out Trump supporters while turning a blind eye to similar events. Do you hold there should be equal justice under the law? Do you hold the hundreds of thousand of protestors across American cities that caused injury to police officers and property damage, primarily by BLM and antifa from reports, should ALL be prosecuted like the several hundred on Jan 6? In 2000 the police association noted 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured during those protests.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Did they commit federal offenses? Jurisdiction matters - local protests are a matter for the states to adjudicate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42



    So you disagree with Trumps depiction of them as a thugs, terrorists and anarchists? If you recall he was calling out governors for not stamping out the portestors. What of course you wanted him to do was simply accept that some of them get a bit overzealous but mainly they are not a problem!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Probably a couple dozen. Take a look at the outcome of many that were prosecuted in the link. The vast majority were found "Not Guilty – all charges." Sure looks like the overwhelming arrests were a waste of government time and simply a witch-hunt orchestrated against Trump supporters who merely felt they had the right to go into the "People's House" and have their voices heard.

    Guilty of "Parading in a Capitol Building" seems to the the most serious of offenses for those found guilty. Laughable, wouldn't you say?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_United_States_Capitol_attack

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    I'll say it again... those that caused destruction of property and engaged in violence should be prosecuted!!!!! Yes, I would say those that were at ALL the protests including the one on Jan 6, that were simply not where they should have been and did not participate in violence or destruction of property, should not be prosecuted.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    This is the Trump thread so in this case "But Antifa" is not a good look. i am talking about Trump because this is the Trump thread. Yes any "overzealous" protestors from BLM riots should be prosecuted however the crimes are very much not the same. One is a protest turning into a riot and the other is attempting to overturn democratic results using violence.


    Edit: There is also no but Trump. You referred to the Jan 6 violence as some protestors as being overzealous. Now you are annoyed I have referred to Jan 6.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    The vast majority of protestors on Jan 6 were not attempting to overturn the election results. They only wanted their voices heard by their 'representatives" in government. Suggesting otherwise is quite silly.


    I am not annoyed by your referring to Jan 6. I'm annoyed at the blatant hypocrisy of most here because it's Trump.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭briany


    They had no business whatsoever entering the Capitol. Not a single one of them. If they want to protest, do as the others did on the day and leave it outside.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Voices heard about what? What exactly did they want to talk to their reps about? They had their voices heard at the ballot box, and lost. But since they didn't accept that they wanted even more time to discuss it?

    And what did they expect to gain from their voices being heard? Wasn't going to change the outcome.

    They didn't want their voices heard, they wanted to get their own way. They had been convinced by Trump that the election was stolen. If ones accepts that that is what they believe, then it really isn't unreasonable that they would won't the fraud stopped and the real winner, ie Trump, declared.

    Isn't that what was really going on? Trump had told them that the election had been stolen, that indeed their voice had been silenced. So they went to the capital to correct the injustice.

    The other alternative is they didn't believe the election was stolen, in which case what exactly did they want to voice to their their reps?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    A couple of months back they were claiming that the person shot was a "young girl", so it is a bit of progress in that they have very slightly turned down the scale of irrelevance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Trump, in his speech told them to go to the Capital to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” From all accounts they wanted their Representatives to hear them that they though certifying the election was premature at this point because of all the problems and suspect behavior dealing with the election.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    The Donald Trump rally inspired mob smashed their way into the Capitol. It's vid documented on the web. And the web is forever. No matter what armchair spin someone tries to make to diminish this American constitutional crisis of January 6, 2021. I am reminded of a cat in a litter box taking a poop, then trying to cover it up with sand after. It still stinks, as all these cover-up attempts do.

    At the mob break-in front lines it was horrific what was done to many injured police officers. Many hospitalized. One was killed. Many police quit after, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Property was destroyed, as the mob broke down barriers, smashed windows, and crashed through doors. Those immediately behind the mob's front lines were not any more innocent than the driver of a bank robbery getaway car. They were accessories to the crimes being committed. They were guilty of trespassing, too. They shouted encouragement to the mob front lines. Many carried Trump flags, waving them just like the flag standard bearers in old time infantry war to encourage the violent mob front lines. The police could have handled the mob front lines, but for the great mob size behind the front lines, pushing and shoving, completely overwhelming the smaller police numbers.

    Trump and his Republican supporters claim to be a party of law and order. Claim to be in support of police. Really? Don't attempt to insult our intelligence by this pure and unadulterated (obscenity). The great number of vids that day fly in the face of those lies. Some vids on the web were taken and posted by Trump mob members, bragging about their contribution that day.

    "What does the future hold for Donald Trump?" More of the above if elected 2024. More Trump cats in litter boxes taking a poop. Then attempting to cover it up.

    Post edited by Fathom on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse



    Yes, some did smash their way in and should be prosecuted for the violence. And yes, the web is forever. You also saw the videos and pictures of security and lawmakers holding the doors open for the protesters to come on in, right? You wouldn't be selective in your outrage, would you?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    Cherry pick your way through the cat sand litter box (metaphor). Some of the sand may not have been pooped or peed on, yet. Re-elect Trump in 2024. The same Trump box will be filled then. The stink will be worse than it is today. No matter how the Trump cats try to cover it up.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    I plan on voting for DeSantis in 2024, regardless if Trump runs or not. But I support his decision to run if he wants to. He was, and would be, 50 times better than the boob who sits in the Oval Office, today.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Since Trump told them to go peacefully, then I take it you expect that Trump would not have accepted a continuation of his presidency had it been achieved by the minority of protestors who entered the Capitol on Jan 6th with the intention of overturning the original result by force.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Nope, Trump would not have accepted a continuation of his presidency without support from Congress.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭briany


    If by that you mean all 535 sitting members of Congress sitting in peaceful assembly, then OK.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Courts have ruled against Trump with regards to Jan 6th documents. Expected to be appealed (of course).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭briany


    It's basically Groundhog Day when it comes to Trump and these Jan 6th documents. Endless appeals and legal red tape. His lawyers appear to be earning their money so far.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,710 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    In America you can get as much Justice as money can buy...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Only one place left to appeal to and that is the Supreme Court. they might not even take the case.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,425 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    That's the big one - He has been given 14 days to get his case taken up by the Supreme court and given that this whole effort is about delaying you'd assume he'll wait until the last minute to actually lodge the appeal but as you say , the court could simply refuse to even take the case.

    The ruling in this latest loss is pretty clear - it says that Trump failed on all counts to even come close to showing evidence of problem with allowing the documents release.

    It's hard to see a legal reason for the Supreme court to take it on, a lot might depend on which Justice is currently on duty for the review of incoming cases.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,710 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    PowerPoint is great, you can even plan your coup attempts on it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    There is no way that Trump didn't plan to take control if he lost.

    He laid the groundwork for claiming it would be stolen months in advance because he knew there was a distinct chance he could lose. On that basis, he definitely planned on how he could steal it if he lost.

    The idea that he did it for any other reason but to hold onto power in defiance of the will of the people is absolutely and utterly absurd.

    He is no different that a wannabe dictator and I'd challenge anyone to think otherwise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Notobtuse "Nope, Trump would not have accepted a continuation of his presidency without support from Congress."

    So I think we can all be pretty satisfied that Everlast is wrong. Clearly Trump, and indeed the insurrectionists, were simply out to have their voices heard by their local representatives. While it may LOOK like he was planning on ignoring the election results, what he really was doing was something, context, something Biden is senile, HC!



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,425 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Trump will never "accept" a loss ever for anything.

    He will always lie and make excuses to justify to himself why he couldn't have lost and why he's awesome.

    Far more worrying right now are his ongoing activities to ensure that if he runs in 2024 that he'll get the "right" answer this time when he comes looking for results to be over-turned.

    He and his proxies are forcing through changes all the way down to County election board level to ensure that he has his cronies in the key positions of power.

    And the GOP are perfectly happy to let him do it as evidenced by the fact that only 1 GOP rep voted for the act just passed in the house to limit the ability of the President to abuse their position.

    They are perfectly happy for the President to be able to usurp the structure of the State so they can win.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭briany


    To illustrate the depths of Trump's abnormal psychology, here's Penn Gillette talking about what Trump is really like. Something he learned when he appeared on a season of Celebrity Apprentice. The whole clip is interesting, but specifically at 2:35 he talks about Trump going into a rant about a random blog he'd read on the Internet which claimed he hadn't sold some property for enough money. Even a random blog on the Internet criticising Trump was something Trump could not let go of, and had to vociferously point out that he'd made a profit on the sale. Trump must win every argument and dispute, no matter how small. No matter how insignificant to the course of his life. And if he can't win the argument, it's like you say - he must proclaim that something is crooked, that something is going against him, that there is a conspiracy of some sort. He has never been able to admit simple defeat or that he was simply wrong. Not ever. The only way I imagine him doing so, would maybe be to save himself from a significant stretch in prison, but even then, he'd contradict whatever he said after getting off.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭Hoop66





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,710 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    It's hilarious how his sycophants portray him as some sort of alpha male when the reality is he's so weak, he can't admit being wrong about anything ever. Imagine idolising someone that pathetic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Interesting. #2xIMPOTUS not having any kind of a sense of humor is old news. Him not enjoying music at all is news to me, frankly that seems really weird and 'out there.' No wonder he shies away from psychological evaluation, there's all kinds of weird in that man



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    There is zero point in debunking the nonsense you post on here.

    Whenever anyone confronts you with facts, you retreat for a few days only to re-emerge with more of the same. It is almost as if you go back into your echo chambers and replenish your supply of right wing talking points.

    Trump and his cronies attempted to overturn the will of the people on multiple fronts. The fact that you don't think this happened, or that there should be consequences speaks volumes.

    I swear, if Trump had of introduced prima nocta, I have no doubts his zealots would happily hand over their significant others.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    What tactics in particular do you have an issue with? Are they acting illegally or outside of their powers?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    It is my contention, as should be everyone's, that when those in control use their powers to do things against people's rights guaranteed under our Constitution, they are engaging in illegal activities.


    And as I had mentioned, the committee is violating a person, who has not been accused of a crime, of her First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Her name is Caroline Wren.

    Post edited by notobtuse on

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Try harder. You're just expressing an opinion. Leroy asked for evidence or proof, which you never. Ever. Provide.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    What if it's just a conversation between two adults?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,954 ✭✭✭Tippex


    You know by now that Noto’s opinion is proof enough



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    clearly you have no idea of the powers of a congressional committee.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,497 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    No, it's not, but in the same vein it's shouldn't be dismissed merely because the opinion and information came from me, either.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    You might laugh at these clowns but with the amount of right wing militias only waiting for the sign to mobilise the US could be in a dangerous place in two years time.


    Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and the former White House advisor Steve Bannon floated an idea that an "army of patriots" and "shock troops" should be prepared to take over the government if former President Donald Trump were to run and win in 2024.

    During Thursday's episode of Bannon's "War Room" podcast, he and Gaetz outlined their plan if Trump should win.

    Trump has not yet publicly announced he is running in 2024.

    "People didn't like that Donald Trump raised his voice, but sometimes you gotta raise your voice to raise a ruckus and to raise an army of patriots who love this country and will fight for her," Gaetz said.

    "We're going to operationalize the performance to go right after the people who are imposing the vaccine mandates, who are enriching themselves, and who are selling out the country," Gaetz added.

    Bannon then went on to suggest to a nodding Gaetz that there should be a "theory of governing" before elaborating on what his plan would be if Trump were to be president again.

    "It's fresh and it's new. This is Trumpism in power. That's when we went to the 4,000 shock troops we have to have that's going to man the government. Get them ready now. Right?" Bannon said. "We're going to hit the beach with the landing teams and the beachhead teams and all that nomenclature they use when President Trump wins in 2024 — or before."



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse



    You've never had bone spurs on the bottom of your feet, have you? I do on my right heel, like Trump. I can tell you this... No military person would want me on their squad because I would only be slowing and dragging them down because of what happens from long walks, or running, or carrying heave loads for periods at a time. The pain is such you can no longer put pressure on it. That IS why it's a reason to be exempt from military service.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    trumps father paid a doctor to lie about trumps "bone spurs".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    "You've never had bone spurs on the bottom of your feet, have you? I do on my right heel, like Trump."


    This man's devotion knows no bounds!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement