Trump is so bad he shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. It's embarrassing. He even got laughed at in the UN. Worst public speaker I can recall and I've heard a lot of them. GWB wasn't great and LBJ hard to understand on a good day. Biden's somewhere in the middle. But Trump is something specially bad, at best you get a few phrases you can understand, most of the time it's incoherent drivel.
The few Biden speeches about Democracy have been great and are always well received. Have you actually sat through a Trump speech in its entirety? More enjoyable to get a root canal sans anesthetic.
Edited. Went off topic .
Trump likely to serve second term in office. Although they are trying everything possible to stop the American public having the opportunity to elect him to office again.
By "they" I assume you mean Trump and team breaking the laws.
I would love to know from Trumpeters if they think that's it's A: possible for Trump to break the law, ever? B: if it is possible, is it possible for him to get a fair trail? C: what would have to happen for the Trumpeters to consider the trial to be fair? And lastly D: if everything above happened, and he was found to be guilty, would they denounce him?
Well the answer to A would be no its the liberals weaponising the so called law to hunt Lord Trumpy.
So alad that renders the rest of your points moot. The Cult of Trump/MAGA is all consuming
Like the last time trump's running for president and they elected him.... Oh wait....hang on.... Nope, he lost (by his own definition) a landslide
The supreme court justices won't allow him on the ballot. Not because of his past but because they are afraid of the undemocratic mob on the other side.
The same mob who confronts politicians in public, who release home addresses of judges etc
In Ireland this mob would no doubt be labelled far right. In the US they are just democrat supporters.
Care to back up your post with some facts, or informed opinion?
Trump could kill someone on 5th Avenue and not lose voters. He's said this. He knew then what only dawned on others later - there is no law Trump's base will put before him. They want HIM to be the law.
I notice there is still not a single Trump on here supporter who has been able to reasonably explain how he really won the 2020 election despite losing every court case but one (over a technical matter). The evidence was everywhere, they said, but none of it of the kind that withstood serious legal review. Huh.... Anyone willing to come on here and have a go? I don't think so.
They know it's bullshiiit, but they don't care. The only value that Trump and his followers place on democratic norms is what of them can be used to attain power. Trump will accept not a single election he loses under ANY circumstance, and what that amounts to is no respect for the transfer of power and rule by consent.
But apparently Biden being a bit doddery is worse.
Drivel
Given much of the cohort that attended Lindell’s «Cyber Symposium» I’d be surprised if most of the owners of these Lindell devices have more than a superficial knowledge of what WiFi actually is or how to identify the different types of network.
I fully expect them to pick up «Billy Bob’s iPhone (3)» on the scanner and use that as an excuse to kick off about China, or Venezuela or Trinidad & Tobango (makes about as much sense).
Undemocratic mob?
I remember an undemocratic mob. They were so annoyed that their candidate lost the election that they ranted and raved and ultimately in the end their candidate actually riled them up and encouraged them to try to overthrow the democratic Government itself to keep him in power.
Do you know what was written on the flags of this undemocratic mob?
Here’s a hint:
But no…the Dems who actually certified his win in 2017….are undemocratic.
Genuinely confusing reading this post given the fact that the insurrection was something Trump egged on. The reason he did so was because he was trying to override a democratic election result...
How many of those supreme court judges were appointed by trump and/or are Conservative?
Come back to us when your feet touch the soil of the land of logic and fact
Who is trying to stop who vote?
I doubt that will happen. Seems like it's more about riling people up.
The fact there is an ad for Trump gold on screen while he is talking about people being as crooked as hell 😁
No, its not really funny. This is what 'freedom of speech' gets you.
So if we assume for a minute (a very short minute) that you are making serious points, how is democracy served by individuals 'staying in voting booths', jumping to conclusions about 'bags of crap' and engaging in some sort of physical altercation to interfere with the voting process? Haven't they been there before?
Thing is, he's inventing fraudulent votes. There is no major voter fraud issue and the only efforts to engage in fraud or manipulate the result was by the Trump side.
Bit telling that you're avoiding mentioning the fact that Trump is the guy who attempted to overturn an election result with a violent mob.
Question for you, would you agree Trump lost in 2020? Cause a lot of your statements and suspiciously like you buy into the rhetoric.
Watch out for bags of cr@p....
What's Trump referring to, there?
Need to work on postcount and let the account age for a few months. Try to be more subtle. 3/10.
The state of this, Christ almighty.
0.1/10 for effort
Here's how crooked the 2020 election was - a Trump partisan recount was conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona, and they ended up increasing the margin of Biden's victory there by 360.
You know who was on Epstein's list?
Dis guy (pictured mocking a disabled person) 👇️
You know who wasn't on Epstein's list? Dis guy (pictured not being on Epstein's list) 👇️
This always piques my curiosity. What difference does it make if a load of people on the east of the Atlantic "get behind" the rapist's latest ploy to undermine democracy? Unless you're sending him money, the virtue signalling here makes no difference to anything.
Dave's been here before.
In a bit more serious commentary, a good writeup on Slate by Lithwick and Stern (two lawyers, one a former circuit judge's clerk)
Personally I think the court will weasel its way out of this saying insurrection wasn't proven in court. But, that then puts the Smith case in the crosshairs (where it's been for awhile) and, if it is decided quickly, might mean another state pops up with 'he's a proven insurrectionist so we're banning him from the ballot.'
Or, the SCOTUS could grow a few and really decide, one way or another. Doubtful, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. As long as the likes of Barret, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are on the court, though, and TFG is rabbitting on about his latest Quid Pro Quo with Kavanaugh, though, they're damned.
And of course, if the Court says he's an insurrectionist, well, can't let him get away with that in a vacuum. Off to the pokey!
Thing is: is there any argument that with a locked in job for life, what's in it for Trump's SC picks to do him a solid? They got what they want, are basically now untouchable (hasn't no sitting Justice been booted out ever, or close to?), have already junked the biggest Federal item the conservatives detested in Roe v Wade; Trump's job is arguably done, notwithstanding the Project 2025 threat.
I just wonder if Trump, a man infamous for never sharing the loyalty he demands from others, will not receive the fealty he expects. The SCs have nothing to fear from him.
This is the same institution that one day just decided to roll back women's rights. On that basis, I wouldn't play down its capacity to fan the flames given some of the people Trump put there.
In terms of motivation, there's a fear of reprisal from the MAGA loons and maybe a sense of commitment to the MAGA cause. They're immune from consequences so there's nothing to lose.
