Expel Wayward Republicans from the Senate?

[Pat Hartman]

Why the special pleadings for Donald Trump. There is a lot more evidence for sexual assault by Trump than for Clinton.

Wealthy, attractive men rarely resort to attacking women. I'm pretty sure Ivana disavowed that third-party story. Bill was poor and he married Hil because her family had the money and political clout to move him up in politics. He got what he wanted from her.

 

[RogerCooper]

You're quoting an ungodly mixed-up mixture of anonymous sources, civil trials, and things people said about him.
There just isn't enough hard evidence if there was he'd have been in jail a long time ago.
Every president has issues but we have to vote for one of the two. You can spend all day pointing out Trump's flaws, or potential flaws, or flaws someone said they saw or heard, but it seems pointless

Donald Trump would have Manhattan DA Morgenthau over for dinner every week. DA Vance received large campaign contributions, while he ran unopposed. Paying off public officials helped.

There is a difference between having issues and serial rapist. There is no need to vote for a candidate who does not meet minimum standards. There is plenty wrong with Trump other than committing violent crimes.

 

[RogerCooper]

Wealthy, attractive men rarely resort to attacking women. I'm pretty sure Ivana disavowed that third-party story. Bill was poor and he married Hil because her family had the money and political clout to move him up in politics. He got what he wanted from her.

Do you have some evidence for that statement? Bill Cosby was a wealthy TV star who kept on drugging woman and raping them.

Ivana didn't exactly disavow the story as part of the settlement.

Of course most men, wealthy or poor, don't commit ra**.

 

[Isaac]

@RogerCooper Here's probably a better way to say what I think, compared to what I've been saying: I think people in general are focused too much on the person (their past, their actions) compared to what they would do as President. Sure, I consider it to some extent, but to a large extent, probably the majority of the consideration, is what the person would do as President. It may bother me to have someone accused of sexual assault as president, but it bothers me much more if someone would indoctrinate children with sexually perverted (or sexually-ANYTHING, just sex in general) at a very young age which has never been done before in our schools.

In other words, pretending for a moment that I know the future and know what someone would do (so partly hypothetically, partly it's reality):
"I'd rather have a President who raped someone but was going to teach children reading, writing and arithmetic and keep them safe compared to someone who'd never raped anyone and was going to deluge those children with sexual-themed teachings of all stripes and pervert their innocent minds".

Crazy as it may sound, when voting for a major political figure, I have to be disciplined and make myself focus on what they'll do in the future rather than what they've done in the past. Does it bother me somewhat that he's been accused of things? A little, though I kinda doubt the most serious things actually happened - but despite it bothering me, I prefer what he'll do as President to what Harris would have done.

 

[Isaac]

Donald Trump would have Manhattan DA Morgenthau over for dinner every week. DA Vance received large campaign contributions, while he ran unopposed. Paying off public officials helped.

There is a difference between having issues and serial rapist. There is no need to vote for a candidate who does not meet minimum standards. There is plenty wrong with Trump other than committing violent crimes.

Roger setting aside all our differences, can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me you believe Jean Carroll's patently absurd story???
Just gut feeling, do you believe it. That Trump, a millionaire with as many women as he wanted, walked into a Macy's one day and, a woman walked into his dressing room (that's pretty weird right there), and he started just dry humping her, knowing Prison would be the result? Then she stayed quiet about it for a million years and brought it to light when he ran for President? Do you really believe that??! Honestly now.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Donald Trump would have Manhattan DA Morgenthau over for dinner every week. DA Vance received large campaign contributions, while he ran unopposed. Paying off public officials helped.

Trump said as much when he was running in 2016. It's how the system works. I don't like it. I believe it is wrong for politicians to offer favors to donors but I challenge you to find an honest politician who takes NO donations above a small dollar amount from an individual donor and who takes NO PAC money at all. Bill and Hil came to one of Trump's weddings. Probably Marla Maples but it could have been Melania. Trump donated to both Republicans and Democrats because he never knew who he was going to have to lean on.

FIX the system. Don't criticize only Trump for taking advantage of it. That is just plain hypocritical.

It was Bergdorf's and it was her dressing room in the ladies lingerie department. One thing the poor people don't realize because they probably don't shop in Bergdorf's is that Trump was a well known figure in Manhattan at the time the event supposedly took place. Not that Caroll could provide actual details. They weren't necessary in this case because she was accusing Trump. Think about it. Ask your wife. Ask your mother. Bergdorf's is a pretty fancy department store. When "important" people come in, personal shoppers attach themselves to help out their clients. And, this is most important because certainly if the store were busy, Trump could have gotten in without acquiring a helper but do you really think that a store like that would tolerate men lurking in the ladies lingerie department? Do you really think the women who could afford to shop there would tolerate random, single men, lurking in that department? My guess is a guy, alone just handling the merchandise or lurking would get a visit from security asking him to move along within 5 minutes, assuming a clerk from the department hadn't been able to get control of him. This story turns out to be straight out of an episode of Law and Order but it made for salacious reading. And finally ask yourself two more questions.
1. Wasn't it convenient that the NY legislature temporarily changed a law that allowed this case to be brought even though it was past the time limit? The law change had an expiration and so it had to be used within a year. The case could not be brought today.
2. Who paid for Caroll's very expensive legal team?

 

[RogerCooper]

@RogerCooper Here's probably a better way to say what I think, compared to what I've been saying: I think people in general are focused too much on the person (their past, their actions) compared to what they would do as President. Sure, I consider it to some extent, but to a large extent, probably the majority of the consideration, is what the person would do as President. It may bother me to have someone accused of sexual assault as president, but it bothers me much more if someone would indoctrinate children with sexually perverted (or sexually-ANYTHING, just sex in general) at a very young age which has never been done before in our schools.

In other words, pretending for a moment that I know the future and know what someone would do (so partly hypothetically, partly it's reality):
"I'd rather have a President who raped someone but was going to teach children reading, writing and arithmetic and keep them safe compared to someone who'd never raped anyone and was going to deluge those children with sexual-themed teachings of all stripes and pervert their innocent minds".

Crazy as it may sound, when voting for a major political figure, I have to be disciplined and make myself focus on what they'll do in the future rather than what they've done in the past. Does it bother me somewhat that he's been accused of things? A little, though I kinda doubt the most serious things actually happened - but despite it bothering me, I prefer what he'll do as President to what Harris would have done.

So you would turn a blind eye to violent crime in return for illegal tax increases combined with high deficits. That is a strange trade-off. Why would you trust a politician's promises over their actual record?

What do you think that the President does? The Federal government is not responsible for the education system. Trump promised to abolish the Federal Department of Education (not that he will actually do it anymore than he did during his first turn). If you have problems with public education, speak to your state legislators and school board.

Why would Trump assault Carroll? He has always had a strong sense of impunity. You saw on-screen in the Access Hollywood tape where he said he could get away anything. He boasted of entering the dressing room at the Miss Teen USA pageant. There was a reason he had the DA over for dinner every week.

 

[Steve R.]

The Federal government is not responsible for the education system.

That is a misstatement. The federal government encourages forces compliance by manipulating grant programs, training sessions that promote certain policies such as DEI, using the Justice Department to use the excuse of "racism" for force compliance, a new twist allowing men to compete as women thereby violating Title 9, requiring compliance with certain programs. If a school district does not wish to comply, they get left behind (as in no $$$$ and potential lawsuits).

 

[RogerCooper]

The Federal government is not responsible for the education system. Under the Constitution, that is State responsibility. If Trump was an actual Republican, he would abolish the Department of Education.

You should no mandate to force "trans" competitors onto teams. A believer in freedom would want to have sports leagues and teams make their own decisions.

 

[Isaac]

So you would turn a blind eye to violent crime in return for illegal tax increases combined with high deficits. That is a strange trade-off. Why would you trust a politician's promises over their actual record?

I didn't say I would turn a blind eye to "anything", nor did I say I'd trust their promises over their actual record.
I'm positing that in the hypothetical situation where I know or believe I know what they'll do, then yes, what they'll do is more important than what they've done. It's not strange, it's just common sense. We don't elect them for the memories, we elect them for what they will do.

 

[Isaac]

That is a misstatement. The federal government encourages forces compliance by manipulating grant programs, training sessions that promote certain policies such as DEI, using the Justice Department to use the excuse of "racism" for force compliance, a new twist allowing men to compete as women thereby violating Title 9, requiring compliance with certain programs. If a school district does not wish to comply, they get left behind (as in no $$$$ and potential lawsuits).

Exactly. The federal gov may not supposed to be in charge of education, but all state monies that are received from the feds (in some cases up to a third of their budget), come with random strings attached, thus, the feds exert tons of influence over education.

 

[Isaac]

You should no mandate to force "trans" competitors onto teams. A believer in freedom would want to have sports leagues and teams make their own decisions

If only we didn't already have a law protecting women's sports, that would be true.

 

[RogerCooper]

You were calling for Republicans to be expelled from the Senate for not support Trump. And the only the reason that you have given is the question of "trans" athletes of women's sports teams. We are running a budget deficit of 7% of the GDP. Inflation is accelerating again. Trump is a violent criminal. He has trying to hurt the economy with trade restrictions. What is the important issue here?

 

[Isaac]

No, not me, you may be thinking of Steve or Pat. Saying Trump is a violent criminal is laughable, though, so I will take the opportunity to say that
And anything that deliberately confuses the mind and ESPECIALLY the sexuality of innocent children becomes very nearly the #1 priority, as well it should. Just like apprehending child sex criminals is a #1 priority.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

The Federal government is not responsible for the education system. Under the Constitution, that is State responsibility. If Trump was an actual Republican, he would abolish the Department of Education.

You should no mandate to force "trans" competitors onto teams. A believer in freedom would want to have sports leagues and teams make their own decisions.

Trump is going to shut down the department of Education.

 

[RogerCooper]

Trump is going to shut down the department of Education.

He didn't shut it down in his first term. If he wants to shut it down, he didn't need to appoint a new Secretary of Education. And he is already using the Department of Education to tell schools what to do.

 

[Steve R.]

Trump is a violent criminal.

Come on now!!! The Democrats have been using lawfare for 8+ years to get Trump. Democrats are practicing disgusting third world politics, lock-up your political opponents. The ends justify the means. You've been watching too much CNN. Trump is simply reestablishing normal law.

 

[RogerCooper]

Trump just pardoned violent rioters who assaulted cops. Is that normal law?

And yes, Trump got away with violent crimes for years.

 

[Isaac]

And yes, Trump got away with violent crimes for years.

Are you sure? Did you witness Trump committing a violent crime?

 

[Isaac]

Trump just pardoned violent rioters who assaulted cops. Is that normal law?

They had been grossly over-sentenced and had already served time. What they ended up serving including considering Trump's pardon ended up being about appropriate, yes - normal law if they hadn't been Republicans standing before the sentencing judge. Trump restored a total amount of time served that was appropriate in the first place.

The only thing I'd have changed is

1) I'd have done sentence commutations for some of them - to send the message that 'they were right to sentence you, but they over-sentenced you so now you're done serving'

I mean 20 years seditious conspiracy for a guy who wasn't even at the protest on J6? ridiculous. And numerous other ridiculous over-sentencing and over-charging