The Cult of Trump

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2022 7:00:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 2, 2022 17:06:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And if he didn't what?

Did you forget the documents never, ever belonged to trump. They belonged to the U.S. government. trump took the documents to mar-a-lago and was hiding them as a private citizen.

The question was if he pass them along. Not if he had the documents. Yes he is not supposed to have them. I is still unclear if any are still classified. I'm not condoning anything if he is guilty i'm saying the facts are not in, news headlines are not facts. I still would contend to say he has acess to a multitude of classified material in 4 years if he wanted to turn traitor

the president is not authorized to declassify SCIF documents.  it takes permission of the DHS secretary to do that.  i doubt he gave it.

but you are right, we don't KNOW that, yet.  but we will.

[tbop77]

Sept 3, 2022 7:03:39 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2022 6:44:54 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

I think you have it all backwards.  It's conservatives that don't give a shit about....well, anything anymore.  And they are getting what they deserve, they had their chance after the last stunt he pulled...inciting a riot to overturn an election.  They have proven to me they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who could care less about this country.  

I didn't trust Trump when he got caught lying about a meeting with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign to get dirt on Hillary.  First, he LIED and said he didn't know anything about it, then...he LIED again and said it was about adoption.  I have to wonder how many people he "hired" when he was in office that was like Rex Tilerson, who had to often tell him, "you can't do that, it's illegal"  Well, and you know, once someone told him NO, they were fired.  

You think "they just don't want him to run"   I hope he does run.  I hope conservatives have to defend more and more of his actions.  I hope they get their gut full of that idiot.   

I don't see anything where he incited the riots. He never told them to break into the capitol. The impeachment should never have happened just another scared democrat stunt. I'm not going to comment about anything with Hillary.

I'm sure you don't, there are none so blind as they who will not see.  I noticed several GOP lawmakers gave speeches that he was to blame.  One was yours as a matter of fact, did you see the speech Gramham gave, he said he was out?  Well, until he wasn't.  
Sucking up to this idiot is the scared GOP stunt that I never dreamed I'd ever see in my lifetime.  I thought they were all about taking responsibility for your actions, law and order...

[tbop77]

I believe he won't be happy till he gets a civil war started.  


Trump on his Twitter knockoff Truth Social suggested that Biden's speech with two Marines standing behind him was a threat to use military force.



"If you look at the words and meaning of the awkward and angry Biden speech tonight, he threatened America, including with the possible use of military force," Trump wrote. "He must be insane, or suffering from late stage dementia!"

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/late-stage-dementia-trump-erupts-on-truth-social-over-joe-biden-s-maga-takedown/ar-AA11nPu2?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f94508e57f684641858a727cda20faf1

[djAdvocate]

i think the most damning thing about J6 was not the fact that he welcomed it, but that as it was happening, he did nothing to discourage it.

that constitutes malicious/gross negligence, imo.  i am sure i am not alone:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, there has been a legal standard for this since at least the times of Rome:


Roman lawyers had an axiom that gross negligence amounts to an intentional wrong, or culpa lata dolo aequiparatur.

[tbop77]

Sept 3, 2022 7:35:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the most damning thing about J6 was not the fact that he welcomed it, but that as it was happening, he did nothing to discourage it.

that constitutes malicious/gross negligence, imo.  i am sure i am not alone:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

You mean sitting there happy to see them fighting for me, me, me?  If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about him, I don't know what will.  

And I hope Biden keeps calling him and his supporters out every day!  

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 5:25:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 2, 2022 14:29:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am not comfortable giving the federal bureaucracy veto power over who I can or can't vote for to become president.

then petition the government to overturn term limits.

if he is found guilty of espionage, he can be barred from office.  it is in the law.  i would suggest that you deal with that fact as you have learned to deal with term limits.

First of all, I think the Candidates for President should be required to pass the background check for the highest Security Level as a pre-condition to running for office.

I was referring to this precondition being created. FWIW, the 22nd Amendment was not an act of the federal bureaucracy. Also, a criminal conviction wouldn't be one either.

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 5:38:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 2, 2022 16:31:11 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A "trained group of experts" are persons. I understand that it is good to have faith in such groups. I just don't have absolute faith in them. I think that someone answerable to the citizenry should have the final say.

final say over WHAT?
...

Everything. Whether it is the President/governor, the federal/state legislative branch, or direct citizen vote, I think the final say should be such hands.

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 7:19:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2022 7:00:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

The question was if he pass them along. Not if he had the documents. Yes he is not supposed to have them. I is still unclear if any are still classified. I'm not condoning anything if he is guilty i'm saying the facts are not in, news headlines are not facts. I still would contend to say he has acess to a multitude of classified material in 4 years if he wanted to turn traitor

the president is not authorized to declassify SCIF documents.  it takes permission of the DHS secretary to do that.  i doubt he gave it.

but you are right, we don't KNOW that, yet.  but we will.

Something to consider: The DHS Secretary is a political appointee who serves (once approved by the Senate) at the pleasure of the President.

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2022 20:05:34 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Sept 2, 2022 12:02:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that last comment was sarcastic, if anyone was wondering.

No worries. I see bills comments most of the time as playing "devil's advocate" Keeping us all in check and preventing, or at least trying tp prevent, us from going completely of the tracks

For a while I was working at the school within the Juvenile Detention Center in Seattle. One day I realized that I was starting to see the whole world through that lense. I remember my girlfriend of the time telling me, "Stop treating my children like they are a couple of your juvenile delinquents." I quit working there.

My concern is that Donald Trump has so captured the political landscape that we are establishing norms around what should be seen as an abnormality.

[dondub]

Sept 3, 2022 7:00:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 2, 2022 17:06:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And if he didn't what?

Did you forget the documents never, ever belonged to trump. They belonged to the U.S. government. trump took the documents to mar-a-lago and was hiding them as a private citizen.

The question was if he pass them along. Not if he had the documents. Yes he is not supposed to have them. I is still unclear if any are still classified. I'm not condoning anything if he is guilty i'm saying the facts are not in, news headlines are not facts. I still would contend to say he has acess to a multitude of classified material in 4 years if he wanted to turn traitor

It’s not unclear there are still highly classified documents.

[dondub]

Sept 3, 2022 7:03:39 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 3, 2022 6:44:54 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

I think you have it all backwards.  It's conservatives that don't give a shit about....well, anything anymore.  And they are getting what they deserve, they had their chance after the last stunt he pulled...inciting a riot to overturn an election.  They have proven to me they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who could care less about this country.  

I didn't trust Trump when he got caught lying about a meeting with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign to get dirt on Hillary.  First, he LIED and said he didn't know anything about it, then...he LIED again and said it was about adoption.  I have to wonder how many people he "hired" when he was in office that was like Rex Tilerson, who had to often tell him, "you can't do that, it's illegal"  Well, and you know, once someone told him NO, they were fired.  

You think "they just don't want him to run"   I hope he does run.  I hope conservatives have to defend more and more of his actions.  I hope they get their gut full of that idiot.   

I don't see anything where he incited the riots. He never told them to break into the capitol. The impeachment should never have happened just another scared democrat stunt. I'm not going to comment about anything with Hillary.

Proud Boys….stand back and stand by.

Come to Washington on Jan. 6th, it will be a wild time.

Let’s go to the Capitol (stop the steal)

[Tennesseer]

Sept 3, 2022 7:00:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 2, 2022 17:06:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And if he didn't what?

Did you forget the documents never, ever belonged to trump. They belonged to the U.S. government. trump took the documents to mar-a-lago and was hiding them as a private citizen.

The question was if he pass them along. Not if he had the documents. Yes he is not supposed to have them. I is still unclear if any are still classified. I'm not condoning anything if he is guilty i'm saying the facts are not in, news headlines are not facts. I still would contend to say he has acess to a multitude of classified material in 4 years if he wanted to turn traitor

Live in your own ignorance.

Meanwhile...

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 9:22:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 2, 2022 20:05:34 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

No worries. I see bills comments most of the time as playing "devil's advocate" Keeping us all in check and preventing, or at least trying tp prevent, us from going completely of the tracks

For a while I was working at the school within the Juvenile Detention Center in Seattle. One day I realized that I was starting to see the whole world through that lense. I remember my girlfriend of the time telling me, "Stop treating my children like they are a couple of your juvenile delinquents." I quit working there.

My concern is that Donald Trump has so captured the political landscape that we are establishing norms around what should be seen as an abnormality.

But do you not have to react to the abnormality?  The old norms were in place because nobody had ever been uniquely horrible enough to demonstrate a need for new ones.  Once that need is demonstrated, do you just ignore it, thinking that it is purely a one-off and nobody will ever be this horrible again? 


No.  The answer to that is, "No."  The initial stretching and then smashing of limits gives rise to further evils far more often than it prompts a great reawakening of who exactly we should be.  Hoping that we can just go back to old norms and standards of behavior without putting new, stricter limits in place?  Okay, Pollyanna.    

[Tennesseer]

Sept 3, 2022 7:35:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the most damning thing about J6 was not the fact that he welcomed it, but that as it was happening, he did nothing to discourage it.

that constitutes malicious/gross negligence, imo.  i am sure i am not alone:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

And now trump is stating if reelected as president in 2024 he will pardon all those convicted for their criminal actions during the attack on Congress.

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 10:38:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2022 9:22:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

For a while I was working at the school within the Juvenile Detention Center in Seattle. One day I realized that I was starting to see the whole world through that lense. I remember my girlfriend of the time telling me, "Stop treating my children like they are a couple of your juvenile delinquents." I quit working there.

My concern is that Donald Trump has so captured the political landscape that we are establishing norms around what should be seen as an abnormality.

But do you not have to react to the abnormality?  The old norms were in place because nobody had ever been uniquely horrible enough to demonstrate a need for new ones.  Once that need is demonstrated, do you just ignore it, thinking that it is purely a one-off and nobody will ever be this horrible again? 


No.  The answer to that is, "No."  The initial stretching and then smashing of limits gives rise to further evils far more often than it prompts a great reawakening of who exactly we should be.  Hoping that we can just go back to old norms and standards of behavior without putting new, stricter limits in place?  Okay, Pollyanna.    

I think that a discussion of what those new limits should and should not be is valuable.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 11:02:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 10:38:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

But do you not have to react to the abnormality?  The old norms were in place because nobody had ever been uniquely horrible enough to demonstrate a need for new ones.  Once that need is demonstrated, do you just ignore it, thinking that it is purely a one-off and nobody will ever be this horrible again? 


No.  The answer to that is, "No."  The initial stretching and then smashing of limits gives rise to further evils far more often than it prompts a great reawakening of who exactly we should be.  Hoping that we can just go back to old norms and standards of behavior without putting new, stricter limits in place?  Okay, Pollyanna.    

I think that a discussion of what those new limits should and should not be is valuable.

Sure, but pretty clear even at this point that those limits need to account for and be able to hold accountable for far worse than previously thought.

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 11:13:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2022 11:02:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think that a discussion of what those new limits should and should not be is valuable.

Sure, but pretty clear even at this point that those limits need to account for and be able to hold accountable for far worse than previously thought.

A major question for me is who do we empower to do the holding to account.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 11:23:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 11:13:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sure, but pretty clear even at this point that those limits need to account for and be able to hold accountable for far worse than previously thought.

A major question for me is who do we empower to do the holding to account.

I would never suggest that it is as simple as, "Whoever we choose, elect, or appoint" since majorities can be wrong just as easily as anyone, and the quality of appointees is dependent on who appointed them.  It will be an ongoing process, and there is no simple answer.  That does not mean that there can be no answer.  We do the best we can, knowing that government derives its power from the consent of the governed.  We trust that those in power subject themselves to the Constitution, and until recently that has worked.  We trust that those working in contravention of that document, or the spirit of what we believe to be right, will be held accountable and removed and/or punished.  Ultimately, as with almost everything in a nation this size, we all hold the collective power but we delegate it and hope for the best.  As long as that works well enough we are satisfied.  If it begins to fail, it is incumbent on us to change it.  That is what is happening now.  It is starting to fail, and we must react.

Does that answer your question?  Probably not.  Is there a good answer to your question?  Probably not.  Do we have to do it anyway?  Absolutely. 
 

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 11:57:18 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2022 11:23:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A major question for me is who do we empower to do the holding to account.

I would never suggest that it is as simple as, "Whoever we choose, elect, or appoint" since majorities can be wrong just as easily as anyone, and the quality of appointees is dependent on who appointed them.  It will be an ongoing process, and there is no simple answer.  That does not mean that there can be no answer.  We do the best we can, knowing that government derives its power from the consent of the governed.  We trust that those in power subject themselves to the Constitution, and until recently that has worked.  We trust that those working in contravention of that document, or the spirit of what we believe to be right, will be held accountable and removed and/or punished.  Ultimately, as with almost everything in a nation this size, we all hold the collective power but we delegate it and hope for the best.  As long as that works well enough we are satisfied.  If it begins to fail, it is incumbent on us to change it.  That is what is happening now.  It is starting to fail, and we must react.

Does that answer your question?  Probably not.  Is there a good answer to your question?  Probably not.  Do we have to do it anyway?  Absolutely. 
 

I am sorry. I didn't mean it was a question for you to answer. I meant we as a nation need to answer. As far as your answer, it parrots what I have been saying.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2022 8:31:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 7:19:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the president is not authorized to declassify SCIF documents.  it takes permission of the DHS secretary to do that.  i doubt he gave it.

but you are right, we don't KNOW that, yet.  but we will.

Something to consider: The DHS Secretary is a political appointee who serves (once approved by the Senate) at the pleasure of the President.

that is what i call a proper check.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2022 10:38:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 3, 2022 7:35:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the most damning thing about J6 was not the fact that he welcomed it, but that as it was happening, he did nothing to discourage it.

that constitutes malicious/gross negligence, imo.  i am sure i am not alone:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

And now trump is stating if reelected as president in 2024 he will pardon all those convicted for their criminal actions during the attack on Congress.

precisely why he must be tried, convicted, and barred from office.
well, one of a hundred reasons.  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2022 11:02:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 10:38:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

But do you not have to react to the abnormality?  The old norms were in place because nobody had ever been uniquely horrible enough to demonstrate a need for new ones.  Once that need is demonstrated, do you just ignore it, thinking that it is purely a one-off and nobody will ever be this horrible again? 


No.  The answer to that is, "No."  The initial stretching and then smashing of limits gives rise to further evils far more often than it prompts a great reawakening of who exactly we should be.  Hoping that we can just go back to old norms and standards of behavior without putting new, stricter limits in place?  Okay, Pollyanna.    

I think that a discussion of what those new limits should and should not be is valuable.

perhaps we should consider drawing the line OUTSIDE of someone who actively subverts democracy and denigrates the office of the president?

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 13:43:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2022 11:02:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think that a discussion of what those new limits should and should not be is valuable.

perhaps we should consider drawing the line OUTSIDE of someone who actively subverts democracy and denigrates the office of the president?

Well yeah but that is not an objective standard.

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 13:36:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2022 8:31:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Something to consider: The DHS Secretary is a political appointee who serves (once approved by the Senate) at the pleasure of the President.

that is what i call a proper check.

👍
Now:

the president is not authorized to declassify SCIF documents.  it takes permission of the DHS secretary to do that. 

I was thinking about considering the idea of a person who can be instantly fired by the President denying the President.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I was thinking about considering the idea of a person who can be instantly fired by the President denying the President.

trump did just that. So did Nixon. DOJ and the attorney general are supposed to be neutral and work for the people. trump used him as his personal lawyer. BTW catch what Barr is saying lately about trump? Too late.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2022 15:35:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 13:36:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is what i call a proper check.

👍
Now:

the president is not authorized to declassify SCIF documents.  it takes permission of the DHS secretary to do that. 

I was thinking about considering the idea of a person who can be instantly fired by the President denying the President.

a red flag worthy of investigation, impeachment, and removal, don't you think?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 3, 2022 15:08:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 13:43:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

perhaps we should consider drawing the line OUTSIDE of someone who actively subverts democracy and denigrates the office of the president?

Well yeah but that is not an objective standard.

uh......sure it is.  you know what statutes i am talking about.

please stop playing tag with me bills.  we have been talking about this for MONTHS.

this is not some ass talk on my part.  you know that.

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 15:47:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2022 15:08:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Well yeah but that is not an objective standard.

uh......sure it is.  you know what statutes i am talking about.

please stop playing tag with me bills.  we have been talking about this for MONTHS.

this is not some ass talk on my part.  you know that.

There is a statute that makes it a crime to denigrate the office of the president?

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 15:45:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2022 15:35:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

👍
Now:

the president is not authorized to declassify SCIF documents.  it takes permission of the DHS secretary to do that. 

I was thinking about considering the idea of a person who can be instantly fired by the President denying the President.

a red flag worthy of investigation, impeachment, and removal, don't you think?

Oversight is a good thing.