How Donold Trump will overthrow the 2024 Election

[Opti]

Aug 23, 2024 10:22:22 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 22, 2024 23:10:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it is important to consider the goal, here.
think about it for a while, and get back to me with where your thoughts take you.  

1. An uneducated people to exploit for monetary or political gain

2. Funneling money into churches

3. Making church schools the best solution so preaching the gospel to them all day every day increases the number of Christians

4. Easily distribute resources unevenly so white kids get better education, continuing the power imbalance

I would change that to middle income to rich white kids who identify as male or female only
If you need government assistance, are non-binary have any special features like neurodivergence or physical disabilities you probably do not count either.

[Opti]

Aug 22, 2024 9:20:03 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Of course they aren't tired of it.  Look at what they accomplished while he was running around being himself.  They stocked the Supreme Court we probably won't have a liberal one again in my lifetime.  They finally succeeded in getting Roe vs Wade repealed.

They've made a mockery of so many departments that they got enough people questioning things that people are starting to agree with ideas like maybe we should get rid of the EPA.  Maybe we should gut public education and make it all "parents' choice".

The guy is the walking epitome of "bread and circuses".  Why would they want to give that up?

That is why to me his so dangerous.  He's Jar Jar to the Republican Party's Palpatine.  By himself he looks like and sounds like a buffoon.  But if you have the right person pulling the buffoon's strings it can be bad REALLY bad.

 I think the GOP does not realize he'd be less willing to do things their way if he did get elected. Instead of Mitch McConnell stopping everything, it might be Trump himself. Of course, people like Ginni Thomas probably could still exploit him with ease playing to his fears and desires. But a good portion of them might be surprised with wackier demands than last time and weirder loyalty tests as time went on. 

He's all hat and if there were some cattle they have been sold or traded for lawyer bills.

[billisonboard]

Aug 23, 2024 10:30:07 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Aug 23, 2024 10:22:22 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

1. An uneducated people to exploit for monetary or political gain

2. Funneling money into churches

3. Making church schools the best solution so preaching the gospel to them all day every day increases the number of Christians

4. Easily distribute resources unevenly so white kids get better education, continuing the power imbalance

Ding ding.  It's a way to get around Plessy vs Ferguson.

Our governor went so far as now your property tax dollars can be refunded to you to be used for private Christian school education.  Since our state government is stocked with mostly Republicans they are all for it. 

The whopping 2 Democrats are against it because it is not only a clear violation of separation of church and state it's creating a new Jim Crow system.

I wish I could understand what happened to our state.  It used to be purple edging towards blue.  Our electoral vote went to Obama both times.  We had one of the top educational systems in the nation.  We were the third state to pass a law making gay marriage legal.

Now we're here. 

Fuck even NEBRASKA is now more "liberal" than us.  The governor tried to refuse the SNAP expansion funding and received so much backlash from voters that he changed his mind.  

Reynolds is sticking to her guns insisting it will only enable poor people to buy steak, lobster and potato chips so she's going to make her own shit ass program instead that relies heavily on Christian based charities to provide food.

This great post concerning the current state of affairs in Iowa. This is happening while the federal Department of Education exists. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that making it happen is not the goal of eliminating that department.

[billisonboard]

Aug 23, 2024 10:47:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 23, 2024 10:22:22 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

1. An uneducated people to exploit for monetary or political gain

2. Funneling money into churches

3. Making church schools the best solution so preaching the gospel to them all day every day increases the number of Christians

4. Easily distribute resources unevenly so white kids get better education, continuing the power imbalance

I would change that to middle income to rich white kids who identify as male or female only
If you need government assistance, are non-binary have any special features like neurodivergence or physical disabilities you probably do not count either.

A significant amount of federal dollars does support programs for such students, so they would be seriously impacted.

[Opti]

Aug 23, 2024 11:27:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 23, 2024 10:47:50 GMT -5 Opti said:

I would change that to middle income to rich white kids who identify as male or female only
If you need government assistance, are non-binary have any special features like neurodivergence or physical disabilities you probably do not count either.

A significant amount of federal dollars does support programs for such students, so they would be seriously impacted.

I know. I was correcting #4 to the GOP's priorities. They are not for all white kids. Only normal ones which they define as male or female and generally median income or above. I am aware HeadStart and other programs are funded through the federal govt.

[pulmonarymd]

Given republicans feelings about the disabled that may be what they desire

[billisonboard]

Aug 23, 2024 11:48:30 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 23, 2024 11:27:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A significant amount of federal dollars does support programs for such students, so they would be seriously impacted.

I know. I was correcting #4 to the GOP's priorities. They are not for all white kids. Only normal ones which they define as male or female and generally median income or above. I am aware HeadStart and other programs are funded through the federal govt.

Great specific example with Head Start.

[Opti]

Aug 23, 2024 11:50:22 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Given republicans feelings about the disabled that may be what they desire

We can agree with their abortion laws they are going to get more people they do not want. Trump will start being horrified by babies when out in public. 


I think Trumpers have one guiding principal, "I'm right, and you aren't unless you agree with me." 

[billisonboard]

I see the calls to eliminate the Department of Education as predominantly just a tossing out of "red meat" for those who think that schools should be totally controlled locally and the "feds" should be kept out. I don't think very many people actually have a detailed understanding of the situation,  i.e. "Federal Government bad, eliminate."

[Tiny]

Just dropping this in on the timeline:

Trump is starting to set the stage for his next coup attempt. He has started adding rhetoric in his speeches about how the "other side is cheating" or "will cheat" and how Republican voters need to be ready to do something about it. The crowd chanted "Fight! Fight! Fight!" in response to this. It was an speech in Arizona on August 22nd.

I wonder how long it will take for the bulk of his speeches to be about how the election is once again being stolen...

I hope the Democrat powers that be and Democrat voters are ready for this onslaught and that the Blue Vote gets out in a landslide.

[Opti]

Not surprising Tiny, he and the people around him think a loss is likely.

[Opti]

Aug 23, 2024 12:10:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I see the calls to eliminate the Department of Education as predominantly just a tossing out of "red meat" for those who think that schools should be totally controlled locally and the "feds" should be kept out. I don't think very many people actually have a detailed understanding of the situation,  i.e. "Federal Government bad, eliminate."

Many have little understanding of what the federal government does. I learned a lot when I found this great book on various federal departments and things they have accomplished. (Yay public libraries!)

[happyhoix]

Aug 23, 2024 12:22:39 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Just dropping this in on the timeline:

Trump is starting to set the stage for his next coup attempt. He has started adding rhetoric in his speeches about how the "other side is cheating" or "will cheat" and how Republican voters need to be ready to do something about it. The crowd chanted "Fight! Fight! Fight!" in response to this. It was an speech in Arizona on August 22nd.

I wonder how long it will take for the bulk of his speeches to be about how the election is once again being stolen...

I hope the Democrat powers that be and Democrat voters are ready for this onslaught and that the Blue Vote gets out in a landslide.

Yeah, he’s saying he has the votes he needs, so if he loses, that’s proof he was cheated. Again.

I don’t understand what he means by ‘I have the votes.’

No one has any votes until we actually vote. Polls don’t mean shit.

[billisonboard]

Aug 23, 2024 14:07:07 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 23, 2024 12:22:39 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Just dropping this in on the timeline:

Trump is starting to set the stage for his next coup attempt. He has started adding rhetoric in his speeches about how the "other side is cheating" or "will cheat" and how Republican voters need to be ready to do something about it. The crowd chanted "Fight! Fight! Fight!" in response to this. It was an speech in Arizona on August 22nd.

I wonder how long it will take for the bulk of his speeches to be about how the election is once again being stolen...

I hope the Democrat powers that be and Democrat voters are ready for this onslaught and that the Blue Vote gets out in a landslide.

Yeah, he’s saying he has the votes he needs, so if he loses, that’s proof he was cheated. Again.

I don’t understand what he means by ‘I have the votes.’

No one has any votes until we actually vote. Polls don’t mean shit.

I think this:

For Trump, a former reality television star, the size of the audience has long been paramount, a measurement he believes foreshadowed his 2016 upset victory over Hillary Clinton and one he consistently touts as evidence that the pollsters and pundits who are increasingly pessimistic about his reelection chances are wrong again. link

[scgal]

Aug 21, 2024 17:25:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 21, 2024 15:28:31 GMT -5 scgal said:

Exactly, others have him as guilty I have him as innocent until proven guilty.

During trump's 'E. Jean Carroll trial held under the NY 's Adult Survivors Act, a jury found trump guilty of sexual abuse. The judge said it was rape.

A criminal trial jury found trump guilty of 22 felony charges related to paying off Stormy Daniels.

So which is it?  Are you not telling the truth in the highlighted part of your quote?  Juries found trump guilty in both cases based upon the facts.

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

[scgal]

Aug 21, 2024 15:46:09 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 21, 2024 11:17:10 GMT -5 scgal said:

I'm not proud of it. I can see if Trump didn't do anything the Democrats caused this riot it started with the bull crap impeachment over the perfectly legitimate phone call to Ukrane. Democrats started this shit and this is what they got. They may be a bunch of rednecks but they love this country more than any democrat. Congress could have still enacted the DCNG. 

Do you have a source for Congress being able to call up the national guard? Show us the proof of what you state. The official website says they answer to the president, nothing about congress. You sure give Trump a pass on any responsibility in regards to the office of the president. Feel the same way about a democrat.

You posted they should have let the riot go all night. Strange reff so one from someone who says they aren’t proud of the actions. In addition, a congressional action means a riot is ok? Maybe Democrats should riot over the endless, fruitless impeachment inquiry into Biden which showed jack shit in regards to impeachable actions

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5

[djAdvocate]

yes. this is one of the things that makes Trump so dangerous.

it is not likely that the GOP will control the house in Jan, but it is possible. the Generic Ballot is trending very strongly in Democratic favor right now. and it is a very difficult poll to move. it moves an average of about 1% EVERY THREE MONTHS, and currently Democrats show a 1.7% lead. you do the math.

[dondubble]

Aug 23, 2024 17:45:38 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 21, 2024 15:46:09 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Do you have a source for Congress being able to call up the national guard? Show us the proof of what you state. The official website says they answer to the president, nothing about congress. You sure give Trump a pass on any responsibility in regards to the office of the president. Feel the same way about a democrat.

You posted they should have let the riot go all night. Strange reff so one from someone who says they aren’t proud of the actions. In addition, a congressional action means a riot is ok? Maybe Democrats should riot over the endless, fruitless impeachment inquiry into Biden which showed jack shit in regards to impeachable actions

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5

“The Presidents call of the militia”….so instead of watching, our country’s leader should have done SOMETHING during that 183 minutes other than wait for the chance to declare martial law.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2024 18:27:39 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Aug 23, 2024 17:45:38 GMT -5 scgal said:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5

“The Presidents call of the militia”….so instead of watching, our country’s leader should have done SOMETHING during that 183 minutes other than wait for the chance to declare martial law.

i don't think that they would have joined the protest, don.  

[Tennesseer]

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 21, 2024 17:25:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

During trump's 'E. Jean Carroll trial held under the NY 's Adult Survivors Act, a jury found trump guilty of sexual abuse. The judge said it was rape.

A criminal trial jury found trump guilty of 22 felony charges related to paying off Stormy Daniels.

So which is it?  Are you not telling the truth in the highlighted part of your quote?  Juries found trump guilty in both cases based upon the facts.

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

And yet juries convicted trump. Juries are never involved when no crimes have been committed.

I imagine you will be in attendance for this event.

[dondubble]

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 21, 2024 17:25:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

During trump's 'E. Jean Carroll trial held under the NY 's Adult Survivors Act, a jury found trump guilty of sexual abuse. The judge said it was rape.

A criminal trial jury found trump guilty of 22 felony charges related to paying off Stormy Daniels.

So which is it?  Are you not telling the truth in the highlighted part of your quote?  Juries found trump guilty in both cases based upon the facts.

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

The law, grand juries, judges, and juries don’t give a sh@t what you think. The count so far is 34-0 in the felony department, 2-0 on the civil fraud cases, and 1-0 on his hush hush $5 million settlement in January for a sexual harassment case.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2024 19:21:25 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

The law, grand juries, judges, and juries don’t give a sh@t what you think. The count so far is 34-0 in the felony department, 2-0 on the civil fraud cases, and 1-0 on his hush hush $5 million settlement in January for a sexual harassment case.

not counting the $83M for his defamation case?

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 23, 2024 17:45:38 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 21, 2024 15:46:09 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Do you have a source for Congress being able to call up the national guard? Show us the proof of what you state. The official website says they answer to the president, nothing about congress. You sure give Trump a pass on any responsibility in regards to the office of the president. Feel the same way about a democrat.

You posted they should have let the riot go all night. Strange reff so one from someone who says they aren’t proud of the actions. In addition, a congressional action means a riot is ok? Maybe Democrats should riot over the endless, fruitless impeachment inquiry into Biden which showed jack shit in regards to impeachable actions

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5

So you absolve Trump of any responsibility to call up the DCNG to squash his insurrection? Any idea how the mechanics of calling up the National Guard when Congress is under attack. It says Congress, so who in Congress can do it? The Speaker, Senate Majority Leadrr, Senate President(the Vp), or does it require a vote. Since you looked it up, what does the Constitution say the mechanics of doing so are?

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 21, 2024 17:25:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

During trump's 'E. Jean Carroll trial held under the NY 's Adult Survivors Act, a jury found trump guilty of sexual abuse. The judge said it was rape.

A criminal trial jury found trump guilty of 22 felony charges related to paying off Stormy Daniels.

So which is it?  Are you not telling the truth in the highlighted part of your quote?  Juries found trump guilty in both cases based upon the facts.

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

Funny how you do not trust some juries. Yet you do not care that innocent people have been sentenced to death.

[dondubble]

Aug 23, 2024 19:28:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 23, 2024 19:21:25 GMT -5 dondubble said:

The law, grand juries, judges, and juries don’t give a sh@t what you think. The count so far is 34-0 in the felony department, 2-0 on the civil fraud cases, and 1-0 on his hush hush $5 million settlement in January for a sexual harassment case.

not counting the $83M for his defamation case?

Oooops! So many.😎

[djAdvocate]

Aug 23, 2024 19:32:48 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

Funny how you do not trust some juries. Yet you do not care that innocent people have been sentenced to death.

i don't think she doesn't care.  i think she sees them as "acceptable losses".

it is funny, because i feel the same way about the DP that she feels about voter fraud.  i am an absolutist.  

unfortunately, mistakes WILL be made.  when they are made, i would hope that they would ALWAYS favor the citizen, and not the state.  that is how i parse those two issues.

[billisonboard]

Aug 23, 2024 19:31:18 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 23, 2024 17:45:38 GMT -5 scgal said:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5

So you absolve Trump of any responsibility to call up the DCNG to squash his insurrection? Any idea how the mechanics of calling up the National Guard when Congress is under attack. It says Congress, so who in Congress can do it? The Speaker, Senate Majority Leadrr, Senate President(the Vp), or does it require a vote. Since you looked it up, what does the Constitution say the mechanics of doing so are?

It doesn't actually say Congress. "They" in the second sentence refers to the states, as indicated in the reference to aiding the Federal Government, not Congress. The act of February 28, 1795 that Congress passed "to provide for calling forth the Militia" is entitled: An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes and is available by going to this link - www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.22201300/?st=gallery and then downloading a pdf. It says it is the President who is empowered to call forth the Militia. 

EDIT: Should have included this: Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,

[Opti]

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Aug 21, 2024 17:25:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

During trump's 'E. Jean Carroll trial held under the NY 's Adult Survivors Act, a jury found trump guilty of sexual abuse. The judge said it was rape.

A criminal trial jury found trump guilty of 22 felony charges related to paying off Stormy Daniels.

So which is it?  Are you not telling the truth in the highlighted part of your quote?  Juries found trump guilty in both cases based upon the facts.

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

And that sums up the problem. The Daniels case was solid and had to do with accounting and payments. The problem is you don't understand the law, you obviously aren't following the cases in any meaningful way, yet you think you know things you do not. 

Crimes were committed whether you saw them or understood them. It is unlikely you personally will be in a position to commit these types of crimes, but if you did, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Laws are created and modified continuously. Its Trump level false pride that is preventing you from seeing the obvious. Charges that were brought in these cases were both appropriate and actionable based on the evidence. 

[dondubble]

Aug 23, 2024 20:23:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 23, 2024 17:41:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

First of all I'm talking about the document case that is the only case where I can see any crime being committed and such would be ok with any outcome. The Carroll care I think is bull as well as the Daniels case. 

And that sums up the problem. The Daniels case was solid and had to do with accounting and payments. The problem is you don't understand the law, you obviously aren't following the cases in any meaningful way, yet you think you know things you do not. 

Crimes were committed whether you saw them or understood them. It is unlikely you personally will be in a position to commit these types of crimes, but if you did, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Laws are created and modified continuously. It’s Trump level false pride that is preventing you from seeing the obvious. Charges that were brought in these cases were both appropriate and actionable based on the evidence. 

Plus…these are criminal charges brought against A FORMER PRESIDENT. Thus the evidence and scrutiny therein by citizen grand juries must be at the highest levels possible. No mistakes allowed. If charges are then brought you can be quite sure there is certain legitimacy that exists.

[djAdvocate]

i have said it before, and i will say it again:

the fed doesn't mess around.

if there was no case to be made, they would not have brought it. it is extremely rare for them to lose. and it is not because they have the strength of the government behind them. it is because they have the strength of the evidence in front of them.