NY - Former President Donald Trump charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ontario Mom said:
Sadly I have to agree. In hundreds of years American society has never been where it is now.
Things are vastly different than they were in decades past.
Click to expand...
<modsnip - off topic>
I don’t think anyone from either side has any doubt how Trump would respond in any of these scenarios.
The same way he responded to losing the election and this indictment, accusations of conspiracy and a call to take to the streets in protest, and worse, that “death and destruction” could come down upon the United States should he be indicted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lilibet said:
I don’t think security would be an issue with any previous president in my long lifetime. Not only has there been no reason to indict any other President except Nixon, but I can’t imagine that any other former president (even Nixon) would call for demonstrations at his arraignment and use incendiary language about the DA. So yes, this situation highly unusual.
JMO
Click to expand...
During my long lifetime, I've learned to never say never. No one knows what the future holds. Both of these political parties, (I'm not a member of either) seem to be on a long path to battle it out and using our taxpayer money at that.
 
Ontario Mom said:
If he felt he was being unfairly centered out?
I'm not saying Trump is actually being unfairly targetted ( he may be, I have no idea, I don't trust any of them, they're all corrupt), but if any high profile politician with significant support felt they were being treated as such, I do suspect they'd do the same exact thing.

This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

jmo
Click to expand...
It does surprise me. Other politicians have been prosecuted and convicted without calling for violence.
 
The legal and political fallout of Trump's indictment
  • Amna Nawaz:
    Elie, as Geoff reported, the security preps in New York are beginning. We have heard some of the language from Mr. Trump and his supporters in the past.
    The idea of political violence in this case is not a hypothetical. We have seen what happens when some of his supporters have followed his instruction in the past. Can he be prevented from inciting violence in this case?
  • Elie Honig:
    So there is a way, at an extreme, where a judge can impose what we call a gag order, meaning issue an official court order prohibiting a participant in a trial from speaking. That is a very high bar legally.
    Now, any participant in the justice system has the right to criticize a judge or a prosecutor. It's not a great idea, but they do have that right. However, I believe there are lines here that already have been crossed in the way that Donald Trump has launched attacks, including racist attacks, including attacks not so subtly calling for violent resistance.
    And so I do think we could get to a point fairly quickly where the prosecutor needs to go to the judge and say: Judge, it's an extreme measure. We rarely do it. But we need a gag order in this case.
    We're not there yet, but it's something the prosecutor has to be thinking about.
 
1mvp2 said:
I believe the article used the word "plurality" , simply meaning a large number of people or things. A synonym could be the word "multitude".
Click to expand...

The article did use the word, ‘plurality’ but it has a precise meaning, in the context of voting or polling. So ‘multitude’ is not a synonym.

If there are three or more choices or candidates, the one that gets the most votes, (but less than 50%,) has a plurality of the votes.

www.dictionary.com

"Majority" vs. "Plurality": What Their Differences Mean For This Election

When it comes to elections, do you need a majority or plurality of the vote to win? It helps to remember what each term means first.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
 
RANCH said:
Anyone can protest anything they want in the United States. JMO.
Click to expand...
We the people have a constitutional right to protest, especially our government.
However, I am uncomfortable with a government figure, a POTUS or an ex POTUS, calling on people to protest in his behalf and the inclusion of violent rhetoric like “death and destruction could come down on the United States if I am indicted”. That’s banana republic stuff.
He’s using his incredible power and influence to lead people which is much different than a grassroots protest by the people.
 
everybodhi said:
We the people have a constitutional right to protest, especially our government.
However, I am uncomfortable with a government figure, a POTUS or an ex POTUS, calling on people to protest in his behalf and the inclusion of violent rhetoric like “death and destruction could come down on the United States if I am indicted”.
He’s using his incredible power and influence to lead people which is much different than a grassroots protest.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with his comments. I was going to add something else but decided not to. Sorry.
 
everybodhi said:
We the people have a constitutional right to protest, especially our government.
However, I am uncomfortable with a government figure, a POTUS or an ex POTUS, calling on people to protest in his behalf and the inclusion of violent rhetoric like “death and destruction could come down on the United States if I am indicted”. That’s banana republic stuff.
He’s using his incredible power and influence to lead people which is much different than a grassroots protest by the people.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Ontario Mom said:
It may be senseless to you, but as long as it's within the confines of the law, it's perfectly legal.
Just like any other protest, whether any of us agree with them or not.
Click to expand...
The Jan 6th protest was not in the "confines of the law" which is why the Special Counsel is investigating Trump's role in it.
There is no excuse for violence, weapons and assaults on police officers.
 
wary said:
The article did use the word, ‘plurality’ but it has a precise meaning, in the context of voting or polling. So ‘multitude’ is not a synonym.

If there are three or more choices or candidates, the one that gets the most votes, (but less than 50%,) has a plurality of the votes.

www.dictionary.com

"Majority" vs. "Plurality": What Their Differences Mean For This Election

When it comes to elections, do you need a majority or plurality of the vote to win? It helps to remember what each term means first.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...
The plurality system is the simplest means of determining the outcome of an election. To win, a candidate need only poll more votes than any other single opponent; he need not, as required by the majority formula, poll more votes than the combined opposition.
Goodnight folks. Let's all rest up for Tuesday
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 76 more.
Total: 1,966 (members: 77, guests: 1,889)

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
1,890
Total visitors
1,967
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,146
Messages
18,104,631
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top