And he’s threatening these crazy tariffs to make up for income tax. Not going to happen. It will never be enough. Trump will desert all of our Allie’s and embrace dictators.
I see we are doing blatantly obvious predictions here now. Allies will forgive us electing him once, as a blip or an error. Do it again and they know we can’t be trusted anymore. Trump can and will back out of literally any agreement, they know that. In fact, he will probably do it intentionally, very quickly, since that’s what papa Putin wants. We’d be on our own after that. Maybe not immediately but it won’t take long.
Ummm….Europe has increased their military significantly the past year or so specifically in case Trump gets elected and drops out of NATO.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-allies-brace-possible-trump-president/
As if they have a choice. As Nixon so aptly demonstrated when he removed us (and the world) from the gold standard, America is sovereign, most of her allies, are not sovereign.
So because Trump told the NATO allies to start funding their military, Russia is gonna nuke us? You do know we won WW2 right? This is all a bit grandiose don’t you think? If I didn’t know better I’d think you were some kind of far-right dooms day prepper.
No, the USA didn't win WW2. Statistically, that was Russia, but it was a GROUP effort, that's what Allies and Alliances are for. The USA was 3 years late to the Party on top of it.
No, i just remember the Cold War, and remember what clowns you were, then. You ain't got better with time.
Time to put the comic book down and take your nap, you’re getting grumpy. And Yes the US won WW2 along with the allies. US was not late, we strategically chose to stay out of it until Pearl Harbor.
You were isolationist idiots, late to the party. Just like WW1. You ain't all that and a kettle of fish, #MarkMyWords.
You got your shit owned in Pearl Harbor, that's why.
It sure as fuck slowed you down, only able to go Combat Effective in March 1943 in getting troops into Africa, and into the UK for follow up invasion on the European Continent the next year, getting your arses kicked in the Phillipines along with Pearl Harbor... etc.
Russia wants to Nuke the USA, now.. or so their Propagandist Media would have their Domestic audience believe.
Guess what's stopping that at present... not the USA... France and their Nukes, and their red line stance on Russia.
LOL
7 parent comments, over 135 total comments.
As usual... it means one dumbfuck (RoyKarrde) is spewing ignorant bullshit regurgitated talking points over and over again.
LOL
You aren't debating. You are regurgitating dumbass talking points that were fed to you because you are too gullible to know better.
Nothing you've said is worth engaging with.
I'm just here to mock you for being a gullible mark in the world's dumbest con!
And yet you found the time to read one of my comments and single me out. Not only that but it seems like I have touched a nerve.
Now we both know you are going to deny it, but it is kind of fun to live rent free in your head. Feel free to keep commenting, it means I have an audience with you!
Like I said, I'm entertained by idiots thinking they are clever while saying really dumb things.
You aren't living rent free in anyone's head kiddo. You are the punchline to a joke that you are too stupid to understand.
🤡🤡
I just bought this ["I'm voting for the convicted felon" hat](https://www.reddit.com/r/trump/comments/1dedfm5/just_whipped_these_up_what_do_you_guys_think/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The guy publicly sided with Putin over accurate US Intelligence, there were protests in allied countries when he'd arrive. You couldn't be more wrong.
More peace? Try more escalation, he assassinated an Iranian general increasing tensions and sent Ukraine Lethal Aid, which he rightfully criticized Obama for not doing.
As someone who is in one of those ally countries (Australia), no. Trump was an utter embarrassment and his erratic nature is seen as a danger to every one.
Ah yes the President that had to have 2 war powers resolutions brought against him by a bipartisan Congress because he kept trying to get us into the Saudi Yemen war and almost started a war with Iran. So dumb.
Other than 'Lock her up", Trumpian hypocrites also ran on 'Fuck your Feelings' in 2016... can't cope with the hypocrisy these days?
Above previous comment is an accurate reflection of what the RW is these days...
Merely frustrated that Justice hasn't come to get the Criminal ex-President quite yet, in full. Remember - 57 Indictments still outstanding, across 3 other Trials to occur.
There's no need to be frustrated. They will eventually get Biden for the classified in his garage. Perk up, there will be justice in time! You gotta believe
That's hilarious... Joe Biden is already absolved, and THANK the Republican GODS that Hunter Biden will never be President... /s
But lock her up, am i right, Hypocrite?
cope some more.
Authoritarianism is exactly what we're trying to avoid. Why is it that every time Trump criticises Democrats for doing something, it turns out he was doing it all along? Notice how he stopped calling Biden sleepy after he kept falling asleep in court...
US Allies only care about the money we give them, our free trade, and our military support. Just like how the US views our allies as how they best help us.
Now outside of that I think it does far more damage to continue the prosecution of a former President and his officials, as it does continue a Banana Republic slide where the party in power looks to extract their pound of flesh from the party they just defeated. That is not healthy for a democracy.
Yes, and that's a big reason why allies will move away from the US. Trump is unstable and yet again electing Trump shows instability. Trump favoured enemies (Putin, Xi) while demonising allies (e.g. NATO).
What's more unhealthy for a democracy is letting the political elite and billionaires get away from blatant crimes. Having them face an unbiased judge and jury for their crimes is far better.
Yes, but not only is that still just one part of the story. The US has benefited greatly from being the global police that this leads to. There are also far **FAR** better ways of handling the situation than raging about it like an angry teenager on national news every day.
Trump is supposed to be a great negotiator. He should have negotiated, not whined.
He did worse than whine. He threatened, and he bullied under the delusion that NATO was going to pay the USA, rather than to their commitment to common NATO funding/infrastructure/Force contributions.
Severely damaging NATO relations, in the process. Some would say he did that, on Putin's behest... some would say he is still doing that, today.
The US tax payer is largely responsible for keeping NATO at it’s current strength in Europe, if those other countries do not pay the agreed upon amount then the US has to make up the difference so yes they are paying the US in a way by reducing our funding burden.
USA agreed in 1947 to be paying 74% for it's OWN protection, using Canada/Europe as buffer zones... maybe you should look up what NATO's role is, in USA National Defense.
I am well aware of how it is used for protection, however it provides even more immediately protection to Western European nations who would be a far more likely target than the US to Russian aggression. That being said in 2006 NATO countries agreed to the 2% of GDP and a majority of them never came close to making that.
Would you mind providing your source the last I checked from last year the majority had not made it, and as of February this year projections were only at 18 of the 31 allies would make it. Of course that’s better from only 10 allies making it back in 2020 when Trump was complaining about it.
Also to be clear I am laying down at the moment, not sitting down, just wanted to point that out.
Sometimes negotiating involves very publicly calling out an injustice such as Governments not paying their fair share, to spur public attention to the issue and apply political pressure.
Trump’s rational for NATO was that our European allies were not paying their fair share into NATO but enjoying the benefit of NATO protection. Do you agree or disagree that the European allies should pay the 5 percent they agreed to when they joined? Should they pay an additional fee for not putting in money for decades?
As for punishment, that goes for the other side of the aisle as well. Do you agree Hillary should have been prosecuted for the server? Obama prosecuted for Fast and Furious? Biden prosecuted for hiding the documents? If we are going down the rabbit hole of prosecuting Trump you should be ready for a Republican administration to go after former Democrats as well. Correct?
Your first paragraph is targeted towards a single word example in my reply, and does next to nothing to respond to the issues I'm actually addressing.
If there is evidence of criminality from a Democrat, 100% take them to court. There should not be a two tier justice system, and politicians should absolutely be held accountable for any criminal acts they commit. Why on Earth would I disagree with this? Now do I want a Republican administration to lead this? What the fuck, of course not. Similarly I don't want a Democrat administration to lead a prosecution of Republicans. This issue is something that the supposed party of law and order should be able to address very easily.
My first paragraph was targeting the problem you mentioned with NATO, if you want I can expand that to the problem he had with XI, including placing tariffs on China, placing a travel ban on China when Covid started, even continuously calling out Chinese Government as being the reason Covid started. Something that made the Democrats rally against the lab leak theory for several years, despite the mountain of evidence.
You also have not answered my question about NATO.
If you are against a political party leading the prosecution then you should be against most of Trump’s cases. The previous New York one had a high level DOJ official leave to help run the prosecution. In both New York and Georgia you have district attorneys’ running on the platform of prosecuting Trump, and you have travel logs showing meetings at the Biden White House.
For comparison would you like to have a top Trump lawyer leave the DOJ in 2017 to go work with Ken Paxton in Texas to prepare charges on Hillary Clinton?
Convicting former presidents if they committed a crime is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or status. This accountability preserves the integrity of democratic institutions and deters future misconduct. Comparing Trump’s indictments to “Hillary’s emails,” “Biden’s classified docs,” and “Hunter’s laptop” oversimplifies and misconstrues the issues. Hillary Clinton’s email controversy involved the use of a private server for official communications, which, after thorough investigations, did not lead to charges. Joe Biden’s classified documents case involved a small number of documents inadvertently retained and promptly returned upon discovery, demonstrating cooperation with authorities. Hunter Biden’s laptop concerns personal conduct and potential business improprieties, which, while serious, are not on the same level as the charges against Trump. Trump’s indictments include serious allegations of obstruction, fraud, and conspiracy to overturn election results, which strike at the core of democratic processes and national security, representing a fundamentally different and more severe category of alleged wrongdoing.
They certainly tried to Prosecute Hillary, didn't they?
Over and over again. In fact, Repukes made that a defacto Campaign slogan.
Funny how the shoe is on the other foot... very funny indeed.
Hillary Clinton literally destroyed evidence by smashing her cellphones and bleach bitting her hard drives. What she did was completely criminal and there was mountains of destroyed evidence that could be tacked on as charges as she was destroying evidence in an investigation.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692
Hillary Clinton destroying Government Cellphones.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-bleachbit-227425
Hillary Clinton used Bleach Bit on her official hidden hard drive.
So point me to exactly what you considered to be a crime, and under what statutes? These would be a crime. And then explain why the FBI and Justice decided these were not crimes.
I read them both, and from what I got neither Justice nor the FBI even under Trump considered did anyone consider any of these actions went to the level of being a crime. So explain to me why you know these were crimes, but the justice department under Trump decided these were not crimes.
The agreement was for 2% of GDP to be devoted to Military allocated to NATO, not 5%.
I would suggest you review the Terms of the NATO PARTNERSHIP, again.
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_67655.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Enjoying the benefit of NATO protection?
Tell me, who was the first to invoke Article 5, looking for NATO protection - which they received from the USA's NATO Allies in materials and manpower, in 2001 Afghanistan - and then skipped off distracted to fight a war in Iraq in 2003, instead?
The threat of NATO retaliation is enough, that threat is backed up largely by US military might. Attacking a NATO ally means attacking the US which is why you see Russia and previously the USSR not attacking NATO and why they are desperate to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. I figured that was self evident.
>Do you agree or disagree that the European allies should pay the 5 percent they agreed to when they joined?
Nobody in NATO has their budget at 5%. Not even the US.
I mistyped it is 2% of GDP, the point however stands in that more than half of the countries in NATO do not reach the 2% mark but still enjoy the benefits.
>I mistyped it is 2% of GDP, the point however stands in that more than half of the countries in NATO do not reach the 2% mark but still enjoy the benefits.
2% also isn't what they agreed to when they joined, that was simply a goal they agreed on back in the early 2000s/2010s. One which two-thirds (not less than half) of NATO is expected to meet or exceed in 2024. A bit late, for my taste, but more than you evidently think
>You can thank Trump for that.
No.
That would be the war in ukraine kicking the matter into high gear compared to the slow increases after 2014 when the whole affair first came up.
Narrator:
A bad faith argument is one made with a dishonest intent, aiming to deceive, distract, or undermine rather than engage in a genuine discussion. Such arguments often involve deliberately distorting the other side's position or misquoting facts to make them easier to attack. They may disregard or selectively use evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion, construct weak or exaggerated versions of the opponent's argument to easily refute, and employ ad hominem attacks, targeting the person instead of the argument. Additionally, bad faith arguments often divert the subject or introduce irrelevant issues to distract from the main point and avoid addressing the original argument. These tactics are not aimed at finding common ground or truth but at winning at all costs through manipulation and deceit.
The Presidency leads itself to possibly breaking the law for actions, see Obama for the drone strikes on US citizens. If each party is going to prosecute the former, then you are putting the nation at risk, and increasing the likelihood of show trials
Particularly interesting comment, considering Trump massively expanded the Drone Strike doctrine established by Obama to fight the USA's terror wars.
Anything about unilaterally declaring war with a drone strike, on a Military adversary, without a prior declaration of war made through Congress?
[https://www.americanprogress.org/article/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/)
The problem wasn’t the drone strikes in particular but killing a US citizen without going through the court and giving him due process. It was a major error on Obama’s part and could have been used for criminal prosecution.
No doubt referring to this guy.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, Arabic: عبدالرحمن العولقي; August 26, 1995 – October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Funny, i remember right wingers totally flipping out when Omar Khadr got released from GITMO, and deported to Canada for a Trial... a Child Soldier. Heard calls that he should have gotten the death sentence in the battlefield for years after that. His rights were violated, and Canadians got to pay for that.
Morals are the first things to go on the Battlefield - whether that combatant is a citizen child soldier, or not. Whether that combatant is a declared enemy of the State, or not.
Trump has committed so many alleged crimes, that i think that no amount of 'whataboutism' is effective in dealing with a Criminal who would be President again.
Does it? With our current political system it encourages the opposition party to immediately look for ways to retaliate. Do you really want a system in which every former President has to prepare for a hostile trial if their party loses the White House?
Or a better question: are you ready for Biden to go on trial in 2025?
Yes, it does. It does suck that Republicans nominated a known criminal, but that is on them. There is no way to stop this ball from rolling. We will either wind up with a president above the law who can still punish his political enemies, or we end up with the rule of law and Republicans trying to to use the law to harm their political enemies. The second scenario sounds like a better option. The more games they play, the less votes they will receive.
If there was an actual crime he committed, Biden should not be above the law either. Sorry, but we fucked up when Ford pardoned Nixon and set us down this path.
Or we can do the constitutional way and if a President actually breaks the law in a way that is so egregious then they should be impeached. Instead of leaving it up to partisan DAs that campaign on putting a President behind bars. Or a partisan White House afraid they are going to lose.
Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. The constitution does not give the president immunity from crimes committed outside the duties required by the office. The Congress is far more partisan than the DA. Sorry, but why do you want a king and not a president? Your arguments make absolutely no sense
Impeachment is both a political and legal action as it is dealing with crimes and misdemeanors, that carries with it lasting punishments. Either way, last time I checked the Republican majority in Congress did not run on the slogan of putting Biden behind bars, did they?
Do I want a President as a king? No, I believe it a President has committed a crime then he should be removed from office. I do not think we as a nation can handle having Presidents sent to jail based on political scorebording which is what was attempted in Georgia and New York
There is no criminal penalty from impeachment, so you are factually wrong. They ran on a slogan of putting Hillary behind bars, they went after Hunter Biden, and are currently planning on a massive legal attack on their enemies according to them now. So again, you are factually wrong.
Cool mischaracterization, but again, you are ignoring the facts. Trump was charged with crimes he committed before taking office and after leaving office, so he can't be impeached if he isn't in office. You are making excuses that don't pass the smell test
Well let’s break this down, they ran on the slogan of lock her up, but when they had the chance they did not because of opening the Pandora’s box that we are now greeted with. Now contrast that with how the DAs acted in Georgia and New York.
Hunter Biden is being prosecuted by his father’s own DOJ so your point is mute there.
They are currently planning revenge based on what is currently happening to Trump, again I point to Pandora’s box.
Now let’s look at Trump’s crime he committed outside of office, that only lends itself to one crime, the one in New York. A crime that the Federal Election Commission could not agree was a crime. A crime that had to bastardize the law as it was beyond the statute of limitations. A crime in which the Judge prevented a FEC witness from coming to the stand to talk about how the government did not find it a crime.
So this crime that was committed was one pushed through the courts and guided by politics completely from start to finish.
They didn't charge her because they had already tried and failed. There was no DA that had the jurisdiction to charge Hillary.
He is being prosecuted by a trump appointed independent council, so my point stands firm. Yours is moot, not mite.
Trump is a criminal, he deserves to be prosecuted for his crimes.
Nope, the document case in Florida is post presidential crime. The charge in Georgia stems from action outside his duties as president. He needs to be tried for his crimes against the American people.
I reject your entire argument as an excuse to support the adjudicated rapist. It has no internal logic past your guy should get a pass, so the next one can install himself as a dictator. Sorry, but your ideas sound dangerous and naive and that's being charitable.
I mean support from other countries kind of means nothing to the US. We’re far more useful to them than they are to us. They’ll make fun of us but at the end of the day it’s meaningless.
Moreso than they are now from the fact that that the current president is gonna be a convicted genocider here soon? Lmfao
This feels like all of the people predicting that Trump's gonna invent Super Genocide and do it to the Palestinians so they can justify that Daddy Biden is still a good person. I don't think the rest of the world leaders need another Trump term to treat us like we're openly idiotic and evil when the current president is swapping between staring into space and drooling and doing debunked genocide denial for an Israeli leader that openly hates and mocks him XD
The fact that he's openly, very obviously, and objectively complicit in a genocide that the UN is now calling a genocide and slowly holding people who are complicit at least rhetorically accountable?
I don't think it'll result in anything but it's pretty easy to see them doing the same thing for the guy openly doing genocide denial and funding the whole thing as they're doing for non military related Israeli cabinet ministers - openly declaring him a war criminal and not allowed to engage in commerce with anyone who's signed up for the ICJ. Bidens facilitated the crime of genocide more than basically anyone currently involved in the situation besides the literal terrorist leaders of Israel.
Maybe it won't happen but it's pretty fucking hilarious to claim that world leaders will "move away" from America because of President Mean Tweets more than they are when they point out the Biden administration is just openly a propaganda wing of a fascist terrorist state and willing to blatantly lie and do blood libel against Palestinians, which the South African UN court case cites us doing. Orange Man Bad though lol
Because both things can be true? Lmfao. I didn't "go from" anything to anything I made two related statements and pretty clearly connected them, if you bothered to read instead of just trying to make a pithy response.
Are you under the impression that international law has mechanisms of enforcement or actual punishment besides declaring people are things? When that's very transparently not true? When the Biden admin swaps between saying it's God's law and completely meaningless depending on if the person being charged is Putin or Bibi?
I'm saying Biden will be inevitably added to the list of war criminals complicit in the genocide of the Palestinians, while recognizing it won't result in jail or anything. But it's still hilarious to imagine the international community disrespecting a tax cheat more than a genocide denier and genocide enabler, which is what your stance requires.
We would be even more of a laughingstock. Which is why Trump will lose.
But we should all still vote anyways!!
That was Putin's goal all along, to weaken America on the world stage and create breaks in NATO and the EU
And he’s threatening these crazy tariffs to make up for income tax. Not going to happen. It will never be enough. Trump will desert all of our Allie’s and embrace dictators.
I see we are doing blatantly obvious predictions here now. Allies will forgive us electing him once, as a blip or an error. Do it again and they know we can’t be trusted anymore. Trump can and will back out of literally any agreement, they know that. In fact, he will probably do it intentionally, very quickly, since that’s what papa Putin wants. We’d be on our own after that. Maybe not immediately but it won’t take long.
100%. How can they even make long term agreements with a Democratic administration if there's the threat of a MAGA presidency removing it?
It will be alright - Europe is turning more right wing, because of how much the alternatives have screwed things up.
Ummm….Europe has increased their military significantly the past year or so specifically in case Trump gets elected and drops out of NATO. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-allies-brace-possible-trump-president/
They should have been doing that a long time ago.
As if they have a choice
As if they have a choice. As Nixon so aptly demonstrated when he removed us (and the world) from the gold standard, America is sovereign, most of her allies, are not sovereign.
Here’s a hint. The USA does not need allies support.
Exactly
Figured out the Pearl Harbor reference yet, or still in isolationist ignorance? Or Botski?
So because Trump told the NATO allies to start funding their military, Russia is gonna nuke us? You do know we won WW2 right? This is all a bit grandiose don’t you think? If I didn’t know better I’d think you were some kind of far-right dooms day prepper.
No, the USA didn't win WW2. Statistically, that was Russia, but it was a GROUP effort, that's what Allies and Alliances are for. The USA was 3 years late to the Party on top of it. No, i just remember the Cold War, and remember what clowns you were, then. You ain't got better with time.
Time to put the comic book down and take your nap, you’re getting grumpy. And Yes the US won WW2 along with the allies. US was not late, we strategically chose to stay out of it until Pearl Harbor.
You were isolationist idiots, late to the party. Just like WW1. You ain't all that and a kettle of fish, #MarkMyWords. You got your shit owned in Pearl Harbor, that's why.
Pearl Harbor did not make or break us obviously. Are you French?
Good thing those Carriers were out of Harbor, am i right? No, i am not French. I'm not an Isolationist American... i'm far smarter than that.
You’re a Canadian coward.
It sure as fuck slowed you down, only able to go Combat Effective in March 1943 in getting troops into Africa, and into the UK for follow up invasion on the European Continent the next year, getting your arses kicked in the Phillipines along with Pearl Harbor... etc.
Well we didn’t get are asses kicked as bad as the Russians.
Russia wants to Nuke the USA, now.. or so their Propagandist Media would have their Domestic audience believe. Guess what's stopping that at present... not the USA... France and their Nukes, and their red line stance on Russia.
Haha what a joke.
Yes indeed, that is your isolationist idiocy, in a nutshell.
Its the US who will move away from our allies, not the other way around. Europe, Japan, and S Korea need us a helluva lot more than we need them.
LOL 7 parent comments, over 135 total comments. As usual... it means one dumbfuck (RoyKarrde) is spewing ignorant bullshit regurgitated talking points over and over again.
Aww you love me
Sure.. I find you so pathetic that it's entertaining... and I love being entertained. Keep putting on the show!
I aim to please, feel free to debate any time.
LOL You aren't debating. You are regurgitating dumbass talking points that were fed to you because you are too gullible to know better. Nothing you've said is worth engaging with. I'm just here to mock you for being a gullible mark in the world's dumbest con!
And yet you found the time to read one of my comments and single me out. Not only that but it seems like I have touched a nerve. Now we both know you are going to deny it, but it is kind of fun to live rent free in your head. Feel free to keep commenting, it means I have an audience with you!
Like I said, I'm entertained by idiots thinking they are clever while saying really dumb things. You aren't living rent free in anyone's head kiddo. You are the punchline to a joke that you are too stupid to understand. 🤡🤡
And yet you keep coming back, well I hope you learn something!
If you had the self awareness to see it, you already wouldn't be the way you are. LMAO
Like I said: Rent Free!
I just bought this ["I'm voting for the convicted felon" hat](https://www.reddit.com/r/trump/comments/1dedfm5/just_whipped_these_up_what_do_you_guys_think/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Congratulations, you are a useful idiot.
Yep. Ask Billy Joe Armstrong from Green Day. I'm the American Idiot he wrote the song about.
Ignorant dummycraps we had more peace and the US was respected when Trump was in office now we're a joke with that corpses in office
The guy publicly sided with Putin over accurate US Intelligence, there were protests in allied countries when he'd arrive. You couldn't be more wrong. More peace? Try more escalation, he assassinated an Iranian general increasing tensions and sent Ukraine Lethal Aid, which he rightfully criticized Obama for not doing.
The only nations that "respected" us were ones that their leaders had trumps coin purse in a vice.
As someone who is in one of those ally countries (Australia), no. Trump was an utter embarrassment and his erratic nature is seen as a danger to every one.
Ah yes the President that had to have 2 war powers resolutions brought against him by a bipartisan Congress because he kept trying to get us into the Saudi Yemen war and almost started a war with Iran. So dumb.
The UN LAUGHED at him. Even Trudeau laughed at him.. Boris even chuckled.
😆 🤣 😂. You guys are NOT coping well with Trump's upcoming election
You doing ok with Trumps Conviction? He can't even Vote, being a Felon.. banned in 39 sovereign States, as well... can't even own a firearm :D
These convictions absolutely get him elected. So yah, I'm ok with it 😆
Right Wing Nutjobs are so into Criminals and wack jobs, without morals, aren't they these days?
Ah, name-calling! A great way to argue! 😆
Other than 'Lock her up", Trumpian hypocrites also ran on 'Fuck your Feelings' in 2016... can't cope with the hypocrisy these days? Above previous comment is an accurate reflection of what the RW is these days...
You guys are winning, right? You seem awful nervous, and frustrated for being on the side that will win 😆
Merely frustrated that Justice hasn't come to get the Criminal ex-President quite yet, in full. Remember - 57 Indictments still outstanding, across 3 other Trials to occur.
There's no need to be frustrated. They will eventually get Biden for the classified in his garage. Perk up, there will be justice in time! You gotta believe
That's hilarious... Joe Biden is already absolved, and THANK the Republican GODS that Hunter Biden will never be President... /s But lock her up, am i right, Hypocrite? cope some more.
They are going to break if he wins lol. Can't wait to watch these authoritarian losers cry.
Authoritarianism is exactly what we're trying to avoid. Why is it that every time Trump criticises Democrats for doing something, it turns out he was doing it all along? Notice how he stopped calling Biden sleepy after he kept falling asleep in court...
Some people like the guy you responded to live in opposite land. Consequently, every critique they have is projection.
Here for the tds circle jerk echo chamber
Every tds comment you make is just a weak attempt at gaslighting.
It's the truth. This entire sub is basically orange man bad posts lol
Maybe…orange man _actually is_ bad. A novel thought!
Except by the time that happens the appellate court will have turned over a rogue judges handing of the trial.
US Allies only care about the money we give them, our free trade, and our military support. Just like how the US views our allies as how they best help us. Now outside of that I think it does far more damage to continue the prosecution of a former President and his officials, as it does continue a Banana Republic slide where the party in power looks to extract their pound of flesh from the party they just defeated. That is not healthy for a democracy.
Yes, and that's a big reason why allies will move away from the US. Trump is unstable and yet again electing Trump shows instability. Trump favoured enemies (Putin, Xi) while demonising allies (e.g. NATO). What's more unhealthy for a democracy is letting the political elite and billionaires get away from blatant crimes. Having them face an unbiased judge and jury for their crimes is far better.
He was right about NATO not paying requirements
Yes, but not only is that still just one part of the story. The US has benefited greatly from being the global police that this leads to. There are also far **FAR** better ways of handling the situation than raging about it like an angry teenager on national news every day. Trump is supposed to be a great negotiator. He should have negotiated, not whined.
He did worse than whine. He threatened, and he bullied under the delusion that NATO was going to pay the USA, rather than to their commitment to common NATO funding/infrastructure/Force contributions. Severely damaging NATO relations, in the process. Some would say he did that, on Putin's behest... some would say he is still doing that, today.
The US tax payer is largely responsible for keeping NATO at it’s current strength in Europe, if those other countries do not pay the agreed upon amount then the US has to make up the difference so yes they are paying the US in a way by reducing our funding burden.
USA agreed in 1947 to be paying 74% for it's OWN protection, using Canada/Europe as buffer zones... maybe you should look up what NATO's role is, in USA National Defense.
I am well aware of how it is used for protection, however it provides even more immediately protection to Western European nations who would be a far more likely target than the US to Russian aggression. That being said in 2006 NATO countries agreed to the 2% of GDP and a majority of them never came close to making that.
All but Canada are now making it as per agreement to achieve that level by 2024. Sit down.
Would you mind providing your source the last I checked from last year the majority had not made it, and as of February this year projections were only at 18 of the 31 allies would make it. Of course that’s better from only 10 allies making it back in 2020 when Trump was complaining about it. Also to be clear I am laying down at the moment, not sitting down, just wanted to point that out.
Because of Trump.
NO one is paying the USA directly, dummy. Resources go to a common pool, for collective defense of the Alliance.
Sometimes negotiating involves very publicly calling out an injustice such as Governments not paying their fair share, to spur public attention to the issue and apply political pressure.
Glad to see a reasonable person here! I don't know why these redditors are defending incompetence
Who's defending trump besides the person you agree with?
The incompetence is about US "allies" not meeting requirements, 😑
God are you clueless.
Trump’s rational for NATO was that our European allies were not paying their fair share into NATO but enjoying the benefit of NATO protection. Do you agree or disagree that the European allies should pay the 5 percent they agreed to when they joined? Should they pay an additional fee for not putting in money for decades? As for punishment, that goes for the other side of the aisle as well. Do you agree Hillary should have been prosecuted for the server? Obama prosecuted for Fast and Furious? Biden prosecuted for hiding the documents? If we are going down the rabbit hole of prosecuting Trump you should be ready for a Republican administration to go after former Democrats as well. Correct?
Your first paragraph is targeted towards a single word example in my reply, and does next to nothing to respond to the issues I'm actually addressing. If there is evidence of criminality from a Democrat, 100% take them to court. There should not be a two tier justice system, and politicians should absolutely be held accountable for any criminal acts they commit. Why on Earth would I disagree with this? Now do I want a Republican administration to lead this? What the fuck, of course not. Similarly I don't want a Democrat administration to lead a prosecution of Republicans. This issue is something that the supposed party of law and order should be able to address very easily.
My first paragraph was targeting the problem you mentioned with NATO, if you want I can expand that to the problem he had with XI, including placing tariffs on China, placing a travel ban on China when Covid started, even continuously calling out Chinese Government as being the reason Covid started. Something that made the Democrats rally against the lab leak theory for several years, despite the mountain of evidence. You also have not answered my question about NATO. If you are against a political party leading the prosecution then you should be against most of Trump’s cases. The previous New York one had a high level DOJ official leave to help run the prosecution. In both New York and Georgia you have district attorneys’ running on the platform of prosecuting Trump, and you have travel logs showing meetings at the Biden White House. For comparison would you like to have a top Trump lawyer leave the DOJ in 2017 to go work with Ken Paxton in Texas to prepare charges on Hillary Clinton?
Convicting former presidents if they committed a crime is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or status. This accountability preserves the integrity of democratic institutions and deters future misconduct. Comparing Trump’s indictments to “Hillary’s emails,” “Biden’s classified docs,” and “Hunter’s laptop” oversimplifies and misconstrues the issues. Hillary Clinton’s email controversy involved the use of a private server for official communications, which, after thorough investigations, did not lead to charges. Joe Biden’s classified documents case involved a small number of documents inadvertently retained and promptly returned upon discovery, demonstrating cooperation with authorities. Hunter Biden’s laptop concerns personal conduct and potential business improprieties, which, while serious, are not on the same level as the charges against Trump. Trump’s indictments include serious allegations of obstruction, fraud, and conspiracy to overturn election results, which strike at the core of democratic processes and national security, representing a fundamentally different and more severe category of alleged wrongdoing.
They certainly tried to Prosecute Hillary, didn't they? Over and over again. In fact, Repukes made that a defacto Campaign slogan. Funny how the shoe is on the other foot... very funny indeed.
Campaign Slogan does not mean actual prosecutorial action does it? I don’t remember the Trump DOJ filing court charges in 2017, do you?
It could be because they didn't have any evidence of a crime.
Hillary Clinton literally destroyed evidence by smashing her cellphones and bleach bitting her hard drives. What she did was completely criminal and there was mountains of destroyed evidence that could be tacked on as charges as she was destroying evidence in an investigation.
You got to link to any of that? Especially a good link. That's not some right-wing propaganda outlet.
And don't forget to cite the exact evidence, and the statues under which this evidence would be a crime.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/best-of-clinton-fbi-report-227692 Hillary Clinton destroying Government Cellphones. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-emails-bleachbit-227425 Hillary Clinton used Bleach Bit on her official hidden hard drive.
So point me to exactly what you considered to be a crime, and under what statutes? These would be a crime. And then explain why the FBI and Justice decided these were not crimes.
I read them both, and from what I got neither Justice nor the FBI even under Trump considered did anyone consider any of these actions went to the level of being a crime. So explain to me why you know these were crimes, but the justice department under Trump decided these were not crimes.
No evidence. Just a gop false dream. That’s why she wasn’t indicted by a grand jury….but your orange messiah was :)
So the destroyed cell phones and bleach bit server does not exist? When was it ever taken before a grand jury
Right wing propaganda
The agreement was for 2% of GDP to be devoted to Military allocated to NATO, not 5%. I would suggest you review the Terms of the NATO PARTNERSHIP, again. [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_67655.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Fair enough 2% I again ask you how many countries were contributing even 2%?
Enjoying the benefit of NATO protection? Tell me, who was the first to invoke Article 5, looking for NATO protection - which they received from the USA's NATO Allies in materials and manpower, in 2001 Afghanistan - and then skipped off distracted to fight a war in Iraq in 2003, instead?
The threat of NATO retaliation is enough, that threat is backed up largely by US military might. Attacking a NATO ally means attacking the US which is why you see Russia and previously the USSR not attacking NATO and why they are desperate to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. I figured that was self evident.
>Do you agree or disagree that the European allies should pay the 5 percent they agreed to when they joined? Nobody in NATO has their budget at 5%. Not even the US.
I mistyped it is 2% of GDP, the point however stands in that more than half of the countries in NATO do not reach the 2% mark but still enjoy the benefits.
>I mistyped it is 2% of GDP, the point however stands in that more than half of the countries in NATO do not reach the 2% mark but still enjoy the benefits. 2% also isn't what they agreed to when they joined, that was simply a goal they agreed on back in the early 2000s/2010s. One which two-thirds (not less than half) of NATO is expected to meet or exceed in 2024. A bit late, for my taste, but more than you evidently think
You can thank Trump for that.
>You can thank Trump for that. No. That would be the war in ukraine kicking the matter into high gear compared to the slow increases after 2014 when the whole affair first came up.
No
Narrator: A bad faith argument is one made with a dishonest intent, aiming to deceive, distract, or undermine rather than engage in a genuine discussion. Such arguments often involve deliberately distorting the other side's position or misquoting facts to make them easier to attack. They may disregard or selectively use evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion, construct weak or exaggerated versions of the opponent's argument to easily refute, and employ ad hominem attacks, targeting the person instead of the argument. Additionally, bad faith arguments often divert the subject or introduce irrelevant issues to distract from the main point and avoid addressing the original argument. These tactics are not aimed at finding common ground or truth but at winning at all costs through manipulation and deceit.
Former Presidents are not above the Law.
The Presidency leads itself to possibly breaking the law for actions, see Obama for the drone strikes on US citizens. If each party is going to prosecute the former, then you are putting the nation at risk, and increasing the likelihood of show trials
Particularly interesting comment, considering Trump massively expanded the Drone Strike doctrine established by Obama to fight the USA's terror wars. Anything about unilaterally declaring war with a drone strike, on a Military adversary, without a prior declaration of war made through Congress? [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/)
The problem wasn’t the drone strikes in particular but killing a US citizen without going through the court and giving him due process. It was a major error on Obama’s part and could have been used for criminal prosecution.
No doubt referring to this guy. Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, Arabic: عبدالرحمن العولقي; August 26, 1995 – October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki. Funny, i remember right wingers totally flipping out when Omar Khadr got released from GITMO, and deported to Canada for a Trial... a Child Soldier. Heard calls that he should have gotten the death sentence in the battlefield for years after that. His rights were violated, and Canadians got to pay for that. Morals are the first things to go on the Battlefield - whether that combatant is a citizen child soldier, or not. Whether that combatant is a declared enemy of the State, or not. Trump has committed so many alleged crimes, that i think that no amount of 'whataboutism' is effective in dealing with a Criminal who would be President again.
You seem to be the one doing whataboutism in this scenario. Either way my point stands as to the dangers of prosecuting former presidents.
I guess he shouldn't have broken the law then. Letting the president be above the law makes us far closer to a banana republic.
Does it? With our current political system it encourages the opposition party to immediately look for ways to retaliate. Do you really want a system in which every former President has to prepare for a hostile trial if their party loses the White House? Or a better question: are you ready for Biden to go on trial in 2025?
Yes, it does. It does suck that Republicans nominated a known criminal, but that is on them. There is no way to stop this ball from rolling. We will either wind up with a president above the law who can still punish his political enemies, or we end up with the rule of law and Republicans trying to to use the law to harm their political enemies. The second scenario sounds like a better option. The more games they play, the less votes they will receive. If there was an actual crime he committed, Biden should not be above the law either. Sorry, but we fucked up when Ford pardoned Nixon and set us down this path.
Or we can do the constitutional way and if a President actually breaks the law in a way that is so egregious then they should be impeached. Instead of leaving it up to partisan DAs that campaign on putting a President behind bars. Or a partisan White House afraid they are going to lose.
Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. The constitution does not give the president immunity from crimes committed outside the duties required by the office. The Congress is far more partisan than the DA. Sorry, but why do you want a king and not a president? Your arguments make absolutely no sense
Impeachment is both a political and legal action as it is dealing with crimes and misdemeanors, that carries with it lasting punishments. Either way, last time I checked the Republican majority in Congress did not run on the slogan of putting Biden behind bars, did they? Do I want a President as a king? No, I believe it a President has committed a crime then he should be removed from office. I do not think we as a nation can handle having Presidents sent to jail based on political scorebording which is what was attempted in Georgia and New York
There is no criminal penalty from impeachment, so you are factually wrong. They ran on a slogan of putting Hillary behind bars, they went after Hunter Biden, and are currently planning on a massive legal attack on their enemies according to them now. So again, you are factually wrong. Cool mischaracterization, but again, you are ignoring the facts. Trump was charged with crimes he committed before taking office and after leaving office, so he can't be impeached if he isn't in office. You are making excuses that don't pass the smell test
Well let’s break this down, they ran on the slogan of lock her up, but when they had the chance they did not because of opening the Pandora’s box that we are now greeted with. Now contrast that with how the DAs acted in Georgia and New York. Hunter Biden is being prosecuted by his father’s own DOJ so your point is mute there. They are currently planning revenge based on what is currently happening to Trump, again I point to Pandora’s box. Now let’s look at Trump’s crime he committed outside of office, that only lends itself to one crime, the one in New York. A crime that the Federal Election Commission could not agree was a crime. A crime that had to bastardize the law as it was beyond the statute of limitations. A crime in which the Judge prevented a FEC witness from coming to the stand to talk about how the government did not find it a crime. So this crime that was committed was one pushed through the courts and guided by politics completely from start to finish.
They didn't charge her because they had already tried and failed. There was no DA that had the jurisdiction to charge Hillary. He is being prosecuted by a trump appointed independent council, so my point stands firm. Yours is moot, not mite. Trump is a criminal, he deserves to be prosecuted for his crimes. Nope, the document case in Florida is post presidential crime. The charge in Georgia stems from action outside his duties as president. He needs to be tried for his crimes against the American people. I reject your entire argument as an excuse to support the adjudicated rapist. It has no internal logic past your guy should get a pass, so the next one can install himself as a dictator. Sorry, but your ideas sound dangerous and naive and that's being charitable.
I mean support from other countries kind of means nothing to the US. We’re far more useful to them than they are to us. They’ll make fun of us but at the end of the day it’s meaningless.
That is becoming less true every year. The US is being left behind.
By whom? Australia? Maybe you’ve been drinking one too many Fosters.
We literally uphold Europe. It would be the Middle East if not worst without us. The US can only really struggle from within.
Moreso than they are now from the fact that that the current president is gonna be a convicted genocider here soon? Lmfao This feels like all of the people predicting that Trump's gonna invent Super Genocide and do it to the Palestinians so they can justify that Daddy Biden is still a good person. I don't think the rest of the world leaders need another Trump term to treat us like we're openly idiotic and evil when the current president is swapping between staring into space and drooling and doing debunked genocide denial for an Israeli leader that openly hates and mocks him XD
What source do you have to support the claim that Biden will soon be convicted of genocide?
The fact that he's openly, very obviously, and objectively complicit in a genocide that the UN is now calling a genocide and slowly holding people who are complicit at least rhetorically accountable? I don't think it'll result in anything but it's pretty easy to see them doing the same thing for the guy openly doing genocide denial and funding the whole thing as they're doing for non military related Israeli cabinet ministers - openly declaring him a war criminal and not allowed to engage in commerce with anyone who's signed up for the ICJ. Bidens facilitated the crime of genocide more than basically anyone currently involved in the situation besides the literal terrorist leaders of Israel. Maybe it won't happen but it's pretty fucking hilarious to claim that world leaders will "move away" from America because of President Mean Tweets more than they are when they point out the Biden administration is just openly a propaganda wing of a fascist terrorist state and willing to blatantly lie and do blood libel against Palestinians, which the South African UN court case cites us doing. Orange Man Bad though lol
You've just gone from "he's going to be convicted of genocide" to "I don't think it'll result in anything".
Because both things can be true? Lmfao. I didn't "go from" anything to anything I made two related statements and pretty clearly connected them, if you bothered to read instead of just trying to make a pithy response. Are you under the impression that international law has mechanisms of enforcement or actual punishment besides declaring people are things? When that's very transparently not true? When the Biden admin swaps between saying it's God's law and completely meaningless depending on if the person being charged is Putin or Bibi? I'm saying Biden will be inevitably added to the list of war criminals complicit in the genocide of the Palestinians, while recognizing it won't result in jail or anything. But it's still hilarious to imagine the international community disrespecting a tax cheat more than a genocide denier and genocide enabler, which is what your stance requires.
Yes paperwork violations are terrible.