My thoughts, as a liberal, on the Trump indictment

[+Desertrat56]

39 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Although your message was cut short, I get what you mean.

This indictment however will make that group grow. 35% (estimated) will become 40%. And then 45%. Catch my drift? Action creates reaction. In this case unwanted reaction.

I suspect the opposite will happen, the 20% will become 5%.  I am not sure where you get 35% estimated, I don't think it is really that high.  He has betrayed too many people.

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

If that is the case then the law should be changed, not disregarded because someone threatens violence if persecuted.

Or we must realize that popular support is more powerful than the law, and use diplomacy and dialogue instead or persecution. Trump is a symbol, not a person.

@Desertrat56
I sincerely hope you are right.

[Tatetopa]

32 minutes ago, zep73 said:

But you're assuming that the law is wise.

The law is just a human attempt to make perfect rules for all. It is as flawed as we are.

Let me add another thought to that.

Observers find that monkeys have a sense of fairness.  Monkeys notice when they get a bland piece of squash for a reward and a peer gets two delicious grapes. It affect their willingness to participate in future tasks. We can impose some other system upon them, but they have something innate that works in their social order.

Likewise, in the natural order of things, our sense of fairness must evolve to support the complexity of our society.  The only alternative would be imposition of a coda by a more powerful entity, either a god, aliens, or the simulation programmer.

 

[Setton]

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

Or we must realize that popular support is more powerful than the law,

And that thinking is exactly how you end up looking like 1930s Germany...

Quote

and use diplomacy and dialogue instead or persecution. Trump is a symbol, not a person.

And that is how Chamberlain tried to deal with said Germany. Didn't go well.

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Let me add another thought to that.

Observers find that monkeys have a sense of fairness.  Monkeys notice when they get a bland piece of squash for a reward and a peer gets two delicious grapes. It affect their willingness to participate in future tasks. We can impose some other system upon them, but they have something innate that works in their social order.

Likewise, in the natural order of things, our sense of fairness must evolve to support the complexity of our society.  The only alternative would be imposition of a coda by a more powerful entity, either a god, aliens, or the simulation programmer.

 

 

1 minute ago, Setton said:

And that thinking is exactly how you end up looking like 1930s Germany...

And that is how Chamberlain tried to deal with said Germany. Didn't go well.

 

I never said it would be easy.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

Are you willing to take that risk, in a historical perspective? Attack a hero for millions? Risk instability for a single act of righteousness?

What exact risk are you referring to and what historical precedent is there for it?  I consider Jan 6th to be an anomaly like the 9/11 hijackings, neither had ever happened before and neither will probably happen again; just as passengers will likely never again sit idly by while their plane is hijacked I would sure hope that the next time there is a protest at the Capitol there are plenty of armed police to prevent entry into the building.

Besides, we can just keep going with this 'risk' and possible instability.  Are you willing to take the risk that we find out later that the government had plenty of evidence to charge Trump but didn't because he's essentially 'too big/popular to charge', while we go on prosecuting citizens who commit the same crimes?  That's not going to also cause people to mistrust the government and possibly threaten overall safety?

Essentially I think you need an extremely compelling reason to not prosecute someone, especially Presidents, who (may have) broken the law and I don't think 'but maybe his super-fans will be violent' is nearly a good enough reason since again I'm not seeing the evidence they are even remotely a significant reasonable threat. 

50 minutes ago, zep73 said:

This indictment however will make that group grow. 35% (estimated) will become 40%. And then 45%. Catch my drift?

I think this is a 'maybe' not a 'will', how do we know for that matter that the number may not shrink some as evidence of his supposed crimes come out?  Most importantly there is a gigantic difference between the questions 'do you think it's fair that Trump was indicted?' and 'are you willing to disturb the peace as a protest/response to Trump's indictment?', I think the latter is a much smaller group.  We've already been through far worse, none of this is anywhere near 1968.

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, zep73 said:

 

 

I never said it would be easy.

Giving into threats is very easy. It's much harder to do what's right even under threat of violence.

[zep73]

@Liquid Gardens @Setton I rest my case.

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, MGB said:

If he has zero proof Georgia was stolen and then he asked him to "find the votes" yes, he did.

It's not illegal to say "find the votes" 

Edited March 31 by acidhead

[lightly]

The vote in Georgia was recounted 3 times…long story sort, in each count,  Trump lost. 

    Here’s the whole story…. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-georgia-elections-4eeea3b24f10de886bcdeab6c26b680a

Edited March 31 by lightly

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

I never said it would be easy.

Sorry, never said what would be easy? 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think you are confused.   Letting any politician or rich person get away with breaking laws of any kind because of the fear of riots or violence by idiots who support that person is wrong.

I concur. But two points, if I may:

Firstly, the people continually trying to get a conviction of Trump are doing so only because it is Donald Trump, archenemy of the democratic party, and they are wrongfully influencing an election.
And just out of curiosity, DesertRat56, did you or *any* democrat call foul when Hilary Clinton was let off the hook by a biased AG and FBI? I bet not! -
And Hilary was obviously guilty of crimes a lot worse than what they get Trump on. 

It's called BIAS. and it is so wrong.

 

 

 

Edited April 1 by Earl.Of.Trumps
typo

[+Desertrat56]

18 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I concur. But two points, if I may:

Firstly, the people continually trying to get a conviction of Trump are doing so only because it is Donald Trump, archenemy of the democratic party, and they are wrongfully influencing an election.
And just out of curiosity, DesertRat56, did you or *any* democrat call foul when Hilary Clinton was let off the hook by a biased AG and FBI? I bet not! -
And Hilary was obviously guilty of crimes a lot worse than what they get Trump on. 

It's called BIAS. and it is so wrong.

 

 

 

No, he has broken laws, lied on his tax returns.   He cannot hide behind politics for much longer.   And the Hilary thing was only different because of the people she is related to.  Yes, ALL politicians that get as far as Hilary and Donald and Joe have break the law in many ways, but they are protected by the corporations that own them, as well as what ever party they belong to (which is owned by corporations that buy favors from Both Parties.

Edited April 1 by Desertrat56

[Unusual Tournament]

33 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I concur. But two points, if I may:

Firstly, the people continually trying to get a conviction of Trump are doing so only because it is Donald Trump, archenemy of the democratic party, and they are wrongfully influencing an election.
And just out of curiosity, DesertRat56, did you or *any* democrat call foul when Hilary Clinton was let off the hook by a biased AG and FBI? I bet not! -
And Hilary was obviously guilty of crimes a lot worse than what they get Trump on. 

It's called BIAS. and it is so wrong.

 

 

 

…agree! It’s definitely bias. Can’t get Trump on Russian collusion BUT Stormy Daniels is an easy take. But Trump is no angel. 

[spartan max2]

Out of all the of **** that has happened in the last 6 years, I really don't see an indictment changing anyones minds.

Everyone minds seems pretty set at this point 

[Occupational Hubris]

7 hours ago, zep73 said:

I usually avoid political discussions, because they always get so hateful and ruin my good mood. But sometimes things get so stupid, you have to react. I hope I won't regret this.

It is no secret that I dislike Trump, and that it brought me great joy when he lost the 2020 election. The reason for this is not that he's republican, or that he's conservative, or that he's right wing. The reason is that he's a selfish person. A divider. Someone who'd gladly sacrifice the safety of his people and country for his own benefit.
I have beloved friends who support Trump, and I respect that. We just don't agree about him.

I however think that indicting him is a huge mistake, because, what is the purpose of the law? Is it not to keep the peace? To keep everybody safe? Does the law stand above people's safety? If it does, something is terribly wrong with it.
This indictment will only destabilize the US further. It will enlargen the divide. It will turn Trump into a martyr. He is the only one who will benefit from it.

What the US needs right now is more tolerance and more communication between the wings. Not this re-ignition of the hate. The left has shot itself in the foot, and no nonsense about "nobody is above the law" can justify it. Peace is above the law, and this is most likely seen as a declaration of war by his supporters.

One could add that this indictment is not political, but just justice being served, but when the indicted is a former president, it gets political, no matter what narrative you try to use.

There should be no toleratance or communication with a political ideaology whose entire platform is to marginalize and dehumanize entire groups of people, including their own constituents. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, acidhead said:

It's not illegal to say "find the votes" 

We here in America sometimes hold our leaders to a higher standard than the absolute lowest of 'is it legal or not'....

[Hawken]

Trump has received $4 million from supporters within 24 hours since his indictment was announced.

I do agree. It's not about if one loves or hates Trump. It's about the justice system being weaponized

for political purposes. If they can use it on a former president. They will use it on ordinary citizens.

[Setton]

11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And Hilary was obviously guilty of crimes a lot worse than what they get Trump on. 

 

On 3/31/2023 at 8:19 AM, and-then said:

You don't know much about American jurisprudence, do you?  Over here we've had a little saying for over 200 years:

"The accused is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW"  Even then, verdicts can be overturned by appeal.

Thanks @and-then for arguing for Clinton's innocence.

[zep73]

12 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Sorry, never said what would be easy? 

Diplomacy and dialogue to avoid conflict. But if his support is dwindling, like some suggest, I guess my worries are obsolete.

[kartikg]

19 hours ago, zep73 said:

I usually avoid political discussions, because they always get so hateful and ruin my good mood. But sometimes things get so stupid, you have to react. I hope I won't regret this.

It is no secret that I dislike Trump, and that it brought me great joy when he lost the 2020 election. The reason for this is not that he's republican, or that he's conservative, or that he's right wing. The reason is that he's a selfish person. A divider. Someone who'd gladly sacrifice the safety of his people and country for his own benefit.
I have beloved friends who support Trump, and I respect that. We just don't agree about him.

I however think that indicting him is a huge mistake, because, what is the purpose of the law? Is it not to keep the peace? To keep everybody safe? Does the law stand above people's safety? If it does, something is terribly wrong with it.
This indictment will only destabilize the US further. It will enlargen the divide. It will turn Trump into a martyr. He is the only one who will benefit from it.

What the US needs right now is more tolerance and more communication between the wings. Not this re-ignition of the hate. The left has shot itself in the foot, and no nonsense about "nobody is above the law" can justify it. Peace is above the law, and this is most likely seen as a declaration of war by his supporters.

One could add that this indictment is not political, but just justice being served, but when the indicted is a former president, it gets political, no matter what narrative you try to use.

I feel he is indicted for the very reason he was an outsider of the establishment. It's sending message to people outside that they will be dealt with. It has nothing to do with his policies or political stance. Even if he was not trump same would have happened. 

[Raptor Witness]

19 hours ago, zep73 said:

…. Peace is above the law, and this is most likely seen as a declaration of war by his supporters …

Yes, but who threatens that “peace,” and at what price?  Czechoslovakia ?

Then Eastern Europe?

Trump is an adult bully, who stole one election, then tried to steal a second.

He needs to be exiled to Russia.

Edited April 1 by Raptor Witness

[zep73]

8 minutes ago, kartikg said:

I feel he is indicted for the very reason he was an outsider of the establishment. It's sending message to people outside that they will be dealt with. It has nothing to do with his policies or political stance. Even if he was not trump same would have happened. 

I don't believe in any such conspiracy. Just because he has p!ssed off a lot of people, doesn't mean they conspire against him. If there is any conspiracy, it's within the GOP, to get rid of him.

 

5 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

Yes, but who threatens that “peace,” and at what price?  Czechoslovakia ?

Then Eastern Europe?

Trump is an adult bully, who stole one election, then tried to steal a second.

He needs to be exiled Russia.

Czechoslovakia? There is no such place.

He won the 2016 election fair and square. Let's not sink to his level and make up lies.

[kartikg]

Isn't there is so much evidence on Biden, why not indict him. 

[Gromdor]

Granting politicians special privileges is how we got to this point in the first place.