Trump indicted again in federal election interference case following Supreme Court immunity ruling

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

do you think the charges against Trump should be brought again? One of two outcomes is about to happen. Trump wins, and his new DOJ tells Smith to go away and the charges are dropped. Or, Trump looses, and won't be president again ever, and there is no longer any appetite for spending resources trying to prosecute him, when he is no longer a political threat. Both ways seem pointless, and there are "rules" about prosecuting a political opponent within such a tight window to the election, though it wouldn't surprise me if they ignored that, as they have all the other previous norms about prosecuting political rivals.

Can you imagine what kind of world we might be in had Trump not been prosecuted for his lawyers making those journal entries calling payments to his lawyer "legal fees"? My GOD, (said in an angry Joe Biden voice) Plus Trump called NAZI's very fine people, not kidding, it's what he said.

eta:
If Trump was to be found guilty of being angry he was flucked out of the 2020 election, and he is given jail time, do you think he will learn his lesson so he won't repeat that crime when he runs for his third term in 2028?

I don't know, perhaps the process for questioning the vote is to challenge the vote legally (which requires actual evidence), as has been done previously, not to lyingly motivate a particular mob of 'bigots for Trump', unrepresentative of the entire population, to 'protest'.

At no time during Trump's presidency did he ever have majority approval. He didn't even win the popular vote in 2016 when he was elected President by the EC vote. He lost more popularity evidenced in the mid-term election while he was in office. He also didn't poll well in the lead-up to the 2020 election. And now we can see, by his own admission, after the recounts, appeals to the court, and after the dust has settled, he genuinely lost the 2020 election. He was holding on to power by his fingernails all through his term.

He also did not achieve much (and clearly mis-handled the whole COVID thing) while he was in office. He screwed up international trade, was serially played by Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, and Putin. He was foundational to signing a 'deal' which permanently gave up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to Arab control (but it didn't stop the subsequent conflicts, did it?). He pushed for US owned industry that had previously left the country to come back in to the country, only for them to subsequently fail and shut-up shop forever. He gave tax breaks to the wealthy, while cutting social security and health spending (during a pandemic, no less!). He even demolished most of his own Republican Party stalwarts by character assassination and innuendo.

The idea that only one person, out of every other possible national administrator, is the only capable leader of the country, is plain nonsense.

Trump has demonstrated his inability to lead capably. He had a few good stats initially, but left office with the nation on the brink of recession, with raging disease, greater social and political instability, with alienated international allies, and unserviceable debt.

a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote DOES NOT matter. The United States does NOT have a national election. The United States have 50 State elections held on the same day. Each State's Elections are run and controlled by that particular State. The votes in one State have absolutely no bearing on another State. Saying someone didn't win the popular vote, therefore the Election winner is illegitimate, is ignoring how the United States Federal Elections work.
Stop trying to judge the United States Constitutional Republic as if it were a Democracy. The Founders didn't want a Democracy because that is Mob rules (the Majority can vote themselves whatever the minority has but the Majority wants). National Popular votes are for straight Democracy.

originally posted by: TheSemiskepticII
a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote DOES NOT matter. The United States does NOT have a national election. The United States have 50 State elections held on the same day. Each State's Elections are run and controlled by that particular State. The votes in one State have absolutely no bearing on another State. Saying someone didn't win the popular vote, therefore the Election winner is illegitimate, is ignoring how the United States Federal Elections work.
Stop trying to judge the United States Constitutional Republic as if it were a Democracy. The Founders didn't want a Democracy because that is Mob rules (the Majority can vote themselves whatever the minority has but the Majority wants). National Popular votes are for straight Democracy.

So all that 'flag waving, hand on heart' stuff is irrelevant, because the USA isn't a nation with an overarching Federal administration under a single Constitution with legal supremacy?

LOL.

But the USA is not considered internationally to be a working democracy, anyway.

Ranking of Countries by Quality of Democracy

"Deficient" is the word they use.

Also, mob rule is when a disorderly crowd of people, usually intending trouble or violence, have taken control of a country.

Democracy is when everyone in the country has a say, usually by peaceful and legally sanctioned processes such as election where the whole country participates and where 'one person-one vote' is upheld.

If the Jan 6 'protestors' had achieved their aim of usurping proper Constitutional change of government, that would have been 'mob rule'.

a reply to: chr0naut

That is all well and good but I was referring to your insistence that A president is not legitimate if they do not win the popular vote.

originally posted by: TheSemiskepticII
a reply to: chr0naut

That is all well and good but I was referring to your insistence that A president is not legitimate if they do not win the popular vote.

No, under a Republic, it is legitimate for someone to seize power without the mandate of the citizens, and with minority support.

a reply to: chr0naut

a representative republic is slightly different.The people(the majority) vote for representatives. The reps then cast votes reflective of the will of the people in each state. then each state gives EC votes according to who voted and how many for whom. Its more fair than a democracy and a pure republic.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

a representative republic is slightly different.The people(the majority) vote for representatives. The reps then cast votes reflective of the will of the people in each state. then each state gives EC votes according to who voted and how many for whom. Its more fair than a democracy and a pure republic.

Which falls apart when people in the EC vote faithlessly or abstain.

Why, indeed, does there have to be yet another vote? Surely state preferences could be automatically allocated according to the number of 'seats' of the electoral college, or similar proportional calculation, so that less populous states still have valid representation as states, but democracy is maintained? That would, of course, remove the possibility of corruption and malfeasance inherent in the design of the EC as it exists today.

How many countries around the world use proportional representation?

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: WeMustCare
Tuesday, August 27, 2024


Source: www.nbcnews.com...

We'll get him this time!

I guess they'll finally give up after his presidency is over.

Hopefully the hunter will become the hunted. If Trump gets back in office he has a resposibility to bring justice for all the lawfare. What has been done cannot go unpunished.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

a representative republic is slightly different.The people(the majority) vote for representatives. The reps then cast votes reflective of the will of the people in each state. then each state gives EC votes according to who voted and how many for whom. Its more fair than a democracy and a pure republic.

Which falls apart when people in the EC vote faithlessly or abstain.

Why, indeed, does there have to be yet another vote? Surely state preferences could be automatically allocated according to the number of 'seats' of the electoral college, or similar proportional calculation, so that less populous states still have valid representation as states, but democracy is maintained? That would, of course, remove the possibility of corruption and malfeasance inherent in the design of the EC as it exists today.

How many countries around the world use proportional representation?

The elctoral college is easily the best method of selecting the President.
As was pointed out to you eariler, the US is a uniion of states and each one has their election.
If it were simply a majority over all 50 states then it would completely disenfranchise the smaller states.
It's not perfect as it is - Democrats flood their states with illegal aliens and they do actually affect the EC.
More EC votes are given based on the census which includes illegal aliens.
Rather than move away from the EC, it should be strengthened with all illegal aliens removed from the calculations on EC votes. California , for example, should lose a lot.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

a representative republic is slightly different.The people(the majority) vote for representatives. The reps then cast votes reflective of the will of the people in each state. then each state gives EC votes according to who voted and how many for whom. Its more fair than a democracy and a pure republic.

Which falls apart when people in the EC vote faithlessly or abstain.

Why, indeed, does there have to be yet another vote? Surely state preferences could be automatically allocated according to the number of 'seats' of the electoral college, or similar proportional calculation, so that less populous states still have valid representation as states, but democracy is maintained? That would, of course, remove the possibility of corruption and malfeasance inherent in the design of the EC as it exists today.

How many countries around the world use proportional representation?

The elctoral college is easily the best method of selecting the President.

That is untrue.

As was pointed out to you eariler, the US is a uniion of states and each one has their election.
If it were simply a majority over all 50 states then it would completely disenfranchise the smaller states.

There are numerous ways of applying proportionality to the states to give them an equal footing in government.

The question is, why would you even need to do that?

Surely less populous states still have their own separate state governments, and state based laws, no matter how many votes they have for Federal leadership.

It's not perfect as it is - Democrats flood their states with illegal aliens and they do actually affect the EC.
More EC votes are given based on the census which includes illegal aliens.
Rather than move away from the EC, it should be strengthened with all illegal aliens removed from the calculations on EC votes. California , for example, should lose a lot.

If voting was a mandatory duty of voting aged registered citizens only, a lot of the nonsense would go away. But since voting there is optional, your country is not really concerned with true representation.

And the EC is corruptible by faithless, or abstainer, or invalid votes. Removing some from the voting process won't fix that.

The USA has about 330 million voters, but only 275 people determine who controls the executive branch. If you can't see the potential for corruption and negation of democratic representation there, then you are truly brainwashed.

The USA is regarded as a flawed democracy internationally:

Why America is a “flawed democracy”