Almost a quarter of Trump supporters oppose having him on ticket if convicted: Survey

if you don't have the answer, don't need to reply... you are wasting your own time

 

Here @FreshAir I even bolded the relevant part since you're having such a difficult time keeping track of the conversation that you jumped into the middle of. Now you know what they didn't produce. You can thank me later and there's no need to respond.

 

. Only if Dems win.

 

Thank you, was that so hard?

this what you are talking about?

"Mr. Smith’s team said in a July 31 court filing (pdf) in its classified documents case against the former president that it had incorrectly claimed during a July 18 court hearing that it had provided all Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage to Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys, as required by law."

"“On July 27, as part of the preparation for the superseding indictment coming later that day and the discovery production for Defendant De Oliveira, the Government learned that this footage had not been processed and uploaded to the platform established for the defense to view the subpoenaed footage,” Mr. Smith’s team wrote in the July 31 filing."

if he did not, he needs too... sounds like someone dropped the ball, now they will have to give Trump more time to prepare, as Trump will need to see which of the Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage they actually got vs what he has as it was his security system

 

That was what me and the other person were talking about the entire time when you jumped in the middle of the conversation.

If you're going to jump in the conversation and comment at least go to the beginning of it so you have a grasp of the entire thing.

Don't sit there and expect someone else to feed it all to you bit by bit..... And then go
" You got nothing ".

Of course you already knew what we were talking about but it's a little game that you like to play.

 

LoL

Obviously, you don't have the slightest proof of what you are saying, so I will once again avoid talking about economics with a MAGA.

The important thing to remember is this: Americans will not elect a convicted felon like POTUS.

 

I don't know. You asked the question. I thought YOU had some point you were trying to make. Guess not...

 

I'm trying to understand why you think convicted felons should be allowed to run for office but you can't understand why anyone would vote for one.

 

Because the right to elect and be elected is a fundamental right. I'm not sure what part of not wanting a convicted felon to be President you don't understand. You find that controversial?

 

My own view is clear: Felons should not vote. Felons should not hold office. Therefore, the question of voting for felons does not arise.
Your view perplexes me: Felons can vote. Felons can hold office. No one should vote for a felon. The question is: Why not?

 

So you don't think they should be allowed to vote or hold office, but your question is why I would expect people not to vote for them?

I'm guessing the reason why I don't think people should vote for them is the same as why you think they shouldn't be allowed to run for office: they can't be trusted. But that's not reason enough to not allow them to run, if they want. There are MANY people who can't be trusted. In a democracy we must rely on the people not electing them. Felons or not.

But, of course, all this is pretty obvious. What is NOT obvious is why you would think they shouldn't run, but fail to understand why people shouldn't vote for them.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't wash.
I have no doubt why people should not vote for felons because I think they should be barred from voting and holding office.
My question is why you think people should not vote for them if you think they are eligible voters and office holders.

 

So circular reasoning is all you have...

Ok. Now you have my answer. That settles my side of the issue. Yours required a logical fallacy.

 

Many will. Biden is uniquely poorly positioned to run against Trump. Yet the Dem party leaders won't consider anybody else. Nothing has been learned from 2016 and the fear of Trump is secondary to the desire for power by Dem Party establishment insiders. They will screw the country over before they will step aside.

 

You continue to evade the question. I can't say I'm surprised.

 

That was Hillary's strategy.

 

Are you reading what I write? I answered your question.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...onvicted-survey.615678/page-5#post-1074590358

It's notable that you had to resort to a logical fallacy to answer your own question, though.

 

Unlike Trump, Biden will not be a convicted felon in 2024.

Even if that's what you want, Americans won't elect a criminal as President.

Trump's cult of personality was rejected in 2020, the result will be the same in 2024.

 

Hahaha! Why don't folks want Trump to run? Oh yeah, I forgot...

 

If Trump will be rejected then why are some trying to block him from running?

 

Because the Constitution gives states the right to reject a candidate who has taken part in an insurrection.

 

Biden is perfectly positioned to RUN. He's President! 2016 is a poor comparison. If Obama had been allowed to run against Trump, no doubt he would have won. Our political system gives incumbent Presidents an advantage over any challenger.

 

You do know that the lawsuit in Colorado was filed by Trump's Republican competitors, right?

 

That's not a good reason to run him over other Democrats.

 

You don't have the capability to talk economics with me, if you think I was wrong. We can argue about the precise amount of inflation because it varies with which items are used in the calculation. However, it is a fact that 23% gain was mostly eaten up by inflation.

Due to my age, my investments are on the conservative side because I don't want big risks at an age when I might need the money. My investments are back up to where they peaked out several years ago. However, they are not worth as much today as they were several years ago due to inflation.