Did Trump care if his hush money affairs would hurt Melania and Ivanka?

I presented you with the hard data as to why it is a crime and you have offered nothing in rebuttal. Counter arguments which do not rise above nor contribute more than "you are wrong" are not successful arguments.

"Everyone knows" is posturing and not a valid argument, because, writ large, everyone doesn't know.

If you had, at the minimum, posted a weak argument, I would have had something to work with, but what you posted is really a non argument.

Next time I strongly recommend you to put some more effort into it.

Fail.

 

Sure, but couldn't the federal courts? If true, it would be a crime.

 

She was not a toddler. She was a young girl, but old enough to know that this was not the right thing to do and so uncomfortable with it that she waited until her father went to bed before she took a shower.

 

You know full well that this prosecution is 100% political.

 

The feds already refused to prosecute the case.

 

Was she a teen when that occurred? As far as I can tell that has come from the imaginings of the right wing

 

Did they say why? Maybe there is nothing there and it's lies and Trump didn't do that. Or maybe it's corruption and they were paid to look away. I would demand more transparency.

 

And yet they have managed to convince various grand juries (plural) to proceed to indictment

 

Not ignorant - just desperate to find something, anything they can use as a “whataboutism” to excuse immoral behaviour of the Orange ***** grabber. Look at how they used a picture of Biden consoling his grandson to suggest he “sniffs children’s hair”

 

Yeah, I think so - funny you wouldn't research it to wave in my face.

 

Sure. Whatever you say.

 

Source?

 

That’s not a high bar to clear. There’s no challenging of the so called evidence in a grand jury. A grand jury is a complete one sided affair. Actually the grand jury system should be abolished.

 

To say nothing of which under the constitution that is the first step in challenging an election in the senate.

 

Explain…..

 

That's pretty much it you need to have back up or alternate electors appoint by December 12 to challenge and election on if the challenge is successful do the electors have anything to do.

 

Naturally, my ask would not be understood, because it would require you to jump out of your own skin, drop your defenses/ego, acquire a modicum of humility and respond sincerely to the request. But, if you were so capable, your asinine and anemic comments which prompted the request would never have occurred, now that I think about it.

 

Reread the post, the answer to your question has been posted.

Weasel words are non substantive; they are not a merit worthy arguments.

Rather, they are non arguments.

I will gladly respond to any argument ranging from weak to strong, but non arguments do not merit a response due to the fact they cannot be substantiated by credible sources (beyond opinions of like minded).

Weasel words are any combination of words which are so vague, usually generalizations, they cannot be substantiated, and thus cannot result in coherent thought and expression. This might be fine with people whose arguments/comments/discussion-etc., often traffic in such things, but not with me. Yes, I know, I'm kinduva dick about this kind of thing, but I do not apologize.

FYI, the 'left' is not a monolithic group organized by a charter of any kind.

Therefore, the characterization is accurate.

 

Look, I often see the right downplaying anything good a Dem does, and up-playing anything a Repub does. I'm sorry, you got to treat both the same, you can't have it both ways.

In your case, it's a half truth, and it's a half truth so much so that your premise is false. While it's true that the economic conditions and existing tax structures contributed significantly to these surpluses, it's also relevant to note that fiscal policies during the Clinton administration—including efforts to control spending and the decision to allow previous tax cuts to expire as scheduled—played roles in achieving a balanced budget. Thus, while the surpluses were bolstered by Social Security revenues, they also reflected broader economic and policy factors, such that we do know if the surplus would have occurred or not and it would have. Therefore, it is fair to credit Clinton for the surplus. The buck stops at the resolute desk, good or bad.

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Cool.

 

Oh FFS, you've been on this forum as long as I have, and so I've posted extensively and in depth on the tons of reasons Trump is unfit, and if you have at all paid attention, you would know that you cannot reach that conclusion.

I think it is a fair to not want a president whose character is that decadent. But, note, the full scope of his decadence is not limited to his philandering while his newly wed wife was pregnant. Not in the slightest.

 

I don't think anyone reads your screeds in full. You reek of tribalism. A sentence or two into your posts it becomes very obvious that you are just trying to malign your political enemy and are not writing objectively or in good faith. Some here on the Republican side do the same (though usually with fewer words).

If you ever want to actually progress, you are going to have to move beyond this tribal mindset. In fact, you will need to do so just to defeat Trump or draw people away from him rather than pushing people towards him. As is, you are just entrenching both yourself and those who support Trump into more tribalism.

You need more of Obama's campaign rhetorical style. That was the last time your country had hope (which, yes, the Republicans at the time rejected; but it is still the only way forward).

Give the people something to believe in rather than something to hate on. And when you do attack, make it something actually relevant to the job, and not an obvious bad faith attack on the candidate's personal life.

 

This has been true since Republicans have taken upon themselvees to abuse the filibuster, where once upon a time a filibuster was reserved only for the really big issues, now repubs filibuster EVERYTHING. How can dems get anything done unless they have a filibuster proof majority, and that has happened only once, for about 70 days, in the last several decades.

'Smaller Government" is a meaningless phrase, it's purpose is to manipulate people into becoming Republicans, it has no pragmatic value because government size is too abstract to contain. If you sliced the gov reg book, the government would still be the same size. If you cut spending in half, millions would be out of work (gov employees and gov contractors) and the jolt could send America into a depression. We have the government we need, like it or not. Everyone has a bellyache about the government, so welcome to the gov gripe club, no one is not a member in the USA.

Because at the time he set the idea into motion, he didn't have a filibuster proof majority. Had he known that, by the end of his first term, he would have had a filibuster proof majority for about 70 or so days, he just might have went for it.

But, thing is, without a filibuster proof majority, he had to figure out 'what kind of health care system MIGHT the right find acceptable, that is closer to UHC? Well, we had the answer. Romneycare. Viola, Obamacare was born. Romney's model for health care in Mass. looked like Repubs would find this acceptable, given that the essential idea was theirs. But, what Obama didn't realize that Repubs were never going to vote for anything major, that is legacy potential, because that might mean more folks would vote for dems and not repubs, in the future. He didn't consider how Repubs think. Hell, Repubs looked like they were all in, delaying the date of passing for some 14 months while they debated, and added over 100 amendments. But you know what? The NEVER had any intention of voting for it, the purpose of all those amendments was just to delay the vote, a kind of amendment filibuster, if you will. However, Obama had enough of their disingenuous crap and decided to push the thing through on the budget reconciliation process.

Thing is, the ACA sucked up all the legislative oxygen, so those who complain 'why didn't O get this done, that done'? (because he had a filibuster proof majority for some 70 or so days) well, the ACA was the reason.

Point addressed, above.

The right and the left both spring from classic liberalism, which is all about human rights and freedom, so these core values remain the same for both, it's just that both party's priorities differ. The right value's rights for the fetus, the left values the woman's reproductive rights. The right believes that a corporation should have the same rights as humans, the left sees corporations and the super rich as corrupting democracy. Etc., etc., etc.

Biden is trying to get Netanyahu to curtail it's war in Gaza due to the innocent getting killed. Note that that wouldn't have ever been as severe if Hamas didn't hide behind hospitals, and civilians. That doesn't mean we shouldn't end support for Israel. Either you believe Israel has a right to exist (zionism) or you don't believe it. If you don't believe it, Iran, and the muslim world, at large, including their allies, China, Putin, and KJU, will love you. It boils down to who we are, as a nation.

No, because the genie is out of the bottle, and will never go back in.

The parties are like two nebulae coalescing, coagulating, into their respective spheres/systems, where the spectrum right of center resulted in the Republican Party, and the left side of the spectrum coalescing, coagulating on the left side of the spectrum and become the Democratic party. Remember, it started as the Democratic Republican party. This was a natural evolution derived from our constitutional bicameral system we chose at the beginning of the nation. If the founders had chosen a parliamentary system, then we would have evolved a coalition styled government. The problem is systemic, and to 'tear it down' would require a new constitution, and that's TOO radical. That would be rocking the boat so much, it might tip over and sink. Not worth trying, taking a chance on, not ever.

People who loved Bernie, a number of them went with Trump because they thought he was Bernie with a lot more charisma. But, today, we can see that his 'populism' can be more likened to a wolf in sheep's clothing. The populism thing isn't going to push him to the finish line, not in 2024. Many are still fooled, but many in the center now realize who he really is.

Well, let's take a look at what the right has done to America;

• *Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (1987): The FCC's decision to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present balanced viewpoints on controversial issues, is seen by some as leading to a more polarized media landscape. It paved the way to right wing talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., where they weren't required to broadcast opposing views, which led to the T party, then the Freedom Caucus, and now the MAGA movement and Trumpism. The repeal allowed each side to crystalize into their own echo chambers, and this is the reason for the extreme polarization. The guy who pushed for that repeal was none other than Ronald Reagan, a 'neoliberal', if there ever were one.
  
  
• Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2003): The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, both passed under President George W. Bush, significantly lowered various federal taxes. Critics argue these cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy and exacerbated income inequality. Dems approve of lowering taxes on the middle class, but not the super rich, as that widens deficits, forces teh fed to inflate the money supply, which ultimately results on a tax on the poor who cannot hedge against inflation, it does far more damage to the economy than the nebulous benefits the right claims on 'trickle down' economics. Corporations do not need tax cuts to find money for investment, they commonly seek venture capital, sell stock or bonds, etc.
  
  
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This Supreme Court decision ruled that the government could not restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, which critics claim has allowed excessive corporate influence in politics. Probably the singular most destructive ruling by the right wing court.
  
  
• Shelby County v. Holder (2013): The Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, particularly the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions required federal oversight for changes to voting laws. This has led to an increase in voter suppression efforts by the right.
  
  
• Various efforts to repeal and undermine the Affordable Care Act (2010-present): Since its enactment, there have been numerous attempts to repeal, replace, or weaken the ACA, including the elimination of the individual mandate penalty as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Critics argue these efforts threaten healthcare access for millions.
  
  
• Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (2017): Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, a global agreement to combat climate change, which critics view as a significant setback for global environmental efforts. Major mistake by the right.
  
  
• Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017): This major tax reform, passed under President Trump, significantly lowered corporate tax rates and altered various aspects of individual tax provisions. Critics contend it has fueled inequality and increased the national debt. Deficits/debt soared.
  
  
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): This landmark decision overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal constitutional right to an abortion and allowing states to set their own abortion laws. Many view this as a severe blow to women's rights and reproductive freedom. This has resulted in more injury and deaths to women in states that banned abortion.

*Substantiation provided on request (on any claim of fact. If not, It is an opinion).

 

The diary that the right claims that quote is in the diary, actually isn't in the diary. The handwritten copy only says:

“showers with my dad (probably not appropriate).”

This, to me, the only way it could be true, is that it's a recollection of a teenager of toddler years, given that, in the 50s, some familys bathed their little children while taking a shower or bath. Why, because the other comments about her childhood friends were similar, a teenager recollect events of her early childhood, so why would that quote, which appears just after them, be any different?

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well, thing is, we really don't know one way or the other, but this idea that Joe Biden took showers with a female teenager daughter, for me, is not believable.

I'm going to end this debate as follows:

The claim is unproven. Until you can find me a quote from Ashley that confirms the accusation, your claim is unproven and thus inadmissible in a court of law.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-leaked-diary-accusation/

 

No, I do not know that, but I do know that those with a partisan lens believe it, and the reason they believe it is because that forwards a right wing agenda. And why would they want to do that? Because they want to reelect a criminal, fraudster, lying, pervert.

Go figure.

 

Feel free to offer a more compelling counter argument.

But, I accept your concession of defeat.