Trump may enlist Paul Manafort, who was criticized for Russia ties

There is no 'right' to be on any ballot,. first you have to qualify.

'due process' has to do with the deprivation of rights.

What right is there to be on a ballot?

None.

The right only commences AFTER you qualify.


Does 'due process' kick in if someone is disqualified for being 34 years of age?

No.

Doe 'due process' kick in if someone is disqualified for not being a naturalized citizen?

No.

In other words, disqualification is a civil administrative procedure.

Anyone who wants 'due process' when disqualified, all they have to do is appeal the decision.

You see, you do have a right to have your disqualification be fair and just.

And then you get your 'due process' when a court or arbiter decides if your disqualification was just.

I repeat, if you don't like the constitution, complain to the philosophical heirs of the framers.

 

Let's get something straight:

Your argument doesn't rise above 'you're a democrat/liberal ', and 'you're a democrat/liberal' is not an argument.

You see, you actually have to engage in a debate on the argument's merits.

The argument's merits, not whether I'm a democrat/liberal.

Capiche?

If you said, 'welfare doesn't work',
and I said do you, 'you're a republican'

Is that an argument?

No.

We have to debate, actually debate whether or not welfare is good for society.

Do you understand now?

In other words, find a real argument.

 

Let's get something straight:

Your argument doesn't rise above 'you're a Republican/conservative ', and 'you're a Republican/conservative is not an argument.

You see, you actually have to engage in a debate on the argument's merits.

You admitted that you look at everything with blue tinted glasses and are biased and yet you think people should listen to someone with extremely biased opinions.

Fact is, the latest national poll shows Trump leading by 7 points, and that is more than the margin of error. And, he is ahead in every single swing state there is. Therefore, you think it is time to spam the forum with more of your anti-Trump threads and you naively think that people are actually going to listen to an extremely biased poster on the subject. Why are you a fact denier?

 

Mockery is not an argument, please find a real argument.

Posturing is not an argument. Please find a real argument.

I realize that is probably annoying, but if you can't find a real argument, don't be surprised if I ask you for one.

What part of " 'you are a liberal' is not an argument' " do you not understand?

Did I not explain this to you?

You keep posting non arguments, please find a real argument, one that actually debates the OP.

Polls are irrelevant to the OP

NEWSFLASH: Trump is a candidate, and is therefore fair game.

Irrelevant.

What fact might that be?

 

Cost of energy by technology

Green energy production costs less to build and run.

 

This idea is not backed by economists.

Our inflation came from factors such as supply chain problems. One can't ignore that there was a proximate and significant oil price spike.

 

Just because one party thinks someone in the other party is not qualified, that does not make it so. In this case you are declaring Trump of being guilty without any kind of due process saying he is guilty. And that due process is guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

For
".......charges of conspiracy against the United States, making false statements, money laundering, and failing to register as foreign agents for Ukraine."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Paul_Manafort

Do you believe those to be serious crimes and people should go to jail for them?

 

That's not all of his convictions, tax evasion another but they are a heck of a lot worse than the person getting life in prison for their third shoplifting charge. And yet his being even a possibility to be next to a presidential candidates is actually evil.

 

In case you have a short attention span, 'caveat' you might want to ignore the facts and robust details given herein, but note that these facts totally crush your argument.

First, your premise is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Clearly, you do not understand monetary policy of the Federal Reserve,, how it affects the economy and timelines of policies implemented versus how long they take to take effect the economy.

Let's get some facts straight. For your edification, since clearly your EXTREME BIAS affects your knowledge and judgment.

A president's fiscal year doesn't begin until October 1, after he is elected. All fiscal years are 10 months offset in Presidential terms. This is because fiscal policy of an administration always takes several months to take effect.

So, The inflation rate, annualized, on October 1st, 2021, was 6.2% annualized, at the end of 2021, it rose to 7% annualized in December (4.7% avg for the year of 2021)

Trump admin fiscal policies at the end of his fiscal led to the 6.2%, and after that, it rose to 7% at the end of 2021, an .8% increase and the highest point was 9.1% in June of 2022, and owing to Biden admin policies, inflation has been coming down, steadily, as the pandemic has passed not to return.

So, Trump's inflation was technically responsible for 6.2% peak and Biden's inflation was responsible for a 2.9% increase for total of 9.1%.

That means Trump's was responsible for that rate because it occured on HIS fiscal watch.

Inflation is calculated via an annualized rate. And there is a reason for it, because fiscal policy cannot be understood properly via a cumulative tally. If you want to use the cumulative rate, it's really meaningless because since 1900, $2 could buy $63 worth of goods, today, and you are going to blame that on Democrats? The cumulative rate is fine, but it doesn't tell us how effective monetary policy is working. The policy of the fed, no matter who is the chairman, as always been that of trying to keep inflation to 2% or thereabouts which is the norm, at 2.5% or so. Sorry, no party has a monopoly on inflation.

After that peak, on Biden's watch, inflation has been coming down.

But, to be even more accurate, some of the above is over simplified, and I will elaborate, even more, for your edification:

Let's break down the key points:

Fiscal Year Start Date: It's accurate that the federal government's fiscal year begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the following year. This applies to the budgetary planning and spending authorization for U.S. government agencies.

Offset From Presidential Terms: While it's true that the fiscal year starts during the tenure of a president elected the previous November, saying that "all fiscal years are 10 months offset from Presidential terms" might be misleading. The fiscal year is indeed offset from the calendar year, but its relation to a president's term (which begins on January 20th following the election) varies depending on where in the term the fiscal year begins. The fiscal policy effects timeline is not directly tied to this offset.

Fiscal Policy Effect Delay: The statement that fiscal policy takes several months to take effect is generally true. Economic policies, including fiscal measures, do not have immediate impacts on the economy. The effects can be delayed due to the time it takes for policies to be implemented, for money to be spent, and for changes to work their way through the economy

Inflation Rate Responsibility: Attributing inflation rates strictly to the president in office based on the fiscal year is an oversimplification. While fiscal policy can influence inflation, many factors contribute to inflationary pressures, including monetary policy (controlled by the Federal Reserve in the U.S.), global economic conditions, supply chain issues, and unexpected events like pandemics or geopolitical crises. Saying that one president is responsible for a specific inflation rate without considering these factors is not accurate.

Measurement of Inflation: My statement that inflation is always calculated via an annualized rate and not cumulative is essentially correct in the context of how inflation rates are typically reported. Inflation is measured year-over-year (or month-over-month) to understand how prices have increased on average over a period, usually expressed as an annual rate. This approach allows for a more straightforward comparison across different time periods.

Responsibility for Inflation Peaks: The claim about specific inflation peaks and attributing those strictly to the actions of the incumbent president ignores the complexity of economic conditions and the multiplicity of factors affecting inflation. Moreover, specific inflation rates (like the "never peaked above 8.5%" claim) and their attribution to a particular president's policies would need to be verified with actual economic data and analyzed in a broader context. the point is it is simplistic to say 'Trump did it' or 'Biden did it'. In actual fact, presidents have very little control over such things.

Inflation Trends: The general trend of inflation rising, peaking, and then falling is a typical economic cycle, but attributing these trends solely to presidential action is too simplistic. Economic trends are influenced by a wide range of domestic and international factors, not solely by the fiscal policies of the current administration.

No president can cause a world wide inflation, that claim is utterly false. He cannot be held responsibile for the monetary policy of other countries. The pandemic forced nations to expand their monetary base to compensate for supply change disruptions, lock down disruptions, and the like, and this is the driving force behind inflation. In the US, Trump implemented a $2TRILLION fiat currency infusion, called 'Quantitative Easing (QE) for the CARES ACT, and Biden implemented a similar amount for the ARP, and the total caused inflation in America. Note that the bulk of the rate increased occurred during Trump's fiscal year, landing a 6.2% at the and of Sept. 2021 and it never rose higher than 9.1% after that. Biden admin has brought it down now to 3% or so. Note that America is taming inflation much better than the G7 countries. But these policies were due to the pandemic, so, in ultimate terms, the pandemic was driving inflation, and any claim to the contrary is false.

And so, while some elements of the statement are based on real aspects of fiscal policy and economic measurement, the attribution of inflation rates solely to the actions of a president is overly simplistic and does not account for the complex interplay of factors that influence economic conditions.

 

I don't need to write a 1000 word essay on how biased you are and how you only accept your facts and no one else's.

 

Ok I'll throw in tax evasion too so do you think violations of those laws show bring a term in prison like Manafort received?

 

Are these Hunter charges...... hhhhhhhaaaaa hhhhaaaaa. just kiddin... that ain't gonna happen to a Biden..

 

Yep. Just because he Stole a lot doesn't get him off the hook.

 

No... but they did claim Manafort was an unregistered agent of the Ukraine government
unregistered agent of the Ukraine government
unregistered agent of the Ukraine government
man were have I heard that very thing brought up here lately?...

They were facing 12 counts, including conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy against the United States, being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements and other charges.
Again.... were have I heard that very thing brought up here lately?...

oh wait....

is this not the very same things the Biden family was being shown involved in by the House committee?


https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-6d73-d751-af7f-7f735cc70000

 

And applies to everyone...........right?

 

The ones that also went to jail?? Just who were they? BTW “he did it tooooooo!” Is not an excuse that should be used past the kindergarten playground

 

Of course now who else has been convicted of crimes in this regard, and that list does not include people YOU would like to see convicted

 

Thanks for yet another example of argumentum ad populum

 

Manafort was pardoned.