Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As to the humanity of in utero babies?  No, I don't think I will.

Ummm, well, no. That you use words about abortion the same way those you criticize do.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was curious if you were familiar with the actual felonies and the particulars whereby the conviction was obtained.  I suspect you are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am quite familiar with the case. Are you?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I vote based on policies more than personalities.

By the way I don't vote on personalities. I do vote on polices and character and as noted, I will never vote or support a man who betrayed his oath to defend and protect the constitution. It is a mockery of our republic. That one thing overrides everything else. Policies, et all. I guess I care more about the constitution then it seems you do.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think the status quo constitutes a far greater threat to the constitutional order than the efforts of Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk in exposing and getting rid of massive and widespread waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, incompetence, etc., all paid for with tax dolalrs.

Well, No it does not. Preserving the constitution is of paramount importance.

Sigh.

I did not say otherwise.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Handle the alleged waste and fraud the way the constitution says.

I agree.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was not only referring to the day he incited the riot, and he did incite the riot and sat on his hands for three hours watching it play out.  

I don't think he incited a riot.

Meanwhile, I don't recall any fretting about the billions of dollars in property damage, hundreds of injuries, and dozens of deaths in the BLM/Antifa riots.  

I have previously condemned all of this stuff, the Jan 6 stuff, the BLM/Antifa stuff, all of it.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And there were other clearly illegal acts that led up to it.  Did you read the Jan 6 committees final report? Did you read any of the indictments and the recently released summary of the case against Trump that Jack Smith wrote?  

Some of it.  I've also read this:

Quote

  

Chutzpah From Jack Smith

Special Counsel Democratic Party activist Jack Smith has filed a motion in limine in his Washington, D.C. prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to reverse the apparent result of the 2020 election. The motion won’t be heard for a while, as the case is now on appeal. But Smith is desperate to get it tried in time to imprison Trump, or at least convict him, before the election. So he is doing all he can to preserve the impression that the case is on track.

What is Smith asking the court to do? He wants to bar several categories of evidence that he thinks Trump and his lawyers may try to introduce, including any suggestion that Smith’s prosecution is politically motivated. Smith invokes the danger of “disinformation”:

The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding.

The idea that it is Trump who might “attempt to inject politics into this proceeding” is laugh-out-loud funny. Smith’s appointment, and everything he has done since, has been a political act on behalf of the Democratic Party. Apparently everyone except the yet-to-be-empaneled jury knows this.

Hanging over the case is the still-unresolved question of the integrity of the 2020 election. Smith’s motion includes references to Trump’s “ceaseless, knowingly false claims of election fraud.” But Trump’s claim that election fraud took place is not false at all, it is obviously true. The question is whether the volume of fraud was enough to swing any state’s electoral votes into Joe Biden’s column. The Democrats tried hard to enable fraud by, among other things, illegally changing election laws through collusive lawsuits “against” Democratic secretaries of state.

Did the absurdly loose rules that governed the 2020 election enable enough illegal votes to swing one or more states? No one knows. While post-election lawsuits were thrown out on procedural grounds in a number of states, there is no state where the substantive issue of voter fraud’s effect on the election has been litigated. And, given the difficulty of detecting fraud when all safeguards have been removed, it probably can’t be.

As I said in a post-election television interview, if the Democrats didn’t steal the 2020 election, it wasn’t for lack of trying. What we do know, however, is that the Democrats–Jack Smith–are desperate to squelch any discussion of that possibility.

And this more recent one:

Quote

The good news is coming at us like water from a fire hose. The Wall Street Journal captures some of yesterday’s good news in “Justice Department Fires Lawyers Who Prosecuted Trump.”

The Journal reporters seem to — what’s the word? — disapprove. They lead off with the termination of Krazee-Eyez Killa Jack Smith’s staff and move on to a review of the January 6 prosecutions in light of the apparent prosecutorial overreach:

The Trump-era Justice Department on Monday fired more than a dozen lawyers who worked on special counsel Jack Smith’s two prosecutions of the president, while a Trump appointee opened an internal review of the department’s decision to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with felony obstruction offenses in connection with the Capitol attack.

Together, the moves escalated the Trump administration’s planned shake-up at the department and signaled its eagerness to swing back at people Trump says targeted him unfairly during the Biden era.

Acting Attorney General James McHenry fired the prosecutors because “he did not believe these officials could be trusted to faithfully implement the President’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the President,” a Justice Department official said.

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., is leading the review of Jan. 6 prosecutions, according to people familiar with the matter. In an email Monday, he asked prosecutors to turn over “all files, documents, notes, emails and other information” related to the obstruction cases, which included charges against some of the most violent rioters at Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

I'll be curious to see what the outcome of this investigation will be.

And this: How Jack Smith Destroyed His Own Case Against Trump

Quote

The expected release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report will occur as early as this weekend, albeit without those sections dealing with the Florida documents case. (Other defendants are still facing prosecution in that case.) However, the most glaring omission will be arguably an explanation of how Smith lost this war without firing a single shot in a trial.

After more than two years, two separate cases and countless appeals (not to mention more than $50 million spent), Smith left without presenting a single witness, let alone charge, at trial. It is an example of how a general can have the largest army and unlimited resources and yet defeat himself with a series of miscalculations.

Yep.  Not sure you should be trumpeting things based on the legal prowess of Jack Smith.

Quote

History probably won’t be kind to Smith, whose record bespeaks a “parade general” — a prosecutor who offered more pretense than progress in the prosecution of an American president.

Indeed, this report will be one of Smith’s last chances to display a case that notably never got close to an actual trial. One-sided and unfiltered, it will have all of the thrill of a Sousa march of a regiment in full dress. We know because we have seen much of this before. At every juncture, Smith has taken his case out on parade in the court of public opinion.

Hence my relative lack of interest in Jack Smith's one-sided say-so.

Quote

The Smith report will reportedly concern only the Washington case alleging crimes related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 election — a case that was always a bridge too far for Smith.

When first appointed, Smith had a straightforward and relatively easy case to make against Trump over his removal and retention of presidential materials. The case was not without controversy. Some of us questioned the selective nature of the prosecution given past violations by other presidents, particularly as shown by the violations of President Biden going back decades found by another special counsel.

However, the case originally focused on the conspiracy and false statements during the federal investigation into the documents at Mar-a-Lago. Those are well-established crimes that Smith could have brought to trial quickly with a solid shot for conviction.

But Smith’s undoing has always been his appetite. That was evident when he was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court in his case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).

A unanimous reversal by SCOTUS.  Wow.

Quote

In Florida, Smith was in signature form. He took a simple case and loaded it up with press-grabbing charges regarding the retention of classified material. In so doing, he slowed the case to a crawl. As a defense lawyer who has handled classified documents cases, I said at the outset that I did not believe he could get this case to a jury before the 2024 election, and that after that election, Smith might not have a case to present. Smith had outmaneuvered himself.

Then came the Washington filing, the subject of this forthcoming report. It was another vintage Smith moment. Smith played to the public in a case that pushed both the Constitution and statutory provisions beyond the breaking point. He simply could not resist, and he was only encouraged after the assignment of Judge Tanya Chutkan, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.

In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith.

Yes, Judge Chutkan has just been covering herself with jurisprudential glory lately: Judge Chutkan Should Be Disqualified From Hearing Trump Cases After Defying His J6 Order

Quote

The D.C. case was doomed from the outset by both a prosecutor and judge who, in their zeal to bag Trump, yielded to every temptation. As time ticked away, Smith became almost apoplectic in demanding an expedited path to trial, including cutting short appeals. After refusing to recuse herself, Chutkan seemed to indulge Smith at every turn. But the Supreme Court failed to agree that speed should trump substance in such reviews.

With both cases slipping out of his grasp, Smith then threw a final Hail Mary. He asked Chutkan to let him file what was basically a 165-page summary of this report against Trump before the election. There was no apparent reason for the public release of the filing, except to influence the election — a motivation long barred by Justice Department rules.

Chutkan, of course, allowed it anyway, despite admitting that the request was “procedurally irregular.”

"There was no apparent reason for the public release of the filing, except to influence the election."

Yep.

Quote

 

It did not work. Although the press and pundits eagerly repeated the allegations in the filing, the public had long ago reached its own conclusion and rendered its own verdict in November.

In my view, Smith’s D.C. case would never have been upheld, even if he had made it to a favorable jury in front of a motivated judge. As established by the court in Trump v. United States, Smith could not rely on much of his complaint due to violating constitutionally protected areas.

Smith responded to the immunity decision again in typical Smith fashion, largely keeping the same claims with minimal changes. His new indictment was to indictments what shrinkflation is to consumer products — the same package with less content. As in the McDonnell case, Smith was going for conviction at all costs, despite a high likelihood of the case eventually being overturned.

Then the public effectively put an end to both cases by electing Trump.

The Smith investigation should be a case study for future prosecutors in what not to do. An abundance of appetite and arrogance can prove as deadly as a paucity of evidence and authority.

"The Smith investigation should be a case study for future prosecutors in what not to do."

Yep.

Quote

Ironically, Smith will not be the only special counsel offering such a cautionary tale. The report of Special Counsel David Weiss into the Hunter Biden controversy will also be released soon. Weiss was widely denounced for allowing major crimes to lapse against Hunter Biden and offering an embarrassing sweetheart plea deal that collapsed in open court. Notably, Weiss succeeded by minimizing his charges (for the wrong reason). In that way, Weiss has one claim that Smith does not: He made it to court and secured a conviction. Indeed, he was about to prosecute a second case when President Biden pardoned his son.

Weiss’s report will likely only increase questions over his failure to pursue Hunter more aggressively. For Smith, the question is whether he was too aggressive, to the detriment of his own prosecution.

I am curious if you have any questions or concerns about Mr. Biden's son and the sweetheart deals and pardons and such.

Quote

Prosecutions are not the sole measure of success for a special prosecutor. At times, the report itself can be of equal, if not greater, importance to the public.

This is not one of those cases.

The public will be given Smith’s detailed account of a case that was never brought and would likely never have held up. At more than $50 million, it is arguably the biggest flop since “The Adventures of Pluto Nash.“ The difference is that it did not take more than two years to watch Eddie Murphy’s film disaster, and the actor did not then write up a report on how good the movie really was.

Again, Jack Smith is not going to fare well in the long run.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

One can be troubles and disappointed by both. It is not an either or but your side constantly brings up the summer of 2020 riots.

And your side brings up Jan 6, despite Mr. Trump's specific call for "peaceful" behavior.  And even then, I was disgusted with what happened on Jan 6.

In contrast, most folks on your side appear to have boo to say about the BLM/Antifa riots.  Billions in damages.  Hundreds of injuries.  Dozens of deaths.  Ho-hum.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you seem quite fine that Trump tried to steal an election. 

Malarky.  

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or are you one who agrees with him that the last election was stolen?

From one of the above article: 

Quote

Hanging over the case is the still-unresolved question of the integrity of the 2020 election. Smith’s motion includes references to Trump’s “ceaseless, knowingly false claims of election fraud.” But Trump’s claim that election fraud took place is not false at all, it is obviously true. The question is whether the volume of fraud was enough to swing any state’s electoral votes into Joe Biden’s column. The Democrats tried hard to enable fraud by, among other things, illegally changing election laws through collusive lawsuits “against” Democratic secretaries of state.

Did the absurdly loose rules that governed the 2020 election enable enough illegal votes to swing one or more states? No one knows. While post-election lawsuits were thrown out on procedural grounds in a number of states, there is no state where the substantive issue of voter fraud’s effect on the election has been litigated. And, given the difficulty of detecting fraud when all safeguards have been removed, it probably can’t be.

As I said in a post-election television interview, if the Democrats didn’t steal the 2020 election, it wasn’t for lack of trying. What we do know, however, is that the Democrats–Jack Smith–are desperate to squelch any discussion of that possibility.

 

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I scratch my head at people who supported Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.  Oh, well.

Nice dodge.

It's not a dodge.  You are flummoxed that a person like me can have voted for Mr. Trump despite his moral failings, and I feel the same way about people who voted for Mr. Biden and/or Ms. Harris despite their moral failings.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My point was what I view as the base hypocrisy from you and yours who claim a high moral ground and support the most amoral man to even be president and who would no doubt be weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth about how horrible a person Trump is if he were a democrat.  But nice try there.

From a previous post:

Quote

I find Mr. Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels to be immoral and reprehensible.  But the prosecution of 34 felonies about paperwork comes across pretty strongly as a witch hunt, and a grossly exaggerated one, and there's even a fair likelihood of it being unconstitutional.  We'll see how it plays out.

Meanwhile, the other candidates were pretty terrible.  As between them and Mr. Trump, we faced something of a Sophie's Choice as far as having to choose between candidates who all have substantial moral failings.  On balance, though, I find the Biden-Harris corruption far worse (and I do not think they love America, and I dislike most of their policies, and so on), so I went with the better option and voted for the Bad Orange Man.

 

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I vote based on policies more than personalities.  I would love to see a presidential candidate who was a paragon of moral virtue and decent living (that JD Vance guy seems pretty nice).  As it is, though, we had a choice between two deeply flawed people, one of whom has massive accomplishments, loves America, and has a track record of fulfilling campaign promises, and the other whose career was atrocious, zero accomplishments, and got her political career going by having a sexual affair with a married man.

See what you did there.

Yes.  I explained my reasoning for why I voted for one of two deeply flawed candidates.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You give Trump a pass

Again, from my previous posts:

Quote

I find Mr. Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels to be immoral and reprehensible.  But the prosecution of 34 felonies about paperwork comes across pretty strongly as a witch hunt, and a grossly exaggerated one, and there's even a fair likelihood of it being unconstitutional.  We'll see how it plays out.

Meanwhile, the other candidates were pretty terrible.  As between them and Mr. Trump, we faced something of a Sophie's Choice as far as having to choose between candidates who all have substantial moral failings.  On balance, though, I find the Biden-Harris corruption far worse (and I do not think they love America, and I dislike most of their policies, and so on), so I went with the better option and voted for the Bad Orange Man.

...

I vote based on policies more than personalities.  I would love to see a presidential candidate who was a paragon of moral virtue and decent living (that JD Vance guy seems pretty nice).  As it is, though, we had a choice between two deeply flawed people, one of whom has massive accomplishments, loves America, and has a track record of fulfilling campaign promises, and the other whose career was atrocious, zero accomplishments, and got her political career going by having a sexual affair with a married man.

I haven't given Mr. Trump a pass.

Have you given Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris passes?

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

yet you condemn Harris because, well, you do not like her politics.

I dislike her behaviors, too.  And I disliked Mr. Biden's behaviors and policies as well.

And I didn't "condemn" anyone.  Get a grip.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Base hypocrisy in display here folks.

I don't think so.  

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Trump does not love America. He loves himself and power and is abjectly corrupt.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I do not endorse Mr. Trump's moral failings.

Well you sure do tolerate them.

But I don't endorse them, nor have I ignored them.  Perhaps some day you can appreciate the difference.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2025 by smac97

[Tony uk]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe. Sort of like most people when it comes to religion. Most are adherents to one degree or another to the religion they have grown up with. Few ever think about or challenge the validity of their claims. 

I think this is true, in my case anyway. Outside of my own upbringing, RC, the only other way approaching God through Jesus has been the LDS. Hence, one of the reasons this dialogue has been of interest to me. To learn and understand another approach other than my own, to learn and understand.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

By the way I don't vote on personalities. I do vote on polices and character and as noted, I will never vote or support a man who betrayed his oath to defend and protect the constitution. It is a mockery of our republic. That one thing overrides everything else. Policies, et all. I guess I care more about the constitution then it seems you do.

Yep. Even if I agreed with Trump’s policies, I could never vote for someone of such low character. I was talking the other day with a general authority friend of mine, who said he couldn’t in good conscience vote for either presidential candidate, so he left that part of the ballot blank. I respect that. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

By the way I don't vote on personalities. I do vote on polices and character and as noted, I will never vote or support a man who betrayed his oath to defend and protect the constitution. It is a mockery of our republic. That one thing overrides everything else. Policies, et all. I guess I care more about the constitution then it seems you do.

Did you vote for Mr. Biden?  Or for Ms. Harris?  If so, you likely used the same moral calculus that I did, which involved coping with a field of deeply flawed candidates, and doing your best to choose.  And I bet you did that without endorsing the various problematic behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris.

Or perhaps you did not vote at all, or voted for some no-way-he'll-win candidate, which would have been your choice, but effectively equivalent to not voting at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

A good reminder of why I don’t take you seriously. 

I'm okay with that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. Even if I agreed with Trump’s policies, I could never vote for someone of such low character. I was talking the other day with a general authority friend of mine, who said he couldn’t in good conscience vote for either presidential candidate, so he left that part of the ballot blank. I respect that. 

Could you respect someone who voted for Ms. Harris?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Could you respect someone who voted for Ms. Harris?

Thanks,

-Smac

I voted for her, so yes. Whatever character issues she may have are dwarfed by Trump’s. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

 

Quote

Yep. Even if I agreed with Trump’s policies, I could never vote for someone of such low character. 

Could you respect someone who voted for Ms. Harris?

 

I voted for her, so yes. Whatever character issues she may have are dwarfed by Trump’s. 

Can you accommodate the possibility that people like myself may have viewed Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris as having "low character," such that I could "never vote" for either of them?

Is your assessment of "character" binding on others?

It sounds like you did the same thing I did.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm okay with that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I can respect people voting for Trump because they like his policies. But when you speak of him as a man of accomplishment who loves America, you’ve lost the plot. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Can you accommodate the possibility that people like myself may have viewed Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris as having "low character," such that I could "never vote" for either of them?

Is your assessment of "character" binding on others?

It sounds like you did the same thing I did.

Thanks,

-Smac

I question the judgment of someone who thinks they are of equally low character as Trump. 

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I'm okay with that.  

I can respect people voting for Trump because they like his policies.

Ah.  Okay.  That makes sense.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

But when you speak of him as a man of accomplishment who loves America, you’ve lost the plot. 

It's hard to deny that he is a "man of accomplishment."  He's a billionaire, after all.

I also think he genuinely loves America.  I don't think Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris do.  

I was also quite impressed with his reaction to the assassination attempt.

These things helped counterbalance the flaws in his character and behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I question the judgment of someone who thinks they are of equally low character as Trump. 

If I gave two figs about your moral pronouncements and judgments about people you have never met, this might mean something to me.  But I don't, so it doesn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Ah.  Okay.  That makes sense.

It's hard to deny that he is a "man of accomplishment."  He's a billionaire, after all.

I also think he genuinely loves America.  I don't think Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris do.  

I was also quite impressed with his reaction to the assassination attempt.

These things helped counterbalance the flaws in his character and behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m wondering how one judges that Trump loves America and his predecessor doesn’t. The mind boggles. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If I gave two figs about your moral pronouncements and judgments about people you have never met, this might mean something to me.  But I don't, so it doesn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn’t mean it personally. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I just find your admiration for Trump baffling. 

Edited February 12, 2025 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I’m wondering how one judges that Trump loves America and his predecessor doesn’t. The mind boggles. 

I'm wondering how someone such as you can overlook/ignore Mr. Biden's and Ms. Harris' various and extensive moral failings, incompetencies, corruptions, lack of accomplishments, etc., and vote for them despite these failings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Again, you're ignoring the statute for your own purposes. The business records statute is a criminal statute. Did he violate the statute, Spencer? It's a simple "yes" or "no".

 

55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, just to be clear, intentionally hiding payments does not even rise to the level of a misdemeanor? 

@smac97 Yes, or no? It's pretty simple.

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.

I did not say otherwise.

I agree.

I don't think he incited a riot.

Meanwhile, I don't recall any fretting about the billions of dollars in property damage, hundreds of injuries, and dozens of deaths in the BLM/Antifa riots.  

I have previously condemned all of this stuff, the Jan 6 stuff, the BLM/Antifa stuff, all of it.

Some of it.  I've also read this:

And this more recent one:

I'll be curious to see what the outcome of this investigation will be.

And this: How Jack Smith Destroyed His Own Case Against Trump

Yep.  Not sure you should be trumpeting things based on the legal prowess of Jack Smith.

Hence my relative lack of interest in Jack Smith's one-sided say-so.

A unanimous reversal by SCOTUS.  Wow.

Yes, Judge Chutkan has just been covering herself with jurisprudential glory lately: Judge Chutkan Should Be Disqualified From Hearing Trump Cases After Defying His J6 Order

"There was no apparent reason for the public release of the filing, except to influence the election."

Yep.

"The Smith investigation should be a case study for future prosecutors in what not to do."

Yep.

I am curious if you have any questions or concerns about Mr. Biden's son and the sweetheart deals and pardons and such.

Again, Jack Smith is not going to fare well in the long run.

And your side brings up Jan 6, despite Mr. Trump's specific call for "peaceful" behavior.  And even then, I was disgusted with what happened on Jan 6.

In contrast, most folks on your side appear to have boo to say about the BLM/Antifa riots.  Billions in damages.  Hundreds of injuries.  Dozens of deaths.  Ho-hum.

Malarky.  

From one of the above article: 

 

It's not a dodge.  You are flummoxed that a person like me can have voted for Mr. Trump despite his moral failings, and I feel the same way about people who voted for Mr. Biden and/or Ms. Harris despite their moral failings.

From a previous post:

 

Yes.  I explained my reasoning for why I voted for one of two deeply flawed candidates.

Again, from my previous posts:

I haven't given Mr. Trump a pass.

Have you given Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris passes?

I dislike her behaviors, too.  And I disliked Mr. Biden's behaviors and policies as well.

And I didn't "condemn" anyone.  Get a grip.

I don't think so.  

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

But I don't endorse them, nor have I ignored them.  Perhaps some day you can appreciate the difference.

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't get to read all of what you presented, but will come back to it. I think possibly Russia or ? have accomplished dividing the nation and therefore destabilizing the country. We may all believe the stuff we read on YouTube or elsewhere and then we form our opinions on those. My siblings, governor, some friends, neighbors are supporters of the current president. Good people, and so I understand more than ever the saying how we can't discuss politics and religion, sadly. I'm sure this isn't a new thing, and has been going on for ages, but for me, it's hurtfully new. 

I hope we all come together.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's hard to deny that he is a "man of accomplishment."  He's a billionaire, after all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/11/its-official-trump-would-be-richer-if-he-had-just-invested-his-inheritance-into-the-sp500/
 

It’s not quite cut and dry. 

[ttribe]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/11/its-official-trump-would-be-richer-if-he-had-just-invested-his-inheritance-into-the-sp500/
 

It’s not quite cut and dry. 

Moreover, being a successful conman is not grounds for praise, IMO.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't get to read all of what you presented, but will come back to it. I think possibly Russia or ? have accomplished dividing the nation and therefore destabilizing the country.

I invite you to do some digging on the Russia thing.  Start with the Hunter Biden Laptop story.

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We may all believe the stuff we read on YouTube or elsewhere and then we form our opinions on those.

Most of my assessments are based on commentary from attorneys, or people with extensive experience in the law.  Lots and lots of them.

To be sure, the attorneys I tend to find most credible lean toward the libertarian/conservative side of things, so I take their commentary with an appropriate grain of sale, or try to.

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My siblings, governor, some friends, neighbors are supporters of the current president. Good people, and so I understand more than ever the saying how we can't discuss politics and religion, sadly.

I think we can, or should be able to.  

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sure this isn't a new thing, and has been going on for ages, but for me, it's hurtfully new. 

I hope we all come together.

My offhand assessment is that the Left has been off-kilter since the 2000 election, and that this off-kilter-ness has spread to the right.

I also deeply, deeply dislike the state of our government.  I love America, and the Constitution, and the generalized notions of a federal republic, but I am very troubled by the Deep State, the Administrative State, government bloat all over, waste, corruption, and so on.  I think a good way to "move forward" would to be set aside personal dislike of Mr. Trump.  He's POTUS, so those who dislike him will just have to deal with the reality that he gets to set Executive Branch policy and practice (within the confines of the law).  

I would prefer to discuss the particulars of what sure looks like a lot of uncovered waste, fraud, corruption, etc., all at taxpayer expense.  I think it would be unwise to ignore this stuff simply out of reactionary spite against the Orange Man who is uncovering it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

It's hard to deny that he is a "man of accomplishment."  He's a billionaire, after all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/11/its-official-trump-would-be-richer-if-he-had-just-invested-his-inheritance-into-the-sp500/

It’s not quite cut and dry. 

So he's a billionaire, but he could have been a bigger billionaire, ergo he is not a "man of accomplishment."

Not quite buying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As morally problematic as I have found many aspects of Mr. Trump's behaviors, the behaviors of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have been many orders of magnitude worse.  Facing something of a Sophie's Choice in November, I chose the guy who, although substantially flawed, loves America, has mostly good policy ideas, and has a track record of accomplishments and fulfilling campaign promises.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ah, Smac, welcome. Please, make yourself comfortable on the couch. No need to be nervous—this is a safe space. Now, I’m just going to settle into my chair here, light a cigar, and take some notes. Let’s begin.

You said that Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris’s behaviors are ‘many orders of magnitude’ worse than Donald Trump. Fascinating. Tell me more about that. When did you first start experiencing these thoughts? And would you say they’ve gotten stronger over time?