Resolved: Trump is guilty, literally, of murder

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Suppose the President suppressed a report that the factory of a donor is leaking dangerous levels of toxins into a water reservoir, resulting in deaths.

Would that be criminally prosecutable?

Not a lawyer, and I wasn't answering a question about law.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Sure. But it doesn't matter how many things there are that make her unelectable, it's still idiotic to insist on nominating a candidate who is unelectable.

But she wasn't unelectable. That she didn't win doesn't make her unelectable. You don't seen to get that.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Thank you.

Bullpoo, the subject came up quickly about impeachment, which like it or not is a legal proceeding. If you charge in screaming murder when its not, you're only going to embarrass yourself. Facts actually do matter, and matter more than screaming OMB at the top of your lungs.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

A few hours ago you were whining that I put words in your mouth, now look at this mess. Jfc: I never claimed anything about zero deaths.

I was commenting on your stubborn "But it's not murder, so your argument is nullified" hogwash.

Because it isnt murder, its negligence. You cant be this thick....

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Cain

Yes, other candidates did run, but still other candidates would have run. Rich wants to run for president of his school's chapter of Amnesty International, but quits filling out the paperwork upon learning his good friend Marie has already declared her candidacy.

And Clinton did not win anywhere close to a majority of Americans, let alone a majority voters (she won a plurality). Finally, and more importantly, she was running against Donald "grab 'em by the pussy" Trump, a historically awful candidate. A movie starring Ben Affleck as an Italian gangster falling for a gobble-gobble lesbian might not be as dumb as Battlefield Earth, but it can still be dumb.

Has ANY candidate ever won a MAJORITY of Americans? Probably Washington. But I'd bet my last dollar not one since. Certainly not Lincoln. Nor FDR. Nor Jefferson. Nor Roosevelt.

It doesn't matter that she was running against Trump because, like I said, she still BEAT HIM in the popular vote. And no matter how many times you and Squeegee et al want to claim she was 'unelectable' she wasn't because she only lost to him due to the stupidity of the electoral college by 77,000 votes. She was completely electable.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Because it isnt murder, its negligence. You cant be this thick....

I agreed to that several times, you can't be this thick.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

I agreed to that several times, you can't be this thick.

And yet you seem to press it further, yes he's bad, but the OP started a specific discussion, show an understanding of that nuance, or just admit that you andthe morgue guy have nothing more than screaming OMB into the wind, which wont accomplish didly.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

And yet you seem to press it further, yes he's bad, but the OP started a specific discussion, show an understanding of that nuance, or just admit that you andthe morgue guy have nothing more than screaming OMB into the wind, which wont accomplish didly.

Maybe if you write "OMB" a thousand times you can get it out of your system and move on to another argument because this one ain't workin' no mo.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Maybe if you write "OMB" a thousand times you can get it out of your system and move on to another argument because this one ain't workin' no mo.

Maybe you and yours could do the same. You want the guy impeached, dwell on actual facts. Not hysterical outbursts.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

And yet you seem to press it further, yes he's bad, but the OP started a specific discussion, show an understanding of that nuance, or just admit that you andthe morgue guy have nothing more than screaming OMB into the wind, which wont accomplish didly.

over 100k dead and you still want to down-talk it by claiming "It's just people screaming OMB" Ignoring a pandemic and letting people die is the textbook definition of OMB, ffs.

What exactly needs to happen that would make you say: "Yes, orange man pretty bad"? I imagine Trump launching a nuclear attack while you claim: "Come on guys, stop screaming OMB into the wind, that nuclear strike with millions dead was just a nothingburger"

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Maybe you and yours could do the same. You want the guy impeached, dwell on actual facts. Not hysterical outbursts.

100k dead, he knew what was going to happen but somehow pointing it out is "hysterical outbursts" to you.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

over 100k dead and you still want to down-talk it by claiming "It's just people screaming OMB" Ignoring a pandemic and letting people die is the textbook definition of OMB, ffs.

What exactly needs to happen that would make you say: "Yes, orange man pretty bad"? I imagine Trump launching a nuclear attack while you claim: "Come on guys, stop screaming OMB into the wind, that nuclear strike with millions dead was just a nothingburger"

Pathetic. Vote him out and deal with the problem at hand, the pandemic, your need to blame is basically a swamp, it bogs down and solves nothing. Support those getting a vaccine to the mainstream and stop trying to make it into something. Stop crying murder and vote him out, do your civic duty.

Idiots..........

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Maybe you and yours could do the same. You want the guy impeached, dwell on actual facts. Not hysterical outbursts.

But when we do use actual facts, still all you see are hysterical outbursts. Several of us have disagreed with the OP that what Trump did was murder.

ETA: We do agree that what he did was morally/ethically wrong and that it led to thousand of avoidable deaths but that it isn't legally murder. That isn't being hysterical.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Pathetic. Vote him out and deal with the problem at hand, the pandemic, your need to blame is basically a swamp, it bogs down and solves nothing. Support those getting a vaccine to the mainstream and stop trying to make it into something. Stop crying murder and vote him out, do your civic duty.

Idiots..........

My need to blame? What are you talking about? He is responsible for a lot of deaths, so it's 100% clear who is to blame.

Vote him out? Oh wow, thanks for the advice, should be easy then.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

My need to blame? What are you talking about? He is responsible for a lot of deaths, so it's 100% clear who is to blame.

Vote him out? Oh wow, thanks for the advice, should be easy then.

screaming into the wind. its getting boring

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

screaming into the wind. its getting boring

Yeah, talking about the topic of dead people who could have been saved is "screaming into the wind" and "getting boring" because we used the wrong word for the crime, got it.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

Yeah, talking about the topic of dead people who could have been saved is "screaming into the wind" and "getting boring" because we used the wrong word for the crime, got it.

No youre putting hysteria out there where it wont solve anything when we need our minds right. Rational thought not emotional outrage. Is it really that hard. A pandemic is a survuval thing and those like you want to play politics.

Which broken down:
Poly = more than one
Tick= parasite

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

No youre putting hysteria out there where it wont solve anything when we need our minds right. Rational thought not emotional outrage. Is it really that hard. A pandemic is a survuval thing and those like you want to play politics.

Which broken down:
Poly = more than one
Tick= parasite

I am commenting on the issue on an internet message board. Why would I think my comments would solve anything? And you still call being outraged over 100k deaths hysteria?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Polyticking isn't a word.

Rational thought is paying attention to experts (and not dissolving the expert team specifically for this emergency) and laying in supplies (not selling the stockpile and increasing exports) to ensure hospitals can handle every patient and protect every worker, rational thought is letting experts dictate the next steps rather than political moves like 'banning' travel from China which doesn't do anything of the kind and was after people had started dying, rational thought is not voicing an internal monologue about how effective disinfectants are on surfaces, and maybe those same disinfectants could be injected into the body, and rational thought is absolutely not "we should do everything as though the virus wasn't here, because so much as wearing a mask to reduce transmission is an assault on personal freedom and any amount of American lives lost is worth keeping the economy going."

[Stacyhs]

Is Trump a "bad man"? I think so and saying so isn't being "hysterical"; it's based on these facts:

1. He's a serial adulterer who cheated several times on all three wives.
2. He admitted to cancelling the health insurance on his critically ill minor nephew out of
spite.
3. He's a pathological liar.
4. He spread the birther conspiracy lies.
5. He's a racist.
6. He said John McCain wasn't hero because he was captured.
7. He's a bully.
8. He makes disparaging remarks about women.
9. Over 20 women have said he's sexually harassed, groped or assaulted them.
10. He's a narcissist to the extreme.
11. He cheated contractors out of payment.
12. He illegally kept people of color from renting in at least one of his buildings.
13. He refuses to admit the Central Park 5 are innocent even though DNA proved they are innocent.
14. He defrauded people with his Trump University Scam

And the list goes on and on and on. He is a BAD MAN.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is Trump a "bad man"? I think so and saying so isn't being "hysterical"; it's based on these facts:

1. He's a serial adulterer who cheated several times on all three wives.
2. He admitted to cancelling the health insurance on his critically ill minor nephew out of
spite.
3. He's a pathological liar.
4. He spread the birther conspiracy lies.
5. He's a racist.
6. He said John McCain wasn't hero because he was captured.
7. He's a bully.
8. He makes disparaging remarks about women.
9. Over 20 women have said he's sexually harassed, groped or assaulted them.
10. He's a narcissist to the extreme.
11. He cheated contractors out of payment.
12. He illegally kept people of color from renting in at least one of his buildings.
13.

These facts won't get in the way of Rockysmith "Don't be hysterical over 100k deaths, even though I am hysterical about the pesky 'PC culture' at every opportunity" 76

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is Trump a "bad man"? I think so and saying so isn't being "hysterical"; it's based on these facts:

1. He's a serial adulterer who cheated several times on all three wives.
2. He admitted to cancelling the health insurance on his critically ill minor nephew out of
spite.
3. He's a pathological liar.
4. He spread the birther conspiracy lies.
5. He's a racist.
6. He said John McCain wasn't hero because he was captured.
7. He's a bully.
8. He makes disparaging remarks about women.
9. Over 20 women have said he's sexually harassed, groped or assaulted them.
10. He's a narcissist to the extreme.
11. He cheated contractors out of payment.
12. He illegally kept people of color from renting in at least one of his buildings.
13. He refuses to admit the Central Park 5 are innocent even though DNA proved they are innocent.
14. He defrauded people with his Trump University Scam

And the list goes on and on and on. He is a BAD MAN.

There are too many things to even try to put on a list. Even when you categorize his scandals the list grows too long for one post. Every time you feel you're about done you think of two or three more things to add to the list.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

There are too many things to even try to put on a list. Even when you categorize his scandals the list grows too long for one post. Every time you feel you're about done you think of two or three more things to add to the list.

Those were just off the top of my head.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Pathetic. Vote him out and deal with the problem at hand, the pandemic, your need to blame is basically a swamp, it bogs down and solves nothing. Support those getting a vaccine to the mainstream and stop trying to make it into something. Stop crying murder and vote him out, do your civic duty.

Idiots..........

Idiocy is calling one's party the "party of Lincoln" while carrying Confederate battle flags.

Thumb-sucking idiocy is not being able to solve the Ship of Theseus non-paradox and remaining absolutely clueless, even after Shakespeare solved it for you and left you with the key on your homeschooling doorstep. Most current Trumpster "logic" is based squarely on this need for a thumb in one's mouth.

Clueless, wandering idiocy is thinking that accepting the use of torture would not open any behavioral floodgates, and then being shocked to find children and babies in cages, many of whom have disappeared into wicked hands under the winking eye of so-called "Christians".

Deeply troubling idiocy is to spook all the big brains that had been feeding US high tech and innovation, including foundational science and tech for US weapons systems, all while knowing that your number one enemy is so large that it will soon field its own team with more resources in every single category, dwarfing "all you got"... and then alienating your last remaining allies.

Bottom-feeding idiocy is to never have learned the difference, ever, between product and process technology, the latter being ever more critical. No examples or free help on this one; go find out for yourself, if capable. (I laughingly and derisively doubt it.)

Pinhead idiocy is equating cutting and running on loyal and battle-tested allies, all while bullets yet fly, with anything not called backstabbing cowardice. Who's gonna sincerely have your back now?

Laughable, clueless, and cranial-echoing intellectual vacuity is not realizing, ever, that WWII was actually a war won by Anglo supremacists, not by "friends" of freedom and democracy. To see this, all one needs is to understand is the difference between flowery words for children and oft repeated, doubled-down, dastardly deeds at home and abroad.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But she wasn't unelectable.

But she was. Because she'd already had years of her name being dragged through the mud at that point.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Which broken down:
Poly = more than one
Tick= parasite

It's from the word "polis", meaning "city". If, you know, we're genuinely talking about rational thought not emotional outrage.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

But she was. Because she'd already had years of her name being dragged through the mud at that point.

No she wasn't.

She was an almost statistically error away from winning the EC.

You can't say that someone is unelectable when they get within a hair's breath of winning.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Suppose the President suppressed a report that the factory of a donor is leaking dangerous levels of toxins into a water reservoir, resulting in deaths.

Would that be criminally prosecutable?

According to the DOJ, no. So for all practical purposes the answer is no.

It's a serious flaw in our political system, but there you go - we have made it so the president can literally get away with murder*.

* defined as:- the crime that would be murder if it wasn't the president doing it.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

No she wasn't.

She was an almost statistically error away from winning the EC.

You can't say that someone is unelectable when they get within a hair's breath of winning.

Against a joke candidate. "She's a serious politician because she almost beat Slappy the Clown" isn't a very strong argument.

But, sure, if the sticking point is the exact word "unelectable", then allow me to modify my statement. Because of all the years of her name being dragged through the mud, Clinton would always have had a very tough, uphill battle in order to become President. Either way, her being given the nomination was idiotic.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

But she was. Because she'd already had years of her name being dragged through the mud at that point.

Is that why she received almost 3 million more votes than Trump? Because she was unelectable? How you explain that one away? If this had been any other elected political office in the US, she'd have won.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Idiocy is calling one's party the "party of Lincoln" while carrying Confederate battle flags.

IMO not idiocy, it's marketing.

From the GOP's perspective, associating your party with Lincoln is a smart move because he was a Republican (however much the party has changed) and there is a great deal of respect for him among people who aren't typical Republican voters. Then again the Confederate flag has good brand recognition, and tracks well for people who think themselves as rebels. The GOP is attempting to portray itself as the anti-establishment party fighting for the little guy (laughable but they seem to be getting traction), that's compatible with the use of the Confederate flag.

The Dukes of Hazzard, various Southern Rock bands, a bunch of advertising campaigns and tens of millions of t-shirts have meant that the majority of people aren't aware of its original purpose. It's like the Che Guevara posters or Ramones t-shirts, ubiquity has diluted, possibly even destroyed, the original meaning and sentiment.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is that why she received almost 3 million more votes than Trump? Because she was unelectable? How you explain that one away? If this had been any other elected political office in the US, she'd have won.

Is the President the only elected political office which involves all the states and territories ? If so then it's pointless talking about others, it's apples and swimming pools.

As it turned out, Hillary Clinton was surprisingly unelectable. I cannot explain it myself but I guess that she failed to really inspire Democratic Party voters to turn out in sufficiently large numbers in the states that mattered; she had too much "history" after being pilloried for the last three decades or more; she was the first female candidate for President and she was running against an opponent who seemed to break all the usual rules of politics.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Against a joke candidate. "She's a serious politician because she almost beat Slappy the Clown" isn't a very strong argument.

But, sure, if the sticking point is the exact word "unelectable", then allow me to modify my statement. Because of all the years of her name being dragged through the mud, Clinton would always have had a very tough, uphill battle in order to become President. Either way, her being given the nomination was idiotic.

the fact that any Republican can win a couple of States makes anyone nominated by the GOP by definition not a joke candidate.

You think Cruz or Bush would have done better against HRC than Trump?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is that why she received almost 3 million more votes than Trump?

I'm not saying the game isn't rigged. But the Democrats knew that ahead of time, and went with the candidate whose name had been dragged through the mud for more than a decade anyway.

I mean, look at Biden now. They're trying their hardest to smear him in the same way they did Clinton, but they're finding it much harder because they don't have years of groundwork ready and waiting.

I don't think Biden is a better candidate than Clinton in terms of competence and policy. He's probably worse, in fact. But he's a better candidate than her over all because he's a lot less vulnerable to attack.

Not immune, because nobody is, and I'm not going to pretend that how well he's doing isn't connected to 4 years of Trump in power. But even all of that aside he's a better candidate than Clinton, because the Republicans are having to come up with stuff like him hiding in his mother's basement, rather than being able to just shout "Benghazi" and "Uranium One" at him. They are instead finding themselves having to fight against the considerable residual goodwill that he's got from his time as vice president.

And you're welcome to make the argument that that kind of thing shouldn't matter. I would even agree with you, up to a point. I'm not a fan of attack politics in general, although the line between attacking and informing people of genuine wrongdoing is somewhat fuzzy. But it does matter and meant that Clinton was starting several miles behind any competitor.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is that why she received almost 3 million more votes than Trump? Because she was unelectable? How you explain that one away? If this had been any other elected political office in the US, she'd have won.

There is a counterargument you have to make:

if the game to win the White House was to win the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned in California and New York instead of the Rust Belt.
Siphoning off a few million from HRC wouldn't have been that hard.

In short: I can't say that I would have beaten you at the game if the rules had been different, because if the rules had been different you would have played differently and quite probably beaten me, too.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Against a joke candidate. "She's a serious politician because she almost beat Slappy the Clown" isn't a very strong argument.

But, sure, if the sticking point is the exact word "unelectable", then allow me to modify my statement. Because of all the years of her name being dragged through the mud, Clinton would always have had a very tough, uphill battle in order to become President. Either way, her being given the nomination was idiotic.

Could not agree more.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

These facts won't get in the way of Rockysmith "Don't be hysterical over 100k deaths, even though I am hysterical about the pesky 'PC culture' at every opportunity" 76

1) The OP is specifically citing murder which is much more than just being a bad man.

2) To the mods: Post quoted above, name calling and a rule violation is it not?

Also: You really need to get past the fact that as bad as he is, he didn't cause Covid, we knew very little about it in the early stages of the pandemic and there would have been deaths regardless, the negligence and idiocy of his response exaggerated it yes, but you are completely disingenuous in trying to vilify me for pointing that out.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is that why she received almost 3 million more votes than Trump? Because she was unelectable? How you explain that one away? If this had been any other elected political office in the US, she'd have won.

maybe work on voting him out in the next election rather than lament over the last one, also this has nothing to do with the OP

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

1) The OP is specifically citing murder which is much more than just being a bad man.

And most people in here agreed that it was indeed not murder. But he is still responsible for downplaying it, something you don't seem to understand.

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

2) To the mods: Post quoted above, name calling and a rule violation is it not?

The mods advised you multiple times to use the report button, instead of indulding in your silly victim complex. Is there anything that the "PC culture" did not ruin for you,lol?

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Also: You really need to get past the fact that as bad as he is, he didn't cause Covid,

He cause 100k+ deaths due to negligence. Do you find that acceptable or why are you (again) trying to downplay his involvement and responsibility in this event?

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

we knew very little about it in the early stages of the pandemic and there would have been deaths regardless,

So that means "We knew little" justifies the use of language like "it will go away soon on its own"? Wow, you really like your god emperor, don't you?
He knew what was going to happen and you know it, too.

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

the negligence and idiocy of his response exaggerated it yes, but you are completely disingenuous in trying to vilify me for pointing that out.

More victim complex. Maybe get a hobby?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But when we do use actual facts, still all you see are hysterical outbursts. Several of us have disagreed with the OP that what Trump did was murder.

ETA: We do agree that what he did was morally/ethically wrong and that it led to thousand of avoidable deaths but that it isn't legally murder. That isn't being hysterical.

Rocky doesn't want to have a reasonable discussion about facts. He's proved that already by running away from threads when challenged to do so. He just wants to didactically lecture everyone on the inferiority of their positions. Only Rocky is allowed to criticize Trump, and then only in the context of "both sides suck". Any mention by anyone else of the deafening sucking sound emanating from the Oval Office will be met with his stock "clever" mockery involving the deployment of his patented signature phrase, "orange man bad", as though people have been histrionically losing their **** over Trump fist-bumping his wife, or wearing a tan suit.