US Politics Thread 2021-24

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

He may aim - and seems to aim - at changing the very basic ruleset itself.


https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/11/p...sis/index.html

Ah yes, CNN. Already starting the gloom and doom.

[Otto Harkaman]

^^ Much of the analysis remains speculative, as these are potential strategies rather than confirmed plans, depending on political dynamics and legal interpretations that could limit such actions.

It speculates on how Trump might assert executive authority more aggressively, citing historical precedents and recent Supreme Court cases that could support expansive views of presidential immunity and unilateral decision-making. Analysts suggest that this approach could lead to disruptions in traditional checks and balances, sparking concerns about democratic institutions.

[Shadowblade]

[Catfish]

Now you have Bollywood, for real

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

Kai, I understand being in Germany that the jist of American lingo might have been lost in translation for you. [...] My apologies for the confusion.

Maybe I have to apologize, but then no one here really has to. Yes, Trump is not Hitler. But Trump endangering democracy is not that far-fetched with what happened in 2016, 2020 and his lies of "interference" and "the steal". By your law he is a convicted felon. I cannot believe that this was the last US election, but a lot of people think so – wait and see.

That Harris instantly stopped critic and accepted her losing the election is not a sign of weakness although Trump would see it that way, he would not have accepted to lose again. God knows what would have happened this time, in this regard I am almost glad he won. Regarding who lied more in the last years we sure know who the "winner" is.

Killing a police officer automatically qualifies for death penalty? Your link tells that he was working undercover (I do not know details, but not wearing a uniform?), and tells a lot of differing opinions in this case.
Harris demanded life-long prison. So Harris is an enemy of the death penalty and she has made this clear several times. The US majority does not see it that way, ok. Does this mean she is lying?

" [...] you're not aware of the warped policies of the Democratic Party here. Trust in the fact that my Countrymen said no to her candidacy. This includes sex change operations for inmates and Illegal and undocumented Migrants, all on the Tax Payers Dime that Kamala wanted. [...] "the people in the U.S are tired of the progressive liberal policies of the current administration. This is why people didn't want her."

Ok she stood for this idea and lost, does that make her a liar?
Anyway, as you said, the american people voted for Trump. Alright.

[Otto Harkaman]

Originally Posted by Catfish

By your law he is a convicted felon.

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York. The charges relate to hush-money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. Trump reimbursed his then-attorney Michael Cohen for these payments, recording them as legal fees, which prosecutors argued was an intentional effort to influence the election by hiding potentially damaging information about an alleged affair

Is his conviction under appeal?

Yes, former President Donald Trump's conviction on the 34 felony counts in New York will likely be appealed, but the appeal process cannot officially begin until he is sentenced. His sentencing is scheduled for November 26, 2024, after which his legal team plans to file an appeal to challenge the guilty verdict. This appeal process could take more than six months and will start in the New York State Appellate Division, potentially reaching the New York Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, depending on how rulings progress in the lower courts​

[Jimbuna]

If the appeal went as far as SCOTUS I suspect he would win.

[Otto Harkaman]

Is there any actual evidence that Donald Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels, only verbal accusations?

The alleged affair between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels is primarily substantiated by Daniels' own testimony, statements from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and the structure of payments linked to her. Daniels claims the affair took place in 2006 and testified in court with detailed descriptions of the encounter and subsequent interactions with Trump, despite Trump's continued denial of the affair.
Michael Cohen has confirmed that he facilitated a $130,000 payment to Daniels during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, stating he did so at Trumps direction to silence Daniels as part of a larger effort to avoid negative publicity before the election. Trumps legal team has argued that the payment was unrelated to any affair but was made to prevent a false story from impacting his campaign. Cohen testimony, as well as the structured payments labeled as legal fees, are part of the prosecution's argument that Trump falsified business records to conceal the purpose of the payment, which has led to multiple felony charges against him in New York.
The evidence thus largely centers on testimonies, admissions about the payments arrangement, and the circumstances surrounding it, rather than physical evidence of the alleged affair itself. Legal discussions during the trial focus on Daniels’ credibility and Cohen account, which supports the broader argument that Trump attempted to influence the 2016 election by suppressing negative information.

Is the Trump and Stormy Daniels picture real?

The widely circulated image purportedly showing Donald Trump, Melania Trump, and Stormy Daniels together is digitally altered. This fake image was constructed by combining separate photos: one of Donald and Melania Trump with Trump’s daughter Ivanka from an event in 2005, and another of Stormy Daniels from a 2006 awards show. Fact-checkers like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have confirmed that this image was manipulated and does not represent an actual meeting between Trump and Daniels.
No authentic photographs have surfaced showing Trump and Daniels together, and the image was debunked as early as 2018, but it has continued to resurface amid renewed discussions around the case. The fake photo has been used on social media to imply evidence of their alleged affair, despite both parties having no verifiable public images together at the time the affair is said to have occurred​
FactCheck.org
​PolitiFact
.

Could Michael Cohen have been working with Stormy Daniels to make up the whole affair to blackmail Trump?

The idea that Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels might have colluded to fabricate the affair for blackmail purposes has not been substantiated by any credible evidence. Cohen and Daniels' testimonies, as well as the circumstances surrounding the hush-money payment, were part of a legal process with extensive documentation and oversight. Cohen, who was TrumpÂ’s personal attorney at the time, has publicly stated that he facilitated the payment to Daniels under Trumps direct instructions. He later testified in court about the payment arrangement, saying he was acting on TrumpÂ’s behalf to avoid potential fallout from Daniels' claims.Cohen, after his own legal battles and subsequent prison sentence, turned against Trump and became a cooperating witness, which might create questions about his motivations. However, evidence from the transaction itself, including bank records, checks, and communications, corroborates that the payment was made from Cohen to Daniels with the intent of maintaining confidentiality. Daniels’ and Cohen testimonies have also been consistent across various legal proceedings and public statements​
IJPR
​FactCheck.org
.
Additionally, both Daniels and Cohen faced intense legal scrutiny, and their claims were subject to cross-examination. Cohen, in particular, suffered significant personal and legal repercussions, which would make a blackmail scheme risky for both of them without any guarantee of financial or legal gain. So far, the evidence supports the prosecution's version of events rather than suggesting a conspiracy between Cohen and Daniels.

Is this statement true: "Cohen, who was Trumps personal attorney at the time, has publicly stated that he facilitated the payment to Daniels under Trump’s direct instructions."?

Yes, Michael Cohen publicly stated that he facilitated the payment to Stormy Daniels under Donald Trumps direct instructions. Cohen testified that he was directed by Trump to make the payment using personal funds to prevent any potential election impact from the allegations. This was further supported by Cohen admission during his 2018 court appearance, where he plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws, confirming that the payment was made “at the direction of” Trump, who was then a candidate for federal office​FactCheck.org

What is Trump's statement?

Donald Trump has consistently denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels and argues that the $130,000 payment facilitated by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, was intended to avoid negative publicity rather than an admission of any relationship. Trump has described the payment as a "nuisance payment," intended to prevent Daniels from spreading false allegations and disrupting his family life. In various statements, Trump has also argued that this payment did not involve campaign funds and was handled through a private retainer agreement with Cohen, which he contends is common practice for high-profile figures​
PolitiFact
​PolitiFact
.
Despite Trump's denials, Cohen testified under oath that he arranged the payment at Trumps direction to silence Daniels before the 2016 election, describing it as necessary to prevent possible damage to the campaign. Legal questions surrounding the payment have led to intense public scrutiny and multiple investigations, though the Federal Election Commission ultimately did not pursue action against Trump on related complaints​
PolitiFact
​PolitiFact
.

So all based on one man's testimony under oath

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Maybe I have to apologize, but then no one here really has to. Yes, Trump is not Hitler. But Trump endangering democracy is not that far-fetched with what happened in 2016, 2020 and his lies of "interference" and "the steal". By your law he is a convicted felon. I cannot believe that this was the last US election, but a lot of people think so – wait and see.

That Harris instantly stopped critic and accepted her losing the election is not a sign of weakness although Trump would see it that way, he would not have accepted to lose again. God knows what would have happened this time, in this regard I am almost glad he won. Regarding who lied more in the last years we sure know who the "winner" is.


Killing a police officer automatically qualifies for death penalty? Your link tells that he was working undercover (I do not know details, but not wearing a uniform?), and tells a lot of differing opinions in this case.
Harris demanded life-long prison. So Harris is an enemy of the death penalty and she has made this clear several times. The US majority does not see it that way, ok. Does this mean she is lying?

Ok she stood for this idea and lost, does that make her a liar?
Anyway, as you said, the american people voted for Trump. Alright.

No apologies needed, Kai. As I said, being from Germany, you wouldn't be aware of the Political Climate here or it's nuances. I didnt get into in depth but the Democrats lie constantly. Read up on the criminal laws that have have recently been enacted in California with regards to crime. With regards to Kamala, the point I was making was this. Kamala Called Trump a Hitler. Kamala said that voting for Trump would endanger Democracy. When Kamala lost the Election, suddenly Donald Trump wasn't a threat to Democracy anymore. It must take Kamala hours in the morning to put her makeup on as she needs to put make up on two faces, not just one.

The Democrats have long since demeaned voters and anyone who didn't agree with their warped agenda.

A number of people here don't like Trump. One reason could stem from the fact that Trump isn't very articulate or linear when he talks or gives speeches. However, Trump speaks very plainly and transparently. This resonated with a lot of people.

What has been lost on many in the Media is this : You stated Trump is a convicted Felon. Could those prosecutions and convictions be politically motivated ? Possibly. However, one thing is clear. If the vast majority of the Electorate prefered and voted overwhelmingly for as you say, a convicted Felon, what does that say of the Democratic Candidates who were overwhelmingly rejected and removed from Office ? This was a complete rejection of the radical Liberal Agenda. The Democrats and it's supporters suffered a complete meltdown as a result.

Simply put, the Election results clearly demonstrate the complete rejection and repudiation of not as much the Candidates but rather what the Candidates party stands for and It's values or lack thereof.... In this case, the Democratic party is so far to the left that they have nothing in common with the average guy with common sense. Worse, they attack that same individual that has common sense. When Kamala lost the Election, the Liberal media contention was that it had to be Racism. They can't possibly conceive that it was a rejection of their Woke Philosophies. Therefore, until they face their failed policies and agenda, the Democratic party will fail to be relevant.

I was very proud of the fact that although a number of people didn't like Trump, they realized it wasn't about them and voted for who they thought could best lead their Country. This tells me that the vast majority of people felt as I did that the U.S and it's Liberal policies were going in the wrong direction. I hope to see our Citizens reclaim happier times and prosperity.

As people know, I don't comment on Political affairs. However, this Election and it's results compelled me to post as I absolutely depised the Democratic party and It's warped views. It hardly matters but years ago, I voted for whomever I thought was best suited for the position, Republican or Democrat. In the last ten years with the extremist shift to the left, I would never vote for another Democrat. I think most feel the same way.

[Otto Harkaman]

^^ This last part the AI answered bothered me.

argues that the $130,000 payment facilitated by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, was intended to avoid negative publicity rather than an admission of any relationship. Trump has described the payment as a "nuisance payment," intended to prevent Daniels from spreading false allegations and disrupting his family life. In various statements, Trump has also argued that this payment did not involve campaign funds and was handled through a private retainer agreement with Cohen, which he contends is common practice for high-profile figures​

This is false, Trump has never made any indication the money was for Cohen's pay off scheme. It was for legal fees since Cohen was an attorney billing Trump that's why it was labelled legal fees and not payoff to horse face.

Is there any direct evidence that Trump said payments to Cohen were for Stormy Daniels?

There is no direct statement from Donald Trump acknowledging that payments to Michael Cohen were specifically intended to cover up any affair with Stormy Daniels.

But the AI (which is very left biased) wants to add there is evidence but when asked more carefully it admits it is all just Cohen's testimony.

[Otto Harkaman]

Sex crimes that's all they're good for.

Whatever happened to the Cuomo brothers?

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Trump is not Hitler. But Trump endangering democracy is not that far-fetched with what happened in 2016, 2020 and his lies of "interference" and "the steal".

What did Trump do in 2016 to "endanger democracy" again?

That Harris instantly stopped critic and accepted her losing the election is not a sign of weakness although Trump would see it that way, he would not have accepted to lose again.

Yeah Giggles threw in the towel the next day, hours after it became obvious she was going to loose. But what makes you an expert on how Trump would see anything? He repeatedly said that he would accept the results of a fair election. Who are you to claim otherwise?

Harris lost because she repeatedly showed herself to be a blithering idiot and a complete fake, an empty suit. It was obvious every time she spewed her meaningless word salad then degenerated into uncontrolled giggling anytime someone asked her a real question. Americans know a fool when they see one and the fact that this dufus was installed by the party elite in what looked an awful lot like a palace coup just did not play well with the voters.

She lost because of the democrats over the top propaganda. You compare somebody to hitler who isn't at all like him, or that someone is a "threat to democracy" who obviously isn't and people start not believing anything else you say about them. Godwins law right?

That also extends to the lawfare the Democrats have been waging. Twisting laws and applying them in completely novel ways, while giving your side a complete pass for doing the same thing, or worse, just makes people start seeing it for the political persecution that it is.

I also think she lost because this time the Repubs were watching the polls and the Dems couldn't do their illegal midnight ballot drops that suddenly put them over the top back in 2020. That's probably how 20 million Democrat voters just disappeared into thin air this time around. Gone into the ether that they were created from i suspect.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by August

What did Trump do in 2016 to "endanger democracy" again?


Yeah Giggles threw in the towel the next day, hours after it became obvious she was going to loose. But what makes you an expert on how Trump would see anything? He repeatedly said that he would accept the results of a fair election. Who are you to claim otherwise?

Harris lost because she repeatedly showed herself to be a blithering idiot and a complete fake, an empty suit. It was obvious every time she spewed her meaningless word salad then degenerated into uncontrolled giggling anytime someone asked her a real question. Americans know a fool when they see one and the fact that this dufus was installed by the party elite in what looked an awful lot like a palace coup just did not play well with the voters.

She lost because of the democrats over the top propaganda. You compare somebody to hitler who isn't at all like him, or that someone is a "threat to democracy" who obviously isn't and people start not believing anything else you say about them. Godwins law right?

That also extends to the lawfare the Democrats have been waging. Twisting laws and applying them in completely novel ways, while giving your side a complete pass for doing the same thing, or worse, just makes people start seeing it for the political persecution that it is.

I also think she lost because this time the Repubs were watching the polls and the Dems couldn't do their illegal midnight ballot drops that suddenly put them over the top back in 2020. That's probably how 20 million Democrat voters just disappeared into thin air this time around. Gone into the ether that they were created from i suspect.

Catfish didn't compare Trump to Hitler. Catfish thought I did because he repeated what I said for clarification. I told Catfish that Kamala called Trump another Hitler so, It was a misunderstanding that I caused because I didn't word what I said properly.

You however did point out something I thought all along. Kamala was a manufactured Candidate.Trump is authentic. Enough said.

[Skybird]

Project 2025.


https://www-achgut-com.translate.goo..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Otto Harkaman]

Chris Wallace out at CNN after 3 years at the network

"Bronx Cheer"