Not Just Trans That Will Be Targeted

[Ashley0616]

Now all LGBTQ will be targeted if he gets elected! 

 

Donald Trump is considering anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Greg Abbott for vice president - LGBTQ Nation

[KatieSC]

I don't know, I think Trump is just baiting Noem, Lake, and Stefanik, by looking at Abbott. I can see Trump telling them to have a steel cage match...

 

Oh what wonderful things await us in 8 months or so

[Ashley0616]

8 minutes ago, KatieSC said:

I don't know, I think Trump is just baiting Noem, Lake, and Stefanik, by looking at Abbott. I can see Trump telling them to have a steel cage match...

 

Oh what wonderful things await us in 8 months or so

You aren't kidding. Hopefully he'll be indicted and won't be eligible to be a presidential candidate. 

[KatieSC]

Yeah, but the fix appears to be in with the supremo court. The Constitutional amendment has been on the books for over 100 years, but never needed to be used for a presidential candidate until now. The states were following that amendment, and not dreaming up a new and unknown law. The SC does not seem to get that...I wonder why...

 

The other issue all by itself is that so many of the politicians fail to realize there is supposed to be a constitutionally mandated separation of church and state to alleviate religious persecution. Yeah...they seem to have forgotten that too. 

 

The checks and balances appear gone. 

[Ivy]

51 minutes ago, Ashley0616 said:

Hopefully he'll be indicted and won't be eligible to be a presidential candidate.

I think they're afraid of his cult and the potential violence.  

I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the trials will be delayed enough for him to run.  Then if he wins, there won't be any trials……    Well, probably for a few Democrats there will.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

9 hours ago, Ivy said:

I think they're afraid of his cult and the potential violence.  

I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the trials will be delayed enough for him to run.  Then if he wins, there won't be any trials……    Well, probably for a few Democrats there will.

 

I truly doubt all of this.  I was surprised when he won in 2016, against everything stacked against him.  Things were stacked better in 2020.... he doesn't have a chance in 2024 no matter how many votes he gets.  I'm pretty sure they'll jail him for something before the election, which is why Nikki Haley is staying in.  She's hoping to win by default even though she's not popular.  I wonder if she knows something for SURE that the rest of us don't?  Since she spent time at the UN, I smell a rat. 

 

And no, there won't be ANY trials for Democrats.  Which is unfortunate.  Remember Trump's promise to prosecute Hillary?  He should have, and he broke that promise immediately.  FAIL.  These people who "represent" us are essentially a class above the law. 

[Ivy]

There is no way Trump will be locked up before the election.  Even if he is convicted, he'll appeal.  (assuming there is even a trial by then)

Having said that, Haley could be staying in on the off chance that he is.

 

I'm not a fan of Clinton at all, but I don't think there was actually enough evidence to convict her of anything.

 

As for Trump winning, he doesn't actually need a majority of the votes as long as he can win the right states.  And that is certainly a possibility.  I suppose this is a strength or weakness of the republic - depending on how you look at it.

 

As for trans folks (which I consider myself one of) the Republicans have said in so many words that they want us eradicated… I mean, yeah.  I personally believe Democrat support is lukewarm at best when it comes down to it.  They will throw us under the bus, if necessary.

 

We already know the "conservative" game plan (2025).  Thinking they won't actually do it is wishful thinking.  But sure, it can't happen here./s

[KatieSC]

This will be a crazy year. I suspect that if there is a really close vote, that we will hear a non-stop chorus of "stolen election", "fake news", etc., followed by another call that could make January 6th, 2021 look mild. Especially if the R candidate winds up never being held accountable for any of his actions, and if the SC backs him, the game changes for us dramatically. If there is an R super-majority nationally, the game is over. That is what worries me most. Every freedom and shred of acceptance could go right out the window. Yes, some states will attempt to be safe havens, but what if the anti-trans laws go national? You have to admire the coordination of the R states, as well as the ability of the leading R candidate to use every delaying tactic under the sun in order to skate by. I saw an article talking about the joke that Bill Maher said about the lawyers helping Trump. He was referring to the SC justices. The funny part is that it would not be that farfetched if one of the justices, or multiple justices, were advising Trump of every nuance that could delay his trials. Imagine rolling along knowing the outcome before hand. It would certainly explain how discombobulated things are going.

[MaeBe]

12 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Remember Trump's promise to prosecute Hillary?  He should have, and he broke that promise immediately.  FAIL.

And effectively did the exact same thing; screwing around with classified data. So pots and kettles. LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! Right?

[awkward-yet-sweet]

7 hours ago, Ivy said:

There is no way Trump will be locked up before the election.  Even if he is convicted, he'll appeal.  (assuming there is even a trial by then)

Having said that, Haley could be staying in on the off chance that he is.

 

I'm not a fan of Clinton at all, but I don't think there was actually enough evidence to convict her of anything.

 

As for Trump winning, he doesn't actually need a majority of the votes as long as he can win the right states.  And that is certainly a possibility.  I suppose this is a strength or weakness of the republic - depending on how you look at it.

 

Generally, appeals are done when somebody is already in prison.  Trump can appeal all he wants, but once convicted he'll be a felon, and that makes him ineligible for office.  I expect to see a trial or two done racetrack-style specifically to make that happen.  Probably with a conviction around September or October. 

 

No matter what Trump has done (or been rumored to have done), one thing is so far removed from believability that it can't even be made up.... there's no "Trump body trail."  Inconvenient people disappear around the Clintons, and they're basically above investigation for murders as well as anything else.  There's one set of rules for some people, and another set of rules for others. 

 

 

5 hours ago, MaeBe said:

And effectively did the exact same thing; screwing around with classified data. So pots and kettles. LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! Right?

 

Not quite the same, as Hillary was shoveling classified documents into the hands of foreign nations.  Treason, technically.  Trump just stuck things in his bathroom and closets.  One is a capital crime, the other is a dubious felony.  And then of course we have Biden with his son hip-deep in Ukraine, and now we're funneling billions into Ukraine to prop up that regime.  Clinton/Obama/Biden just have better connections to cover up their stuff. 

 

Lets face it, we haven't had a president for 50 years who didn't make the USA look like a banana republic. 🙄

 

[MaeBe]

5 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Not quite the same, as Hillary was shoveling classified documents into the hands of foreign nations.

Facts please. There are legitimate reports that Trump was showing off classified documents.

"It details a July 2021 meeting in Bedminster in which he boasted about having held onto a classified document prepared by the military about a potential attack on another country.

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” the indictment quotes him as saying, citing an audio recording. He also said he could have declassified the document but “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret,” according to the indictment."

 

Also, Hillary had no classified documents in her email.

 

"After all this time and misreporting in the media, once again we need a reminder that, in fact, the FBI found that not one of Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails they reviewed contained any recognizable classified information marking."

 

5 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Lets face it, we haven't had a president for 50 years who didn't make the USA look like a banana republic.

Political scientists disagree.

 

[Carolyn Marie]

All right, folks, once again the thread has gotten wildly off topic.  In addition, there is a whole bunch of conspiracy-theory stuff being bandied about, and y'all know how I feel about that.  So let's get back to the topic at-hand, or we'll shut this one down.  Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Management

[VickySGV]

I agree with @Carolyn Marie as another one of the manager here.  Lets get this one back on track if there is one. 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

8 minutes ago, VickySGV said:

on track if there is one. 

Pretty sure the only track here is.... "if the establishment media says it, its gotta be true." 

[VickySGV]

OK, that does it!!