• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Trump really win against multiple indictments?

Credence

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
14,022
Reaction score
21,192
Location
Long Island NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
An Australian take

bbm: My thoughts exactly

Author: John Lord

John has a strong interest in politics, especially the workings of a progressive democracy, together with social justice and the common good. He holds a Diploma in Fine Arts and enjoys portraiture, composing music, and writing poetry and short stories. He is also a keen amateur actor. Before retirement John ran his own advertising marketing business.

Could Trump really win against multiple indictments?


If the following words sound familiar, the reason is that l have posted them before. However, it may be best to reread them to understand my thoughts.

Again, I had better pause lest you fail to grasp where I am heading. In Australia, we have a saying, “Only in America.” It’s a phrase we use when something outrageously good or bad happens, as though such excesses can occur only in America.

It might be violent racism, another Columbine, kids being slaughtered – any preventable, tragic loss of life that repeats time and again for which no remedy is forthcoming. All of this is beyond the average Australian’s capacity to understand.

In terms of guns, we would say in our somewhat impulsive wisdom that it is time that those with the capacity to change laws that might prevent the mass murder of children and refuse to do so were made to account. After all, they are as guilty or mad, whatever the case, as the perpetrator himself.

The same is true about people responsible for prosecuting those who have allegedly committed the gravest crimes against the state.

We look upon Americans with a great deal of curiosity. We are the recipients (not necessarily the beneficiaries) of its culture. Its capitalistic financial system. Its warmongering, sport and entertainment.

President Obama once said he would like to have our universal health system, our compulsory voting and our gun laws. But that aside, we are very much like America and generally, what comes to pass in the US will do so in Australia – even its bullshit. Well, to a point.

The United States’ current political crisis couldn’t happen here. Our Constitution (Section 44) doesn’t allow people with criminal records or those on trial to stand for parliament.

Donald Trump, in my view, and I’m not sure how this reads into their constitution, should be ordered to undergo a mental examination to ascertain his fitness to govern the country. If necessary, the supreme court could order him and Biden to submit to a complete physical and psychiatric evaluation if they were not prepared to do so voluntarily.

President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable from down under, with some doubts about his ageing body.


On the other hand, former President Trump might adequately pass a fitness test. But his cognitive capacity is that of a ten-year-old, and on that finding alone would be disqualified from running.

More at link above
 


Could Trump really win against multiple indictments?



President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable from down under, with some doubts about his ageing body.
1. NO, he cannot win! There is already talk among the chattering classes that -- given he is a former president -- he may be sentenced to home detention.

2. Many people feel that his mental faculties do NOT seem "reasonable."

a. I have discovered on YouTube many videos from Australia's Sky News (the equivalent of FOX News?) showing President Biden being totally befuddled.

i. I am 86 and have NEVER seen a president speak or act in such a pitiful manner.

ii. Any intellectually honest person will admit that no person in his condition should be the head of the Free World.
 
President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable from down under, with some doubts about his ageing body.

On the other hand, former President Trump might adequately pass a fitness test. But his cognitive capacity is that of a ten-year-old, and on that finding alone would be disqualified from running.
Any consideration that the writer might be engaging in a reasoned argument went right out the window with the above statements.
 
Any consideration that the writer might be engaging in a reasoned argument went right out the window with the above statements.

To a MAGA supporter of his, I suppose it might.

To the other 2/3 of Americans, I think not
 
“It might be … another Columbine, kids being slaughtered – any preventable, tragic loss of life that repeats time and again for which no remedy is forthcoming. All of this is beyond the average Australian’s capacity to understand.”


It is worse that he realizes. It’s not just that our gun folk couldn’t care less if children are slaughtered, they see it as an opportunity to make a sales pitch for more guns.
 
, he cannot win! There is already talk among the chattering classes that -- given he is a former president -- he may be sentenced to home detention.

Wait. The 5 year mandatory for racketeering can be served at home?
 
Wait. The 5 year mandatory for racketeering can be served at home?

Actually yes. The 5 year "mandatory" sentencing still leaves room for judicial discretion. I happened to hear this being discussed on "The Beat with Ari Melber"

What I posted below is the closest I could find anything in writing

Although prison time is not automatic for a conviction under the state’s RICO Act (a judge can decide to dole out only a fine), if the judge does decide to impose a prison sentence, it must be at least five years.
 
Last edited:
To a MAGA supporter of his, I suppose it might.

To the other 2/3 of Americans, I think not
I don't follow polls, but a quick search shows you are wrong.

More than 6 in 10 Americans say President Biden does not have the mental sharpness or physical health to serve effectively as president, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll — a finding that underscores some of the stark challenges he is confronting at the outset of his campaign for reelection.

Though Biden, 80, and former president Donald Trump, 76, are close in age, the poll shows that Americans have strikingly different views about their capabilities, even as Biden’s doctor has declared the incumbent healthy. About a third of Americans (32 percent) say Biden has the mental sharpness to be effective in the White House, while 54 percent say the same of Trump. And one-third (33 percent) say Biden is in good enough physical health for the job; while 64 percent say that about Trump, the leading Republican candidate.
 
trump is going to get blown out in the general.
 
Polls don't mean diddly squat. People conflate Biden's age with his mental acuity while they conflate TFG's mental acuity with his bullish behavior.
I stand by my comments

And just for the record Biden's real physician wrote the real report on his health unlike that stupid report TFG's physician allegedly wrote (which TFG probably wrote himself)

I will be the first to admit that I wish there were a younger candidate running on the Dem ticket, but it is what it is and I will vote for Biden any day over TFG who truly needs medical intervention for his mental health. JMO


 
Wait. The 5 year mandatory for racketeering can be served at home?
Former Attorney General Barr speculated on that possibility for a former president.
 
An Australian take

bbm: My thoughts exactly

Author: John Lord

John has a strong interest in politics, especially the workings of a progressive democracy, together with social justice and the common good. He holds a Diploma in Fine Arts and enjoys portraiture, composing music, and writing poetry and short stories. He is also a keen amateur actor. Before retirement John ran his own advertising marketing business.

Could Trump really win against multiple indictments?


If the following words sound familiar, the reason is that l have posted them before. However, it may be best to reread them to understand my thoughts.

Again, I had better pause lest you fail to grasp where I am heading. In Australia, we have a saying, “Only in America.” It’s a phrase we use when something outrageously good or bad happens, as though such excesses can occur only in America.

It might be violent racism, another Columbine, kids being slaughtered – any preventable, tragic loss of life that repeats time and again for which no remedy is forthcoming. All of this is beyond the average Australian’s capacity to understand.

In terms of guns, we would say in our somewhat impulsive wisdom that it is time that those with the capacity to change laws that might prevent the mass murder of children and refuse to do so were made to account. After all, they are as guilty or mad, whatever the case, as the perpetrator himself.

The same is true about people responsible for prosecuting those who have allegedly committed the gravest crimes against the state.

We look upon Americans with a great deal of curiosity. We are the recipients (not necessarily the beneficiaries) of its culture. Its capitalistic financial system. Its warmongering, sport and entertainment.

President Obama once said he would like to have our universal health system, our compulsory voting and our gun laws. But that aside, we are very much like America and generally, what comes to pass in the US will do so in Australia – even its bullshit. Well, to a point.

The United States’ current political crisis couldn’t happen here. Our Constitution (Section 44) doesn’t allow people with criminal records or those on trial to stand for parliament.

Donald Trump, in my view, and I’m not sure how this reads into their constitution, should be ordered to undergo a mental examination to ascertain his fitness to govern the country. If necessary, the supreme court could order him and Biden to submit to a complete physical and psychiatric evaluation if they were not prepared to do so voluntarily.

President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable from down under, with some doubts about his ageing body.


On the other hand, former President Trump might adequately pass a fitness test. But his cognitive capacity is that of a ten-year-old, and on that finding alone would be disqualified from running.

More at link above
The U.S. was formed by way of a rebellious war to break away from a tyrannical government. So our founders were leery of a new tyrannical government gaining a foothold sometime down the road. In the event that a tyrannical government started jailing legitimate political opponents, they didn't want those opponents to be disqualified from becoming the people's choice for President. That's likely also the reason why adding a new litmus test, such as "fitness" tests performed by the government, hasn't been done and probably won't. The American people are supposed to be engaged and informed enough to make better voting decisions, on the whole.
 
And?

What were his thoughts?
He just said that.

No elaboration.

In any case, President Harris would not dare outrage vindictive Dems by agreeing to such a compromise.

Many Dems insane with hatred toward President Trump will not be satisfied until they see him in prison garb manacled to his cellmate, maybe a convicted murderer. And many of those guards will relish abusing the "racist" former president.
 
Wait. The 5 year mandatory for racketeering can be served at home?
If you are a former President of the United States, it is likely. With his knowledge of state secrets and his Secret Service detail, putting him in a regular prison seems to be out of the question.
 
He just said that.

No elaboration.

In any case, President Harris would not dare outrage vindictive Dems by agreeing to such a compromise.

Many Dems insane with hatred toward President Trump will not be satisfied until they see him in prison garb manacled to his cellmate, maybe a convicted murderer. And many of those guards will relish abusing the "racist" former president.

Same with real Republicans like myself
This bitch needs a jail cell the rest of his life.
This is more good vs evil than left vs right or dem vs Republican.
 
If you are a former President of the United States, it is likely. With his knowledge of state secrets and his Secret Service detail, putting him in a regular prison seems to be out of the question.

How so?

And

What law can you cite to support this contention
 
He just said that.

No elaboration.

In any case, President Harris would not dare outrage vindictive Dems by agreeing to such a compromise.

Many Dems insane with hatred toward President Trump will not be satisfied until they see him in prison garb manacled to his cellmate, maybe a convicted murderer. And many of those guards will relish abusing the "racist" former president.
It is not vindictiveness to want criminals to fairly pay for the crimes they commit.
 
How so?

And

What law can you cite to support this contention
There is no precedent for this. But how can you have a former President of the United States and his Secret Service detail in the general population of a prison? Does a punishment of solitary confinement fit the crime here?
 
There is no precedent for this. But how can you have a former President of the United States and his Secret Service detail in the general population of a prison? Does a punishment of solitary confinement fit the crime here?

Of course it does. Its racketeering!

Also, we go by the law, not by the circumstance.

Does the law permit was my question.
 
The U.S. was formed by way of a rebellious war to break away from a tyrannical government. So our founders were leery of a new tyrannical government gaining a foothold sometime down the road. In the event that a tyrannical government started jailing legitimate political opponents, they didn't want those opponents to be disqualified from becoming the people's choice for President. That's likely also the reason why adding a new litmus test, such as "fitness" tests performed by the government, hasn't been done and probably won't. The American people are supposed to be engaged and informed enough to make better voting decisions, on the whole.


Recall that the only group that could really vote back in 1790 were white male landowners so perhaps 20% of the population
 
It is not vindictiveness to want criminals to fairly pay for the crimes they commit.s
Some woke Dems would want you to make an exception if the criminal is a dear sweet "victim of society" who just happens to rob or to sucker punch or to loot or to rape or even to murder someone.
 
An Australian take

bbm: My thoughts exactly

Author: John Lord

John has a strong interest in politics, especially the workings of a progressive democracy, together with social justice and the common good. He holds a Diploma in Fine Arts and enjoys portraiture, composing music, and writing poetry and short stories. He is also a keen amateur actor. Before retirement John ran his own advertising marketing business.

Could Trump really win against multiple indictments?


If the following words sound familiar, the reason is that l have posted them before. However, it may be best to reread them to understand my thoughts.

Again, I had better pause lest you fail to grasp where I am heading. In Australia, we have a saying, “Only in America.” It’s a phrase we use when something outrageously good or bad happens, as though such excesses can occur only in America.

It might be violent racism, another Columbine, kids being slaughtered – any preventable, tragic loss of life that repeats time and again for which no remedy is forthcoming. All of this is beyond the average Australian’s capacity to understand.

In terms of guns, we would say in our somewhat impulsive wisdom that it is time that those with the capacity to change laws that might prevent the mass murder of children and refuse to do so were made to account. After all, they are as guilty or mad, whatever the case, as the perpetrator himself.

The same is true about people responsible for prosecuting those who have allegedly committed the gravest crimes against the state.

We look upon Americans with a great deal of curiosity. We are the recipients (not necessarily the beneficiaries) of its culture. Its capitalistic financial system. Its warmongering, sport and entertainment.

President Obama once said he would like to have our universal health system, our compulsory voting and our gun laws. But that aside, we are very much like America and generally, what comes to pass in the US will do so in Australia – even its bullshit. Well, to a point.

The United States’ current political crisis couldn’t happen here. Our Constitution (Section 44) doesn’t allow people with criminal records or those on trial to stand for parliament.

Donald Trump, in my view, and I’m not sure how this reads into their constitution, should be ordered to undergo a mental examination to ascertain his fitness to govern the country. If necessary, the supreme court could order him and Biden to submit to a complete physical and psychiatric evaluation if they were not prepared to do so voluntarily.

President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable from down under, with some doubts about his ageing body.


On the other hand, former President Trump might adequately pass a fitness test. But his cognitive capacity is that of a ten-year-old, and on that finding alone would be disqualified from running.

More at link above
I like it.
 
Of course it does. Its racketeering!

Also, we go by the law, not by the circumstance.

Does the law permit was my question.
That is a good question. No one knows, as it has not yet been tested. I suppose we'll find out. My point is that the laws protecting national secrets may very well take precedence over sentencing laws. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they do. The first duty of the government is to safeguard the country. Putting a former president in prison could very well be deemed out of the question. Not because he doesn't deserve it, but because maybe we simply aren't equipped to do it in a safe and secure manner.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom