'Deluge' of threats against judge and law clerk in Trump’s civil fraud trial

That's for protesters, not violence.

Lie.

 

They supported riots. That's all it was.

 

So, you defend Biden's threat to "best hell" out of Trump. Thanks for proving my point...lol

 

Oh yeah, what about the "quite a few" you mentioned?

 

But he would, he's not inciting or begging the MAGA mob to do his cowardly deeds. He doesn't need a mob, Joe's not cowardly just old .

 

How many MAGA useful idiots did Trump lead to the slaughter in the justice system? Thousands.....so many useful idiots crying in the courtrooms.

 

Changing the subject. Aren't you?...lol

 

You were hoping to ignore how many of the "useful idiot" mob Agent Orange was hiding behind while hoping he could get them to do his bidding, Ole' Joe doesn't hide behind while inciting a MAGA mob. The subject is the mob that Trump hides behind.

 

No, you're going from "Trump supporters who made threats against people" to "Trump supporters who engaged in civil unrest"...lol

 

Sorry, history doesn't support your political bias.
In fact, it destroys most of your out of context fairy tail post.

 

And they were incited to violence by Agent Orange, for his own personal agenda and benefit; the parallel is but, OBVIOUS and the same. You are running in a circle WBK...

 

Thats whats called an evacuation. Glad you noticed.
Trump evacuated 13,000 solders and 4 bases without incident.
All Biden had left was 2500 troops and couldn't even do that right.

Thats what happens when an idiot decides to extend the original evac dates from May for his own personal 9/11 photo op.
Which is why CNN labeled Biden as incompetent
Which is why the UK found Biden as incompetent
Which is why even Democrats found him incompetent.

Biden is nothing but a dementia ridden dumbass who can't even find his own way off a stage.
What a buffoon

 

No they weren't. At no time did Trump incite violence on Jan 6.

Nice job dodging the topic, though... LMAO

 

Right, because in your bias mind, riots killing Americans, burning down billions in businesses, attacking the White house, Attacking the SCOTUS, tearing down statues, and burning down the historical church in DC are not violence, just peaceful protest when done by Democrats.
Hilarious

 

Yet you still haven't provided anything that Trump said that you claim is threats.
But I knew you couldn't so theres that.

Then I would say you have pretty thin skin if saying to make a citizens arrest hurts your feeling to the point of threatening someone.
I would say grow up to those who seem to be so touchy. lol

Ao if you're so inflamed about Trump saying make a citizens arrest, how inflamed are you by the ignorant left that riots killing Americans, burning down billions in businesses, attacking the White house, Attacking the SCOTUS, tearing down statues, and burning down the historical church in DC.
Or are you one of those who thought murdering Americans is peaceful protest?
There are many like you, hence the problem.

 

Why would people above the law, fear it? I don't understand why you think they would.

 

He absolutely did and specifically to help himself USING others to do his dirty work, hence, his little hands. Joe on the other hand said he would do his dirty work himself, . Sorry, WBK, your Ju-jit-su is weak

 

It's a lie, and you can't prove it. I challenge you to prove it.

But you can't disprove this:

 

It used to be that when the FBI, DOJ, NSA, ET AL were on the case we could expect a speedy resolution and perp walks for all to enjoy.

Now it seems that they can't even catch drug dealers in the white house.

Never the less, our faith is in the government law enforcement agencies. They should have already identified the malcontents and arrested them.

Course, our faith that CBP can do its job in the face of bidens open borders policy is largely shaken.

 

Really, well the same military under Trump existed for Biden, and neither has much effect on 'competency'. If there is any incompetency, it's your statement.

You can't even make a nuanced claim, and if there were ever a subject that requires detail and nuance, it's the Afghanistan withdrawal. You, like so many on the right, view the world with a simplistic lens, which is rarely accurate. I guess I'll have to do it for you. to wit:

Your statement has several inaccuracies and oversimplifications regarding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a process that involved both the Trump and Biden administrations. Here are the key points to consider:

Former President Donald Trump's administration negotiated an agreement with the Taliban in February 2020, setting the stage for a U.S. troop withdrawal. However, this agreement did not involve the evacuation of 13,000 soldiers and 4 bases "without incident." The situation in Afghanistan was complex and fraught with challenges, including ongoing attacks and security concerns.

When President Joe Biden took office, he inherited the agreement made by the Trump administration. Biden announced in April 2021 that the U.S. would withdraw all remaining troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, later moving this deadline to August 31. The number of troops mentioned, 2,500, refers to the remaining U.S. military presence at the time Biden announced the final withdrawal.

Contrary to the statement, there were significant incidents and challenges during both administrations' handling of the situation in Afghanistan. The security situation in Afghanistan was volatile, and there were attacks and casualties involving U.S. forces and Afghan civilians throughout the period of U.S. involvement, including during the withdrawal phases under both administrations.

The situation in Afghanistan was highly complex, influenced by decades of conflict, the presence of multiple armed groups, and the political dynamics within Afghanistan. The withdrawal and evacuation efforts, under both Trump and Biden, involved not just military personnel but also the evacuation of civilians, allies, and vulnerable populations.

In short, your statement oversimplifies and inaccurately represents the events and challenges associated with the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan under both the Trump and Biden administrations. It's important to consider the broader context and the complexities of the situation when discussing such topics.

The collapse of the Afghan government and the subsequent challenges faced by the Biden administration during the withdrawal from Afghanistan were the result of a complex set of factors, with responsibilities and events spanning multiple U.S. administrations, including those of Presidents Trump and Biden. Here's a breakdown of the key elements:

In February 2020, the Trump administration signed an agreement with the Taliban that set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. This agreement was made without the direct involvement of the Afghan government, which many analysts believe undermined the legitimacy and strength of the Afghan government. The agreement also included the release of around 5,000 Taliban prisoners, which arguably strengthened the Taliban's position.

Over the years, despite significant investment and training by the U.S. and its allies, the Afghan government and military forces had persistent issues with corruption, lack of morale, and challenges in leadership. These factors, among others, contributed to their rapid collapse when faced with the advancing Taliban.

President Biden, upon taking office, was faced with the choice of adhering to the agreement made by the Trump administration or renegotiating the terms. He ultimately decided to proceed with the withdrawal, announcing in April 2021 that all American troops would leave Afghanistan by September 11, 2021 (later moved to August 31).

The Taliban made rapid gains throughout Afghanistan following the announcement of the withdrawal timeline, catching many by surprise, including U.S. intelligence and military planners. The speed at which the Taliban took control, leading to the collapse of the Afghan government, posed significant challenges to the withdrawal and evacuation efforts.

The quick collapse of the Afghan government and the rapid Taliban takeover complicated the Biden administration's efforts to conduct an orderly withdrawal. This led to chaotic scenes, particularly in Kabul, as thousands of Afghans and foreign nationals sought to flee the country

In summary, Trump said for years he wanted us out of Afghanistan, but he saw the writing on the wall, that if he did, he'd face the same problems which occurred with Biden, and because of that fact, passed the buck to Biden, and did in a way would make it very difficult for Biden, which is playing politics with lives to score political points, because it would give you guys something to bellyache about, which tells me that Trump is a coward and a traitor, of the highest order. Makes sense given that he faked bone spurs to get out of the draft. It took a mountain of courage to leave Afghanistan under those circumstance. He could have built back upo the forces and return to the status quo, but he chose not to.

Yeah, and when CNN labeled Trump as incompetent,. you guys shouted 'CNN is fake news'.
Yeah, it's only fake when it is convenient you quote CNN. What a hyp........nevermind.

A meaningless statement.

What? one democrat? Two maybe. You're propensity for weasel words is noted.

Compared to Trump, he's Einstein.

You don't even know what a real dumbass is, here's a real dumbass

 

If Trump is elected, I do not fear Trump's chest thumping about 'retribution' and the reason is that any AG he appoints will be lot smarter than he is (for having gone to law school, Trump wouldn't have lasted a month in law school) which is to say they know they will need evidence, and there isn't any against Democrats. We are not corrupt like he is. So I don't fear 'retribution', but I do fear that his lack of knowledge of history and civics and security classification protocols is a threat to US National security, so that 's what I meant.

 

Prove it.

 

So you are arguing that Trump does not use emotional, inflammatory rhetoric? Emotional, inflamatory rhethoric only has two functions when used politically. One is plausible deniability when violence comes out. We saw this in Germany from 1925 to 1933, before the Nazis came into power. We saw further evidence when they came into power through the laws that they passed.

As for Trump, first I accepted that he won the election in 2016. I was impressed initially when he chose his cabinet. Most were well-qualified individuals who could do a good job such as Sessions, Mattis, Elane Chow, and others. I was surprised that Ben Carson was the HUD Secretary and I expected him a Surgeon General. Some of these ambassadorships were also well qualified, although his choice for German Ambassador was clearly a political payback. But I mostly disagreed with his policies. That is politics and people do this no matter who is president. Most of the people who served with Trump in some subordinate capacity had one fatal flaw, they were not loyal enough to him. And loyalty to a person is not what this country is about. Even Epps said this, not to mention others. With all the books coming out, a majority do not show a positive side towards Trump, especially during significant events that happened in the Trump Administration from the Charlottesville incident to January 6th, to others. They are not Trump-hating persons, are they? They are conservative, and believe in traditional conservative values, but disagree with his direction. Again, that is politics, not personal vendettas which you are trying to make this into. Or do you want absolute loyalty? If that is the case, I expect Trump to order you to literally fall on your sword. If that happens, will you do it instantaneously, without question? Would be interesting to see, wouldn't it?

However, when you look at most of the people who served with Trump, nearly all had negative feedback. This is not hate, this is their viewpoint of what it was really like serving with him. It is clear that he does not know what the hell he is doing. He is, as one person who served with him, said he thought this was an Apprentice-type show and wanted things to fit in that format to please the crowd. That is not how you run a government at all.

 

We have had protests in this country before the country was founded.

So tell me, was the Boston Tea Party, aka a protest, violent? How about in 1688 the petition by Quakers to eliminate slavery?

How about the march across the Selma Bridge? Was that violent? the Seneca Falls Convention and protests? How about the Women's Crusade in 1874? How about the 1911 Triangle Shirtwright protests? 1913 Suffrage Movement in many of the US Cities to give women the right to vote? 1932 Bonus Army march? Was that violent? 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott? 1963 March on Washington? 1973 March for Life? 1976 Equal Rights March that happened nationwide? Were any of these violent? Were they all leftist policies that turn violent?

Again, were any of these violent because they were "leftist policies?"

We have had riots such as the 1863 NYC Draft riots and some Vietnam War protests, especially the Kent Univerisity shooting and protests. Some BLM protests did turn violent, but not all.

Gross overgeneralizations make a pretty weak argument and it is used to entice violent emotionalism as a result when making such posts.

Finally, we had far-right violent protests not only on January 6th, 2021, but also in Charlottesville, in Dublin, Ireland just a day or two ago, in Seattle by two far-right groups that did turn violent, and others. So, this is not something, when it comes to violence, left vs right politically. And yes, there are conservative protests that were not violent. But protests that are not violent usually don't get reported nationally unless it involve a significant event.

https://www.wnct.com/news/national/famous-protests-in-us-history-and-their-impacts/

 

You have forgotten Charlottesville? That did turn violent. A person intentionally ran into a group of people walking down the road to a protest. That person was a far-right person, and the only thing Trump could say was "there were good people on both sides" and never condemned the actual homicide. Care to guess why that was? We just had right-wing violence, a stabbing of a child, in Dublin, Ireland, because of immigration. Ireland is not known for their huge immigration population amongst its citizens.

But in the link below, with far right extremism, violence is part of their idealogy. Not all conservatives are far-right, but traditional conservatives need to do more to denounce far right extremism. It is why Trump's infamatory remarks to emphasize raw emotions that can spark violence within far-right circles and why se see a surge of hate crimes when Trump makes those types of comments. But it is not just Trump, but with certain conservative media personalities as well from Tucker Carlson to Mark Levin, and others. And it is not just violent protests, or riots, such as January 6th. Consider a person named Cesar Sayoc who mailed 13 packages with CVC pipe and explosives, aka a bomb, and mailed those bombs to prominent Democrats. This happened in 2018, and with the advent of social media, and unhinged emotional, inflammatory rhetoric, it is about the same prediction as giving a box of matches to a pyromaniac and let that person loose in a forest with dry soil, wood, and high winds. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

But with politics, politicians love to make things simple and blame everything on one group from Bill Barr blaming all of the political violence to Antifa. There is a difference between far left and far right political violence. Far-right extremist groups use racism, emotionalism, and inflammatory rhetoric to groups that they despise with a passion. But in the second link, over a period of 25 years, far left extremism violence is far less than far right extremism violence, with one notable exception, 2017. But in all other years from the George W Bush Administration to now, far right extremeism has always been more than far left.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/duran_final%20(4).pdf

https://www.cfr.org/blog/violent-far-right-terrorist-threat-american-law-enforcement

https://www.icct.nl/publication/con...ort-contemporary-trends-far-right-violence-us