Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Posted: **Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:51 pm**

Will believe anything said about the Biden's, but the dozens of criminal charges and civil findings of guilt against Trump are all part of an elaborate conspiracy.

Posted: **Fri Sep 29, 2023 6:42 pm**

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 12:27 pm Yeah, apparently there's a shitload . You must be cursing your luck that Biden is the Democrat in charge .

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/11 ... tion-fraud

Looks like it’s the thing to do if your Dad is president

Posted: **Fri Sep 29, 2023 8:49 pm**

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:51 pm Will believe anything said about the Biden's, but the dozens of criminal charges and civil findings of guilt against Trump are all part of an elaborate conspiracy.

The problem is the proven fake Russian dossier bought and paid for by Hilary Clinton to overturn the 2016 election . Now even if Trump is guilty of a crime nothing is going to stick because people think it’s a political hatchet job . The Democrats only have themselves to blame .

Posted: **Sat Sep 30, 2023 12:59 am**

Trump co defendant pleads guilty over Georgia interference after plea deal. Donald is going to prison.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:08 am**

I believe that this is an example of one of those things that has the potential to spectacularly backfire on those celebrating the ruling.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -amendment

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:47 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:08 am I believe that this is an example of one of those things that has the potential to spectacularly backfire on those celebrating the ruling.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -amendment

Is this how democracy dies ? If you can't beat the man at the ballot box , ban the man . It's like something you read about Russia . By the way tuffers , even if Trump goes to jail I think he can still run for President .

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:26 am**

Trump did try to overthrow an election result though.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:30 am**

Yes he did. He's a threat to democracy. But using a Supreme Court ruling in this way could have dire consequences. Even for the goodies.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:32 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:30 am Yes he did. He's a threat to democracy. But using a Supreme Court ruling in this way could have dire consequences. Even for the goodies.

In what sense?

The way the US legal system and political system are entwined is bloody weird

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:37 am**

Gambling adverts on this one! I’m trying to give up!

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:43 am**

CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:32 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:30 am Yes he did. He's a threat to democracy. But using a Supreme Court ruling in this way could have dire consequences. Even for the goodies.
In what sense?

The way the US legal system and political system are entwined is bloody weird

This is a case of a single state unilaterally disqualifying a candidate for a national election. It compromises the veracity of the federal system. And, as ever, once it happens against a candidate you don't like it can then be weaponised against anyone.

It's possible that, regardless of who wins the next election, up to 30% of the population may not accept the outcome of that election. Not just be dissatisfied with it, but actively refuse to accept it and possibly even deploy low-level civil disobedience. That is a crisis of legitimacy that could undermine key institutions. And this ruling does nothing to reduce that legitimacy risk.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:53 am**

Does it compromise the veracity of it though? (I’m not expressing an opinion, just thinking out loud) or is it a rare but legitimate situation in which the specifics have necessitated this action, without which, a different aspect of society (the rule of law and of proportionate consequences and of appropriate standards for those seeking election) would be compromised?

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:57 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:43 am
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:32 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:30 am Yes he did. He's a threat to democracy. But using a Supreme Court ruling in this way could have dire consequences. Even for the goodies.
In what sense?

The way the US legal system and political system are entwined is bloody weird
This is a case of a single state unilaterally disqualifying a candidate for a national election. It compromises the veracity of the federal system. And, as ever, once it happens against a candidate you don't like it can then be weaponised against anyone.

It's possible that, regardless of who wins the next election, up to 30% of the population may not accept the outcome of that election. Not just be dissatisfied with it, but actively refuse to accept it and possibly even deploy low-level civil disobedience. That is a crisis of legitimacy that could undermine key institutions. And this ruling does nothing to reduce that legitimacy risk.

30% of the population could deploy low-level civil disobedience? Seriously?

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:05 pm**

Yeah that seems far fetched to me. Social media and giddy coverage massively amplifies the loudest voices. The actual attempt at an insurrection and the refusal to accept the result didn’t have the outcome Trump wanted.

My gut instinct on this is that while there’s some truth in what Dunners says, the whole Trump phenomenon is a stress test of democracy and the rule of law, and to *not* impose certain sanctions, or to close off certain avenues of investigation, is itself a subversion of the mechanisms that exist supposedly to uphold certain values

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:28 pm**

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:57 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:43 am
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:32 am

In what sense?

The way the US legal system and political system are entwined is bloody weird
This is a case of a single state unilaterally disqualifying a candidate for a national election. It compromises the veracity of the federal system. And, as ever, once it happens against a candidate you don't like it can then be weaponised against anyone.

It's possible that, regardless of who wins the next election, up to 30% of the population may not accept the outcome of that election. Not just be dissatisfied with it, but actively refuse to accept it and possibly even deploy low-level civil disobedience. That is a crisis of legitimacy that could undermine key institutions. And this ruling does nothing to reduce that legitimacy risk.
30% of the population could deploy low-level civil disobedience? Seriously?

"up to 30%"

So, if there was to be civil disobedience, that would probably be worst case scenario. Reality is likely to be a lot less.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 12:29 pm**

CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:53 am Does it compromise the veracity of it though? (I’m not expressing an opinion, just thinking out loud) or is it a rare but legitimate situation in which the specifics have necessitated this action, without which, a different aspect of society (the rule of law and of proportionate consequences and of appropriate standards for those seeking election) would be compromised?

That's what we'll find out, I guess. Fingers crossed.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:35 pm**

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:26 am Trump did try to overthrow an election result though.

You mean like Hillary Clinton’s completely made up and paid for fake Russian dossier to overthrow the 2016 election.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:36 pm**

Interesting. Can you point me to where Hilary Clinton attempted to “overthrow the 2016 election”?

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:42 pm**

CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:36 pm Interesting. Can you point me to where Hilary Clinton attempted to “overthrow the 2016 election”?

I’ve obviously spent more time on YouTube than you . It’s been proven it was fake. It was then quickly forgotten about by the state media

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:45 pm**

I agree, you have very, very obviously spent a LOT more time on YouTube than I have

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:47 pm**

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:42 pm
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:36 pm Interesting. Can you point me to where Hilary Clinton attempted to “overthrow the 2016 election”?
I’ve obviously spent more time on YouTube than you . It’s been proven it was fake. It was then quickly forgotten about by the state media

Can you just signpost us to the link where this is "proven"? A quick c&p of the URL will clear all this up. Thanks!

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:51 pm**

Even a summary of what the “it” is that he is claiming is proven, because as far as I’m aware, whatever one’s position on a Russia Dossier, there’s absolutely no suggestion whatsoever, anywhere, that Hilary Clinton attempted to “overthrow” the result of an election

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:53 pm**

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:47 pm
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:42 pm
CEB wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:36 pm Interesting. Can you point me to where Hilary Clinton attempted to “overthrow the 2016 election”?
I’ve obviously spent more time on YouTube than you . It’s been proven it was fake. It was then quickly forgotten about by the state media
Can you just signpost us to the link where this is "proven"? A quick c&p of the URL will clear all this up. Thanks!

I’m at work at the moment so I’ll look later tonight. Actually, put it this way. If Trump was guilty of this crime and the dossier was real ,why isn’t he already in jail. With the amount of enemies he has surely it would have been done and dusted.

Posted: **Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:13 pm**

You said the dossier was fake.

Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch

Re: Trump Watch