VIDEO: NOW A WORD FROM A DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER, WHO GETS HER NEWS FROM FOX.

JUST A SHORT MESSAGE: HERE IS THE INTELLECTUAL DEPTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY YOU GET FROM THOSE WHO MATCH THE DESCRIPTION IN THE TITLE.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1578029370786349061

NOTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID. 

WHETHER IT'S DONALD TRUMP OR HERSCHEL WALKER, THEIR SUPPORTERS DON'T CARE ABOUT IMMORAL OR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. "HE'S OUR MAN." SAY RELIGIOUS FASCISTS.

Doug Jones  @DougJones

Folks it’s time to acknowledge that “evangelical” is no longer a Christian religous label but a political one focused on political power more than faith. Walker’s opponent is an ordained minister whose life has been a demonstration of faith and service.

Herschel Walker 13-month campaign for Senate has been punctuated by blemishes on his record on traditional family values. | Brynn Anderson/AP Photo
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/06/walkers-christian-fans-unfazed-by-abortion-revelations-00060589

IS THERE A BOTTOM? ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS SO ETHICALLY CHALLENGED THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT HIM NO MATTER WHAT? UPDATED.

There is no need for any preliminaries: On 9/30/2022 Donald Trump wrote the following on Truth Social;

“Is McConnell approving all of these Trillions of Dollars worth of Democrat sponsored Bills, without even the slightest bit of negotiation, because he hates Donald J. Trump, and he knows I am strongly opposed to them, or is he doing it because he believes in the Fake and Highly Destructive Green New Deal, and is willing to take the Country down with him?” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“In any event, either reason is unacceptable. He has a DEATH WISH. Must immediately seek help and advise from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!” he added.

Anybody who has spent any time on this site knows what I think of Mitch McConnell, and since he has spent much of the past 5-6 Years promoting Fascism, and "DER RUEHRER" TRUMP, it is hard for me to have any sympathy for him. Yet, even at my level of disdain for him personally, it would never occur to me to imply a physical threat if he doesn't change, or use a juvenile racial slur about his wife.

Why would he do this? BECAUSE HE KEEPS GETTING AWAY WITH IT, AND HE REALIZES THAT HIS HARD-CORE SUPPORTERS ARE LITTLE MORE THAN FASCIST THUGS, WHOSE SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT SEEMS TO LACK THE ABILITY TO EMPATHIZE AND UNDERSTAND THAT HUMANITY IS MORE THAN JUST A WORD DESCRIBING PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES, BUT A SPECIES WHO HAVE DEVELOPED THE ABILITY TO FORM AND CREATE ETHICAL GUIDELINES THAT ALLOW FOR PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE APPLICABLE TO ALL IT'S MEMBERS.

It would be different if this were an aberration, but the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, NEWS MEDIA, ACADEMIA etc., seems to forget the recent past. Well, I don't.

TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE FOLLOWING;

CANDIDATE TRUMP  TALKING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON,

HINTING AT WHAT GUN EXTREMISTS COULD DO if she is elected.

8/10/2016.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. 

Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, 

I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”

I realized, right then, that DONALD TRUMP was a Vile and Contemptible Human Being. To imply that ASSASINATING  YOUR OPPONENT MIGHT BE A VIABLE AND ACCEPTABLE OPTION IS SO MORALLY REPUGNANT THAT I COULDN'T BELIEVE ANYONE WHO VALUED FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAND THIS COUNTRY OVER TO A SOCIOPATHIC HATE-MONGER. 

EVEN MURDER WOULDN'T BOTHER HIS MOST FANATIC SUPPORTERS. 

1/23/2016

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Actually, it would have been more accurate for TRUMP to have said; ..."and I wouldn't lose votes." Why? We know now that the Rigging of Voter returns in Key States was suppose to Guarantee a TRUMP Victory, but just in case that the plan was discovered, and thwarted, Donald concentrated on a campaign that would ensure that his Most Radical Supporters:

White Supremacists.

Religious Zealots.

Xenophobes.

Homophobes.

Ultra-Conservative Nationalists.

Not only would support him, but defend any Lie or Deception that Trump spread across the Media. Unfortunately, as has happened so many times over the past half dozen years or so, Trump says things like the examples above, and the opposition and the Media fail to point out previous transgressions.

As of now, we hear constant talk about TRUMP making False Claims about the 2020 Election, Yet for some bizarre reason there is a failure to MENTION THAT TRUMP MADE THE SAME ACCUSATIONS BEFORE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND AFTER THE 2018 MID-TERMS.

In 2016 it was a clever Back-Up, in case Russia didn't deliver on the anticipated altering of Voter Returns in Key States. He had a ready made collection of FASCIST SYCHOPHANTS ready to believe anything he said. (So the Insurrection had to wait 4 years) In 2018, it was a way to explain the GOP losses at the polls. 

Remember the following? Do you really think they were calculated to appeal to the Majority of Americans, or a select segment:

TALKING ABOUT MEXICO.

6/15/2015

"They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Immigration.

1/11/2018

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries coming here?”

Violence In Charlottesville.

8/12/2017

I GUESS IN TRUMPS "MIND" WHEN RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE THE VICTIMS ARE EQUALLY AT FAULT.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”

These are just a few examples, but you get the idea. As I have said in the past:

THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES THAT WE TOLERATE SPEECH WE CONSIDER OFFENSIVE. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT IT. IF YOU BELIEVE I AM BEING UNFAIR TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS, I LEAVE IT TO YOU: PLEASE POINT OUT WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE "RESPECTFUL" NATURE OF THE THINGS TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES DO AND SAY. I AM ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, TUMBLER, DIGG AND LINKEDIN. I WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO POINT OUT DONALD TRUMPS POSITIVE QUALITIES, AND HOW HIS SUPPORTERS JUST WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY.

UPDATE- TAKEN FROM THE INSIDER ARTICLE: 

Liz Cheney is the only Republican member of Congress to explicitly condemn Trump's racist remarks about Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao— but disapproval among the GOP is growing.

BY ERIN SNODGRASS

Several prominent conservatives this week denounced former President Donald Trump's racist remarks toward Elaine Chao, a one-time member of Trump's own cabinet and wife to GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Sen. Liz Cheney, however, remains the only Republican member of Congress thus far to explicitly condemn the former president for his xenophobic comments.

Trump on Friday unleashed a barrage of insults against Senate Minority Leader McConnell in a Truth Social tirade accusing the Kentucky lawmaker of approving "trillions of dollars worth of Democrat sponsored bills" because he "hates Donald J, Trump."

"He has a DEATH WISH," Trump wrote in a marked escalation of his usual political rhetoric.

In castigating Trump on Monday, Cheney became the only Republican member of Congress to publicly decry the former president's remarks. McConnell himself has yet to address the situation.

"When you see former President Trump just in the last 24 hours suggesting in a pretty thinly veiled way, using words that could well cause violence against the Republican leader of the Senate, saying he has a death wish and then, you know, launching an absolutely despicable, racist attack against Secretary Chao, Leader McConnell's wife, and then you watch the fact that nobody in my party will say that's unacceptable," Cheney said during at an event held at Syracuse University, according to The Hill.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WOW, I've often criticized the Democratic Leadership for not standing up to DONALD TRUMP, BUT FOR THE ENTIRE GOP MEMBERSHIP IN CONGRESS NOT TO CONDEMN "DER FUEHRERS" RACIST COMMENTS, OR HIS COMMENTS ON MCCONNELL HAVING A "DEATH WISH" TELL ME ONE THING:

THE GOP IS SO WRAPPED UP IN THE FASCIST AGENDA OF TRUMP, THAT THEIR CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP IS LITTLE MORE THAN A COLLECTION OF ETHICAL, SOCIAL, AND PHYSICAL COWARDS.

MY GOD, MCCONNELL WON'T EVEN STAND UP FOR HIS WIFE, AND HIS REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WON'T EVEN ADDRESS THE THREAT MADE AGAINST HIM. 

OXFORD DEFINITION OF COWARD: a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.

HOW DOES THIS NOT DESCRIBE TODAYS GOP?

TRUMP IS SUING CNN? WHAT TO DO...HOW ABOUT MAKING A STAND?

 

Former President Trump has sued CNN in federal court in Florida for defamation.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, Trump’s attorneys claim CNN “has sought to use its massive influence — purportedly as a ‘trusted’ news source — to defame the Plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically, culminating in CNN claiming credit for ‘[getting] Trump out’ in the 2020 presidential election.”

Although I haven't been asked, I am going to offer a short opinion about what CNN should do. 

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA. ( JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES). I'VE OUTLINED CERTAIN KEY POINTS.- DAVID.

An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as an intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.[2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e. an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.[3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.

Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded."[1]