BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 94,143
- 30,436
- 2,250
Trump's defense in the upcoming attempted election theft case seems to be that he actually believed he had won, so there can be no finding of intentional wrong doing. Without the intent to commit a crime there can be no crime. It's absurd for him to make that claim, but let's assume, for a minute, that he is telling the truth about this one thing.
After all of the cases kicked out of court for lack of evidence, all of his top advisors telling him there was no sign of election theft, an inordinate number of recounts, multiple independent investigations launched and paid for by him and his associates, could a rational man possibly still believe the election was stolen from him? This incident is not the only example of trump's inability to accept reality. Everybody remembers when he chose to believe Putin over all of our investigative agencies (FBI. CIA. etc.) concerning whether Russia interfered in our election. There have been countless times when he made demonstrably disprovable statements contradictory to a wide range of credible agencies and sources that had already given him the facts. Just for a minute, consider the possibility that all these times, he actually believed the things he said.
Is someone with such poor reasoning ability qualified to be president? Do we need someone who refuses to accept reality when all the people with more knowledge of the facts are telling him he is wrong?
After all of the cases kicked out of court for lack of evidence, all of his top advisors telling him there was no sign of election theft, an inordinate number of recounts, multiple independent investigations launched and paid for by him and his associates, could a rational man possibly still believe the election was stolen from him? This incident is not the only example of trump's inability to accept reality. Everybody remembers when he chose to believe Putin over all of our investigative agencies (FBI. CIA. etc.) concerning whether Russia interfered in our election. There have been countless times when he made demonstrably disprovable statements contradictory to a wide range of credible agencies and sources that had already given him the facts. Just for a minute, consider the possibility that all these times, he actually believed the things he said.
Is someone with such poor reasoning ability qualified to be president? Do we need someone who refuses to accept reality when all the people with more knowledge of the facts are telling him he is wrong?
