How would you know if you don't know him on a personal level yourself?

Here's one example for you.

https://www.the-sun.com/sport/182637...-horse-racing/

Maybe the purpose of likability should be dismiss for evaluating the job of a president .

I would rather evaluate him in the job he actually do …..

I agree. Maybe Bezos is the answer

I never claimed to be offering anything other than my opinion. In this forum, you have offered opinions on plenty of people who you don't know personally.

I don't know Trump personally. I do have first-hand knowledge of his miserable reputation in the NY legal community. Unsurprisingly, you don't make many friends among lawyers when you ignore advice and don't pay your bills.

To answer your question, obviously no. But there were still major problems with the 2000 and 2004 general elections, and the 2018 election in Georgia which Stacey Abrams won. Al Gore won in 2000 and John Kerry won in 2004.

Gross

you have to admit the man is efficient

I don't offer opinions on their personal likability though, if I don't know them personally myself. That would be silly. What would I be basing it on? I could make an assumption or a guess, but that's all it would be. Also people can be a lot different in private than how they appear in public.

Efficiency without ethics is not a combo I want in a leader.

As Buffett quips. The three qualities you wan't are intelligence, hard work and integrity

but if they dont have the 3rd you would rather they were stupid and lazy.

Bill Perkins, in the most recent podcast with Doug Polk said that he would have owned slaves if given the opportunity

Oh please. And the other posters here all let a statement like that go.

I didn't respond to chez's comment because I didn't even understand what he was saying.

Donald Trump clearly isn’t pleased about having been indicted

Trump seems convinced that this line is the key to his entire defense:
He called officials in Georgia; they didn’t seem upset; so the call must’ve been fine.

It’s as if the former president believes he’s found some kind of loophole:
Election interference must be seen as legally permissible if
the relevant state official doesn’t express immediate outrage.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ooms-rcna78926

What's your objection

Democracy is not be feared the way you and too many make out. Democratic societies are overwhelmingly progressive. Getting scared and runnign away from it when, as it inevitably will a lot of the time, it doesn't go our way is a terrible mistake.

The only way we lose over time is when we give up.

DS is painting the picture of soemone who wouldn't win winning because of support for paedophilia. This is used as part of an attack on democracy. The reality is far more the case they they lose when they otherwise might have won. And democracyt generally tends towards far more progressive laws.

Faster and more montonic is a what we should fight for. Not abandoning it because it often goes wrong or too slow. I fear that in the bext few decades we are far more likely we will be in a fight to keep democracy and we might well lose (for now).

I barely understand this post either because of the bolded. But I agree that abandoning democracy is not the solution to keeping Trump and similar characters out of power.

I have the same disagreement over and over with David. He is so keen to come up with a clever and provocative solutions to difficult problems that he undersells both the negative consequences of his proposals and the practical impediments to implementation. And when someone points out those negative consequences or practical impediments, he often implies that the person is a nit who lacks the insight or intelligence to appreciate the brilliance of his big idea.

? Somene who would lose if it wasn't for x, winning if x

Monotonic would means progressiveness never going backwards over any time period

as a general opinion, im for WAY more prosecution of white collar/ technical crimes. we dont criminally prosecute with the intent of jail time nearly enough white collar stuff in this country. i would include election offenses in that.

what is the point of this question?

Should Trump be investigated and charged with any crimes he may have committed after leaving WH

the way it's worded means they were crimes. why would you say no if they are actual crimes? to me this isn't the same as asking if you believe what he is being charged with is an actual crime or made up to nail him for political purposes

You might say no if you thought that failing to win a prosecution had a net negative impact, or if simply investigating and charging him had a net negative impact.

The "may" in the question accounts for your concern that he might not have committed any crimes, in which case the question isn't applicable for you. Simply based on how the question is worded, your objection would be more applicable if the question read, "Should Trump be investigated and charged with the crimes he committed after leaving the WH," substituting "any" with "the", and omitting "may have". It really was generously worded to your benefit, however not to the degree that it actually implies that charges are invented against him. That you rightly believe the OP or other posters here believe Trump committed crimes doesn't mean that the question literally implied as much, based precisely on how it was worded, quite contrary to your suggestions here.

I would include crimes committed while in office as well.

Absolutely.

Trump has likely been a criminal for 50+ years. His personality defects do not allow him to police himself the way a normal person would. He does not consider "right" or "wrong", but rather "can I get away with it" or "can I not get away with it". No matter what "it" is. There's undoubtedly a lot of information out there about Trump and his activities. If adequate evidence is there, pursue charges. If it isn't, then don't.

The OP must have been referring to crimes Trump may have committed while in office given that the OP was made right after the election while Trump was still president, where "after leaving WH" simply means investigating and charging him after he leaves office, since it was likely not plausible to do so while he was still acting president outside of the impeachment process plus the fact that he was only going to be president for another month, insurrection notwithstanding.

Donald Trump is getting a rare anonymous jury at his upcoming civil trial.

The former president’s egregious behavior has continued
such that even the lawyers can’t learn those jurors’ names.

The anonymous jury underscores the Trump mob mentality.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white...jury-rcna79188