Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
No doubt it was more "lawful power to defraud the country" that landed H in the clink.
I disagree, it's the perfect time, being that Hitler was incarcerated for a failed coup.
It's perfect in my opinion because Hilter did indeed break the law and was convicted, for a failed coup attempt no less, and this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that enacting Godwin's Law can be a grave stupidity.
Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. That their actions weren’t illegal or that they were just following orders was the same argument the Nazis used to avoid responsibility at the Nuremberg trials. It was also legal to own slaves, to beat your wife, if you’d prefer.
It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.
Quoting NOS4A2
It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.
They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. They were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct?
There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so?
Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?
Quoting NOS4A2
You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.
Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again.
You’re the one who appealed to law, I’m afraid. Or can you think of any other reason why slavery is wrong without appealing to law?
You're the one who brought up "crimes against humanity," not me. What did you mean if it didn't involve other nations?
I was just trying to make the point that appealing to law is fallacious. You made an effort to point out to me that laws were broken by rioters, and no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what?
Soooooooo, a coup is a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.
The years-long investigations that you referred to were neither sudden nor violent, by your own admission they were lawful, and they were not designed to seize power from the government.
It could be a fair point and worthwhile to investigate if it weren't for the fact he keeps denying the actual election interference (both unethical and unlawful) that Trump pursued. In other words, the whole point is a red herring vis-a-vis this thread.
When you commit crimes and act recklessly, you suffer the consequences -- you bring it all on yourself. Blaming the prosecutors or investigators or the police is what criminals do. Instead of it being about your behavior and the choices you made, it is "they're out to get me." To me, what is relevant is whether there is any evidence of a crime or not -- that's much more relevant than speculating on the political motives of those bringing the indictments. By contrast, look at the GOP members of Congress. Obviously, they are highly motivated to impeach Joe Biden. They would love to do it. But do they have enough evidence to prove that Biden did an impeachable offense? At the end of the day, that is what matters, not their motivation.
Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance).
Seeing Buddhist Trumpistas and being overwhelmed by the phenomenon is actually a big reason why I distanced myself from Buddhism and why I took some interest in politics.
Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. The simple answer is that they're conservatives.
And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself".
Anyway, this probably deserves a discussion of its own.
The indictments are a consequence of a two-tiered justice system and politically-motivated prosecutors. There is no evidence of any crime; there are no victims; and the indictments read like deep-state dinner-theater. In my mind one should care a little bit about an unjust justice system.
According to a recent amicus brief Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. He was a private citizen who now has more power than any of the other US attorneys in the DOJ. Unlike the other attorneys he was neither appointed by any president nor approved by the senate. I wonder why that is?
Doesn't jibe well with MAGA which demands fealty to Trump and his narratives.
Funny I hadn't realized till this discussion how close J6 is to a coup. It was sudden, violent, and unlawful. The only question is whether the intent was to seize power. That's hard to answer because the perpetrators were a bunch of knuckle-headed Trump supporters and who knows what they were thinking.
Funnier still is NOS's claim that J6 was a Reichstag moment for the DNC, FBI, CIA, and media Nazis, when Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he appointed, said it was such a moment for Trump and his Big Lie. Projection?
If we're going to rule out politically motivated prosecutors then how do we determine where the line is, and where does it stop? As I stated, many of the GOP members of Congress certainly seem politically motivated to want to impeach Joe Biden. If they do find evidence, should it be ignored because they are politically motivated?
The intended victims of the insurrection, or the attempted coup if you want to call it that, were pretty much everyone who voted for Biden. I am one of the intended victims. They wanted to pressure Congress to de-certify the electors from Pennsylvania and other swing states and replace them with fake (or as they called them, alternate) electors. They wanted Pence to grandstand and do this, even though he wasn't constitutionally empowered to do this. If Pence had a weak stomach and wouldn't show up that day, Grassley was ready to step into that role. If you're focusing on what is unconstitutional, maybe you should focus on that. Trump tried to pressure his Department of Justice to just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to him and his Republican allies in Congress. If you're focusing on attempts to politicize the justice system, maybe you should focus on that. Trump and his co-conspirators don't magically become innocent just because they failed.
More to the point, this argument in the amicus brief:
Quoting Docket 23-624
does not address Part 600:
Quoting Federal Regulations
If there are grounds for striking down Part 600 itself on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court will have to send the whole matter back to Congress to fix.
As far as political interference goes, none of the brief writers were complaining when Barr set up John Durham as Special Prosecutor. Always check bathwater for babies.
"It is almost like according to the legal scholars defending Trump, that there is no appropriate way to conduct any criminal proceedings against him: if the investigator is part of the government, they're biased. If they're independent, they're unconstitutional."
Bullseye!
It’s gaslighting (it’s not that bad, nothing worse than X) and cult of personality behavior (how dare you prosecute the dear leader) behind the support, mixed with possibly religious ends justify the means notions for evangelicals. He’s the flawed orange messiah.
New York is a shit-hole.
Yes, he's been accused of sexual assault, and all during his foray into politics. I think it is relevant that these sorts of accusations magically appear during such a time, even if it's over 30 years after the fact.
I think a presidents past is relevant and they should be deeply scrutinized. Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant?
If Trump was buying drugs and prostitutes and engaging in high-level corruption it would be deserving of scrutiny, because all that is criminal activity than none of us plebes could get away with. But I simply cannot care about Trump's pickup skills.
I don’t know about drugs, but we know Trump has patronized prostitutes and engaged in high-level corruption. Of course you will disagree because you know his activities were all innocent, just like you somehow know that he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carrol.
All I know is there is no evidence, just like what you claim to know about Trump. I just disagree with your method of believing things without the evidence to do so.
He spoke. You don’t like what he says. The eternal desire to shut him up is the sine qua non of anti-Trumpism. His voice—or at least, the excerpts chosen for you by political operatives— is the source of your moral panic, and censoring him is the only cure for your anxiety.
He defamed Carroll, and many other women who have accused him. And you're right, I don't like him doing that. What an odd thing to criticize.
Reconsidering, I did mistakenly think of Stormy Daniels as a prostitute.
Thought this was appropriate:
I am absolutist in that regard.
Close enough.
I asked something similar and got this in reply.
The apparent appeal to principle only leads to a withdrawal from any boundaries.
problem - thwarting bipartisan efforts until after the election or until Trump is given credit for his undisclosed "[s]perfect[/s] (final) solution".
Teachers of double think are twice as good as ordinary teachers and will raise a whole generation of very stable geniiasses.
It doesn't matter. If T***p gets back in the oval office, no education or any other "policy" will be implemented. The entire regime will be focused on purging his opponents.
It would be unfortunate if no one sees the cultural impact of his education policy. I like the subject of education and culture better than the subject of Trump. It really is not all about him. It is very much about the people who support him. The racism is as serious today as it was the day slave owners justified enslaving people from Africa.
Never mind, the replies I read have nothing to do with education or culture. It can go in the garbage. I am done with it.
Well, Trump isn't, so they're just applying the golden rule.
Never heard of it.
So I guess this is now the thread.
One word answer:
Was this is at least partial jest?
Only an AI could run against him.
Thoughts?
He will likely win the most number of delegates, but the nomination conference is not until July, and there are, shall we say, legal issues which might become apparent well before then.
A thought which puzzles me. Why is it that there's not an all-out apparent in his personal and public lives? He's been hounded in all directions.
The one person that can answer this is @Athena.
Seems to me that many Trump supporters think that the system is utterly corrupt, so for them it takes a brash vulgarian, a maverick outsider like Trump to stick it to the system's gatekeepers. The fact that Trump is hated by the media and by corporate elites and intellectuals is part of his attraction. He has the right enemies. Including the 'bought' legal system which is manipulated by his denigrators. He's a kind of outlaw hero now. And for many of the more reasonable Republicans, at least he isn't Biden and part of the soft-cock liberal, virtue signalling establishment which they feel has abraded and perverted the real America built by the Greatest Generation, etc...
And as such Trump has thoroughly corrupted the body politic, although the rot had already had to have set in.
Really ironic, that the guy that filled the supreme court, the guy that's being treated by the legal system with kiddie gloves, the guy who has immense legal privilege because of his wealth, is being perceived as being wronged by the "bought legal system".
Not a fan.
Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law
https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
Is that a quote from the DT's? Pretty much what he's said about the constitution, the DoJ, international policy, the education system and civil liberties.
Quoting AmadeusD
Nope. There is nothing funny anymore about what's happening to the US and the world.
Trump is an AI, complete with hologram form, created by the deep state, or the deep fake, or maybe the deep Putin, who knows?.
Naw, he's just a fleshy manifestation of the American Nightmare.
America is the land of irony. But what you say is only ironic if one shares your frame.
I think this can be adequately explained by what my wife and I have termed the 60/40 rule. 60% of people don't think either:
1. The way you do; or
2. As well as you do.
In either case, it's going to be hard to parse - and in the latter (the one we prefer in the case of Trump, based on empirical evidence) it is a hard pill to swallow. Most people are dumb. Given that their grievances (to my mind, anyway) are large legitimate, falling for someone like Trump makes the whole of sense.
Quoting Vera Mont
I disagree, but that also wasn't quite what i was asking. I am happy to say that If you genuinely think that characterisation is accurate, you are not on top of things. I found it fairly funny tbh..
Who wants to sit on a ticking bomb? Unfortunately, I live just north of it, so 'on top' is not an altogether inapt description.
I think its a pretty near-and-dear type of take. I don't think its accurate, basically.
What difference does that make? Lots of people have lots of opinions that have no effect whatever on the outcome.
A just-released PBS documentary, Democracy on Trial, explores these questions in depth and detail. Herewith an excerpt feauturing the testimony of Rusty Bowers, an Arizona state election official who Trump and Guiliani tried to pressure into replacing Biden's electors with Trump's, and who is a major witness at the forthcoming January 6th trial. He's a tried and true Republican, a traditionalist, who found Trump and Guiliani's attempts to have him throw the election both ridiculous and deeply offensive.
Really? It's not that complicated. I express an opinion based of what I have heard and seen and you keep telling me it's ridiculous because I've been selectively misinformed about the "real" state of affairs.
It looks like it is working. In 2017 or 2018, an independent (rather academic) study was conducted about the strength of Trump's candidacy. It was very strong. That was apparently very shocking to the American public.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Is it psychologically uncomfortable for you to ponder that soon Trump could be president again?
:mask:
Quoting Vera Mont
:love:
Hm
I reviewed my posts previously and I don't see where I said this. Please tell me where to find this thought?
But let's say, to answer your question -- if one believes the current president might not be president next time, things happen. Simple. He could suddenly keel over, for example.
I don't have a crystal ball.
Quoting L'éléphant
and surmised that you believe it's more likely than not that Biden will lose the 2024 election. My mistake.
Quoting L'éléphant
IMO, it's merely wishful thinking to believe that the eight year losing trend of 'suppressing minority voters, misogynist anti-choice, The Big Lie propagandizing' Republican candidates will not be reversed merely by Biden dropping out of the presidential race. Like 2020, most likely voters still oppose Insurrection/Criminal Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 rather than support President Biden.
In my view, it plays into the narrative of the MAGA/Trump mediaverse, which is investing a lot of hype and hot air into bringing about this outcome. And believing it means they're succeeding, so I refuse to believe it! Trump squeaked in the first time, and he and the Republican Party have lost ground since, by ever-increasing margins, in each election. Trump in all likelihood will this year be convicted of very serious crimes against the state, and I believe he'll see the inside of a federal penitentiary before he sees the inside of the Oval Office again.
I don't follow the day to day american politics. I look at trends and studies. Trump seems to be the only one that is a "brash vulgarian" and a maverick, as @Tom Storm described earlier. Honestly, I'd like to see if Trump could win again. There is fear, for sure, in people because psychologically, Trump's impact is greater.
I was reading how the economy was under his leadership and the economy was actually going well. When the pandemic hit, it was used against him like a perfect storm.
Trump never exhibited leadership. Everything he says and does is only for the sake of himself. If the economy goes well, he will claim credit (he did it yesterday, even though he's not in office) but when it goes badly, it's never his responsibility.
You make him sound almost like a politician!
The economy was doing well, and the summers weren't as hot. A President doesn't control either the weather or the economy.
Regarding the economy, it would be appropriate to point to policies that may have had some impact. The Paul Ryan tax cuts passed under Trump, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. They also reduce government income and thus drive up the deficit. It has the potential to could increase private funds available for investment, but in practice- much of the savings goes into stock buybacks and higher net profits - increasing private wealth.
Biden's infrastructure bills have increased government expenditures, which drives up deficits - but they are also direct investments in the economy - creating jobs and investment opportunities, stimulating the economy.
So my point is simply that one needs to judge policy and ots impact, not simplistically blame or praise for the current state of the economy.
A policy enacted today may not show effects on the ground until two or three years in the future. The fallout from bad policies may not be felt for several years. Other, uncontrollable circumstances alter the course of planned operation. Policies, circumstances and unplanned events interact along the way, setting up cross-currents that are impossible either to predict in advance or trace in hindsight.
You can attribute some outcomes to a specific policy, but most economic situations are just that: situational.
For sure. Especially as presidents have the least direct control of what wording, what particular details of constraint, what modifications and exceptions are contained in a bill as it's eventually passed.
The public rarely has the patience to consider such nuances, and journalist these days do very little to help the public understand them. It is thus with all political policy. We hear a candidate pronounce some slogan or platitude and many of us assume, without further consideration, that that is what that politician actually causes to happen. It usually isn't.
Where in my post did I say that Trump controlled the economy that was doing well. I stated a platitude -- the economy was doing well. A great economy helps any sitting president.
I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again.
Quoting Relativist
You mean the 2017 tax cuts and job acts. What were the votes? Did both parties vote for it?
Not 'psychological'. Fear, period. Although as I’ve said, I don’t believe it.
It occurs to me, speaking of psychology, that Trump’s thinking is entirely and completely subjective.
The phenomenon Trump is relevant because it challenges many people's notions about the world, truth, reality. Notions they hold sacred.
What does the fact that Trump and people like him can do well in this world say about the world?
If one fears that such people can do well in this world, what does this say about oneself?
How is it that despite all of one's presumed objectivity and moral and cognitive superiority, one still has such fears as above?
A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.
Nothing about 'the world' in particular, but a shameful reflection of the American electorate. The fear is simply for the destruction of civil society that would ensue from his re-election, although I'm sure that it won't happen.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/877051
It’s only biased when it’s the bad team.
I was responding to that platitude, not making an accusation.
Quoting L'éléphant
Yes, there is. It seems irrational
Quoting L'éléphant
No. It received no votes from Democrats.
Whence that fear?
Come on, as a Buddhist, you should do better.
You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language.
It's not "Shakespearean". Please.
That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.
If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives?
Quoting baker
It's not wrong either.
What a disgrace. In a trial like that there can't even be a hint of impropriety. I hope she gets fired and spends the rest of her career as a public defender.
I think it would have been more prudent for her not to get involved in this relationship at this time, but I agree with her that:
Because Trump's actions are indefensible they have resorted to attempts to discredit her by creating a trumped up "scandal".
Do you mean the same people who don't give a shit about Ivanka and Jared being given jobs by the White House, or different people?
According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him.
That's true. Republicans have subpeoned her. I'm curious what she'll say under oath.
Elie Honig has a good piece on all this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems/ar-BB1hFdFk
https://www.justsecurity.org/91627/the-fulton-county-disqualification-allegations-myths-facts-and-unknowns/
He's made $650,000 so far, has no prosecutorial felony/RICO experience, and he's romantically involved with her, after knowing her for a long time. Prima facie, this looks bad.
Re: never having worked a RICO case- the article indicates it's not problematic because of his role as lead prosecutor. An attorney with RICO expertise reports to him.
[I]As critics allege, it appears to be true that Wade does not have experience in prosecuting RICO cases or other felony cases. “An AJC [Atlanta Journal Constitution] review of court records in metro Atlanta found no evidence he ever prosecuted a felony.” However, many prosecutors do not have experience with RICO cases and such experience should not necessarily be required to be one of the multiple special prosecutors on this case – particularly given that Wade serves as the lead prosecutor, and another special prosecutor on the case is a leading RICO expert. At any rate, Wade has relevant experience handling felony cases as a defense lawyer.[/i]
also
[I]Willis told the New York Times that she hired Wade after several other candidates turned her down.[/i]
Unless you can cite a law that Fani Willis broke, it's just "conduct that you don't like" which is obviously hypocritical compared to worse conduct from the Trump family that you conveniently ignore.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/jared-and-ivanka-made-up-to-640-million-in-the-white-house/
If Willis broke the law, I hope she suffers the legal consequences. Can you say that about Trump?
The primary defense used by the MAGA nation is something we learned on the playground as children. "I know you are but what am I" or "I am rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you".
In response to charges that Trump is corrupt the response is: Willis or Biden the Democrats or the Justice Department or whoever is part of the "anti-Trump movement" is corrupt. Different allegation same response. He would claim that Carroll raped him except he is afraid that would make him look weak.
There is nothing to echo. Through their grift they reveal their own malfeasance. That’s one thing. But another is that Anti-Trumpism is a license for corruption. By pretending to save the republic, protect our democracy, or whatever the phrase is, they provide their fellow travellers with justification to excuse poor behavior and to support it.
Someone like me gets to sit back and watch as politicians, pundits, and their gullible readers have to turn around and cheer on and defend everything from political persecution, the weaponization of the courts and the justice system, censorship, to spying on political campaigns. It reads like an Orwell novel.
You're also echoing the claim that the courts and justice system are "weaponized". This has all the elements of conspiracy theory. It appeals to Trump cult members because it supports the narrative that Trump is a victim.
What makes you think Trump would be any less supportive of Israel, in its efforts to eliminate Hamas?
I can tell the difference. And I choose the madman fraudster over the war criminal. Or I would, if I got to choose. And with that ringing endorsement of the hero of the thread, I leave you to it.
Quoting Relativist
I'll convict him when I hear and see him being so. But I would bet on him reversing Biden policies just because they're Biden's.
But wouldn't your denunciation apply equally to any plausible candidate to the American Presidency? If if both candidates were to drop out of the race, would you expect anyone to appear who would reverse or atone for what you consider the crimes of the American state?
You have to think outside the box. They didn't have to vote yes, but they knew it was going to pass and become a law. Math works. They all benefited from it -- ask any democrat if they refused the tax credits and deductions to lower their taxes. None of them objected to it when it went into effect. All this without voting "yes" to the bill. So, not only they "preserved" their constituents faith during the process of passing it, they reaped the benefits of the TCJA aftwards.
Quoting baker
Absolutely!
What's your point? I simply answered your question. My point was that it's silly to just give credit or blame to a sitting President based on the status of the economy. Rather, we should credit or blame them for policy we believe to be beneficial or detrimental. Whether or not the Ryan tax cuts were beneficial or detrimental is open to debate. In one sense, everyone who paid less taxes got some benefit (some more than others) , but it also resulted in higher deficits, and an increase in national debt.
If that's the case, your democracy is as hollow as ours, and voting is a farce. One might as well be in Russia., where the war criminal always gets elected too.
Super naive to think republicans wouldn't support Israel if in power. We fund Israel as much as we do because of conservative policies.
You may be right. what has Trump said though?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/politics/donald-trump-israel-netanyahu-diplomacy/index.html
He's a compulsive liar. I think it's very unlikely that if he were in office, his Christian nationalist foreign policy handlers would let him do anything to harm or even inconvenience Israel.
He's saying what he's saying because it's an opportunity to criticise Biden. He previously said he hopes the American economy fails while bidens president - he has no ethical values, only things which are convenient for him and those which are inconvenient. An opportunity to criticise Biden is convenient, and so he took that opportunity.
Did you mean, "wouldn't"?
More precisely, they would not do anything to prevent what they believe is the prophesied final holy war that will usher in the end time and their being raptured.
Quoting flannel jesus
Do you think I should have said "It's unlikely that they wouldn't"?
My point is, you cited one example of his bill, and then you went on to criticize it. I responded by saying, that while the democrats did not vote for it, I asked you if they indeed partake in the lowering of their tax liabilities. It's in effect from 2018 to 2025. Do you understand that the 2017 TCJA is still in effect until 2025? You probably benefited from it when you filed your taxes.
I don't see that there should be a confusion in my response to your post.
Yes and yes. Do you think that's the full story? Do deficits and debt not matter?
I didn't say that's the full story. I'm just stating the fact that no one opposed to it once it's in effect. So, everybody contributed to the deficits and debt.
Maybe they will hear it.
One factor in the language of the decision is that it puts the Supreme Court in a difficult position. If the Supremes end up agreeing with it after a drawn-out process, the time taken will stand out as politically motivated. If they come down against the decision on the basis of constitutional parameters, they will have to put forward interpretations that negate the grounds of the DC appeal decision. That language directly addresses the problem of the separation of powers.
I bet the Supreme Court will punt.
It would seem to me that the current court cases are the due process. Each court so far, when faced with the evidence on both sides, has ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection. The Supreme Court is now in a position to do the same.
So if they were to actually rule on the merits of the case rather than just delay, I suspect they will rule that there's insufficient evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection.
And it's a problem, because it makes them ineffective against those they oppose.
It doesn't look promising. It was a long shot to begin with. The Court is going to look for any reason to stay out of that mess.
Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist.
They're having elections in Pakistan. Many people there are illiterate, so the ballots have graphic symbols for each candidate. On the news, there was a short interview with an illiterate man, who said he voted for the candidate whose symbol is an eagle, because he likes eagles better than lions (a lion was a symbol for another candidate).
This example illustrates the depth of democracy rather well.
But yes, hey, your contempt is well-noted. So democratic.
"Shakespearean" implies a measure of class, dignity. There's no such thing in the political matters we're discussing.
Special counsel says there is evidence Biden 'willfully retained and disclosed classified materials' but will not be charged
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666
Pathetic.
"Special Counsel Calls Biden ‘Elderly Man With A Poor Memory’ But Doesn’t Charge Him In Classified Documents Probe"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/02/08/special-counsel-calls-biden-elderly-man-with-poor-memory-but-doesnt-charge-him-in-classified-documents-probe/?sh=5a0658b23905
Biden needs to drop out. There's no way around it.
Yes, the nature of the questions show that the Supremes are just narrowing down the basis for rejecting Colorado's ruling.
I was just disappointed that Jackson and Kagan blew off the prerogatives of the States so summarily. Shannon's defense was the only instance where the principle of State's power was put forward as such as a dimension of constitutional law.
The full quote, in the body, continues with:
Quoting RogueAI
Sure, after Trump.
“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Biden won't be charged, but this is a scathing indictment of a president. They're politely saying he's too addled for a jury to convict.
"Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.
In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama."
https://www.mediaite.com/biden/elderly-man-with-a-poor-memory-devastating-doj-report-says-biden-did-not-remember-when-he-was-vice-president-and-when-his-son-died/
I agree that democracy has problems, but the solution isn't autocracy. It's to evolve democracy into a better system.
The problem, however, is that people in society doesn't seem to have the capacity to actually evolve systems and ideas. Rather, they attach their identity to a system they prefer and defend it to death.
Democracy is far better than any other system in existence right now. However, it is easily skewed by corruption and demagogues. So the solution needs to take care of those problems as a feature of the system. Right now, countries with low corruption and responsible politicians do actually show examples of how good a society can be if things function, but there are no guardrails against such a society falling into corruption and irresponsible politics, so we're basically just accepting democracy as being a thin bridge with a drop to the death underneath, and hope that we can balance the strong winds without guardrails.
Then, let's build the damn guard rails instead of thinking that we should just bash old concepts against each other like any of them are a solution. None of them are, all of them have faults. We should look towards what works and what doesn't, and build from that. But society is too naive, too up their own asses in thinking they are intellectuals. Marx didn't have a theory to bash against capitalism, he looked at the problems and pointed them out with a new theory. And while I'm not saying Marxism is the solution, I'm saying that no one actually does any damn thinking towards improving society, people only play political philosophy these days.
That she hired him for non-professional reasons.
"Mike Roman, a former Trump campaign official and co-defendant in the Georgia election-interference case, accused Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade of lying about when their romantic relationship started.
In a 122-page motion filed Friday night, Roman’s attorney wrote that Wade’s former law partner, Terrence Bradley, will soon testify that the pair’s relationship started before Willis appointed Wade to the state case involving former president Donald Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants, or before she even became district attorney. If true, the testimony is said to challenge the Georgia prosecutors’ previous claims that they started dating after Wade was already named to the case."
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fani-willis-lied-about-timeline-of-dating-relationship-with-trump-prosecutor-co-defendant-says/
The plot thickens.
What bearing does any of this have on the question of whether Trump and his co-defendants are guilty of election interference? What is it about this "improper" romantic relationship that should stand as grounds to disqualify her?
It seems to me that it is nothing more than an attempt to distract and shift focus. It may play well with some voters, but it has no legal merit with regard to the charges against Trump, Roman, and the others.
I think you can convict Trump by just playing the call to Raffensperger, but I won't be on the jury. None of this changes the facts of the case. But it's serious enough for the judge to hold a hearing about it, and we may have Wade's partner testifying under oath that Willis is lying when Willis says she and Wade weren't in a relationship when she steered the plum assignment over to him. It looks bad. When you go after someone like Trump, you have to be impeccable. The potential jury pool is watching this mess. It may be enough for Willis to be removed from this case.
Maybe. Some jurors are capable of separating what the defendants did from what she did. I don't know if the fact that Trump's affairs and cover ups do not sway voters means that such things no longer matter so much or if they are just willing to overlook it when it comes to Trump. In any case, the prosecution may not be willing to find out.
Then it's good thing you are nowhere near a jury. Why would anyone convict Trump for a phone call in which he is taking care that the laws of the land are faithfully executed? That's the job of a president. No wonder the justice system is such a mess.
My point was that he was ensuring the law was faithfully executed, which was his job, not that he was being charged with state crimes.
https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security
Trump also supports genocide.
My feeling is that in the UK at least, there was a moment after WW2 when something like a democratic choice existed, and the people voted for social security and national health as a real alternative to the rule of capital and privilege. In the US, that never seemed to happen ?
You painted it as two choices, between a supporter of genocide and a narcissist. That’s not true. The other guy indeed does it too, even more brutally. It’s not a defense of anything.
Source?
Oh that’s a hard one. Try…anything he’s ever said about Israel, and every policy decision he ever made re: Israel. Have fun.
Quoting Mikie
Trump Peace Plan
So far, no genocide support.
If you've got something, please share it.
:up:
Trump had supported Israel's far right government to the very end, and no doubt would again. If you’re not familiar with his policies, there’s plenty of information out there.
True, Trump has mumbled all kinds of things lately because he likes that this is bad for Biden. Like the border problems. But like his four years in office, he would be giving aid and encouragement to Israel as well if in office. Maybe he would say some nice words about doing it better, etc — but so does Biden. That he would support a ceasefire is ridiculous.
It’s kind of interesting watching people convince themselves into voting for Trump, almost out of spite. As if that’s the answer to awful Biden administration foreign policies. It’s insane.
I said "at gunpoint" as a hypothetical to make a point. As things stand, were I American, I would vote for neither. If that's your definition of insanity, then, yes, I am insane.
We had a similar disagreement the last time. Hopefully, you've realised by now that arguing with a crazy person is a waste of time. I know I have. :flower:
My impression of Trump is that he didn't cater particularly to Israel's hard line, since they were an obstacle to normalization of Middle-East relations, which is what is required for the US to dial back its military involvement in the region. Trump also pushed for a two-state solution, for example, showing that he was not a stooge for Likud.
The ironic thing is that article 5 has only ever been invoked once; when the USA was attacked on 9/11.
No
And would he be wrong to think that?
But loosely, it's a protection racket, eh? You can get behind with your payments, but eventually ...
I know it’s hypothetical. But it seems in keeping with a general trend.
We’ve disagreed before, yes. I don’t like Biden, but Trump is still worse. You feel differently. I still think that’s a mistake. I retract the insanity part — that was exaggerated.
OK, well, I suppose I'm not going to continue to argue over which is better, shit or puke. But anyhow, your position is understandable from a practical point of view.
And what about the “I would be a dictator for one day” comment?
(I’m not looking for an argument, just curious)
As a participant in the U.S. polity, your roll of the dice between candidates does not capture the cultural war happening here.
Honestly, I gave up long ago following every mad thing he says. The stupider and more offensive the better for him it seems. But, yes, judging on domestic policy, he probably would be a nightmare. On foreign policy, it's more polarised: he could be far better than Biden or he could do something absolutely crazy and start a world war.
This doesn't say "spend money" and can be achieved in part through training instead of buying US produced weapons. I'd like to think treaty obligations like this are "for better or worse". If you don't want to meet your obligations, there's a mechanism to leave the treaty.
Fair enough.
I have on occasion thought he (Trump) could be better than Biden on foreign policy. But it only ever lasts a second or two, until I reflect on his policy on some key geopolitical issues, their incoherence and his megalomania.
The obvious question is what does far better than Biden look like, regardless of who it is we’re talking about?
Now we know what Trump needs to do to get off the majority of his indictments. Prove he is old and with a poor memory. Better still demonstrate that he is not of sound mind.
A walk in the park.
If you really think Trump and Biden are similar with respect to cognitive decline, then fine. I suppose these are subjective judgements.
But you have to accept that you’re in the minority and the median voter disagrees with you. And that’s not likely to change. Rationally, there is no other way to explain why Trump is crushing Biden in the polls despite all of the obvious weaknesses that Trump has—having lost last time, numerous indictments, not the incumbent, etc.
For Biden to be losing this badly at this point would make no sense if the median voter didn’t broadly agree with my subjective perception.
You can cherry pick a video of Trump confusing some names if you’d like. To me that seems like a fantastic way to lose to Trump. Why not just concede as a fact-on-the-ground that the median voter sees something that you don’t and adjust strategies accordingly?
What higher standard of objectivity could one hope for?
None of us have the facts necessary to make an objective judgment of the cognitive capacities of either candidate. The fact that more people believe Biden is cognitively incapable of doing the job is a tribute to the success of right-wing media at pushing that narrative. Consequently, it's an issue for Biden's campaign to deal with it. They may, or may not, be successful.
That said, I absolutely would prefer a younger, more dynamic candidate - who is a better campaigner. My main criticism of Biden is that he's a poor politician. I nevertheless think he's done a good job in his Presidential duties.
Your allegation is unsupported by evidence. Here's a statement from the Hur report:
“We have concluded that there is not a prosecutable case against Biden. Although there was a basis to open the investigation based on the fact that classified documents were found in Biden’s homes and office space, that is insufficient to establish a crime was committed.The illegal retention or dissemination of national defense information requires that he knew of the existence of such documents and that he knew they contained national defense information.It is not a crime without those additional elements. Our investigation, after a thorough year-long review, concludes that there is an absence of such necessary proof. Indeed, we have found a number of innocent explanations as to which we found no contrary evidence to refute them and found affirmative evidence in support of them.”
In Trump's case - he knew he had national security documents, refused to turn them over when requested, hid them, and lied about it. And as you know, the classification level of the documents is not directly related to the crimes he is charged with - which stem from the espionage act.
Aside from the crimes, I continue to be astounded that Trump supporters think his alleged blanket declassification of national security documents somehow eliminates the national security risks of doing so.
Passing the Federal Civil Service Exam would be pretty darn objective.
I agree, but who will get elected is not a matter of objective judgment. The damage has been done.
Quoting Relativist
Why didn't Hur just leave it there? He is not qualified to make as assessment of Biden's cognitive capacities and it is extraneous to the assessment he was tasked and is qualified to make.
I don't think he could have honestly reached the same conclusion about Trump's innocence but there is ample evidence to raise questions and concerns about his cognitive capacities.
I guess because he wanted to be thorough in presenting potential defenses. Biden IS old, and sounds old. Is a failure to remember specific years when something happened indicative of cognitive impairment? I don't think so, but it fits easily into the narrative.
criminal trials (pending):
• GA 2020 Election Interference RICO Indictment, 13 felonies – TBD in Atlanta
• NY 2016 "Hush Money" Business Fraud Indictment, 34 felonies – trial begins 25Mar24 in NYC
• Federal "January 6th" Conspiracy Indictment, 4 felonies – TBD in Wash. DC
• Federal Espionage, Classified Documents & Obstruction of Justice Indictment, 40 felonies – TBD in Fort Peirce, FL
4 jurisdictions, 4 indictments, 91 charges :up:
civil trials:
• E. Jean Carroll Sexual Assault & Defamation 1 – $5 million verdict
• E. Jean Carroll Defamation 2 – $83.3 million verdict
• Civil financial fraud – +$450 million (disgorgement + interest) verdict
+$538.3 million (currently) :cool:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881649
civil trials (pending):
• 2 "January 6th" lawsuits by members of the US Congress threatened and traumatized by armed MAGA rioters who stormed the US Capitol Building
• "January 6th" lawsuit by US Capitol Police Officers injured & PTSD'd by armed MAGA rioters who stormed the US Capitol Building
Of course they do – their audience is a loser cult that lives to be lied to – which is good for business. Fox Noise, OAN, NewsMax, Alex Jones, RT, etc still manage to sell the "witch hunt" bs even though ALL the prosecutions' witnesses are MAGA-GOP "flying monkeys". The grift never sleeps. :mask:
Apologies to Steely Dan.
Former Wisconsin Republican Party chair says he was tricked by fake elector plan
[sup]— Anderson Cooper, Aliza Chasan, Sarah Koch, Madeleine Carlisle · CBS · Feb 18, 2024[/sup]
Quoting 180 Proof
154 varied and distinguished scholars agree: Loser-1 is still ranked at the bottom of the list of 46 US Presidents – and if this Republic is lucky, no future president will be nearly as bad as or worse than this malignantly narcissistic demonstrable ignoramus, misogynist, defamer, rapist, racist, con artist, fraudster, insurrectionist, wannabe gangster / autocrat & pathological liar who was once (thanks, Shillary!) the 45th – and never to be again – occupant of the White House.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/19/1232447088/historians-presidents-survey-trump-last-biden-14th
Within the article, they did acknowledge Trump came in dead last, but some readers won't look past the headlines.
If Trump wins the election he will listed as the 47th President. Will he then have two places in the ranking?
No solicitation here at TPF. As a matter of interest, what principles do you think distinguish between honest solicitation and scamming?
I tend to assume scam unless it's verifiably from a known source for a clear purpose, and that source has no history of scamming.
It was pretty clear from the context it didn't. However, we don't really need the link to get the point anyhow.
Trump is like 0-100 in the courts, but he's about to win a doozy. What was supposed to be a pre-election knock out is going the other way.
This is the greatest come back of all time. Ignore that it's not your team getting beaten and just appreciate the mastery.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nathan-wades-former-divorce-attorney-set-testify-fulton-county-hearing-rcna140659
Fani might skate by this after all.
Merchant would like to judge to infer that his prior statements to her about the start of their relationship are true, and (by implication) he's choosing to be uncooperative on the stand. But this has to be weighed against the possibility Bradley was simply being vindictive when he helped Merchant, and unwilling to stand by his statements to her because he's under oath. IMO, this cancels out any negative effect of Bradley's testimony or communications with Merchant.
In her court filing, Willis wrote: "“Conflict arises when a prosecutor has a personal interest or stake in a defendant’s conviction - a charge that no defendant offers any support for beyond fantastical theories and rank speculation.”
If that is true, then there is no conflict of interest. If she actually hired Wade because of her personal relationship, rather than perceived qualifications, the impact would be a poor prosecution - not a consequence that hurts the defendants in the RICO case.
The Fulton County Board of Ethics is holding a hearing next week to evaluate an ethics complaint against Willis. IMO, there's a better chance she'll be held to account in that venue, than in the disqualification hearing. But that won't get her disqualified.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/states-cant-remove-trump-from-ballot-supreme-court-says-00144673
As expected, your spin veers off from the truth. What they determined is that this is not a matter to be decided at the state level. However:
(bold added)
In their opinion the court's decision went too far.
The decision hints as how the majority might vote on the question of presidential immunity. The court did not weigh in on the question of insurrection, but the concern of the three justices is that even if Congress were to find Trump or any other presidential candidate guilty of insurrection, the decision, in overstepping the limits of the case, forecloses future efforts by Congress to disqualify an insurrectionist candidate.
“The case hints…”. Sorry, but the case is pretty clear.
Per Curium:
(bold added)
Concurring opinion of the three justices:
The anti-constitutional, illegal, anti-democratic attempts to remove Trump from the ballot have been denied by all members of the United States Supreme Court. The spin and cope is all yours.
question, that is, the first issue, the court's main opinion did not stop there as it should have and reached a second opinion.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their joint concurrence, that the court's main opinion:
This is not my spin. It is a direct quote from them. It is judicial overreach. It has direct bearing not only on Trump but future insurrectionist attempts.
There is one issue brought before the court and decided by the court. Per Curium. 9-0. And that was whether those who tried to remove Trump from the ballot were wrong in doing so. They were. You ignore it.
Right. There was one issue. It was decided unanimously that eligibility is a federal rather than state matter. The court should have stopped there. It didn't.
Let me repeat that since you fail to understand it:
The court should have stopped there. It didn't.
(https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html)
Repeat all you want. Who cares? The majority mentioned the laws already in place to jail and disqualify insurrectionists from office. Maybe try there. They probably should have mentioned that Trump was already acquitted of insurrection, as well. Maybe a third time will work.
The Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State should not have disqualified Trump from the ballot. They engaged in political, undemocratic, and unconstitutional election rigging, and risked sending national elections into chaos and did so on the basis of some hare-brained theory, which, cult-like, authoritarian minds followed along with. They abused their power for corrupt reasons and 9-0 is a stunning rebuke of their judicial malfeasance.
The majority said:
Those specific procedures do not exist. Without such procedures Congress could be in 100% agreement that a candidate is guilty of insurrection and still not be able to declare him ineligible.
Quoting NOS4A2
First, what they said is not limited to Trump. It effects all future candidates. Second, the majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But this fell short of the 2-thirds majority required.
Quoting NOS4A2
The court did not determine that it is a hare -brained theory. The issue was whether the states rather than the federal government has the authority to disqualify insurrectionist candidates, not that a candidate guilty of insurrection should be disqualified.
.
He still voted to acquit, saying:
So he punted it back to the legal system, which has now punted it back to Congress. 'Heads I win, tails you loose'.
But since then, Trump has been found guilty in two significant civil cases and indicted on 91 criminal counts. Of course if Trump had any decency or judgement, laughable though that suggestion is, he would immediately withdraw from the race rather than continue to drag the nation through his quagmire of lies and delusions.
You're quoting the concurring opinion. The majority said:
They go on to show that it was, in fact and in practice, Congress who has historically enforced it, including statutes already on the books.
So procedures abound.
In the view of the majority, each of the of the reasons, including theirs, was necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reached.
And yes, Trump was acquitted of insurrection as per the constitution.
No one is guilty of insurrection, and Trump was even acquitted of it. Yet the whole thing hinges on the stupid presumption that he did. That’s not the only reason why it is a harebrained theory. Nonetheless, a reading of the plain meaning of the constitution was enough to roundly and unanimously toss it in the dustbin.
Yes, I am. I said this several times. They were there and heard and participated in all the arguments. You were't and you didn't. But with your fine legal mind, perhaps you can explain to them why they are wrong.
With regard to the irrelevant issue of insurrection. The fact is, the majority of the senate voted to convict Trump. The fact that he was not convicted has much more to do with politics than with his responsibility for what happened. It is, however, a moot point. For two reasons. First, the court did not address the issue. Their decision has nothing to do with it. Second, even if Congress was in agreement that he is an insurrectionist, procedures are not in place to do anything about it.
You quoted the concurring opinion, yet said “the majority said”. Maybe quote what they actually did say, or properly quote who you were trying to quote.
The fact is, Trump was acquitted of insurrection. Conviction requires the concurrence of two thirds of senate, not a majority. No amount of humdrum “majority” talk applies save to convince pliable minds—or one’s own—of some sort of injustice where there is none.
As for the insurrection, it isn’t moot because that narrative is the sole reason why authoritarians are trying to remove Trump from the ballot. It isn’t premised on anything else except for that relic of deep-state dinner theater and the malign voices that proffer it.
If the dopey US wants another four disastrous years of Donald Trump, they should have the chance to vote for it.
As usual, in your compulsive attempt to defend Trump you have lost track of the argument. Go back to the beginning.
Quoting NOS4A2
The objection in the concurrence is that the decision went beyond the plain language of the Constitution regarding the question of whether the state of Colorado has the authority to disqualify Trump.
Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images
[sup]— Marianna Spring · BBC · Mar 4, 2024[/sup]
Fake images made to show Trump with Black supporters highlight concerns around AI and elections
[sup]— Matt Brown, David Klepper · AP · Mar 8, 2024[/sup]
Are a majority of electors really going to endorse the January 6th assault on the Capital as a legitimate political protest? He's turning the election into a referendum on whether Biden really won. Sure a percentage of Republican voters accept that he didn't, but that percentage in no way comprises a majority of the electorate. Trump only won 60% of the vote in many of the primaries he carried, meaning there's a large percentage of Republican voters who won't vote for him, let alone the swing vote and independents. On top of all that, he's declaring that if he isn't elected, 'it's going to be a bloodbath'. 'IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SUFFER!!!' How can that amount to a winning strategy?
That's a pretty tenuous premise.
Not simply because extrapolating from protest votes in primaries is pretty shaky ... but I'm pretty sure Republicans will vote for Trump.
Quoting Wayfarer
The election is a "lesser of two evils" for the majority of Americans. That Trump has a die-hard base of fanatics, and Biden doesn't, is a big advantage.
If you look at any one of the candidates in isolation they are absolutely terrible; literally competing for the worst candidates in the history of the planet, certainly for head of state and likely all positions of any actual responsibility.
You can list reasons Trump is unqualified all day, and crazy shit he's said all week, but then you look over at Biden and he's talking about his meeting with Miterand, gotten the US into a devastating proxy war (for Ukraine) with Russia that Biden is clearly losing (and no one likes losers, especially in America) in addition to becoming senile and barely able to talk coherently.
Now, there's die-hard liberals that (while not being particular enthusiastic about Biden) will just wish-wash away Biden problems, but the people somewhere in the middle trying to have some sort of objective view is going see Biden as extremely weak and unfit; that he is a senile senior citizen who should be in a home (that is not propaganda, that is just a literally true statement).
Which will be the basic theme in the election. Biden looks weak, the US looks weak, thee's a lot of chaos and uncertainty, and the argument will Trump says a lot of crazy shit but that he's "strong" and the crazy shit he says keeps adversaries on their toes and so on.
Not saying he's going to win, but Trump's basic "strategy" is just appear in the media as much as possible and if you need to say crazy shit then so be it. Most of the crazy shit he says is something that has some little nuance or he can walk back a bit, which then is the subject of controversy and more media coverage. His base and media allies then just fill in the narrative, sometimes spinning on a dime when they spent the morning assuming the narrative was A and then Trumps just comes out and asserts no-A, they'll just fall in line with not-A in the afternoon, and just completely ignore they were trying to justify A all morning.
Why this strategy worked the first time against Hillary is simply because if people are predisposed to not like Hillary either as a person or ideologically or what she's done (like most republicans and a fair amount of independents), then simply "getting your face out there" is a motivating factor: I don't like Hillary ... and well there's this guy. Not simply in terms of a sort of media momentum but also at a more basic level psychologically the more you "know someone" the more you rationalize and relativize their faults.
Trump's power is he has no shame, so "grab em' by the pussy" drops and he just stays in the game, and then people get used to it.
To go one level deeper, the reason this strategy works is that the US establishment is no more reasonable than Trump. The US policy establishment, represented by the likes of Hillary and Biden, have abandoned any authentic rational justification for things a long time ago. Things are not irrational in that they are crazy, they are perfectly rational as a system of graft and corruption and organized crime, but the presentation to the public is an irrational mess in order to prop-up a corrupt system. They don't view themselves that way, they think their propaganda is "clever" that it's just a matter of having a "private" and "public" position (but if you have a private and a public position on things, which one is your actual well thought out position? Obviously the private one, and the public one is just whatever you can get away with).
They also don't view themselves that way because they go around as "serious people" and there's pomp and prestige everywhere. However, the more you associate pomp and prestige with bullshit the less people are impressed by it.
The final pillar of establishment power is the aura of "you can't challenge us, nothing will ever, ever change".
So, in this political environment where things don't anyways make any sense, then Trump's nonsense isn't really a problem because people are already accustomed to nonsense. Not that Trump has any intention to make the system less corrupt and "drain the swamp" (that's just his "public" position because it sounds good to the disaffected population the elites have screwed); however a lot of people support Trump basically as a meme that the elites hate, just to mess with the elites, without much illusion he's going to fix anything.
In some ways Trump, as a category, is the only alternative you can ever get in US politics today. Precisely because he makes no sense most of the time, the US establishment didn't view him as a threat; indeed, they promoted him, told their media allies to give him more coverage, precisely because he doesn't play a "pomp and prestige" game, nor even fundraised all that much money, political elites assumed he had no chance, and then he gets too big and the cats out of the bag. Someone who's actually a threat to the system is a Bernie Sanders kind of category, who makes sense, isn't corrupt but only got so far as he did because he's a relic of a bygone (less corrupt) era where it was still possible (i.e. he's an exception today) to get in the system as a threat to otherwise unaccountable power (nowadays you either can't get in at all if you don't "play ball" or then if you do you're sidelined and no one ever pays attention to you so you can't go very far).
Point is, it doesn't really matter what Trump says or does; he's the alternative to the elites Americans know and hate. The reason he's the alternative is because of his celebrity status and money and branding skills and also precisely because he doesn't make sense he didn't seem a threat to the system until it was too late. A real threat is "taken care of" one way or another very early on.
One consequence of a second Tump presidency is he basically blows up the entire system and then the only people left need to compete on "sense making". A dangerous process but maybe better than continuation of the current system. Another possibility is that he just creates a new class of corrupt political elite. He'll definitely be trying to be doing the second goal, but precisely because he's not a good strategist he may fail at that and accomplish the first.
There's all the usual issues of why partisans usually vote for their party regardless of the candidate.
As I say in my post, I'm not saying Trump will win, just explaining why he can say outrageous things and that doesn't matter.
There's not a strategy of policy articulation, character and sense making but of marketing and branding and not-being the other candidate.
My focus was on Trump because the subject was Trump strategy.
Obviously Biden's strategy will be that he's not Trump, and says crazy things and has no character and so on.
Quoting RogueAI
I think it's too early to say where the momentum is going to be, and I don't say that just because the election is some ways off but because we haven't seen yet what sort of consolidation, if any, will happen around Trump and now that he's the candidate we'll now see to what extent conservative figures, media and funders rally for Trump.
I think we're right now in a similar situation to 2016 where the the Republican establishment and media machine and usual funders were pretty radically against Trump and couldn't believe what was happening, so when Trump started secure the nomination it would seem he'd have no allies and the incoherent "hot mess" would sort of just fumble towards a blow out loss. However, then republicans started to rally and things became coherent enough and well run enough to build momentum and win the election. Of course a lot of people never "got on board" but enough did that Trump could win.
So I think we're in a similar place where there's still a large part of the republican establishment and media machine that were (while being way more pro-Trump than in 2016) perhaps not hoping for Trump to be taken down with all the lawsuits but maybe were waiting-and-seeing.
Trump won in 2016 while raising half the funds of Hillary, so I'm also just not sure that's a good proxy for odds of success.
Money is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important factor, and candidates would rather have it than not.
Sure, but if Trump already won once raising half the funds of Hillary, then we're not in a "all things being equal" situation. Things are not equal, Trump already demonstrated he can 2x his money in terms of results. Of course, he lost to Biden, but Biden wasn't so visibly senile back then.
And sure, the democrat base doesn't like the anti-abortion rulings of the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that will be a big election issue considering the justices are now a lot younger than they were (oldest being 75), so it's not a "guaranteed likely" there will be new openings on the bench in the next 4 years.
Democrat base also doesn't like genocide, so the democrats turning themselves into the brutal genocidal war party is an un-motivating factor.
Not to say that will be a big election issue either, just pointing out that simple formulas such as abortion and money may not be big predictive factors at this stage.
Trump is unable to put his money where is mouth is. He pretends to be famously wealthy , but does not have the money to make bond and says he cannot raise the money:
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/18/trump-new-york-fraud-case-appeal-bond
This sort of lying is the sine qua non of the Biden campaign and his gullible followers. These sorts of distortions and misinformations are all they have. Observe the technique used multiple times in his recent X post.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1769762027663147110?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
All this was obvious long ago. No one took him seriously within the business community. He’s been good at leveraging debt and building an image. Now that it’s crumbled, his cult following is really all that’s left in terms of believing he’s been anything but a degenerate, sociopathic, narcissistic con man. The rest vote for him because they’ve been convinced Biden and democrats are worse, but who otherwise are rightly embarrassed by him.
Anyway — at this point if Trump wins it’ll be because most people stay home, thanks in part to Biden choosing to run again.
Either 7 more months of Trump or 4 years and 7 months of Trump. But either way, he’ll be history soon enough.
True. Long before he became a TV game show host he had a reputation in the NY area as a fraud and swindler. And, in his desperate failed attempt to be one of the "beautiful people" the target of laughter an ridicule. Of course, he then bad mouthed the people he wanted to accept him.
As to the election, I'm not placing any bets.
Any use of "bloodbath", whether literal or metaphorical, implies violent aggression. It's similar to his use of "fight" on Jan 6. You can downplay it as "figurative" all you want, but the implications are clear. And, there is consistency in his way of speaking like that. The 'enemy', is the American political system and the goal is to smash it down.
Imagine this thread ending and passing into obscurity.
And if your young, imagine a time when talking to a new generation of Americans decades from now, when they sincerely ask you: "Trump? Who was Trump?"
The real hoax is that we should believe what Trump says, in the first place.
Just like all the talk about building a wall. :snicker:
Or perhaps the US-Mexican border is only figuratively 458 miles long, not the over 1900 miles long.
And of course, as this is Trump, the 458 miles wasn't even a new wall:
(The big, beautiful wall, that Trump built.)
Then the implications are clear when other politicians, like Biden, use the exact same words.
It was so much of a hoax that Biden resumed doing just that, only it was far too late.
For what too late? You have to speak Spanish now? (Oh, I forgot, you didn't live in the US or did you?)
And I think having a border fence isn't similar to build a big, beautiful, wall. Which Trump was incapable of doing in 4 years.
Besides, the last glimpse on how wonderful, secure and efficient these billion dollar high-tech walls are was seen last year on October 7th.
Biden ended the Trump’s national emergency and the border wall construction on his first day in office. Now he’s dealing with a crisis at the border. Now the crisis is the biggest problem facing America, according to public opinion, costing the tax-payer more than it would have cost to build the wall.
That's right. But of course the context is different, and that's what's important.
Another fine example of you doing nothing with words.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Dupes actually believed Trump meant political violence, and fell for a very simple fallacy as proffered by those who would exploit their gullibility. That’s the important context.
Can't wait...
Trump couldn't even get the wall built. That's how bad he is. And building just a wall which can be circumvented isn't an answer.
But who the fuck cares about actual solutions. "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!" is such a great slogan. Why have any discussion on immigration policy when you have such awesome policies like that?
What actual solutions do you have in mind? Didn’t Finland start building a big fence just recently? Why would they do that, I wonder? Why just 200km of fence, and why would it take so long to build?
Yes, but here's the important question. When the "dupes" interpret in the way that they do, does Trump expect in advance that they will interpret that way, and say those words with that intention?
So for example, when Trump used "fight" twenty whatever times in his Jan 6 speech, did he expect that the dupes in the audience would believe that he meant political violence, and he was thereby exploiting their gullibility?
I don’t know how anyone could expect that. Really, only an idiot would think that when he says Jim Jordan is fighting in the house, for example, that he meant Jim was body-slamming Dems on the house floor. Or when he says Rudy is a fighter, Giuliani must be boxing cow carcasses in a walk-in freezer somewhere. Or when Republicans don’t fight, you have to primary the hell out of them? Yet his “fight like hell” remark was somehow literal, and found a home in the Jan 6th show trial as incitement to insurrection. What kind of idiot believes that? Just dupes.
I think we've already had this discussion when it was current. Starting from the fact that if you make an impenetrable border, then you'll move people to come on dingies and whatever ships from the Gulf coast or the Pacific.
You have to have a far more multifaceted approach than a wall. Starting from things like coordination among officials, creating a policy that does has general support, not one which will create such opposition that you start talking about Sanctuary Cities. But for that you have to have actual leadership skills, not just be a good demagogue inventing fancy slogans like "builiding a wall and Mexico will pay for it".
Quoting NOS4A2
To show argue my point, let's delve into this.
You have to start with the fundamentals. First, people don't immigrate to Finland from Russia or via Russia from Third World countries into Finland. It isn't either a viable natural way to come to the EU. There is no chronic shortage of work force in Finland as there is in for example in California, where even with one million unemployed, a worker shortage persists.
Second, the "migrant crisis" on the borders have been artificially created by Russia. Journalists have reported how officials have given assistance to the migrants and naturally the most obvious reason is that when the migrants have been interviewed, they have given a unison story of how the FSB has gone through construction sites in Moscow and told them that now there's an opportunity to go into the EU. Finland has seen this, the officials and politicians understand this, to talk about it isn't creating a political turmoil because the older pro-Kremlin politicians have been silenced or have changed their attitudes towards Russia.
The response wasn't only to "build a fence". The response of Finland was to shut down the border to everybody. Nobody comes over the border or goes to Russia, not Finns or Russians either. If you were a Russian living in Finland, you have to go to Russia through another country. Also you can't even apply for refugee status at the border. They simply won't let you in. The border was totally quiet, I've seen it with my own eyes. (Building a fence is a minor issue to simply closing the border, don't you think?)
Above all, the parties did this in agreement. The opposition wasn't against it. Hardly any opposition to the actions was noticeable in the media or in the political discourse. Also the EU understands the Finnish position. Finland hasn't been tagged out as a reckless country for closing their borders. The case of Russia using migrants and asylum seekers as a way of a hybrid attack was clear cut to everybody.
So actually, Finland is a perfect example of democracies having the ability to close their borders quickly and not create a huge political turmoil in the process. (The border is scheduled to open 14th of the next month and they'll look if Russia will continue it's hybrid attacks.)
And here's the real problem with Trump. Trump supporters all love that he irritates the other side with his rhetoric and actions. But in order to shut the border, you need a lot more leadership skills than a mere slogan and a stupid fixation on structures that even when working, is only a small detail in a far larger complex effort. Yes, you can argue that you have a border problem. But hardly anything is done to unite the people into looking at the problem. And then there comes the obvious question:
Is Trump the kind of guy that will talk to the opposition, get them to tow the rope together? Is he capable of persuading people beyond his base?
No.
The great demagogue has little if any leadership skills. And he won't compromise because it might look bad for his base. His four years prove that as his administration was far more chaotic than anything we had seen and his future administration will be so. Now he will have the Republican A-team right from the start, but Trump being Trump and as he has already been POTUS, I assume he will start to gather sycophants and yes-men around him. He will not, for example, go with the idea as previously to ask the military who are the best generals.
Though I generally agree, I think the main difference between a second Trump administration and the first one will be a quest for vengeance.
As chaotic as it was, Trump's first presidency was mainly focused on "trying to be president" as defined by the establishment. From what I could tell, in Trump's mind he had "won" and earned the respect of his elite peers and could just "enjoy being president" while putting his own spin on a few things.
Did we lock her up? Did we drain the swamp?
We didn't even build the wall, as you note above.
Trump's problem in his first presidency was a lack of sycophants available as the Trump movement didn't really exist at the time, so there wasn't really a class of "Trump politicians and operators". Hence hiring a bunch of generals, as there wasn't really anyone else available. There's more such "Trump people" now that have held office or otherwise have experience.
What an administration of such people would do could be significantly more chaotic, especially when mixed with a quest to counter-attack.
Which, on that note, as much as democrats are celebrating Trump's recent legal losses, he can just take the L, have properties seized in New York and then still go onto to be president.
Like 2016, there's still plenty of powerful people that will have more to gain from a Trump presidency, whether from difference in policy or direct favouritism.
Since the Superpack is a legal thing, the "smart money" can go to those to mostly attack Biden, and what Trump raises from his base can keep him afloat. I.e. that Trump has taken a half billion dollar hit does not mean that a half billion dollars needs to be raised before any money is spent on campaigning.
$97 million judgment-debtor (2× defamation)
+
$465 million judgment-debtor (business fraud)
=
$562 million (so far) Debtor-1
Will "poorly educated" MAGA morons keep being suckers for this old semi-senile whiny fat man-baby's pathetic grift? Will Rupert, Elon, Peter, Harlon ... MBS or Vlad pony up the $465 million by Monday, 25 March 24 to stop New York State (judgment-creditor2) from seizing Debtor-1's (mostly owned by lenders & partners) real estate properties (I really hope NYS AG Letitia James seizes his plane(s) first!)? TBD. :smirk:
So the bottom line is, I still don't get it. This is not a game, or reality television - we have a semi-literate narcissist threatening to basically create a one-party state to satisfy his own ego. And people are buying it. There must have been considerably more than one born every minute.
As for what his MAGA supporters are thinking? Obviously they are not. They are glanding, all spleen and bile, zombies radicalized vicariously by their Cult Leader's performative grievances and scapegoating wishlist. "The Donald" speaks for them like a perverse, howling avatar of pent-up confusions and insecurities and jealousies, his malignant narcissism giving them permission to openly hate, threaten and assassinate in the name of White Christian Nationalism's "god". True, most are not (actively) racist or sexist, they are just hypnotized by rightwing media's jackboot "score settling" fantasies – MAGA is about feeling powerful and not about being / remaining free, conspiring and not deliberating, nostalgia for an America that never was and not an American (& global) future with less poverty corruption injustice & violence.
2-3 out of 10 of my fellow citizens are nihilists who are PTSD'd by opiods, booze, OnlyFans porn, very poor education, disinforming social media silos, chronic loneliness, political disengagement, personal and political corruption, and everyday grinding banality. MAGA is a nationwide gang of disaffected dead-enders, mostly blue collar white men and Christian Taliban-type "evangelicals". I suspect a "bloodbath" is coming ... and will kick off when their bankrupt faux-billionaire Cult Leader is finally convicted of dozens of felonies in Manhattan this June/July (or he's jailed for contempt of some court along the way). MAGA is the most recent symptom of the rot deep in the bowels of "Pax Americana" manifest by rabid red-hatted hordes demanding to be lied to by FOX Noise, RT, OAN, NooseMax, etc and offering up their last freedoms to the next Reichstag bonfire.
Anyway, I'm betting on the 6 in 10 of us likely voters to stop the firestorm this fall. Beyond that, Wayfarer, who knows ... :mask:
There is another faction, those more aligned with the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Hillsdale College. They certainly are not uneducated. They are the "elites" that they and others love to blame.
They are not the MAGA faithful but, at least for now, back him and the plan to consolidate executive power. Whereas Trump and the Trumpsters are focused on him, they have their sights set on long term goals. Win or lose, when Trump is gone, they remain.
Actually I agree with this. It's a very apt way to put how Trump will see his second time: quest for vengeance. He will likely be far more determined, and where that determination leads us, Heavens know.
Quoting boethius
This is true also.
And there are powerful interest groups that can put down hundreds of millions in loans (or investments), if and when it decides US foreign policy. Heck, the 2017 Shayrat cruise missile strike that Trump ordered, cost more than hundred million dollars.
There's also the funders of those organizations (the elites' elite), and there's hundreds of billions of dollars on the line in terms of policy. If you can't bribe Biden (because he's already bribed by a competing company or industry), then Trump is the only alternative.
Plenty of billionaires and multimillionaires in the US and bribery is essentially legal, so Trump has plenty of "haggle space". Even if you don't think Trump will win, (if you're a billionaire) the chance that he might win easily justifies "investing" in Trump's campaign when there is so much money on the line.
This is in addition to the long term goals you mention which require backing Trump, keeping the base as vibrant as possible and then co-opting Trump's base later when Trump's less relevant or dead.
Quoting 180 Proof
Do the polls actually show this? Seems Trump is gaining in popularity since the nomination (favourable rating) while also gaining in dislike (unfavourable rating); i.e. the undecided middle is starting to compress.
Quoting Donald Trump - Five Thirty Eight
Which obviously is more unfavourable than favourable, by a lot.
But Biden is even more ahead in disapproval compared to approval (40.0% approve and 54.6% disaprove).
In terms of projected votes, Trump vs. Biden are dead even in two of the listed polls, and Biden up 3% in one poll and Trump ahead by 7% in another poll.
Red states have far more electoral college power per vote than the Blue states, so dead even in the polls is a significant Trump advantage.
So I'm not sure Trump is losing in popularity at all since the time you mentioned, but maybe a longer data set would show that.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, but you have to ask yourself the question of who made things this way?
Joe Biden would be pretty high on the list of suspects.
At some point almost any change is seen as better than continuing the status quo, at least "you try" something else.
Yes, there's just too much money at stake and Biden can't satisfy all the money simultaneously.
Even if Biden satisfies the biggest money there's still plenty of second tier billionaires and corporations that will be left out and would need to go to Trump for whatever it is if they want a chance at making considerably more money.
And it's not just hundreds of millions, but hundreds of billions (Fortune 500) and trillions (banks) determined by different policy over a 4 year period (spread over various billionaires and multi-millionaires), in addition to the long-term momentum. So compared to this the 1 to 2 billion needed to "have a go" at the presidency is simply not that much money, and some of the tab is covered by normal people.
And this is strange, since the economy is usually the top issue, and it's been humming along: stock market highs (most people have 401(k)'s, so they benefit from Wall Street doing well), record low unemployment, inflation back under control, 3+% GDP growth. But the majority of people hate this economy. Maybe because buying a house and renting have become so expensive. But it's hard to see what Trump would do to change that.
Certainly agree it's hard to see what Trump would do.
However, the economic numbers are nearly entirely make-belief propaganda.
The official inflation is adjusted by simply substituting cheaper things for whatever increases in price.
I'm honestly not sure most people have 401(k)'s of any substantial worth, but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Most importantly, employment only matters if jobs are good and actually provide for a comfortable and secure life, ideally meaningful also. These kinds of jobs are now pretty rare. If you're reduced to wage slavery then you resent and hate having a job and absolutely hate the system that keeps you trapped.
Then there's issue like crime, which you're going to prioritize over a lot of other things, such as your 401(k) for example doesn't mean as much if you think you maybe robbed and / or shot any day, and if not you then your children, and what matters here is perception and not actual chances of being robbed and / or shot.
What is not perception based is health. Again, no point in having wealth if you don't have the health to enjoy it and Americans are incredibly unhealthy. People do realize it's "the system" of corporate grifting and corruption that is making them sick and then dealing with the American health insurance is a nightmare. Worse than being sick yourself is your kids being sick.
There's also the decay of public spaces and infrastructure which people internalize as a low hum of constant anxiety.
Then there's the social media and the already mentioned porn, and so on.
Now, Trump's supporters may not understand what ails them in any coherent or systemic sense, much less how it could be actually fixed, but they do understand that the establishment has been lying to them.
Which is the foundational appeal of Trump; he's willing to say anything that will play well to his supporters, and so he'll say obvious truths that the establishment has just been gaslighting Americans about for literally decades.
For example:
Quoting Trump hits Bush: Invading Iraq ‘the single worst decision ever made’ - The Hill
Which you may expect republicans don't want to hear, but that's not the case.
Of course, it's not what the Republican establishment that made those decisions wants to hear, but Republicans are over represented in the army and the Iraq war was a total disaster on US military communities, not just Iraqis, and obviously it was a not just a disaster in terms of death and destruction and trauma, but the US doesn't even have the oil! So wasn't some sort of strategic "worth it" move to get the oil or oppose communism or something.
It was a terrible mistake and Trump is willing to call a spade a spade, something people who suffer from a mistake want to hear: maybe people are held accountable a bit at least in being called out in pubilc, maybe something is learned so it doesn't happen again.
Again, totally agree that Trump has no coherent plan to make things better, but it's not a mystery why he has so much support (enough to win the presidency once and also this recent primary).
Perhaps not. I wish he would calm his rhetoric.
So all the potential consequences with him in power during a time of extreme global unrest due to both Russia and China is not a larger concern than some backwards MAGA cult members mounting a real attack that would quickly be fought back and at the same time cement the need to reshape politics into a form that prevents things like this to ever happen again?
Trump is right about one thing with his "bloodbath" rhetoric though; if he and his followers take things too far, it will tip the scales of society's tolerance of them so far into the negative that they will be branded a terrorist group and if someone wears a MAGA hat it won't end well. Most of these people are gullible idiots, but if consequences for affiliation with MAGA becomes too negative, they will quickly break down into very obscure smaller groups of fanatics.
I can't see how any of this would end well for Trump, his closest people and his followers. With luck, everything fizzles out over the years, but if Trump and his followers take things too far, then they will quickly realize that there are far more people on the good side who won't tolerate this bullshit.
Your statement was that Trump was losing popularity, generally speaking, since the criminal charges dropped. To cite you exactly:
Quoting 180 Proof
I then cite polls that show Trump pretty steady from 2021 through 2023 and then gaining in favourability since the primary, which demonstrates he's attracting support.
I then also point out that he's essentially dead even, if not slightly ahead, in the polls in a Trump v Biden.
I then point out that the electoral college favours heavily republicans as Red states have more electoral college votes overall, so (unless historical trends reverse and red states are now blue states) such polling would indicate a large Trump advantage.
But I ask you to provide the evidence upon which you're making your claim (as perhaps this coarse look at the polls misses something essential).
I already dealt with your point that a lot of registered republicans, that you'd need to establish that he's not trading that group for some other group. The polling shows he's gaining overall in favourability, so perhaps he's lost 20% of registered Republican support but has gained elsewhere.
Now, if there's a break down somewhere of the swing states, of the likely voters there and so on that provide some additional insight, then great; if not, if it's as you say:
Quoting 180 Proof
Then for your argument to make sense, you'd need to at least try to establish the primary voting isn't some analogue of a poll but far more predictive, far earlier, which you do not.
You're basically just handwaving and assuming Trump is losing support and in the face of data that he isn't you're just handwaving away the polls and any basis at all upon which you could rest your own claim.
Quoting 180 Proof
How does 20-25% turn into "most of" in the very next sentence?
Now, definitely Trump is a "non-traditional" candidate so it's not unusual he'd lose support from "traditional republicans"; the question is whether his untraditionalness can pickup support elsewhere, which the polls at the moment indicate rather than your claim that he's losing support overall.
Quoting 180 Proof
Trump was massively out-fundraised by Hillary, yet still won. As I've already mentioned, there's not much prospects the SCOTUS will change in the next 4 years, so abortion may not end up being a big issue. As you say, we'll have better predictive power in the 1-2 months before the election.
Quoting 180 Proof
As we see above, they are definitely disputed circumstances by the polls, which you then dismiss but then claim in the very next sentence that Trump continuing to increase in favourability enough to win the election (i.e. in the right places that translates to votes) would be ahistorical?
What is the historical precedent are you referring to? If polls don't matter at the moment? What does?
I honestly don't get what you're basing your argument on other than your own feeling ... which seems to be exactly the case:
Quoting 180 Proof
... So you haven't done any bets, being not a betting man, but you also haven't lost any bets since 2017 ... but what about 2016? You're basically just saying that except for the times you're wrong you've been right and we should just trust you on that.
Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, so his strength is fighting the establishment and so 2024 could be a repeat of 2016.
Biden is clearly mentally attenuated, if not in the first stages of dementia or Alzheimer's, and it's going to be difficult for him to campaign with any vigour. Then there's the whole Hunter thing and Biden's own mishandling of classified documents, the war going badly in Ukraine, war in Gaza and so on.
And just because Biden seems to "get away" with incredible gaffs (aka. clear signs of dementia in his case) of memory problems and losing his train of thought, doesn't mean it's not going to be a big issue. Trump super packs will inundate people with attack adds using all this material in the 2 months before the election.
Both candidates are incredibly weak candidates.
If you didn't know anything about the other candidate you'd assume they have absolutely zero chance.
My own guess is I think we're in for a rerun of 2016 where Trump was "the underdog" and widely hated and had incredible mind blowing scandal after scandal but that Hillary was also widely hated and had her own scandals and gaffs, and the establishment assumes Hillary is going to win but that turns out to be counter-productive and fuels Trump instead.
I'm not predicting Trump is going to win, just that he has a solid chance of winning.
A lot will depend on what money and allies consolidates around Trump, and Biden's ability to even keep it together.
Liberals like to dismiss Biden's age concern as some sort of "agist" thing, but one indisputable dementia moment far worse than we've seen so far could sink him. Or he could die; which based on his age is about a 5% chance between now and the election—true he has top of the line health care, but being president and running a campaign is also stressful, so who knows which factor dominates.
Which I don't think is appreciated enough. Death rates rise exponentially with age (after adulthood) and the probability of death at 82 years (within a year time frame) is 8%.
Quoting Actuary life table, US Social Security
Furthermore the process of dying from disease in old age is due to the decay of the organism, so there's generally a period of mental and physical decline and even incapacitation, which can be a long or relatively short process with few or many stays in hospital and medical interventions.
Of course, health is also a concern for Trump, but the 5 year difference in age with Biden is really a big difference on an exponential curve.
update:
(Rick Wilson posted on Youtube 19 March 24)
addendum:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890870
Ah yes, the cunning response to evidence being "whatever".
If you just want to stay in your liberal echo-chamber, then why come here to post what you want to believe?
As you say yourself, there's very little way to predict (based on actual evidence) the outcome of the election from where we are at the moment.
Both candidates are incredibly weak, simply pointing to how absurdly bad one candidate is doesn't really advance the analysis for people who want to understand the situation.
Trump has his legal problems ... whereas Biden also has legal problems as well as 2 times more chance of just straight up dying before Trump, and even bigger chance of suffering some serious medical event or terminal decline (even worse than his current mental state). Trump has been found culpable of sexual assault, whereas Biden has literal a genocide on his hands.
It's truly mind boggling, but typical of a declining empire that the political elites become incredibly incompetent and senile, so it's mind bogglingly stupid but not "ahistorical", to use your verbiage.
As for the election, the evidence bases facts are that Trump is not losing support, but gaining support.
The fines he has to pay are a massive inconvenience but won't stop him from being on the ballot and potentially winning. Trump is not without allies and support, and there's plenty of interests who have a net-present value proposition for backing Trump even assuming he's more likely to lose than win.
And, as I demonstrated above with actual evidence and statistics, Biden has a non-negligible chance of dying (2-4%) before the election even happens.
These odds are comparable to drawing two unpaired cards in Texas Holdem and then hitting two pair on the flop (2%), if you want a feel for the what the (low end) of the odds are. Two pair isn't a remarkable hand.
Could the democrats recover from Biden just straight up dying? Seems a hard sell.
So, if we assume a Biden death would mean a Trump victory (though I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary) and let's say a Trump victory would be an absolute total disaster for America and the world, the democrats are essentially betting nearly the absolute worst thing they can imagine happening (a second Trump presidency) on odds comparable to, or greater than, than flopping 2 pair.
What conclusions were drawn from the evidence in the 2016 election? How much more reliable is the evidence today?
What do the statistics show about the health of someone Biden's age, who is fit and active, versus someone Trump's age who drives his ft ass around in a golf cart and shuns vegetables in favor of Big Macs?
Recall that fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried stole billions from customers and defrauded investors and his bond was only $250 million, which was the largest such bond ever set in an American criminal proceeding. Trump stole no money and investors were paid in full. Not to mention that the corrupt James’ sense of justice is like a wind-sock, going in the direction of wherever her friends are.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/17/opinion/an-irish-society-an-unpaid-loan-and-the-hypocrisy-of-letitia-james/amp/
Conclusions drawn by who?
At the time, I expected Trump to win, but that was just gut feeling based on the idea people would want to see "what happens next" in the Trump debacle show. Fife Thirty Eight gave Trump basically a chance in 3 of winning.
However, I think the main thing to learn from 2016 is simply that the dissatisfaction with the political system in the US is so great that a complete outsider can beat both the Republican and Democrat establishment and media machine.
We also learned that while the establishment had all sorts of "fail safes" to prevent a too left candidate from ever winning, why the democrats have the super delegates, they simply assumed that they couldn't be threatened from the right: that the Republican Party would be the party of big business and other factions on the right could never be viable (libertarians, evangelicals, racists and fascists); therefore leaving open the weakness that a "business person" such as Trump waltz in and take the party away from the "gentleman warmongers".
Quoting Fooloso4
I was in a pretty long relationship with a doctor and the main thing I learned about health is that age is the primary killer. Simply getting old is an exponential decay process, and exponentially worse odds of dying every year, and in the 80 year old bracket the odds are really high of dying.
Her experience was also that it was always a surprise who died and who continued to live. For example, whenever she went on vacation in internal medicine she would know some of her older patients would die but it was always a surprise.
The main factor, according to this doctor at least, is simply the bodies ability to recover becomes exhausted; any specific problem doctors can deal with pretty well but there's knock on effects on the other organs that increase with age, and so medical problems accumulate until you have a situation where you can keep one organ functioning but the medicine required will likely destroy what's left of the kidneys, of which the treatment would destroy what's left of the liver.
Bottom line, it's simply a fact that people get old and die. There's a good chance to live to 70, not uncommon to live to 80, over 90 is pretty rare and there's very few above 100 and above 110 is super rare.
So, what is for sure is that Biden's odds of dying due to being older is twice as great as Trump.
Who's healthier or leading a less stressful life I think is speculative. Golfing is pretty good exercise as well as relaxing.
Obviously Trump's legal problems are a big stress, but Biden also has legal problems.
Presumably being President is itself stressful under normal circumstances and there's less time to relax than Trump, though I wouldn't be surprised if Biden doesn't really do much and other people handle everything.
What is clear is Biden's cognitive decline compared to Trump, who (all while bing largely incoherent) mental acuity seems to be the same. Biden loses his train of thought, relives the past such as who's the president of France, and clearly can't handle any question requiring a complex or nuanced answer (such as the whole "XI is a dictator" saga).
And this is not a defence of Trump, just the reality is that Biden with his two pair odds of dying and clearly becoming senile and "time to go to a home time" on national television is the best the Democrats have to offer.
It's a sad state of affairs, but not unusual for a declining empire.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people
And here I thought he was going to be broke today. This timeline is just too good.
I'm not defending Republicans. Over the last half century they've spearheaded the legalized corruption in the United States based on completely fantastical legal arguments absolutely fatal for the, while starting illegal wars, illegal rendition and torture, blocking health care and free education (the basis of a healthy society), and worst of all creating massive amounts of propaganda to destroy the environment.
That being said, the Democrats are as completely corrupted by the legal corruption and beholden to largely the same special interests as Republicans, with some slight variations. Democrats have since Obama become the war party and corporate profiteering party of all kinds, as it lowers public opposition when "the left party is doing it". There's a long list of laws and policies that democrats would be outraged and in the streets over if the Republicans were doing it, and that's by design.
And for all this brew-ha-ha over Trumps pretty insignificant law breaking (from a national point of view) what did the democrats do about literal war crimes and torture? "We won't be going on a witch hunt" ... but we did "torture some folks". Where was the concern for the law of the democratic party then? Zero concern because they're paid to rape the law, which is far worse for the public good than Trump's sexual assault and "grab em' by the pussy" approach to life.
Now if you don't like Trump and republicans, both old establishment and the MAGA types, the reality is they have a chance to regain power due to democrat corruption. Biden is only in power because he's a linch pin in the wall holding back all the skeletons from just spilling out onto the house floor.
Whether you think Biden's cognitive decline matters or not to his job as president, because he has "competent team" that is making all the decisions, maybe true, but certainly you can recognize it's not a great campaigning slogan: "Vote for Biden! his controlled by his team, trust us!"
It's also highly suspect that a senile and demented leader is irrelevant because of the people under him. He still has the presidential authority and anyone with access to him could get him to sign anything and any sort of strife in his administration will be ultimately decided by presidential authority.
However, much worse, anyone familiar with people dying of old age would be familiar with the denial that goes with it. Old people can be essentially unable to see, unable to remember basic facts, reflexes of a tree, but insist they are completely capable of driving and incensed and angry at any suggestion to the contrary.
If he loses, it’ll be nice to know that’ll be the last of Trump. If he runs again he’d be 82 and his businesses would likely be in shambles, having been abandoned by the establishment financially and unable to draw off as much money from average dupes. The RNC will choose someone younger as their nominee in ‘28. Maybe Haley, Maybe Desantis, maybe someone yet unknown.
If he wins, America will get a reminder of how awful he was, and it’ll be his last term. 2028 won’t come soon enough. Legislatively he likely gets nothing done, but will probably appointment more appellate and Supreme Court judges (it’s likely the senate flips to republicans this year). His actions will likely reinvigorate the left— again — and there will be a large electoral backlash in 2026.
My main problem will be the 4 years lost in climate policy — which we truly don’t have — and the fact that the judiciary will be all but Trumpified for a generation, making it harder to get anything done even when the inevitable backlash hits.
Agreed.
Quoting Mikie
Would Biden do anything meaningful on climate?
Bidens' administration seems to just co-create terrible wars.
Not that Trump would do anything, but a second Trump administration I think could (potentially) cause Europe to stop being vassals to the US.
European leaders entertained the idea (at least talked about it) of ceasing to be cowardly vassals during the first Trump administration, but then Biden came along and EU elites ran to prostrate themselves and basically begged for abuse in their gimp suites. That's definitely their comfort zone.
Not that I know how history would go, but I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration, at least for the world and global ecosystems. Trump's quest for vengeance (randomly purging various officials and so on) could also cause a collapse of the corrupt networks that dominate the US, without 4 years being enough to consolidate a new network. A network that is already weakened by Wikileaks and various other whistleblowing and key players just aging out and dying.
Trump would also likely deescalate with the Russians and Chinese which could be immensely stabilizing, simply because there's no winning moves in Ukraine or against the Chinese and more conflict overseas is simply unpopular.
Which, despite all Trump's immense flaws and wrongdoing and being totally unfit to be president, he's at least sensitive to public opinion rather than on an ideological quest for world domination. Trump doesn't hesitate to insult the neocons as bizarre fools. The current administration is 100% neocon oriented, and they seem to me as evil as they are delusional. I wouldn't say Trump is evil; more petty, narcissistic, bombastic and plenty of other negative, but not quite evil, qualities.
My feeling is a second Trump presidency would basically kill the neocon bureaucratic hold and dream of world domination and realists would be the only effective players left to pick up the pieces of further imperial decline and chaos domestically. I don't think Trump could actually stage some sort of coup so in four years he'll be gone as you say, and the process would essentially result in a geriatric purge of the current ruling elite. Although the geriatric political elite fully legalized corruption, mobile phones have resulted in such a deep rooted fear of being recorded a lot of younger politicians are less corrupt as a habit while the ability to broadcast creates the habit of simply being open in one's analysis.
That's not a prediction however, just an idea of potential positive consequences of a Trump presidency, to make the point that I don't think it's foregone conclusion that a Biden presidency would be any better. Biden's overall trajectory is more and bigger wars, as that's how the neocons stay relevant.
It’s a mixed bag with Biden. He’s producing more oil and gas than any president I think, has allowed drilling, approved the Willow Project, etc. Yet the IRA was passed which will do some good — although that was very watered down. He’s done some other things which aren’t terrible.
Overall, I’m not super enthusiastic, but he’s infinitely better than going backwards. Rhetoric also matters on the world stage. The US official position wanting to do something about it is important— the President saying it’s a Chinese hoax is also important, negatively.
Quoting boethius
We just disagree here. There’s no question Biden is better. The judiciary alone is a reason. Baby steps towards climate policy is another— and there has been some progress. Compared to literally going backwards, I don’t think there’s much to think about. It’s also hard to believe Trump would do anything about Israel. If anything, he’ll go even harder with supporting the genocide. He may be less hawkish with Ukraine— that could be beneficial. Otherwise I see no redeeming qualities. He’s a danger we can’t afford.
Branding like it ought to be.
I gather from this that the Easter Bunny is not gay. But if I cannot even see the Bunny, the matter becomes more obscure.
Not a good look if you care about appearances.
There isn't one.
There’s plenty, actually. For those paying attention. But please keep the substantive Tweets coming.
There was a good piece (in Dutch) how neoliberalism gets you fuckheads like Trump and all the other racist scum floating to power in the EU. https://www.reddit.com/r/thenetherlands/comments/1btc0fh/het_neoliberalisme_heeft_de_solidariteit/
Not so, not even close ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851623
That's my story and I'm sticking to it because my gut and my head tells me not to panic. Loser-1 and his MAGATs are going to keep on losing as they have every year since 2017. :victory: :mask:
It takes power away from the citizens and puts it in the hands of big business, and as such is a blueprint for widespread corruption.
Once the system is well and truly rotten, the ground is ripe for populism. It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is.
This has, in my opinion, nothing to do with solidarity, and the article I found rather uninspiring.
In the Netherlands, the left failed to be a counterbalance against neoliberalism, and failed to provide a suitable alternative. (And obviously we needn't even mention a 'left' in the US...)
In fact, the largest left-wing party GroenLinks/PvdA consists of two parties which have basically appeased neoliberal (VVD) dominance for over a decade in the hopes they would be allowed some scraps. They staunchly supported and continue support the relinquishment of sovereignty to the EU, which is entirely ran by lobbyists.
Meanwhile, the left-wing party that did take its job seriously and helped to break neoliberal dominance is almost completely ignored by the left and ended up with a measly 5 seats.
So this article comes across as somewhat detached whinging about an imaginary moral high ground. If I'm honest, it's rather typical from dusty academics, who are repeatedly shown to be some of the most detached people in Dutch society.
We definitely agree on this point.
Quoting Tzeentch
To add to this excellent point, the classes of people who benefit from a system very rarely see any problems. When you benefit, systemic corruption is just "the way things are done".
When the intellectual classes benefit (professors, scientists, established media avatars, and so on) a populist anti-corruption movement is not inherently anti-intellectual but is far more likely to be so.
To contrast, the reformation was sparked by similar outrage against corruption of the ruling class, in particular the church but also feudalism in general, but was pro-intellectual and lead by intellectuals and sharp criticism against both the church and feudalism. Which can be taken as simply a example that populism isn't always anti-intellectual, or then as an exception that proves the rule in that there emerged new intellectual classes (created by the printing press) who were simply average citizens that learned how to read and did not particularly benefit from the feudal system. That it was illegal to teach slaves in the US how to read is another indication people understood this latent danger of general literacy and the American Revolution is another example pro-intellectual populism for that matter.
The history of the ruling class since this pro-intellectual populist time I would argue is figuring out how to teach people how to read ... but also teach them to be uncritical docile consumers at the same time.
Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:
Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.
Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”
You: “I see no difference.”
Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.
The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice.
The push from the Biden Admin for EV's and emission standards is also night and day compared to what a GOP administration would be doing/will do.
They (GOP) said as much, many times.
Past being prologue, on paper Loser-1 has lost $2 billion since last Friday 26March as Trump Media (DJT) stock crashed again on NASDAQ. Dead Grift Bounce! :lol:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/business/trump-media-stock-sinks-post-merger-low/index.html
He most likely cashed in at the expense of his loser supporters.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-truth-social-spac-vote-841820869418c37ad7eed04f2af42854
The problem is complicated by the fact that it is PERCEIVED corruption that triggers populism - and those perceptions can be manipulated through lies.
Their approach to foreign policy also differs greatly. Trump is prone to a tactical approach that is often driven by impulse (e.g. Trump's dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal against the advice of his advisors; imposing tarriffs). Biden's more strategic approach is most apparent in his dealings with China (see this Brookings analysis).
Policies aside, the general approach of the MAGA "movement" is pretty troubling, with its embrace of conspiracy theories, alternative "facts", weaponization of victimhood, disrespect for rule of law, and courting of racists. The sooner this "movement" gets defeated, the better - so that there can be a greater emphasis on policy debate based on an agreed, common set of facts.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/06/politics/trump-judge-daughter-attacks-explainer
So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism, which risks exposing the incestuous relationship between anti-Trump politicians, election opponents, and the prosecution to the court.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-gag-order-expanded-after-attacks-on-new-york-judges-daughter
The judge, his daughter, and the DNC clients who line their pockets, all gain from Trump’s conviction. The likelihood of a fair trial has been tossed in the garbage along with the US constitution. Despite’s Trump’s censorship more and more of this fascism is being exposed.
Gag orders are not uncommon, and are arguably constitutional (see this) - because there is a tension between personal free speech and the right (by both defense and prosecution) to a fair trial. Trump's previous appeal of a gag order was upheld, and it seems like this one would be also. Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence. The political activities of a family member (or of a judge, for that matter) have no bearing on the ability of the judge to be an impartial arbiter.
The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. Besides, prior restraint is forbidden in the United States. If the judge wishes to avoid threats he ought to just recuse himself and quit being corrupt.
Trump will have the opportunity to defend himself at trial, based on evidence. You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what?
Are you a fan of vigilanteism?
Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial?
The judge used prior restraint to censor the defendant in order to shield his daughter from being exposed for being a DNC apparatchik. Meanwhile Stormy Daniels can make documentaries and Michael Cohen can write books, which according to your logic almost certainly leads to threats.
He can, so why doesn't he? Attacking a judge's daughter is not a defense of the crimes charged. At best, it's childish. At worst, it taints the jury pool and could lead to violence.
Free-speech is a right granted by the Constitution, and needs be interpreted in the context of that Constitution. That's the job of the Courts irrespective of the way you'd prefer it be treated.
Daniels and Cohen telling their perspectives through books is hardly the same thing as personal attacks. Trump is equally free to write a book explaining his perspective - that would be a rational way to defend himself.
A restraint on verbal attacks will not hurt his chances at trial. But if the judge does treat Trump unfairly, and this leads to conviction, he will have grounds for appeal. That's the way the system is designed to work- and with Trump's financial resources, he can take full advantage of Constitutional protections to ensure he is treated fairly. Contrast this with poor people who go to trial and can't afford to take every nuance all the way to the Supreme Court.
He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections.
Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. Perhaps worse, the more and more this corruption and the weaponization of the court continues the more threats people will get. People can only observe so much injustice before they start to pop off. So if judge wants to protect people he should stop being unjust and corrupt, because doubling down clearly isn’t helping.
Quoting NOS4A2
A familial connection to a daughter engaged in political campaigning does not entail a judge acting unfairly. What WOULD imply unfairness would be a pattern of questionable, one-sided decisions. Trump may hope that occurs because it will be grounds for overturning a conviction on appeal.
The gag order does not prohibit Trump from attacking the judge, but please explain why it's a good idea to do so. Also explain the negative impact to him for being unable to attack the daughter.
I'll speculate: it's the same pattern he has displayed in elections: "if I lose, it was because of corruption". It plays well to his base (critical thinking isn't their strong suit), in a way that is totally self-serving while also undermining trust in the criminal-justice system. That's one of the real dangers to Trump becoming President again. To his non-fans, his attacks spark outrage - diverting attention from the damning facts.
The questionable decision is the gag order, the violation of a human right, which I’ve already mentioned is using prior restraint, and the refusal to recuse himself. Not only that but the mere appearance of bias, and the fact that the daughter and her clients stand to benefit from a conviction, demands recusal according to state statute. The fact he hasn’t recused himself yet and has refused to do so is judicial misconduct on its face. And it only makes him appear more biased, or ignorant of the law, or both, forever tarnishing the integrity of the justice system.
Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it.
"Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. "
The 2nd part is downright false: the public is already fully aware of the information. But you need to explain how ad hominem attacks on a judge's daughter helps his case. (Legal case? political case?)
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm fine with getting information out in the public, but it's ironic that this case is about Trump working to prevent information about himself from becoming public. Do you agree we're all better off knowing what he did: the affairs and election-interfering coverup?
This case is the weakest of the 3 federal cases, both in terms of Trump's actions and in terms of the strength of the case (apparently it depends on pinning other uncharged, federal crimes on Trump). But it's very interesting to see Trump's reactions, because they confirm his unfitness for office. A President should support the criminal-justice system, not try to undermine it. A reasonable person would simply argue his innocence, and that the facts presented at trial will demonstrate this.
The fallacy you're engaging in is one dimensional comparisons based on the two whole strawmanning my position as having said they are exactly the same.
I didn't say they are exactly the same with exactly the same policies and same actions and so on.
The first straw man is presenting a difference in a single dimension to then draw conclusions about the whole.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats on climate change really is slight in nominal terms, but in substance there is a big difference. Republicans are explicit climate change deniers and explicitly in the pockets of the oil lobby, whereas Democrats are covert climate change deniers and covertly in the pockets of the oil lobby.
The democrats on the issue of climate change are the duplicitous corrupt party rather than overtly corrupt.
It is not actually a foregone conclusion that being undermined is better than being overtly attacked. It could be, but it depends on the circumstances which is the theme of the second and general objection to your thesis.
Secondly, there is obviously many dimensions of comparison, not just one, and better and worse is a wholistic assessment.
Trump does have positives, for example he is at least corrupt for himself and his personal aggrandizing and family members, rather than corrupt in service of delusional and corrupt ideology such as Neo-conservatism. It is entirely possible that had Trump won in 2020 that neither the war in Ukraine would have occurred or this genocide in Gaza, for the simple fact since Trump serves himself no one is sure how he will react to things. Israel knows they have Biden by the balls (precisely because Democrats are supposed to be, if not anti-war then war sceptical, and precisely because the Democrats are covertly corrupted by Aipac rather than overtly corrupted by Aipaic and explitly in service of fanatical evangelical support of Israel, there's no opposition party in this current genocidal campaign). There weren't new major wars during the Trump administration, which is a potential positive of Trump on that single dimension.
Now, we clearly agree that both Trump and Biden are terrible candidates and neither is fit to be the leader of nation, far less a powerful one.
Your second level of straw man in your retort is presenting my position as implying either Trump is better than Biden or then there's no difference and thus no difference in outcomes.
My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better.
When you have two extremely bad candidates it mostly down to external circumstances what the differences in outcomes will be. Just as two equally good leaders (good morally and in political competence) you would be content leading in any situation but one maybe better than the other in the given circumstances, precisely because even if comparable in goodness they are not exactly the same, comparably bad leaders one equally dissatisfied in them leading but one maybe worse than the other due to particular circumstances. In both cases, it is not a trivial task to make out the best of two good leaders or the worst of two bad leaders.
So my main issue with your position is in trivializing the task of comparing Trump to Biden.
There is equally trivial arguments in favour of Trump, for example we can easily imagine political situations (especially when there are tensions between the largest nuclear powers) where simple common sense is required from the leader, and presumed puppeteering of Biden by his "competent team" breaks down or then never really existed, and, the simple inability of Biden to understand what is going on due to cognitive decline results in disaster (for example there's one general with simply an insane plan, or then Biden order something insane all by himself, and the military simply carries it out); whereas Trump in the same situation, as mendacious as he his, is at least able to exercise common sense and understand the basics of what people are saying to him. True, Trump is almost as old, but as I've already explained, physical and mental decline in old age is exponential, so being even slightly ahead in an exponential process can be a large quantitative difference.
Point being, a comparison would need to get pretty deep not only in the intrinsic differences of Trump and Biden but the actual circumstances. We can imagine many situations and processes in which a corrupt and bombastic Trump would bumble and fumble through to a better outcome than a corrupt and demented Biden, and vice-versa, and so we would need to weigh the differences against the likelihood of those situations arising.
Then there's second order differences. For example, one may concede that having a senile geriatric serial plastic surgery patient deciding on important military matters is pretty terrible and it would indeed be better to have a somewhat more lucid Trump in that situation, but then go onto argue that Biden's national security team would be better than Trump and they'd manage things essentially ignoring what Biden says. I would actually argue against this, that Biden's Neo-conservative national security team is completely dedicated to evil and delusions in service to that evil, but it's the kind of second order argument one could make.
For example, a second order argument in terms of climate change is that a overt climate denialist in the White House results in more action on climate change in the rest of the world who are then motivated to "get on with it", and, more importantly, can't hide behind the duplicitous United States pretending to do something about climate change to avoid domestic pressures. "No, no, no, we need the US on board" is a more plausible argument to make (from corrupt European sycophants for example) with a Biden administration than a Trump administration. "Look at Trump! The US isn't going to do anything, we need to just do what we can do and move things forward in the rest of the world" is only a powerful argument when you have Trump in the White House.
As disgusting as it is, Europeans vassals line up to suck Biden's dick, whereas European elites as a whole at least considered the possibility of not being vassals any more. Of course being a vassal is so comforting and they ran back to kiss the ring as soon as it was offered again, but Trump's US focus and bombastic nature does at least encourage more critical thinking in, for lack of a bette word, the "Euro-bitch" class of bureaucratic wankers.
Of course, we can then go onto third order analysis, for example: let's assume all the above, but it turns out that if the US is too weak then all hell will break loose as we're constantly warned, and the only people who can manage the US empire to avoid too much weakness are the Neo-cons and things would just fall apart without them and we'll be plunged into a 1000 years of Chinese communist rule without them. Obviously by my wording I wouldn't buy such an argument, but it is the kind of third order argument that can be made: that something is worse in a way peculiar to circumstances prevents something even worse from happening (a sort of evil equilibrium).
A third order consideration that is more likely is the effect of Trump or Biden on corruption. Where I would focus my efforts (if I have the time) in arguing major points in favour of Trump is in the empirical difference of new wars starting (I am of course aware of the point of view that Trump was a disaster precisely because he didn't start new wars and that the wars of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden are all justified reactions to "bad things" they had nothing to do with starting and everything is now better in all those countries that benefited from liberation, but obviously would argue against that position) along with Trump's impact on corruption: If Trump were to be elected, his primary motivation would be revenge and this could result in purging large sections of corrupt officials while four years would not be enough time to consolidate a new network of corrupt scum. This sort of explosive event could (certainly not guaranteed, but could) lead to a power vacuum in which non-corrupt actors could more easily emerge than in a Biden administration continuing and expanding the grift at all costs.
Quoting Mikie
No difference in corruption of both parties turns out to be 100% accurate and the time to get out of the paradigm of "the other side is worse" and back a third party was indeed 20 years ago. For, even substantial voting for a third party is a disciplinary measure on corruption, and had that been done 20 yeas ago (or much, much sooner) then there would in fact be stark differences now between the parties (or even better proportional representation would have become a thing, which easily solves the problem of corruption by simply enabling parties in the same policy space to be no-cost disciplined for their corruption by simply voting for the other party with essentially the same policies).
You get to this point, where you don't like either choice as you just stated, precisely because of buying into the fear mongering of the other side when the rot is only starting and then getting "locked in" as the quality of candidates (and thus legitimate fear) simply gets worse and worse over the decades (in a legal environment that increasingly legalizes and rewards corruption).
Precisely because people focused on this "there is a difference if you squint hard enough!!" 20 years ago ... and 30 years ago ... and 40 years ago ... and 50 years ago ... people weren't focused on the systemic corrupting of the system in which both parties were completely willing and active partners. The consequences of corruption however are far, far worse than most policy differences (exceptions being pretty rare) and, as important, far harder to reverse. In a non-corrupt system most bad policies that gets enacted this election cycle can just be changed in the next (again, exceptions are pretty rare, most policies are reversible); but corruption is not a simple switch, you don't just pass a law and the system switches from being corrupt to being not-corrupt. Corruption seeps into every nook and cranny of the system, becomes self-reinforcing as corrupt networks dominate anti-corrupt networks and therefore expand both in scope and entrenchment and will fight (with very corrupt means) to defend and expand their power (therefor the "friction", to use soulless economic language, faced going backwards is enormous and increases, essentially exponentially); whereas in a non-corrupt system the only friction to changing bad policies is making the case and voting (I am only considering democracies here).
Point being, extremely unusual circumstances are required to reward corruption in your own party. True, disciplining corruption will result in different policy, but if it is indeed bad policy as you believe or then an equally or more corrupt candidate, then that eases the work of returning to power (you'll then have empirical evidence for your beliefs). Rewarding corruption on the other hand is likely to just make a mess of your preferred policies and given this advantage to your opposition.
No— I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and how one administration is clearly better than the other. It happens to be an excellent example, given the stakes of climate change.
Quoting boethius
Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple.
But I always love being lectured about “fallacies” in a plodding, undergraduate-level way. My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here.
It should take any human being older than 7 about 10 minutes to determine who the worst candidate is. That you’re struggling with it isn’t my business. I’ll ignore the rest of your diatribe.
:100: :up:
You're response to my objection that you are taking one example and drawing a wholistic conclusion, is "I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and one administration is clearly better than the other!!"
The current administration is literally completely engaged in financing, supporting, helping to execute and then just gaslighting everyone about a literal genocide and you're bold enough to say one administration is "clearly better than the other" based on a single naive example.
Not only do you fail to even attempt to argue that the corrupt, bad-faith, covertly in service of the oil industry and mendacious duplicity of the Biden administration on climate change is superior to an overtly climate denialist position of the Trump administration, but climate change is not the only high stakes issue.
In terms of how things "legally are supposed to work" Biden could launch nuclear weapons in a complete delusional fantasy reliving the Cuban missile crisis. That's also a high stakes issue that requires some consideration. Either you'd need to argue that statistically 86 year olds (the age Biden will be at the end of his administration) should not be questioned in their mental competence as such nor with the overwhelming evidence of Biden really actually entering geriatric dementia, or then you'd have to argue that "his team" are super competent and are only pretending (i.e. gaslighting everyone) Biden is competent to be president and make nuclear use decisions insofar as it seems necessary to defeat the orange man, but if that situation actually arose then they'd stop pretending and take power away from Biden and send him to the ol' folks home (and that there would always be time to do that, even if one general is pushing for nuclear use and would execute on an order from the president, arresting anyone who disagrees as is his legal duty to do, as generals are not in charge of evaluating the president mental competence but a bunch of other political people which it's not the place of generals to second guess).
Quoting Mikie
Again, there's literally a genocide and your position is: Don't pay attention to that and even question if genocide should be rewarded at the ballot box!! Climate change!! Climate change!! Pay attention to that ... but not so close attention that you wonder if the covert climate change and service to the oil lobby of the democrats is actually worse than an overt climate change denial and service to the oil lobby of the Republicans (that being undermined can be worse than being attacked, and so therefore it is not "perfectly clear").
Climate change is an existential risk. So that example is particularly relevant. But there are multiple others— that was one, yes. I’m not basing my entire judgement on that one example, though. (Some might argue that’s a kind of “fallacy” on your part.)
True, I don’t like Biden’s foreign policy either. I see no reason to believe Trump will be better about that.
If you want to twist yourself into a pretzel to continue believing that both are basically the same, or there’s no reason to believe one is “better” than the other, then you go right ahead. But you really aren’t paying attention in that case.
Quoting boethius
The democrats have been better on this, beyond question and on every metric. The IRA alone is point enough. I’ll gladly get into the details if you’d like. But ask yourself what Trump would do — actually, we don’t have to imagine. We know what he did while in office: took us back 10 years. Appointed an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA and withdrew from the Paris Accords.
Also, there are two choices. It’s Trump or Biden. No one likes that, but that’s the reality. Given those choices, there’s no point pretending it’s a hard decision.
Yes, supporting genocide is sickening. So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them.
With Trump you get all of the above. With Biden, you get one: now-wavering support for Israel. Trump would not be the least pressured by or concerned with anti-genocide protests.
It’s not the same, it’s not equal, it’s not hard to see which is worse. The choice is not difficult.
One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect, like the undermining of the justice system, or the proliferation of threats against public servants, all because he makes comments on social media. There is no evidence for it.
It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored.
But it’s also the cause of the backlash in the first place. No one, especially Trump, is ordering people to threaten the court or to lose faith in the justice system. The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. When people see that the judge’s daughter is a big-time consultant for the Biden/Harris campaign and Adam Schiff, they think that’s ridiculous and unjust. Why, of all judges, is it this one? Is there no judge without kids who work for Biden/Harris campaign? Is there no judge who has not assumed Trump’s guilt in earlier cases? This is why even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate.
You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:
Quoting Relativist
Quoting NOS4A2
And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.
There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".
Here's an article about some acts carried out by Trumpists:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889
Quoting NOS4A2
Being a Democrat appears to anti-Democrat bigots as a conflict of interest. No evidence of personal gain has been identified. Loren Merchan works for a firm that does digital campaigning and online fundraising. Those activities will continue irrespective of the outcome of the case.
Quoting NOS4A2
I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?
You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.
If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. If there is no punishment for their malfeasance I would hope people let them know how they feel.
He’s done nothing wrong. The alleged crimes are made up out of thin air, and used as they are to influence the election in Biden’s favor. Have you explored the evidence that attests to this?
Standing down isn’t a in any way nefarious, I’m afraid. Invoking his name during a criminal act is no evidence that his rhetoric leads to criminal acts.
His rights were violated on the basis of prior restraint. I’ve mentioned this a few times now.
And you’re a censor, so it’s no wonder you’ll defend censorship. But it isn’t just my judgement. It’s also the judgement of the Supreme Court. Censorship on the basis of prior restraint is the most pernicious of all forms of censorship.
I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. I’m not cherry picking any cases here. I’m saying it of all of them. But typical of anti-Trumpism is the misrepresentation of an opponents views in a base effort of propaganda.
What I said is that free speech is a constitutional right that must be interpreted in the context of the Constitution, and that the courts have the authority and responsibility to interpret it. Gag orders are indeed prior restraint, but courts have upheld them for the purpose of ensuring the constitutional right to a fair trial. Such orders seem a very limited constraint-the speech limitation is narrow and persists only for the life of a trial. I don't always agree with SCOTUS decisions (e.g. Dobbs), but I defer to them by default unless I encounter compelling arguments they're wrong. You've given none other than proclaiming unlimited free speech is a "human right".
Is there a situation where a gag order prohibits voicing something in the public interest or that is grossly unfair? Conceivably yes, but the constraint on Trump is a poor example of it. He's not harmed (as you noted- it's politically helpful to him to claim martyrdom), and there are no facts being withheld from the public. So again, your complaint seems based solely on free-speech absolutism as a "human right". Labelling me a "censor" for not agreeing with you seems ad hominem- not a rational case.
Quoting NOS4A2
My bad, I jumped to the conclusion that you were parrotting GOP talking points. Sorry.
I acknowledge there's evidence Bragg was politically motivated to charge Trump. However that doesn't imply it's a false accusation, or even that it's unfair: Cohen went to prison but his co-conspirator didn't even get charged until Bragg indicted him.
Bragg's possible political motivation doesn't have any bearing on the federal charges brought by Smith. Rather, those charges are of the utmost seriousness and reflect on Trump's fitness for office. It's a pity if those cases are delayed until after the election; the public does have a right to know if the GOP candidate is a criminal.
Being a conservative, to an anti-conservative, is tantamount to being a literal Nazi.
Its a big carousel of stupid.
What's not the like? The problem isn't a gag-order, the problem is Trump and his voter base who like to pretend it's about corruption when it's about the above. Just a ball of a lot of hate courtesy of decades of neoliberalism.
Careful so you don't step on someone's free speech by labeling them as something they say they definitely aren't while some apologist calls you out for calling them stupid racists rather than trying to bridge the societal gaps by giving them the intellectual respect they themselves demand to deserve.
The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint. So in this case the idea that gag-orders insure a fair trial is false. Yes he was harmed; his rights were violated by the same institution that is tasked with protecting them.
You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. That’s all you’ve offered. The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust. You yourself argued prior restraint, echoing the court, as far as I can tell not applying a single thought of your own.
If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship, there are thousands of years of argument and history you can peruse if you’re interested, but I call you a censor because you defend censorship, not because I disagree with you.
I'm sure there are such people, but I haven't noticed Democratic leaders promoting that sort of thing. On the other hand:
Trump ha promoted the message "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" (see this)
Trump's 2020 campaign sent a faux [url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/05/trump-campaign-suggests-democrats-are-not-americans/?sh=645c3bf46486]survey to supporters asking if they were "American or democrat?"
Trump has called Democrats "treasonous" for failing to applaud his SOTU.
He's called Democrats "fascists" and he's called them "vermin".
Quoting NOS4A2
"Guide my reasoning"? It's perfectly rational to rely on authorities, as long as one doesn't treat them as infallible and remains open to revising one's view when there are compelling reasons to do so. A Trumpist dogmatically stating their opinion isn't compelling.
Quoting NOS4A2Re-read that post and you'll see that I'm open to argument and evidence. You seem upset that I don't simply embrace your dogmatic statement.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't think censorship is preferable to free speech, but it's a leap to call the gag order "censorship". As I mentioned, there are no withheld facts, the gag order is narrow, and the constraint is temporary, and it has not caused Trump harm. You've provided no facts or reasoning to support your contention, and have ignored what I said about the Constitution. Dogmatism is not persuasive.
It's a leap to call a court-imposed restriction on what someone can say at the penalty of fine or jail censorship?
The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is the right of the defendant, not the judge and his daughter. The gag orders here, as in Chutkin's court, is to protect people from supposed threats, not to protect their's or anyone else's right to a fair trial. That's my legal contention.
My moral contention is that it is wrong to censor someone on specious grounds, such as prior restraint, the assumption that his speaking will lead to this or that ill effect in the future. They do not know the future. They do not know what will happen. They cannot connect Trump's speech to any of the threats, nor do they know the motives of anyone who threatens them, and until they find someone who confesses that Trump's words forced him against his will to threaten someone, the conspiracy theory is absurd.
I'm not so sure you're right here.
"The president is sort of like [Joseph] Goebbels."
'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black' - Biden
I think that's worse than calling someone a Nazi for no good reason.
"Trump is compared to Hitler because he demonizes immigrants and refugees, denies science and facts, and promotes hate and division." - Ocasio-Cortez,
"The President is an open racist, a bigot, and has repeatedly showed strong shades of Hitler in his policies and actions." - Omar
"Trump's authoritarian tendencies and attacks on minorities are reminiscent of Hitler's tactics." - Sanders
"Americans elected an authoritarian, anti-immigrant, racist strongman to the nation's highest office... Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again followers are older, less educated, less prosperous, and more white than the population at large."
“Americans, particularly black Americans, can’t afford to make that same mistake about the harm that could be done by a man named Hitler or a man named Trump,” - both Hank Johnson.
"Trump is a dictator in the making, following in Hitler's footsteps with his racist and xenophobic policies." - Tlaib
"What he has done and what he is doing goes to the Joseph Goebbels playbook. The big lie. You say the lie over and over and over, again and again, and it becomes the truth." - Cohen
You can think these are reasonable opinions for a lay person, but they are clearly inappropriate for elected officials. But, defense of them abounds.
I recommend reading the DC Appellate Court ruling that upheld Chutkin's gag order. It provides important context that is applicable to all the gag orders imposed on Trump.
For example:
[i]
"after indictment, criminal defendants are frequently subjected to “substantial liberty restrictions as a result of the operation of our criminal justice system.” More specifically, as a less restrictive alternative to pre-trial detention, Congress granted courts the authority to release indicted defendants under the “least restrictive * * * condition, or combination of conditions [of release], that * * * will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Such conditions commonly include measures that burden criminal defendants’ ability to act, associate, and speak...
...like any other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump does not have an unlimited right to speak. “Although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated to other interests that arise in [the trial] setting.
...The record before the district court and its factual findings demonstrate that some of Mr. Trump’s speech poses a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the criminal proceeding against him...
...The record also shows that former President Trump’s words have real-world consequences. Many of those on the receiving end of his attacks pertaining to the 2020 election have been subjected to a torrent of threats and intimidation from his supporters...
...The former President has repeatedly attacked both the presiding judge and his law clerk in a New York state-law lawsuit. Since those attacks, the judge’s chambers have been “inundated with hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, and packages.” New York v. Trump, No. 452564/2022, NYSCEF No. 1631 at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 3, 2023). In addition to threatening death or serious harm, callers have labeled the judge and clerk “Nazi[ s],” “dirty Jews,” and child molesters...
...Mr. Trump himself recognizes the power of his words and their effect on his audience, agreeing that his supporters “listen to [him] like no one else.”...
...Mr. Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case in two respects
Mr. Trump’s right to a fair trial does not give him “the right to insist upon the opposite of that right”—that is, a trial prejudiced in his favor. See Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965)...”[/i]
The issues they are supporting the claims with are just mild, uninteresting conservative principles stated as if bigoted. That is, in fact, the same play. 'deplorables' also comes to mind. Nothing they've said is honest, it is massaging statements under assumptions about underlying beliefs. It's the same play.
The other thing to keep in mind is that largely these comments are actually about hte administration, and by extension its adherents. This is the way we pretend is reasonable to look at ridiculous shit Conservatives say too, It seems to me.
Biden said Trump was "sort of like [Joseph] Goebbels".
Goebbels was Nazi Germany's chief propogandist, who spewed disinformation. Trumps pews a great deal of disinformation.
Seems an apt comparison.
You mentioned Hillary saying "half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic". The "half" was an exaggeration (which Hillary regretted the next day) but it's accurate that Trump attracts those sort of people.
You mentioned AOC saying, ""Trump is compared to Hitler because he demonizes immigrants and refugees, denies science and facts, and promotes hate and division."
Again, that sounds accurate (Immigrants are "destroying the blood of our country. That's what they're doing. They're destroying our country" )
Omar: "The President is an open racist, a bigot, and has repeatedly showed strong shades of Hitler in his policies and actions."
Trump's degrading comments about immigrants sure sound racist, and his Muslim ban sure seemed bigoted. But even if he's not truly racist in his heart, these words and policies clearly appeal to those who are- so it's worthwhile drawing attention to them and discussing.
Sanders:"Trump's authoritarian tendencies and attacks on minorities are reminiscent of Hitler's tactics."
Is he wrong?
"Trump is a dictator in the making, following in Hitler's footsteps with his racist and xenophobic policies." - Tlaib
A bit over the top, but his immigration talk certainly sounds racist and xenophobic (He has
[Url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/07/us/politics/trump-immigrants-nice-countries.html] lamented[/url] that people were not immigrating to the United States from “nice” countries “like Denmark”).
Cohen: "What he has done and what he is doing goes to the Joseph Goebbels playbook. The big lie. You say the lie over and over and over, again and again, and it becomes the truth."
100% accurate. About 70% of Republicans believe the "stolen election" lie, and that he was completely exonerated in the Muelller probe.
So what's your take on these?
The fallacy is taking one dimension of evaluation and claiming it's conclusive.
My pointing that out is not a fallacy, it's basic reasoning.
Yes, climate change is important, but so too is genocide and war, including nuclear war.
You are welcome to make the argument that Biden's complicity in genocide is a "no biggy" or even a positive. You are welcome to make the argument that advancing geriatric dementia in the president isn't a war risk, murder, genocide and nuclear risk (for example you could argue that the generals don't have dementia and they'll just do what they want and that's ok as there's no actual reason for civilian oversight of the military in making key decisions; i.e. that you're fine, and it should be fine for everyone, that a Biden presidency means a de facto military dictatorship in any military sphere and your votes mean nothing on these issues).
What I'm pointing out is you haven't make any such argument, you've just blurted "Mahhhh! Climate Change!!" which isn't an argument. You could make a nuanced argument that, while we both agree Biden is a terrible candidate who shouldn't be president, he's not as bad as Trump; that the risks of a Biden dementia driven incompetent administration are lower risks that a megalomania driven incompetency of a Trump administration.
Quoting Mikie
Simply stating that Trump is worse on all issues of concern isn't an argument.
Trump is not a neocon, which is a bid positive on the pointless evil war issue.
Just brushing aside genocide is pretty bold.
Strawman.
I never did that. I gave ONE example that demonstrates ONE way in which there are significant differences and in which one administration is clearly better — which was in response to your difficulty determining such.
Quoting boethius
Strawman. I never once said that. Stop making things up.
Quoting boethius
Strawman.
(But who are you talking about, Trump or Biden? Both are geriatric. Claiming only Biden is off his rocker is swallowing right wing propaganda wholesale. Not a surprise.)
Quoting boethius
One has done the most of any president for climate change; one says it’s a hoax. That to you amounts to “Mahh climate change!”? Are you just a child?
Quoting boethius
I do so, and more than happy to get into the weeds about each one:
Quoting Mikie
Your response:
Quoting boethius
So pointing out that Biden is far better on climate change “isn’t an argument.” Pointing out numerous other ways Trump is worse also “isn’t an argument.” So cool: you don’t know what an argument is.
As an aside: I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with.
Remember how this started. I’ll remind you, since you’ve clearly forgotten:
Quoting boethius
So my point stands: you just haven’t paid attention. A Biden administration is better and will be better than a Trump administration, on nearly every metric.
What there’s no basis for is the belief that Trump will do any better on Israel. There’s some reason to think he’d be “better” on Ukraine, in that he’ll let Putin do whatever he wants (and will thus end the war), but he’s such a geriatric dementia patient it’s impossible to predict. Even so, it doesn’t negate every other way in which he’s simply awful — and which you want to ignore. So you’re not just ignorant, but willfully so. (But let me guess: that’s “not an argument.”)
It’s not a hard choice.
That's exactly what your argument is, that Biden is better on climate change.
Your claim of "significantly better" is ludicrous as you yourself state that fossil production is at record highs under Biden, so really by "significant difference" you mean zero practical difference but some difference in rhetoric, which you claim is important.
When I pointed out that climate change is only one dimension of evaluation you then respond to that just repeating your point about climate change.
Not only have you presented no reason to believe Biden's duplicitous rhetoric, i.e. corrupts utterings in service of the oil lobby, is any better than Trump's overt utterings in service of the oil lobby in terms of consequence, you just ignore the other subjects such as Biden's complicity in a literal genocide.
Which, maybe take a step back to appreciate the irony and just how bad faith people of your ilk are, for I remember very clearly the parallels Democrats would make between Trump and Hitler and every possible pretext used to accuse Trump of essentially being Hitler and his followers brown shirts (and if not explicitly Hitler then as close as possible to that message).
Then, your guy, backs, finances, arms, helps coordinate, carries water for and covers with gaslights, encourages to "keep doing what they're doing", in participating in a literal genocide and it's "nothing to see here".
Truly amazing.
Quoting Mikie
Pointing out you can argue the genocide issue in Biden's favour is not a straw man, it's pointing out what you would need to do to support your conclusion.
It's you who claims not only is Biden better than Trump but this is somehow trivially obvious.
You provide one dimension of analysis, don't even argue that, then dismiss all the other dimensions of analysis in just stating Biden is better on everything.
Last I checked, Trump doesn't have a literal genocide under his belt, so you're obviously wrong.
You'd need to show how it's trivially obvious Biden's helping carry out a genocide is somehow trivially irrelevant, to support your position that it's trivially easy (aka. obvious) to conclude Biden is better than Trump.
Otherwise, genocide is a pretty serious thing and it's not trivially obvious why you'd reward genocide at the ballot box.
Quoting Mikie
I've made what's called an actual argument on this point, that old age physical and mental decline is an exponential process and so the difference in age between Trump and Biden is quite significant.
Based on the risk of death representing general health, Biden is basically 2x less healthy and more advanced in mental and physical decline than Trump. A factor of two is significant.
It's also clear from just looking and listening to Biden and Trump ("paying attention" which you admonish us to do) that Biden is not only old but literally entering geriatric dementia and it's getting worse all the time, whereas Trump has not (he still "has it together" in his peculiar Trump way).
Quoting Mikie
"Done the most" in terms of reducing emissions or just in that "rhetoric" you've been talking about and meaningless policy that has zero effect on emissions?
Just like the issue of old age, climate change requires math to understand.
The actions required to actually avoid terrible climactic disruptions are significant; measured in multiples of WWII scale global effort.
The Democrats "business as usual but we'll throw you a few bones" is absolutely meaningless in outcome, exactly the same as just assuming climate change is a hoax. Which can be seen when plotting COP meetings against emissions; there is zero effect of COP meetings on emissions, doesn't matter who's in the Whitehouse, what gets discussed or agreed, the emissions keep rising.
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans on climate change is that with Democrats will appease a bit the anxiety with "rhetoric" while pursuing the exact same policies of bending the knee to the oil lobby.
There really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on this particular issue; where there's big differences is in things like starting or enabling more wars, in which Trump is simply empirically better. Trump simply doesn't have a war boner like Biden and the neocons do, and that's simply a factually better thing about him.
Quoting Mikie
Well then go ahead.
You haven't even dealt with Biden's corruption and service to the oil lobby being more harmful to the environmental movement than someone overtly hostile to it. Sabotage from within (such as a corrupt leader in power) can be far more damaging than facing someone overtly hostile in power. Sometimes time in opposition is essential for building movements (precisely because it allows for purging corrupt elements and building good faith positions that can attract new partisans, rather than covering for some corrupt senile idiot which deflates even existing partisans).
And that's only one issue, which plays out over the long term so there's really very little difference (almost exactly zero difference in terms of actual emissions) between Trump and Biden, whereas other issues are acute, such as committing genocide or starting a nuclear war (you either do or you don't during your time in power, and Biden is already 1 for 2).
Quoting Mikie
It is not an argument that supports your position that Biden is obviously better than Trump, and even that argument is unsupported as you simply ignore criticism (that backing a corrupt leader is worse than time in opposition for a movement in the long term; that being undermined from within is sometimes worse than being overtly attacked).
Your other "pointing out" are not arguments at all, you just make claims without any reasoning or justifications.
You simply assert that Trump would be even more genocidal than Biden, but what's the argument? Why would we believe that? Biden "wavering" after 6 months of intensely supporting genocide and helping to carry it out being a positive for Biden, really needs some intense justification to believe.
Trump has made anti-war part of his brand, such as claiming he could get a deal worked out over Ukraine in a single day.
He'd also be under intense opposition and protest from Democrats. Democrats would be losing their shit if Trump was backing Israel committing a genocide, Israel soldiers literally parading around draped in woman's bras as war trophies (and you have the courage to claim Biden is "pro woman").
Trump was already elected president once and it wasn't a world ending event (as many advertised), whereas a senile demented corrupt idiot could actually start a nuclear war with much higher probability.
Then there's the fact when one's own side becomes too corrupt, it is far healthier for the movement to punish that corruption and then spend time in opposition rebuilding than to continue the corruption. If the other side is equally corrupt, that is actually a good thing in this situation as it makes it easier to consolidate, clean house, and then return to power with some less corrupt people and better ideas.
The democrat position is basically: reward us for our corruption because there's slightly more corruption on the other side.
The theory is complete nonsense. Trump making people aware of someone's name through criticism or otherwise does not cause threats. The worst it could ever do is inform others, and that's where his culpability ends.
Their entire theory is premised on the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. At no time do they consider the millions of people who do not threaten anyone, but will violate their rights in order to stop the few people (if any) who do.
The threats, if there really are any, are strictly caused by the motives of the threatener. We don't even know who they are, and the court never mentions who they are. It is only assumed they are Trump supporters, based on the scantest of evidence, but that's it. The recipients could be lying, like Jussie Smollett. Those issuing threats could be operatives pretending to be Trump supporters, doing so to influence the trial. They could be foreign actors. They could be kids goofing off.
Either way, the very high burden of proof for a prior restraint gag order has not been met.
I'm not sure what it means to be "strictly caused", but there's a clear, predictable connection between Trump's verbal attacks on named individuals and threats by Trump supporters to that individual. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think Trump is unaware? For that matter, it wouldn't even matter if Trump were too stupid to see this - the effect is obvious.
This comment is pertinent:
Quoting NOS4A2
So... it seems you feel they deserve to be threatened, irrespective of its impact on the administration of justice. So I don't take your legal analysis seriously - you grope for all available rationalizations.
No. My argument (so glad to know I have an argument now) is that given two choices, Biden is clearly better. Climate change is one example, and a good one.
Do we have to go over what “example” means, or do we need to incorporate “argument” and “fallacy” first? Maybe first principles…
Quoting boethius
No, I mean significant. In comparison to Trump — who, again, believes it’s a hoax.
That you don’t know the impact of the IRA or EPA policy isn’t my fault. Your ignorance on this matter is indicative of the general struggle to determine who’s “better.” So again, my point is proven: you’re just not paying attention. I’ll be happy to go over the details— but I won’t hold my breath. I’m sure you’ll go on pretending that you’re an expert instead.
Quoting boethius
You know, there’s an easy way to see what happened: go back and read.
I didn’t respond by repeating the point about climate change, I responding by explaining that climate change is ONE EXAMPLE.
“One dimension.” Laughable. It’s called an example. But please keep trying to intellectualize something a child can understand.
Quoting boethius
No— this is your fabrication. I quoted what both men have said about climate change, which is evidence enough — but beyond that, mentioned the IRA of Biden and Trump policies and actions, including appointing an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA, as further evidence beyond simple rhetoric.
That you don’t remember any of this is your problem, not mine. Your delusions of “What happened” are pathetic, when there’s a clear record of it. Just scroll up.
Quoting boethius
Which is why I’ve been condemning Biden and US policy both in Ukraine and Israel for years…also easy to look up.
God you’re delusional. (“My guy.” Lol.)
Quoting boethius
No: I provide one example (and then many others), gave evidence, and have acknowledged your apparently one-track issue (war) many times, both here and for years on this forum.
But keep living in a fantasy if you want to. Pure strawmen — that’s all you’ve got so far, because you’re too childish to slow down and read carefully enough to comprehend what’s being written to you.
Sorry, but your self-serving narrative is blinding you from the reality.
The reality is this:
1) You made a ridiculous statement about there being “no basis” to determine whether Trump or Biden will be “better.”
2) I give one example where the differences both in ideology, rhetoric, and policy are stark.
3) You blather on about how that is “one dimensional analysis,” a “fallacy,” and “not an argument.”
4) Then you make up a bunch of bullshit out of thin air, creating strawman after strawman. Since that’s all you’re apparently intellectually capable of engaging with, I don’t blame you.
I’ll ignore the rest of your unlettered response. I’m sure it’s more of the same. Since you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent anyway, I don’t really need to be involved. The record is quite clear.
Trump versus Biden isn’t a hard choice.
That doesn’t mean Biden is “my guy,” it doesn’t mean his policies have been great, it doesn’t mean his foreign policy should be ignored, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be criticized, it doesn’t mean he’s a good man, etc. It means exactly what I said in response to your ridiculous statement: given 2 choices, one is clearly worse than the other and we should vote against the worse one.
Very simple. Yes, I know you struggle with it— I’m clear. It’s clear you don’t find it simple or easy. But as I’ve said several times, the reason for this is that you’re not paying attention; you’re ignorant. That’s understandable when you’re focused almost exclusively on foreign policy — if I were in your shoes, perhaps I’d be confused to. But even on that point, there’s no good reason to believe a demented, megalomaniacal degenerate will do any better on foreign policy.
I do deny it. The ability to criticize is a precious right. Criticism does not constitute a threat, plain and simple, but that’s how they and you are trying to portray it. And again, there is little to no evidence these threats even occurred, that they were from Trump supporters, that they are the result of Trump’s criticisms.
You've have provided an argument on climate change.
A bad argument, but at least an argument with some supporting evidence.
Simply stating Biden is better than Trump on all issues, is not an argument, it is a claim without justification.
It's also clearly false, on the issue of being a geriatric person susceptible to dementia and having hallucinations (such as Mitterrand is still the leader of France), Biden is clearly worse than Trump as he is older. So on the simple issue of age, Biden is quantitatively a worse candidate than Trump.
Quoting Mikie
This is your position, that the "choice is not difficult".
You provide zero argument to support not only is Biden the right choice but that it's an easy choice to make.
You accept Biden is committing a genocide but somehow it's easy and trivial to know Biden is the best choice. Maybe step back and listen to yourself.
If you don't like genocide, it should be at minimum pretty fucking difficult to vote for someone who has committed a genocide.
And Biden and Trump are not the only two choices available, you can refuse to reward Biden for genocide while not voting for Trump. Yes, obviously Trump is then more likely to win, but making the point that genocide is not acceptable can be pretty easily argued is more important than ensuring Trump is not reelected. You say Trump would also commit the genocide even harder; not only is that far from established but the option is available to demonstrate distaste for genocide by voting for neither Trump or Biden.
It's only through voting for a third party that corruption will be held accountable. Republicans and Democrats are clearly equally contented with having the other as a foil while they make bank.
Quoting Mikie
You simply ignore the part where Biden and the democrats are not doing anything of significance on climate change, and their corrupt duplicitous apathy and service to the oil lobby behind the scenes significantly weakens the movement.
Nothing of importance on climate change will be decided in the next 4 years, so if this really is your only major issue of consideration, it's clearly not a given that continuing to back and reward a corrupt leader with power is better than having a clear opponent in power.
You simply ignore the fact that being in opposition can bring very essential discipline to a political movement. The "good ideas" but indefinite corruption is not a good long term strategy, at some point the corruption is as bad as just straight up bad ideas such as calling climate change a hoax.
Quoting Mikie
You've argued Biden is better than Trump on climate change.
You have not provided any actual argument that Biden is overall better than Trump.
You've simply stated your claim and then you have an example.
Now, if that was all you were doing, dropping your opinion and providing one example, ok that's fine.
Where I take issue is your claim that it's not simply your opinion that Biden is better than Trump, but that it's obvious. "Not difficult choice" to use your words.
Something obvious should be incredibly easy to argue.
Now, if Biden wasn't a corrupt geriatric mental patient that has a disturbing history of touching children and committing genocide, and a good candidate with all their marbles and a lack of corruption scandals and genocide, then it would indeed be pretty obvious that Biden is better than Trump.
But that's not the case here, Biden is a terrible candidate (even you agree to that) so the choice is obviously not easy. Maybe Trump is better on some key issues like nuclear war. Someone with dementia could really start a nuclear war in a situation where Trump, as erratic and bombastic as he is, wouldn't even consider it as an option.
Then there are longer term strategic considerations. If Trump wins the Democratic Party may have opportunity to rebuild and find better leaders than Biden, that could have a really big impact longer term than sticking to a decrepit leader now.
I know this is difficult to process for you, but your simply repeating that the "choice is easy" doesn't make is so. Global situation is complicated, politics is complicated, it's not a binary choice, the difference between two terrible candidates is not obvious (just like the difference between too good candidates isn't obvious).
Quoting Mikie
Biden is clearly "your guy" here that you're arguing is the obvious choice.
Doesn't matter that you've been condemning Biden all these years, he's clearly "your guy" come election time. He so you're guy you don't even consider third options to express your "condemnation" of him.
You do see the basic problem here? That you're not only advocating voting for someone you condemn but that you additionally claim that's an easy choice.
Quoting Mikie
Well I seem to have missed where you navigate even that one issue of war, much less all the issues in some cohesive argument.
Feel free to just cite it if you've done the work already.
My criticism here is that you haven't done that work, you've just stated your opinion with one example. Which is not an argument. You can argue your example is true (obviously even a single example could be false), but that doesn't then transform your mere claim of an opinion into an argument.
If I claim one company is better than their competitor in literally every product, obviously just focusing on one product doesn't create a sound argument. If the companies have a lot of products then obviously it will be a lot of work to actually argue one company is superior in literally everything, it's of course easier to just focus on one example you feel there is genuine superiority and then continuously repeat the claim that there superiority in everything and that's obvious.
It's called propaganda.
Now if you're not consciously propagandizing but are just really, really dim enough to be enable to see the light of obviously valid criticism, then maybe sit down and actually think things through.
True, Trump will go after "your guy" but Trump going after corruption in the democrats would be actually really good for the democrats long term, rather than continuing to be wedded to the corruption.
Of course there are short term negative consequences of Trump, as he's a terrible candidate for president, but so too are there negative consequences of Biden, as he too is a terrible candidate. It's 4 years, (outside nuclear war, which seems to me Biden is far more likely to start) there's only so much damage Trump can do, and cleaning house and finding actual leaders of merit would be of immense longer term value to the left.
Furthermore, you seem to agree that Biden and the neocons have terrible policies in Ukraine, likely to just keep starting more wars (as that's their main thing), whereas, empirically, it is reasonable to assert that Trump doesn't start more wars. It's also Trump's nature to stabilize the US government's appetite for more war because no one is quite sure what Trump will do in a big war (generals who want a war can "count on Biden" and the neocons but they can't necessarily count on Trump in the same way). 4 more years of Biden and the neocons starting more wars could have pretty disastrous and long term consequences.
So, if you're a good faith actor, go think about these things and seriously evaluate your claim that the decision is easy.
The situation is difficult and complicated and good strategy is not easy and obvious, and it is simply false to claim there are only two choices (but even if there were only 2 choices, there are some good points for Trump; the argument that Biden should be rewarded for genocide because Trump would also commit the genocide, just harder, is pretty weak; I'd actually argue Israel is going hard now precisely because they fear they wouldn't own a Trump presidency, he might win and may discipline Israel simply because it would be popular to stop seeing so many dead children and parading war trophies, or then make it clear the US wouldn't join a bigger war and Israel would be on their own).
So you’re just in imbecile? Got it. My bad for engaging. Have fun with your straw men. Bye.
How does voting for a 3rd party (that has zero chance of winning) hold either the winner or loser accountable? Ross Perot received a whopping 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Walk me through how Clinton and/or Bush were held accountable (and for what)?
Sorry, that’s “not an argument.” :rofl: Too bad for you!
Criminal defendants forfeit some of their liberties, as noted in the Appellate court ruling:
"[I]after indictment, criminal defendants are frequently subjected to 'substantial liberty restrictions as a result of the operation of our criminal justice system[/i].'"
Quoting NOS4A2
The Special Counsel's filing on that appeal listed a number of instances in which these have occurred (see pages 3-7). Trump's attorneys did not dispute these allegations.
LOL. It's like he's writing a Monty Python sketch.
Speaking of imbeciles. :lol:
Edit: sorry, that was mean. I’ll just put you on the ignore list— have fun with your future Tweets. Bye!
For the other trumpstains on this thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573
John Cleese once explained that when he started in comedy his of the world was that it was mostly sane and if we just made fun of the small part that insane it would get smaller and eventually go away, but then he started to realize that the world was mostly insane and there was a small island of sanity that was always getting smaller. A true prophet.
But this little recent exchange is a good example of where my mission to develop strategies to deal with bad faith actors comes from. It's difficult enough to advance a debate constructively between legitimately good faith interlocutors, so when bad faith propagandists run amok it's a just a total disaster.
That’s not an argument.
But that’s exactly what they did. The J6 protest was Biden Inc’s Reichstag fire. Remember that Nazis claimed the fire was a plot to topple the government, and used the lie to crush their opponents.
That was Joe in the moose hat? By Jove!
Moose hat? No, he was the guy claiming it was an insurrection. In fact, I think he might be the first guy to use the term, and everyone else just followed.
Moose, no? Perhaps you're talking bull then? I fancy him an asshat. But I am too kind. :halo:
Yeah, you need to learn the difference between horns and antlers.
Ah yes, of course! Many thanks, Professor Furaytoo!
Meanwhile, the twenty year long conspiracy to pervert the course of British justice that is the Post Office False Prosecutions Scandal remains without a single arrest of an official or the payment of any compensation. (This in case the US government and its fans feel lonely in their corruption.)
It was pretty darn clever of Joe to get T to call for a protest on that day and send them to the Capitol with people he knew were armed.
The genius of the plot unfurls further when one considers how Joe infiltrated the circle of associations between willing participants in overturning the vote count that day. Fusing the efforts of The Proud Boys with the Electoral Vote Plot while operating as a Democrat is a dazzling display of Bad Boy politics that Roy Cohn would have saluted if he understood it.
No word from the spinning grave as yet.
Clever? It’s authoritarian. He used the insurrection lie as a pretext to weaponize the DOJ against his political opponent, jail those who protested his presidency, and to paint those he doesn’t like as extremists.
That narrative would have some teeth if the evidence to the contrary was not so obvious to all who observed the incidents as they happened in real time.
Your story will have to explain how that was engineered.
What evidence to the contrary?
Contrary to what?
“That narrative”.
It is your narrative. Are you asking me to explain your theory to you?
You said the evidence to the contrary was obvious. What evidence to the contrary?
The confluence of efforts to change the electoral votes combined with the support given on the day by T and afterwards, in the form of referring to the participants as hostages, and what not.
None of that is contrary to what I said.
Not even the part where Biden engineered the whole event?
You’re imaging things, friend.
I accept your withdrawal from your thesis.
I never said what you claim I did. I kindly withdraw.
But you claimed that the apparent attempt by T to overturn the election results was a plot perpetrated by Biden. Those are your words. Are your words only something that are claimed afterwards?
Those are your words.
So, you have none?
This is too weird, even for me.
Lame response, considering what you have claimed.
Either quote the words, so NOS can respond to them or continue talking past each other :)
What is wrong with assuming the previous statements have been read and understood? Did I leave something out?
It's hard for people to squirm away from quotes. I've had to eat em a few times :)
At any rate it’s another non-crime. It’s so hard to make sense of any wrong-doing on the part of Trump, while the anti-Trump weaponization of the justice system seeks a desperate win before the election. So desperate are they that they tried to use the famous Access Hollywood tape as evidence. :lol:
Does anyone even listen to this Trump cultist anymore? Lol.
Eh, whatever. Carry on; you’re doing God’s work changing everyone’s minds about the degenerate, pornstar-fucking con man. :up:
The case is about attempts to squash negative accounts before the election. The law involved concerns efforts to change perceptions of the electorate through illegal means. What actually happened sexually no longer matters.
The statement will certainly be brought into evidence, and Daniels (Clifford) will probably testify that the affair did occur. It will be up to the jury to assess whether her in-court testimony (under oath) will convince the jury.
But I'm not sure it matters a great deal. Worst case, it's like the doorman who claimed to have knowledge of a "love-child" of Trump's, and similarly got paid off to prevent going public with it. Even after it was shown to be a false accusation, Trump still wanted the story killed until after the election. It is the killing of these stories, and reporting these as legal expenses, that is the crime. Not any affairs.
I live in Texas, and know more people who support Trump than who oppose him. I would like to better understand their point of view by hearing rational reasons why one might vote for him.
I'm not interested in hearing praise or condemnation for Trump's personality traits (e.g. lecherous, lying, bullying, insulting, xenophopic, racist, conspiracy-theory minded, etc), crimes he's committed (or alleged to have committed) such as sexual assault, fraud, election interference, conspiracy.
I'm mostly interested in hearing what policies you expect him to implement that may be perceived as positive by supporters. You don't have to be a supporter to understand why some would find policies attractive to supporters, even if you don't agree it's a good idea.
I'm open to hearing about things he did while President (policies implemented by law or executive order) - but explain what this has to do with future policies he's promised to implement.
If you point to differences in conditions (e.g. inflation, deficits, immigration rates...), explain what he did (and/or what Biden did) to create those differences in conditions.
I hope NOS4A2 takes advantage of this to make his case, but it's a useful exercise for everyone to try and understand the attraction.
The alleged felony crime is falsifying business records, repeated 34 times, all of which happened after the election. Now we are left to wonder how such book-keeping can be said to influence an election that happened in the past. The alleged crime Trump intended to conceal, according to Bragg, was a misdemeanor long past its statute of limitations.
Actually, the crime you're alleging is what the Clinton campaign did when they funnelled money through Perkins Coie to fund the Steele dossier, which they then hid as "legal fees". They also lied about it for years. Clinton and the DNC got fined by the FEC for their efforts. Of course, as is typical with a 2-tiered justice system, none of them were held accountable for what you call a crime.
Nevertheless, I do think it's a tenuous case, because of the legal technicalities involved. The prosecution has a difficult burden to meet.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's misleading to call this "funelling money... to fund the Steele dossier" because it suggests intent by the Clinton campaign. The campaign was not involved with the decisions on what to investigate (other than approving opposition research) nor on whom to hire to conduct that research, nor did they direct anyone on invent facts to support a narrative.
The fact that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded opposition research was not withheld from the public. The expenditure wasn't associated with a crime or coverup, nor was it improper: conducting opposition research is normal. The crime was simply a failure by the campaign to properly report the purpose of an expense by Perkins Coie. It was reported only as "legal services". The FEC ruled that it should have been reported as opposition research. The Clinton campaign argued that it was correct to consider this a legal expense, since it was an expense incurred by the law firm they used, but the FEC ruled against that interpretation.
From my encounter with Trump voters, in my family and work life, there is a difference between those who are mostly concerned with having the least amount of taxes charged against them as possible and those who want more control of cultural institutions. I have met people who want both of those agendas but plenty more who do not care about the other side of the politics.
Trump has also talked about imposing more tarriffs, including 60% on imports from China, and 10% on all others. This will increase the costs of many things, and likely lead to a trade war.
The culture wars issue sounds more like offering rhetorical support.
Well, I was reporting perception, not actual policy on taxes. I take your point on the cost of trade wars.
Quoting Relativist
Not sure what you mean by that, but many people are invested in that view of conflict. I have a lot of family in Texas who are mostly concerned about those issues.
This is the only thing he's right on. Western dependence on Chinese production that undercuts our own industries because of Chinese subsidies, lack of environmental protections and labour conditions is ridiculous. If human rights would actually matter, we wouldn't be buying Chinese products to begin with. We're basically funding a fascist state in its ability to oppress its own people.
Biden has generally retained Trump's tarriffs on China, even increasing them in some areas. So in practice, there may be little difference between them on tarriffs, although Biden's subsidies for building chip factories is a positive in his corner. The "60%" threat may be campaign talk to create a contrast that's not real. If real, it seems dumb.
Regarding perception, the NYC entrepreneurial set of Trumpsters do expect a direct benefit from tax changes in one fashion or another. Moves to change how LLCs operate and the Democratic effort to develop new corporate taxation make these folk nervous. Efforts to make the IRS more effective is also muttered about.
:chin:
Not a very flattering thumbnail. It doesn't portray Trump's imperial orangeness properly.
It’s par for the course. For instance, there is an off-the-record Zoom call between people working across different television, print and digital media outlets where lawyers and legal pundits collude to attack Trump legally and propagandize to their followers politically, all of which helps their podcasts, substacks, and commentary careers.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/23/anti-trump-legal-pundits-calls-00153300
“Watch this propaganda as delivered by this anti-Trump cabal.”
Projection indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeidasTouch
Interesting how it is "attack the argument not the source" when it comes to your side but not when Alex Jones or Breitbart speak.
I’m not even aware of his arguments. Got one on hand?
If the video’s title was “Trump exposes Pecker” I might be more inclined to watch, but I’m not going to fund their grift with a viewing.
In a related article,
Today in Trumpenfraude:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/24/arizona-fake-electors-indictments/73184206007/
When one or more of the criminal co-conspirstors Rudy Guiliani, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis (all of whom are also indicted in Georgia), Christina Bobb, Boris Epshteyn & Michael Roman flip, the GOP (Gimps for Putin) candidate for president Unindicted Co-conspirator-1 ... again will be indicted in Arizona (probably by the end of May, just in time for his conviction in NYC). :cool: :up:
"Wishful thinking?" TBD. :victory: :mask:
There's a lengthy OP in the Washington Post (gift link) which discusses the idea that the reason for Trump's popularity is that he is harnessing hostility towards liberal principles amongst voters who want to destroy the current system. (This is also Steve Bannon's main focus.)
So they don't want a better government, better economic policies, or better anything. What they want, is to bring down the whole system, because they don't accept the principles on which it was founded.
The most rabid of the so-called Christian Nationalists want to impose a more or less 'Christian Sharia Law' to replace the constitution:
When you consider that GOP representatives in multiple states are charged with election interference, and that a sizeable portion of the electorate doesn't believe that the last Presidential election was legitimate - well, there's some very dangerous forces at work here. One can only hope that Trump's track record of 'malevolence hobbled by incompetence', along with the basic common sense of a slightly larger proportion of the electorate, will prevail over this madness.
But it's not guaranteed.
They don't know what they're voting for in terms of politics, they aren't educated enough or they are so within their own bubble that they don't have any access to anything but the notion of "us and them". For them, politics is nothing more than a wrestling match. They want a "good guy" that is charismatic and talk like they do. They aren't intelligent enough to comprehend normal politics or understand political ideas; they flock to the emotional; to the experience of shouting in a group against the evil. They're no different from any other who fall to their knees in front of a father figure that can guide them to a better life.
It is basic religious fundamentalism in its mechanics.
Quoting Wayfarer
Just as with any other religious fundamentalism. It's arguably the same mechanics as with the Nazi regime; the mechanics function the same as in any other time in history when there's a charismatic leader (in their eyes and ears), who promise them paradise.
It either goes two ways; the charisma fades away with the group's fanaticism fading away as generations die off and gets replaced with new holding less fundamentalism in their hearts. Or they grow to a point in which they believe themselves to hold enough power to just, take over. And at that point, if they are stronger than the rest, they will replace people in power and place the rest into fascist obedience. But more likely, if they try it, the rest will rise up and realize they need to push them back, resulting in civil war or major war.
They would call it revolution, but revolution has a distinct difference in that true positive revolution revolves around standing up against a government that has taken away the power of its citizens, while they strive for being the one taking away the power of the people (in their favor).
They effectively ends up being a fundamentalist terrorist group who's yet to have initiated violence, not counting the Jan 6 coup attempt and any unreported religious violence onto minorities that has happened without people's knowledge.
And as such they should be watched in the same way we have eyes on terrorist groups of the world. Especially if Trump loses the election I wouldn't be surprised if we see something far worse than Jan 6 happening. But regardless of how such a violent event plays out, it will spell the end for Maga in that any larger than Jan 6 violence happening will cement their status as a terrorist movement and only the most hardcore Maga folks will keep wearing those hats.
The "normal" people are basically just waiting for a legitimate reason to remove these people from power. And any political support of violence against US citizens will be such a hard line that any protection these politicians had before such events will be gone and they will be removed by force. If they then try to provoke further violence, well that's when the entire movement will be officially registered a terrorist group.
If that happen, it would also spell the breakpoint for the republican party. The ones opposing Trump would eject anyone even close to supporting Trump or the Maga movement, or, they'll leave the Republican party as a rotting corpse while they start a new party with the focus on being the real republicans, promising to never let similar "terrorists" into their party. Cleaning their history and washing away any filth stains from it.
However things go, there will be a fulcrum point that tips things in some direction. But I'm too optimistic to see anything other than the utter collapse of Maga through self-destruction. They're too stupid to function as a revolutionary movement. They're too stupid to uphold any momentum of such actions. They're basically children playing with fire and when they effectively burn the house down they will face the consequences. They shouldn't be underestimated, but we shouldn't overestimate their ability either. They may have guns and explosives, but if violence erupts into insurrection, we have to remember that revolutionary movements in the world and history actually had training and intelligence behind their attempts. These people aren't revolutionary masterminds and within a nation like the US, any revolutionary action would require an extremely intelligent strategy that fools the entire military.
And if Trump wins, if he tries anything like this himself, I don't think the rest of the government or military will actually listen. If Trump starts to initiate violence against his own citizens, that's gonna be a fast ticket to his downfall.
The only reason we're not seeing enough pushback at the moment is that Trump and his followers are just barely on the side of democratic rights. But in a nation like the US, any attempt to remove the constitution or demolish the basic fundamentals of how people define the US will result in a strong pushback, maybe even outright violent pushbacks against Trump and his followers.
This is really about you more than it is about them.
He routinely makes a mockery of his own "faith." He made the sign of the cross at an abortion rally a few days ago. He stands for nothing. He is neither mentally not physically fit to hold office yet the Democrats bolster him up while others run the show. Nobody likes him and seemingly the only thing going for him is that he isn't Trump. That's his brand. The best thing he could do is step aside but he wouldn't as he is a dinosaur and a career politician and he has an ego which frequently leads him to being fucking ridiculous like bragging to Howard Stern on his radio show that women in the 70s sent him scandalous pics when he was in Congress. Gotta let everyone know what a stud you are.
No wonder other countries don't respect us. We have a guy who strives desperately for the approval of popular radio hosts like Stern. He's so insecure. Hoping one day to gain the respect of others like Stern which stems from a deep seeded insecurity about his own self-worth. America's status in the world has declined under Biden.
They want the border closed, more conservative SCOTUS judges appointed, more drilling, more refineries, a kickass foreign policy, less EV's, less environmental regulations, the public education system dismantled, accountability for Covid lockdowns, more police, trans/gay folk marginalized, Jan 6th protesters pardoned, etc.
Quoting RogueAI
I don't think Trump is anti-gay, but his anti-trans rhetoric seems mostly aimed at prevent kids from transitioning and "trans ideology" as opposed to actually blocking HRT access to trans adults. We've seen the rates of self-reported transgenderism skyrocket in the past few decades. One can be supportive of trans individuals while at the same time being critical of a movement which seemingly just lets in anyone and now apparently includes non-binary under the trans label. Take it from someone who works in the community.
tbh I see men who are very unhappy gravitate here not because they're really feminine but because they a) want to try something new and b) they hope transition will cure their unhappiness. And while they may climb the sexual hierarchy and be able to attract more partners it often comes at the cost of sterilizing themselves. If an adult wants to make that decision fine, but please don't promote it to kids.
It's never been a mystery to me – formerly a 7 year black resident of the "ruby red" deep south following 13 years in the once "bright red" gun-crazed, desert southwest US – that MAGA (Make [s]Apartheid[/s] Great Again (aka "Morons Against Great America")) cult followers and non-cult supporters, who have taken over the GOP (Gimps of Putin), are 'voting' for a patriarchal, white ethnostate dictatorship. No doubt, my friend, there will be blood, especially when it becomes undeniable even to them that their bankrupted, convicted, possibly by then imprisoned Dear Cult Leader will lose the "anti-Trump blowout" reelection of POTUS & the Dems.
May Day Eve – my fear today is, however, that MAGA terrorists will try to make the US ungovernable (therefore, acutely vulnerable to national security threats from Russia, China and/or the Middle East) in the weeks and months following, if not before, the ROEvember election. The US military may have to be deployed to impose Martial Law, reminiscent of the 'state of emergency' during the weeks after "9-11" (but worse by an order of magnitude) in order to secure federal, state & local elections and to protect key officials and vital infrastructure. :fire: :mask:
Quoting Christoffer
Anarchists, who are not well educated in politics, or moral and social philosophy in general, are the modern day libertarians.
My thoughts also. I'm sure the polling data is misleading and that they will be punished at the ballot box.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, well I guess the other predominant emotion I'm feeling is dissappointment. I thought the US was better than that, although a lot of people here tell me that it's naive.
At the end of the day, while the wheels of justice are turning very slowly, they are turning, and they have a kind of inexorability about them. (In today's hearings, Trump has been threatened with incarceration if he keeps up his insults.)
[quote=NYTimes;https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/nyregion/merchan-trump-contempt-gag-order.html?unlocked_article_code=1.oU0.CcvF.pVNGdg7tELwI&smid=url-share](Today's) testimony offered another remarkable moment in a trial whose early days have been full of them: a former president and current Republican nominee watching helplessly as two strangers exposed details of a sex scandal that he had fought to keep secret.
It also underscored the wide array of evidence at the prosecution’s disposal as it assembled its case against the former president. On Tuesday alone, prosecutors elicited live testimony from Mr. Davidson and three other witnesses, a string of provocative text messages, videos of Trump campaign events and excerpts from a deposition the former president gave in a separate case — all woven into a story that they say paints Mr. Trump as a criminal.[/quote]
Interesting you say this. I was wondering if this might be the path events take.
I love Gimps of Putin... :lol:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Maybe some. But otherwise evangelical types, Mormons, angry hardliners, ..., all the way through mad conspiracy theorists, ...
My impression is that extremism is (getting) more common than I thought a few years back — note there are also intellectuals stoking the fires.
In part, things seen before in the history books.
The only thing an educated person can do politically is glorify and aggrandize the state, or disguise their statism as social and political philosophy, which is the direct consequence of their state education.
In any case, I’d love to see an educated refutation of any one of the aforementioned political stances, morally and socially, if you care to try.
:smirk:
No matter his politics and affinities, his mere presence among the effete political class is enough to expose the scam. Look at them go.
Yeah, they'd be handing those other forces a gift.
Quoting Mar 12, 2024
Was The Donald on the move back in 1963? :)
A consistent feature of your program is that the clear connection between the very wealthy and the "effete political class" never appears in your analysis. Private interests can and do direct public affairs. The shock you delight in the discomfiture Trump elicits has nothing to do with why he is an asset for certain interests.
Quoting Wayfarer
My theory is that are motivated to halt, or roll back social changes (e.g.normalization of the LGBTQ communities, perceived special treatment for minorities), and are fed up with the way the goverment works - the negative impacts of government bureaucracy, as well as foreign entanglements. They want a superman who uses his superpowers to solve our most important problems. Trump promises to do the impossible, and thus appeals to their wishes. As example: in 2016, building a (Mexico funded) border wall that was perceived as a solution to many problems (eg unwanted migration, drug trafficking)- an alleged simple solution to a complex set of problems.
It's not that they actively want to do unconstitutional or illegal things, per se, it's that Trump doesn't concern himself with those impediments, so they don't have to even think about those things. They trust Trump will find a way.
On the other hand, I think the upshot of a second Trump presidency - which I don't believe will happen - will be disastrous in ways that his followers don't anticipate. He could quite literally cause a massive global financial or military crisis, leading to enormous social disruption and poverty, out of pique and aggrievement. They don't seem to see that, or care about it. As I said above, he has no policies as such, nor any idea of what the Presidency or government is about, save as a vehicle for his own ego and interests.
I’ve spoken about the influence of dark money on the previous 2 federal elections, and it seems to favor one particular side. You might want to looks into it instead of becoming the end product.
How does that observation relate to the money behind Trump?
It relates to the very wealthy and the political class, a connection you’re now trying to disguise.
I disguise it by bringing the topic up?
Does you always speak in questions?
Do you always deflect from challenges by not answering questions?
What challenge?
You have the attention span of your hero.
I showed you a connection between the very wealthy and the political class, and you bring up Trump. That’s something Biden would do.
Add this to the fact that the judge’s daughter received millions from the Biden/harris campaign, is it just not possible to find someone in the justice system who is impartial, and not a Biden/obama stooge with a vested interest in Trump’s conviction?
It is true. Not only that but it’s a made up crime that no one has ever been charged with. They have to make up crimes in order to feed their fantasy that the man is a criminal. It’s glorious. No wonder trust in these institutions is falling, and I’m all for it.
Well, he clearly has dementia or something related.
Quoting 180 Proof
sequuntur :up:
It bothers me that I don't quite know who runs the show. He's just so weak at a time when we need anything but a weak leader.
You don't know who runs the show even when the president is mentally sane. In 2020, the ultra-fascist Trump "let" BLM riots burn down entire cities, he "let" antifa young adults take over a neighbourhood of Seattle where the government could not get in.
The Lounge is where I go to take the edge off the day with a good lullaby.
Quoting NOS4A2
Thanks NOS, I slept well for four days after that one. Have you ever heard of voting?
Moral of the story: sleep with one eye open.
I seem to recall you complaining about media propoganda, and yet here you are- regurgitating (right-wing) media propoganda.
No problem, pal.
Yes, I’ve heard of voting. Isn’t that what educated people do?
I learned about Colangelo from the New York Times and Merchan’s daughter from a gagged Donald Trump. One place you won’t hear of it is in your little echo chamber.
...the irony.
I seriously doubt the NY Times called Colangelo Biden's "hatchet man". I read similar claims on the Fox News website.(part of my "bubble", I guess).
Regarding the use of Trump for information, that's probably the least credible source one could use. Are you also upset that the gag order prevents him from testifying? :lol:
Loren Merchand's company has certainly made millions from Dem candidates, but she's not involved in Trump's legal case. The ethics board ruled her business constituted no conflict of interest for the judge, which was perfectly appropriate. Of course, Trump will nevertheless seize every opportunity to attack.
You read more Fox news than I do. Have you never heard of the phrase "hatchet man"?
It surprised me too that I had to learn about the conflict of interest from the defendant in the trial. Where did you learn of it?
Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be enough for a judge to recuse himself, preferably to a judge whose kids do not benefit from Trump's conviction.
You're deflecting. But thanks for sharing your opinion about the judge. FYI: I disagree.
Of course you disagree. It's enough for me to know that you're now finally informed of the matter.
Oddly enough, voting is not just limited to those who are educated. Now, it has been argued that a certain degree of education ought to be mandatory, but that would be discriminatory. So... we get the problem described by Plato, being a successful candidate is like offering candy to children.
As I've mentioned before, I think the prosecution's legal basis is weak, so there's a good chance of overturning it on appeal. But the coverage of the case provides a good reminder of Trump's sleazy character (irrespective of the legality).
Very true. Buying votes with promises is one means to edge out the other guy. But really the only reason people vote is for astronomical reasons, because the earth has spun on its axis 1460 times. So at least they know how to count.
That, I think, was the point all along: a campaign favor for Trump's opponents. What else could explain why they waited past the statute of limitations so that it could happen as close to election as possible? It's the corruption of the justice system for another smear job, not unlike the one which defrauded the American people in 2016. So now we all get to talk about the Access Hollywood tape again, which appears to be the only play they have.
But thankfully it has revealed an even sleazier element, for instance the extortion of Trump devised by Cohen and the porn star's lawyer. Given their claim to moral superiority, it rings kind of odd that the anti-Trumpists have pinned their hopes and dreams on the porn stars and perjurers and the corrupt New York justice system.
Faulty conclusion. If someone tells you the earth has spun on its axis 1460 times, therefore it's time for you to go and vote, so you do, this does not mean that you know how to count.
The state waited because the feds told them to stand down, because they were investigating. The federal investigation stopped when Biden took office. Many of the investigators were pissed, and pressured Bragg to indict Trump (e.g Mark Pomerantz wrote a book about Trump's financial crimes- and this got the public's attention). DA is an elected position, so this constituted political pressure.
As you know, it is the misdemeanor that has passed the statute of limitations. Trump is charged with a felony, based on the fraud being associated with another crime. So although there was a political element to the decision to prosecute, there do seem to have been actual felonies.
If he's found guilty, the appeals court may rule that he would need to have been indicted for those "other crimes", although that's not stated in the statute. There's a smaller vulnerability that one of the "other crimes" is a federal crime, so the appeals court may decide it must be a state crime. However, there is also state election law that tracks the same act.
In the meantime, it's still an interesting case to watch, as Trump continues to flout the law.
Yes, I've read the indictment. What's missing is the alleged other crime. There is none. Both the DOJ and the FEC examined the case and no charges were brought. So will you hazard a guess as to what the other crime may have been, federal or otherwise?
Oh no! Trump wrote down "legal fees"!
So it's even worse, a misdemeanor book-keeping error past its statute of limitations made to look like a felony in the furtherance of another crime, but there is no other crime. It just shows the absurd lengths they are willing to go to in order to further their fantasy that Trump is some big criminal, a lie they've been regurgitating to themselves for years now. They're literally making up laws and novel legal theories to take down their political opponent. That's how you flout the law.
Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said in court that one of the crimes Trump intended to commit was a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Here's the law:
[I]Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[/i]
Quoting NOS4A2
Exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not mean a crime wasn't committed.
Another misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations. Here we are 8-years later. This whole case is the real crime.
Irrelevant. The charge for falsifying business records rises to a felony because it allegedly entailed intent to commit the conpiracy crime. The statute of limitations explains why he wasn't indicted for that conspiracy crime.
I know you feel the indictment shouldn't have been made, but I hope you at least see there's a legal basis for it.
Nope. It’s a novel legal theory with no precedent and full of holes. This is election interference, political persecution, a Biden campaign strategy, pure and simple.
There's no evidence of involvement by the Biden campaign. In fact, we know Biden's DOJ chose to drop it.
Is this really "election interference"? Define the term.
If it does get overturned it will be because it’s an unjust and stupid case that will discredit the American justice system for years to come.
The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. Pure coincidence? I guess they couldn’t find anyone who wasn’t a part of Biden’s DOJ?
Yes, it’s election interference, meaning they are doing it to stifle Trump’s chances in the election. They couldn’t find any crimes so they practically invented them.
Appellate courts overturn convictions for technical reasons, like interpretations of the law, errors by a judge, inadmissability of evidence. They rarely overrule the verdicts of juries.
Quoting NOS4A2
I asked you to define "election interference", because I suspect you apply a double standard. Were the House investigations of Joe and Hunter also election interference? What about Comey's public discussion of Hillary's email practices? Russia's assistance in 2016? Was Pecker engaging in election interference with his "catch and kill" tactics? How about Trump's numerous frivolous lawsuits about the 2020 election? How about his lies that it was stolen, and attempts to get senior DOJ staff to lie about election fraud? How about Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden?
Do you think this trial cost him votes? If so, won't it be because of the facts that are presented?
Harvey Weinstein’s case was just overturned because the judge could not be just.
It simply means they’re interfering with Trump’s campaign, and thus the election. To use your terms, Biden’s campaign is hoping to win the election with the corrupt Justice system’s assistance, which is not in their mandate.
This guy is in the courtroom live-tweeting the testimony:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1787836030210515375[/tweet]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/07/trump-rikers-jail-eric-adams :up: :up:
Oh but the irony is rich now that Stormy gets to fuck him ("long time") again and actually enjoy it this time! :kiss:
https://www.ft.com/content/9849af2b-7870-4827-818c-61d5895c12bf
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/07/trump-classified-docs-trial-delay-florida-00156680
That's inaccurate. I will grant that when any conviction is overturned on appeal, it implies "unfairness", but this is based on there having been an error made. In Weinstein's case, testimony was admitted for prior, uncharged sexual asaults. The trial judge had ruled it admissible, deeming it relevant to establish Weinstein's motive (which is a valid basis, in general). It's not admissible if the purpose is to establish the defendant's character - that is prejudicial, and the appeals cout ruled it that way. IOW, the judge made an error. That certainly doesn't imply "the judge could not be just".
Quoting NOS4A2
So you're going with a special pleading - keeping Trump off from campaigning is the only thing that constitutes election interference. So none of the items I listed count.
[Quote]To use your terms, Biden’s campaign is hoping to win the election with the corrupt Justice system’s assistance, which is not in their mandate.[/quote]
You're uncritically accepting Trump's allegation that Biden is behind it. There's zero evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, we know Biden's DOJ actually chose NOT to prosecute Trump. [U]You know this,[/u] and used this fact to blast Bragg's decision to prosecute- so you're trying to have it both ways. If Biden wanted to behave like Trump promises, and prosecute his political opponents, he would have jumped at the opportunity.
:lol:
Melodrama.
That’s inaccurate. It was multiple errors. The appeals court described as an “abuse of judicial discretion”, essentially denying him the right to a fair trial. And despite your claim that they rarely overrule the verdicts of juries, I was just giving you an example off the top of my head of them doing so.
No, I was just describing how they were engaging in election interference. Another example would be the Russia hoax. I’m sure you could think of others on your own.
You’ve evaded my evidence and tried to pretend I was just accepting claims. The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. His leaving the DOJ to kick-start Bragg’s “zombie case” gives Biden plausible deniability, which is how he gets out of everything. If Biden’s DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, why is Biden’s DOJ prosecuting Trump?
You are "connecting dots", as conspiracy theorists like to do. This particular conspiracy theory is prevalent in the MAGA world.
The facts you cite demonstrate that Colangelo had relevant experience with Trump, that the DA would deem valuable in mounting the case. Before being named acting assistant US attorney general, he had worked in the NY Attorney General's office investigating Trump Foundation (successfully showing there to be fraud). So it's both knowledge and personal motivation that are the obvious reasons the DA would want him, and that Colangelo would want to take it on.
If the President had nefariously orchestrated Colangelo's move to prosecute Trump, it would be extremely risky for him politically if this came out. You also conveniently overlook the fact that Biden (through Garland) could have simply allowed the case to proceed, and it would not have their fingerprints on it. But consistent with conspiracy theorists, you ignore the evidence that's inconsistent with your conspiracy theory.
So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's established that Russia engaged in election interference by illegally accessing DNC emails. Wikileaks also engaged in election interference by leaking those emails at strategic times during the campaign. There's also strong evidence Roger Stone was coordinating that activity with Julian Assange.
The Russia Investigation (which was in no way, a hoax) became public AFTER the election, so it can't be considered election interference.
But yes, I can think of others- and I listed some. E.g. Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden. The "catch and kill" conspiracy was election interference (even though aspects of it were legal, it's still interference).
Quoting NOS4A2
I admit that I shouldn't have said "an error", since that connotes a single error. Yes, there were multiple errors, all relating to making decisions regarding what evidence was admissible, and an error in the Sandoval ruling. In both cases, judges have a good bit of discretion, but the appeals court ruled that the judge's rulings exceeded reasonable limits of this discretionary power.
[Quote]And despite your claim that they rarely overrule the verdicts of juries, I was just giving you an example off the top of my head of them doing so.[/quote]
Wrong. The appellate court didn't rule that the jury got it wrong. It ruled that their verdict may have been influenced by the inadmissible evidence. This is not a revised finding of "not guilty", it's simply negating the trial. Weinstein can be retried, and it's reported that there will indeed be a new trial.
Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s.
Taking everything at face value is not evidence either. But the question as to why Bragg pivoted from not prosecuting the zombie case to prosecuting the case remains, and to me it’s no strange wonder that Bragg announced indictments a few months after Colangelo joined his team.
Now who is the conspiracy theorist?
Note how you never mentioned the Clinton campaign's solicitation of dirt from Christopher Steele, which was then used in FISA courts to open up surveillance on Trump's campaign, during the campaign. Obama's DOJ began investigations on his political opponent during the campaign, with Steele himself leaking much of it to the press. Is that election interference?
By the way, the Clinton campaign was fined by the FEC for writing in "legal expenses" where it was in fact for campaign spending. This, according to you and Bragg, is a felony. But of course no one has been indicted for it.
I think you're quibbling at this point. I never said that the court ruled the jury got it wrong.
What other conspiracy theories do you embrace?
Quoting NOS4A2
More conspiracy theory reasoning. There's no evidence for your claim, but you point to an absence of evidence for it being false as somehow relevant.
[Quote]But the question as to why Bragg pivoted from not prosecuting the zombie case to prosecuting the case remains, and to me it’s no strange wonder that Bragg announced indictments a few months after Colangelo joined his team.[/quote]
I've given you my theory regarding Bragg: there were personal political motivations. And I expect he hired Colangelo for the express purpose of prosecuting Trump. (Don't forget that I have never been a fan of pursuing this).
Quoting NOS4A2
You are. I cited established facts that you would be aware of if you ventured outside your Trumpist bubble- which is apparent from your referring to the Russia investigation as a "hoax". If you'd like to challenge anything I said, feel free.
Quoting NOS4A2
Distortion. I've explained this to you before.
[Quote]...which was then used in FISA courts to open up surveillance on Trump's campaign, during the campaign.[/quote]
Indeed, exactly 2 FISA warrants were granted that shouldn't have been. These errors do not imply the Russia investigation was unwarranted- even Durham acknowledged an investigation was warranted. Mueller discovered most of the facts I cited, and no one has refuted them. Trumpists like yourself hide behind the FISA errors to avoid facing the facts that were uncovered.
My claim was based on congressional testimony.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I'm concerned. It's not my fault you are unable to infer beyond the facts, and when you do, it's invariably in defence against anything that might dispute your narrative.
Then why are you defending it?
You simply regurgitated some of the findings of the Mueller report. But I can go to the Mueller report and find not a single mention of FusionGPS or the Clinton campaign's effort to interfere in the election, or them disguising that fact by falsifying their records, which is a felony according to you and Bragg. That you accept this and other records as "established facts" proves only your appeal to authority.
My post history in this thread will confirm that I share mostly mainstream sources, and from all over the spectrum. I do this because I read all news. By dismissing this evidence, your accusations amount to projection only, as your own bubble shrinks around you.
I don't recall. So it isn't a felony to to falsify business records in order to interfere in an election?
That's inaccurate. Durham said a preliminary investigation was warranted. There was no preliminary investigation. It immediately kicked into a full-on probe, which was not warranted.
The Mueller probe also discarded much of the facts, essentially hiding them from you, in what I would call a cover-up. As Durham points out, agents on the Mueller team were told to stop investigating Democrat operative Charles Dolan, a source for one of the allegations, even though he was one of the few Americans tied to Russian government. One agent speculated whether it was politically motivated, because it "ran counter to the narrative that the Mueller Special Counsel investigators were cultivating given that Dolan was a former Democratic political operative".
Does it surprise you, as it did Durham, that an investigation tasked with investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election refused to interview or investigate one of the three Americans named by Steele to have Russian ties, despite the instinct of some agents to do so?
Odd you should write that, because your inference beyond facts works to support your narrative. Anyway, no matter, carry on.
It’s either that or they’re completely incompetent, neither of which is good for your truckling.
An accusation by Jim Jordan does not constitute congressional testimony.
Quoting NOS4A2
OK, there is no direct evidence of Biden's involvement. Broadly speaking, all related facts constitute evidence. Circumstantial evidence can justify a judgement if the totality of evidence shows it to be more likely than not (at minimum). That is not the case here. All you have is a set of facts that are consistent with your theory. You've ignored other relevant facts, and haven't entertained alternative theories that also explain these (and other) facts. Rather, you are applying bias against Biden and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
Quoting NOS4A2
Durham judged that only a preliminary investigation was initially warranted (although that is a matter of opinion), but this would have made no difference because it would have escalated to a full investigation once they obtained the initial Steele materials. The Steele memos accurately noted that Russia wanted to assist Trump and hurt Clinton , and that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks, and forwarded them to Wikileaks. These were subsequently proven true, despite there also being more spurious information. The point is that a full investigation would have become warranted at that time.
Quoting NOS4A2
They were told not to investigate Dolan because it wasn't deemed pertinent. The speculation that it may have been politically motivated is just that- speculation by one analyst, with no "definitive evidence to support her belief". Dolan is believed to have invented the "golden showers" story, but none of this has bearing on the findings of the Mueller report that I cited, nor does it imply there was a broad "hoax". Presumably, Dolan lied, and this made into the Steele memos, the FBI dropped the ball in that respect - but it remains the case that Russia hacked DNC servers, gave the emails to Wikileaks, and there's testimony that Stone worked with Assange on strategically releasing them. Further, it's established that Manafort shared polling data with Russia, Russia asked Manafort to get Trump to support their "annexation" of Crimea. Manafort denied discussing this with Trump, but we know Trump actually did support the annexation. This is clearly circumstantial evidence of an illegal conspiracy, although clearly not sufficient evidence to indict. (But clearly a stronger circumstantal case than your Biden allegation. The difference: your bias).
Quoting NOS4A2
Durham does not express "surprise", he just indicates that he sees no "objectively sound reason for the decision that was made not to interview him." So this sounds more like criticizing their judgement, and it's a legitimate criticism.
"Some" agents? I believe it was exactly ONE agent, and she also indicated she saw no indications of political bias by the team.
It's not surprising that the Mueller team would deem it irrelevant, since Dolan's lies only pertained to some allegations in the Steele memos, which Mueller's investigation was not relying on. It's another matter during Crossfire Hurricane and relevant to their inappropriate reliance on Steele's memos to support the Carter Page FISA warrants. The FBIs failure to interview Dolan was definitely poor judgement. But again, such errors have no bearing on the activities exposed by Mueller. Errors by the FBI do not negate the fact that a Russia Investigation was warranted - and that Trump and members of his campaign behaved inappropriately and possibly illegally: there was insufficient evidence to indict, but there was some evidence of crimes - not to mention Trump's obstruction of justice that actually could have led to indictment had Barr not stopped it.
The question has become something of a litmus test, particularly among the long list of possible running mates for Trump, whose relationship with his first vice president, Mike Pence, ruptured because Pence resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the 2020 election.
In a vivid recent example, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) was pressed at least six times in a TV interview Sunday on whether he would accept this November’s results. He repeatedly declined to do so, only saying he was looking forward to Trump being president again.
He continued to evade the question even as the interviewer, NBC News’s Kristen Welker, reminded him that a “hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power.”
“This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat party at the end of the day,” Scott said at one point. “… I believe that President Trump will be our next president. It’s that simple.”[/quote]
**THE COUP ATTEMPT IS ONGOING**
Sure. It’s just funny coming from a delusional Trump supporter— as though prosecuting a degenerate con man will finally bring down America law.
No, but Tony Bobulinski testifying in front of congress does.
A set of facts consistent to the theory. That’s right. And you have a set of statements and denials consistent with your theory. I have entertained that theory and find it completely lacking in all respects.
It has plenty of bearing on the Mueller report because the report is missing facts regarding Russian interference, which they were tasked with investigating. Thus, these facts do not show up in your loose conspiracy theory. Nowhere does it mention FusionGPS, for instance, which we now know was looking for dirt on Clinton's political opponents. Much of this dirt contained Russian misinformation, possibly sourced from Charles Dolan, a Russia-connected Dem operative. It seems you do not care that this misinformation made it into the highest echelons of the intelligence community, leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.
But I'm supposed to care about Hillary or Podesta's emails? Or some facebook ads put out by some obscure Russian internet agency? Manafort's Polling data? This is the extent of your illegal conspiracy? I think your priorities are backwards, friend.
As you would say, "that's inaccurate".
"This directive given by the Mueller investigation leadership is somewhat surprising given that Director Mueller's broad mandate was to investigate, among other things, Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election - parameters that clearly would seem to include the Steele Reports."
That's inaccurate. Read the sub-section "Mueller Supervisory Special Agent-I and Mueller Analyst-I push to open a case on Charles Dolan".
The Mueller team had to fire a couple of its members. That's how incompetent they were.
I absolutely give a single straw about what he allegedly exposed. It was a garbage investigation from the very beginning and will go down in history as such.
I was referring to your response to this:
I said: "So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence."
You responded: "Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s".
Then you indicated it was based on "Congressional testimony". I thought you were claiming there was testimony about Colangelo (there wasn't, but Jim Jordan posted an accusation to that effect). Now it seems you were actually implying that Bobulinski's allegation would also apply to your theory that Biden was behind Colangelo's move. That's quite a stretch. It's not evidence of Biden's involvement with Colangelo's move, it's only suggestive that IF he was, then he MIGHT HAVE done it in such a way that he had plausible deniability.
Quoting NOS4A2
The set of facts is consistent with any number of theories- that's the problem. There is no evidence of Biden's involvement with Colangelo's move; the "circumstantial evidence" consists of the fact he'd been appointed assistant attorney general (serving 11 months), and then he left to join the Bragg's team - and he had previously worked with Bragg. Your theory seems fueled either by Trump's claims that Biden is behind all his indictments, or by your own personal bias against Biden.
Regarding my theory, I didn't at all rely on statements and denials- I noted facts that you ignored: Colangelo had his own motivation to pursue Trump; Biden could have simply let the federal case proceed. So your theory lacks plausibility.
Quoting NOS4A2
Mueller's team was not focused on the problems with the Steele memos, they were focused on examining actual Russian interference. Dolan was not a Russian, he was an American who gave false information to Steele.
You misunderstand if you think I'm pushing a conspiracy theory. I listed a set of facts uncovered by Mueller during his investigation, and those are not Russian disinformation.
Yes, I know (and we've previously discussed) the fact that Fusion was hired to do opposition research - an activity that is common in major elections. Fusion hired Steele to dig into Trump's Russian connections (Fusion had already established that there were quite a few such connections). And I also know that some of the information Steele provided was false, apparently including some information from Dolan.
The Mueller investigation was not taking the Steele information at face value. They had moved well beyond what Steele had provided - and obtained their own information. The Fusion connection was moot to Mueller, and Dolan's disinformation considered low priority. The Mueller team was under constant pressure to complete their work in a timely fashion (partly because Trump repeatedly threatened to fire them), which means it was virtually impossible to follow every lead.
Wrong again. I think the errors involved with the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants were terrible and I'm very glad IG Horowitz identified the problems and that leadership addressed the issues. As you know, Durham had nothing additional to suggest.
Quoting NOS4A2
Wrong again. Strzok and Page weren't fired for being incompetent investigators. They were fired because of their texts showed they had animosity toward Trump, and this would give the perception of bias in the investigation. The IG found no basis to conclude they actually took any improper actions, although Durham opines that their animosity toward Trump would predispose them to investigate. His opinion is supported only by the text messages (which he lists in his report), not from testimony or other evidence. Regardless, the Mueller investigation is not tainted, because they were taken off it.
[Quote]...leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.[/quote]
Who, besides Carter Page, was inappropriately spied upon? Threatening prosecution for other crimes is a tool investigators employ to get cooperation. For example, Manafort had a history of financial crimes that they tried to use to get his cooperation. He agreed to cooperate, but was caught lying - after Trump had essentially promised him a pardon for staying loyal. He was then prosecuted and convicted on a number of counts - then Trump fulfilled his promise to pardon him. Who knows what we might have learned had Manafort cooperated honestly? It was Manafort who received the request for Trump to endorse the Crimea annexation. Maybe it would prove to be a dead, but it shows there's a clear possibility of conspiracy - although far short of enough to indict.
The Russia investigation was hardly "frivolous". A foreign government illegally interfered in an election. Imagine if this HADN'T been investigated! You seem sensitive (alleged) election interference when Trump is the alleged victim, but when Trump benefits- all you care about are the errors made when that interference was investigated!
Quoting NOS4A2
It was your claim of a "Russia Hoax" then sent us off on this discussion. These facts that you don't care about prove the Russia Investigation was not a hoax.
Mueller's report along with the Senate Investigation led by Rubio, establish the historical record on Russian interference, and Trump's welcoming of it.
The IG report was relevant for showing abuses of the FISA process, while vindicating the opening of Russia investigation.
Durham's report highlights differences of opinion regarding a variety of judgement calls that history can study, but it also confirms there was no widespread conspiracy to get Trump- as so many Trumpists had anticipated.
Members of the Trump campaign worked with Russians, and with Wikileaks. And it's a very big deal that Russia asked Trump for support regarding their annexation of Crimea. These results show that the investigation was worthwhile; Durham never suggests otherwise. Durham tried in vain to show there was an anti-Trump conspiracy, but he did not find one. The only thing he added to the findings of the IG was his questioning some of the decisions that were made - particularly, and as you noted, the opening of a full investigation rather than a preliminary one. Durham didn't develop this opinion as a result of his investigation- that was the view he expressed after reviewing the IG report. The results of the Mueller investigation suggest the instincts of the decision makers were generally correct- in spite of the fact that they can be second-guessed.
Quoting NOS4A2
Two had thought it worthwhile to follow-up with Dolan, but after they were advised from highers-up that was outside scope, Durham states only that "Mueller Analyst-I disagreed with the contention that Dolan fell outside of the Mueller mandate." That's what I was refering to.
Quoting NOS4A2
Fair enough, he did express surprise. However, he does not explain what we would have gained from pursuing this - other than clarifying what disinformation Dolan conveyed, and perhaps charging him with lying to the FBI. I wonder why Durham didn't seek to pursue this - he never successfully identified and prosecuted any related crimes (Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to an immaterial [but illegal] document alteration during Durham's tenure, but that crime was identified by Horowitz).
Today in Trumpenfreude
[quote=Stormy Daniels while cross-examined by Trump's defense lawyer Susan Necheles] It doesn’t say ‘President Trump,’ it says ‘orange turd,’ ...
I absolutely meant Mr. Trump.[/quote]
:clap: :rofl: "Orange Turd-1"
And brought into the official record by the Orange Turd's own lawyer, who drew attention to the epithet and insisted on the naming being made explicit.
And then tried to use it to claim a mistrial. Whose side is she on? Trump's of course, but Trump is his own worst enemy. Trying to shame a porn-star is like trying to spice up a chilli pickle.
:lol: :up:
However, the more serious press noted the disaster of Horse Face’s testimony yesterday. The defense played a recording of her lawyer trying to shake down Cohen, letting him know how much Stormy wanted the money before the election. Plus we learn of the schizophrenic differences between her story today and her story yesterday. And to top it all off, we also learn that she is a medium who speaks to dead people. This is Lawrence Odonnel’s saint!
Can’t wait to hear more.
A nice counterpoint of reasoned argument combined with personal denigration. The apprentice learns from the master.
I'm guessing you're implying this undermines her credibility. This is consistent with Fox News (here), but it's unclear to me how this hurts the prosecution's case. Her self-serving motivation doesn't undermine Trump and Cohen's motivation to keep her silent prior to the election. It almost seems like the desire of Trumpists is to throw mud back at those throwing mud at Trump (e.g. name-calling, in Trumpian fashion), but that juvenile behavior seems irrelevant to the case.
A more serious concern for the prosecution would be that her testimony could be deemed prejudicial - painting Trump in such a bad light that it would prejudice them against him. That's the issue raised in WSJ articles (here, and here). This could be dealt with by the Judge through jury instructions, but he hasn't provided them yet.
Name-calling is entirely appropriate. But anti-Trumpists uncritically reserve themselves the right to call people names while at the same time critically chastising Trump for doing so. It’s as if what they hate in Trump is what they hate in themselves.
What does undermine the theory regarding Trump’s motivation before the election is the testimony of the witnesses. Pecker noted that he killed stories for Trump and other celebrities numerous times, even when they weren’t running for election. Hope Hicks testified she believed Trump wanted to kill the story to protect his wife and family. Stormy's lawyer Keith Davidson testified it wasn't a payoff or hush money. Jeffry McConney, the former Trump Organization controller, testified that it was him who recorded the expenses as "legal expenses", and Trump never directed him to do so. The Stormy Daniels testimony was just the icing on the proverbial shit-cake that is this trial.
ROFL!
Quoting NOS4A2
You didn't answer my question: how did Stormy's testimony help the defense?
She comes off as a money-grubbing, lying, and crazy extortionist to the jury. By the way, you never asked a question.
She did indeed lie.
The reasons I already stated, which you have not addressed, has all the bearing needed to contradict the allegations.
You're as evasive as a politician. Did she lie about having the sexual encounter?
[Quote]The reasons I already stated, which you have not addressed, has all the bearing needed to contradict the allegations.[/quote]
I didn't address that because it was a tangent. I had specifically asked you how Stormy's testimony helped the defense. It may very well be that Stormy lied about being victimized and about how aggressively she went after a payment. That doesn't imply there was no sexual encounter. For that matter even if she lied about the sexual encounter (which I don't think she did lie about the encounter; she's been talking about it at least since 2011 -see this article
and there's another interviewer who has said she told him about it in 2007) , the only thing that matters in the trial is whether or not she was paid to keep silent, and that this was to prevent damage to his election.
Yes. Are you thick?
You didn’t ask me a damn thing.
And for the reasons I stated, which you refuse to address, the idea that this was to prevent damage to his election is blown out of the water, no matter what the porn star says.
The story would be damaging even if it were made up. The doorman made up a story, and they still wanted to keep him quiet. McDougal was also paid off.
What would you like me to address? I didn't notice a question.
I didn’t ask a question. I made arguments that contradict the main tenets of Bragg’s flimsy legal theory. Trump never wrote nor directed his controller to write “legal expenses”, therefor he did not falsify business records. Trump never falsified business records with the intent of committing another crime, whatever that may be.
Today in Trumpenfreude
It must be Monday morning (poor effin' MAGA). With a boat load of receipts, former "fixer" Michael Cohen flagrantly flips on Don Snoreleone and apparently without even waking the soon-to-be convicted felon. :yawn:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/donald-trump-trial-news-hush-money-case-live-updates/73665779007/
So I did some research and learned how it works. If the prosecution proves Trump was involved in a conspiracy, then he is criminally liable for all the crimes committed through that conspiracy.
This was referred to in this MSNBC article.
MSNBC is a biased source, but they linked to an appeals court ruling that stated this (here). That case referenced an earlier one (here) that dealt with a stolen election.
Here Anderson Cooper describes the collapse of their star witness Michael Cohen.
The ex-advisor to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, describes the lies of Michael Cohen, but worse, also describes how the SDNY didn’t want any exculpatory evidence to reach the eyes of the grand jury. So much for justice.
Trump also tried to overthrow an election he lost.
There — I just saved everyone the time of reading countless words of apologetic gymnastics. Both are facts; both are obvious.
What about the lies of the Clown in the first place?
“Look what the propaganda told me! Look at it!!”
So what will the GOP (gang of pigshits)-MAGA (morons and grifter asswipes) party-line be when Orange Turd-1 is found guilty in NYC (again!) this week or next of most or all of the 34 felonies he's been charged with?
The truth. Biden’s SS Stasi at work. Everything his enemies cry foul about is what they themselves are doing. You can set a clock to their corruption.
:rofl:
Don’t let me interrupt. Please continue your boring one man display of sycophancy.
At last! A confession.
Quoting NOS4A2
ROFL!! This applies:
Quoting NOS4A2
Russia denies Trump’s claim he can free US journalist if he wins election (— The Guardian · May 23, 2024)
The Clown qualifies as a bullshitter (again).
“ We New Yorkers used to tolerate him when he was just another grubby real estate hustler masquerading as a big shot. A two-bit playboy lying his way into the tabloids. He’s a clown.”
Robert De Niro
Observe Robert DeNiro, the new poster boy for the Biden campaign:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1795499766584856676[/tweet]
Is he a prophet? Or is he trapped in a moral panic?
A simple test; remember his predictions:
- This kind of government will perish.
- If Trump returns to the Whitehouse, kiss your freedoms goodbye.
- no more elections.
- Trump will never leave office should he win; "You know that".
Should Trump win, compare De Niro's predictions to the results and you'll have your answer regarding the amount of delusion we're dealing with.
https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1795475706979233917
Check out the comments too.
I'm amazed at your ability to make 5 different completely insane statements in less than 20 words.
I suspect rather than respect your opinions, so any personal insults only make me feel better.
Perhaps you ought to tell someone who cares.
Today in Trumpenfreude
Quoting 180 Proof
"The Orange Turd" has been flushed! :party:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/donald-trump-guilty-hush-money-trial-00160460
LOCK HIM UP! :clap:
update:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907730
You think the jury was planted?
...
So what happens now? Now that we have a verdict in the case, there’s a good chance Trump will play it as being what he expected, and even wanted. We should expect him to go scorched-earth, because he so often does. We know he will try to weaponize this verdict and craft it into an assault on the rule of law, on the judge and the jury and on New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
No matter what the outcome, Trump was always going to try to use candidate Trump to help defendant Trump. And any verdict was destined to be molded into his branded narrative of persecution, witch hunts and a fight against the political system. Of that we can be certain" ~ MSNBC
Loving the Trumper tears though. When he loses in November, I’m perfectly happy to hear them cry about it all for the next 4 years. Otherwise some two-bit con man getting what he deserves isn’t that interesting.
Maddow and MSNBC generally are doing a stellar job articulating the clear and present danger that Trump/MAGA presents to the rule of law and Constitutional democracy, and those engaged in upholding and defending it.
I think the judge and jury were partial, the crime was made up, the conviction was bought and sold, and it was all a classic show trial serving the ruling regime and their acolytes.
Cope.
But on the positive side
[quote=The Daily Beast] perhaps the most important outcome of this trial is not the verdict, which Trump immediately called a “disgrace” after it was delivered. It is that the system worked. Judge Merchan served admirably, in the face of threats and intimidation from the defendant and his supporters, and bent over backwards to protect Mr. Trump’s due process rights.
The jury appears to have stayed focused and attentive throughout the proceeding, and was careful in reviewing both the judge’s instructions and evidence, making sure they understood the testimony that was presented before them.
The attorneys at the District Attorney’s office who tried the case also faced threats and intimidation and did their job in the face of such threats. Even Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys behaved admirably...[/quote]
It's encouraging how many times the electoral system and the judicial system have stood up to Trump's attacks. He's lost a lot of lawsuits, and has now been convicted of crimes. If the trend continues, and even if it takes some years, he will be convicted of many more. The wheels may be turning slowly, but they’re turning.
Proof?
What irregularities with choosing jury members have been established?
The judge doesn't establish guilt, even if he were partial (and they all are in the US because it's a political position), what did he do specifically that tanked Trump's defence?
The crime is defined in the law, how is it made up? If his actions met the definition, it's a crime.
Who bought who for what for what money?
You've got nothing except that you're apparently a sore loser like Trump.
Perhaps. Trump is a divisive figure. Most people either hate him or worship him. But if there's evidence of crimes then he still needs to be prosecuted. How would you go about finding an impartial jury, and what makes you think that this wasn't already done in this case?
Quoting NOS4A2
I don’t really know what this means. He was prosecuted under 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In the First Degree, with the intent to violate 17-152 - Conspiracy to Promote or Prevent Election.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't really know what this means either. Are you suggesting that the jury were paid to find him guilty?
The cult is exposed in the nature of this defence.
Back in my misspent youth I had occasion to be shown the certain sign of guilt in the form of the "too many excuses" defence. A fence had been damaged a boy was questioned and his response has remained in my mind for fifty years, as equivalent to a confession: "It wasn't me. — And anyway, it was an accident."
The defence in the case contradicted itself in just this way, and @NOS4A2 has done the same thing again. In order for Trump to be innocent, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the legal system, the constitution, and crucially, all his previous lawyers and accountants have to be guilty. And also we who are watching.
It is beyond reasonable doubt, because there is zero evidence, and because it involves way too many conspiracies, that this defence is false.
The trial defence was the same: Stormy lied there was no affair Pecker lied, there was no coverup Then there was the ludicrous defence that any payment to a lawyer must be for legal expenses, then the accountant lied, then his own lawyer at the time was rogue and did all without Trump knowing, Everyone was guilty except Trump.
"It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Judge Judy.
I will feel encouraged only if he loses the election. Right now, this looks like a nation where only about 50% of the population respects the rule of law. A loss won't cure that problem overnight, but perhaps it will loosen Trump's hold on the GOP, who's sycophant leaders feel compelled to echo the convicted felon's attacks on the justice system.
Let's say Trump got prison time, even if it's just one year.
If he were to win the election anyway, what would this mean for the spirit of the US population as a whole? The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, but what would the people do?
It's not like there's a Mandela at the helm of the party, someone who's been fighting for a good cause and for democracy who is put in jail because of a corrupt state. No, it's a narcissist who's on the brink of being a dictator and who's a convicted criminal for actual crimes in a democratic state.
So, how would the people react? Both short term and long term?
Is your impression that this isn't already the case? :chin:
Yes, but that's already obvious for most intellectuals. I'm wondering how the general public will react, think and act. If he were to be elected president while being in prison, how would the general public behave? And on top of that, let's say he actually starts to act like a dictator and begin some retribution, what then?
Manhattan voted 85% for Joe Biden, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one in New York. The Biden/Harris campaign and a whole host of anti-Trump Democrats pay the judge's daughter an obscene amount of money to work for them. A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury?
Have you heard the phrase “novel legal theory”? It suggests the unprecedented nature of any given legal theory. The fact that the FECA, the Justice department, Bragg's predecessor, and even Bragg himself refused to bring charges indicates how Bragg had to conjure out of legalese a ploy to prosecute a former president that he campaigned on getting.
I know you wrote it down, but do you think that Trump intended to violate 17-152, which is an obscure, rarely used New York state law? I suppose prosecutors would have had to prove that Trump first new about this law, and then intended to violate it. I don't see how one could believe that. But forgiving all that, what are the "unlawful means" through which Trump intended to violate this obscure misdemeanor which is well passed its statute of limitations?
According to the corrupt judge's jury instructions, the unlawful means were one or more of three "theories". Not even the judge knows the unlawful means through which 17-152 was violated, so he corruptly tells the jury that they don't even need to agree to the unlawful means through which Trump violated 17-152. No one seems to care that Trump has not been convicted of any of the "unlawful means" theories, and therefor there is no way to determine whether the "unlawful means" were indeed unlawful, and this in a country with the presumption of innocence. One of these "theories" is federal campaign laws. No one seems to care that Bragg and that court have no jurisdiction over federal campaign laws, nor that the FEC or DOJ found any but violation of it, and the judge doesn't mind leaving this out of his jury instructions.
So Trump has been found guilty of writing "legal expenses" in a ledger, in order to commit a crime that no one has heard of, and doing so by using "unlawful means" that have not been determined to be unlawful by any court of law.
So all of this (and much more) is why I call this a made up crime.
It's an English idiom, "like bought and paid for". It means "corrupt".
It's a New York crime so was always going to be tried in New York.
If it makes you feel better, his Florida trial will be in an area that heavily favours Republicans, so you can be grateful of a biased jury in his favour, and with a biased judge he appointed.
Quoting NOS4A2
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Although I don't doubt Trump has committed all sorts of crimes, the following explanation by the BBC:
Quoting BBC
Does seem honestly bizarre to me.
Prosecuting a political figure under the condition where "never before has a state prosecutor invoked an uncharged federal crime" does seem simply serious corruption of going after political enemies with spurious charges.
If the situation was highly unique, then novel legal arguments wouldn't be surprising, but not only does the situation not seem that unique at all, falsifying business records happens all the time, but the novel legal argument is of an entire category of no prosecutor ever having invoked uncharged federal crimes of any kind in the history of the state (rather than for example no prosecutor has invoked this particular crime, but generally speaking happens all the time with regard to other crimes, in which case, again, if it was augmenting the list of uncharged federal crimes prosecutors have invoked then it would not be so alarming; but that the whole argument has simply never been even attempted before with regard to any other kind of federal crime, seems pretty mind blowing).
Not that someone who pays porn stars for sex (or pretty much anything else about "the Donald") should be in the running for president of "the free world", but does seem to me exactly the abuse of power to go after Trump his supporters complain about, if these BBC statements are correct.
It must be true because a lot of people (all Republicans) are saying it. And they'd better!
[I]Former two-term Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, whose decision to run for Senate was seen as giving Republicans a real shot at flipping a blue-state seat, reacted to Donald Trump’s guilty verdict Thursday by calling for respect for the rule of law and urging people not to “pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship.”
Trump’s senior campaign adviser, Chris LaCivita, responded on X, formerly Twitter, with a blowtorch: “You just ended your campaign."[/i]
https://rollcall.com/2024/05/30/republicans-whose-races-will-decide-control-of-congress-rally-to-trump/
First of all, the chance of Trump spending even a day in prison is zero. But if we assume it occurs, I'm not sure it makes much difference. It won't change anyone's mind, domestically or in other countries.
Yet for Donald Trump, he upgraded charges from misdemeanor to felony to convict Trump THIRTY FOUR TIMES.
Maybe learn how statistics work instead of expressing shock.
Perhaps it will change the mind of the convict.
He could turn to writing poetry and title the collection: My Imprisonment.
The obvious lesson here, just as in the previous 3 civil law suits: DO NOT DEFAME, SEXUAL ASSUALT, DEFRAUD OR MAKE/TAKE UNLAWFUL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT YOU THEN HAVE TO COVER-UP in a jurisdiction – your hometown! – where you have been very unpopular (as a known bankrupted grifter buffoon & racist bully) for 4-5 decades. Not too effing bright! – and then you (and your "poorly educated" horde of cultists) whine whine whine on about it like most common criminals do. :sweat:
Quoting Relativist
Well, my guess (today, 31May24) is that Convicted Felon-1 will be sentenced to 2-4 years for each of the 34 felonies that will run concurrently (so that if only 1 felony survives the appeal process, he will still serve 2-4 years in prison), probably starting in spring 2025. The basis of sentencing will be Convict-1's (a) conspicuous lack of contrition, (b) 10 criminal contempt citations & (c) continuous post-trial attacks on witnesses, jurors, prosecutors et al as well as (d) the scope of the predicate crime (that his co-conspirator Michael Cohen was sentenced to a 3 year prison term by the Feds) that he covered-up in 20i6 & the need to deter him from committing the same 2016 crimes again in 2024.
Also, those 10 criminal contempt citations violate the terms of Convict-1's pretrial release in each of the other 3 juridictions where he has been indicted. While it is unlikely his bail release in either Georgia or Florida will be revoked, it's quite possible that as early as July (after SCOTUS either punts (or does not) or rules that a POTUS has "absolute immunity"), the DC District Judge Chutkan can order Convict-1 remanded to jail until his trial starts. This happens everyday to thousands of criminal defendants, indicted for violent and nonviolent crimes, all across the US in local, state & federal courts – it'll be more egregious special treatment if Convict-1 isn't jailed for violating his pre-trial release (re: criminal contempt of court in NY 10 times).
Political considerations aside, I wonder what TPF's resident lawyers think @Maw @Ciceroianus @Hanover (@Benkei) et al :chin:
Actually, it was Trump who upgraded his 34 misdemeanors to 34 felonies, by committing these offenses with the intent of committing additional crimes.
In answer the question in bold: through voir dire. Statistics are not a valid basis for requiring a change of venue:
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-boudin
[I]...no court has articulated a bright-line test whereby a fixed percentage of veniremen [individuals selected either to be screened as potential jurors or to actually be jurors in a case] expressing a preconceived opinion, standing alone, requires a change of venue.
...as recently noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "detection of actual prejudice is not accomplished through juggling statistics[/i]
Whenever Trump loses, he always claims it was due to unfairness (and of course, his cult members uncritically accept everything he says). His accussations ought to convince no rational person. Hurling ad hominems at judge, DA, and jury is childish and inappropriate.
The jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the case presented and per the jury instructions they were given. The case involves some legal techicalities that depended on the legal judgement of the judge. Each such judgement that the defense appeals will be reviewed by appellate courts. Their assessment will not be based on analyzing Merchan's character. Instead, they will determine if he made errors that could have affected the verdict. That's the way the system works, and it's a pretty good system. It's too bad that Trump supporters refuse to accept that. But of course, they let Trump tell them what to think.
I'm feeling deep sadness and depression today at the country I've woken up in.
I would argue that even if you hate and despise Trump to the ends of the earth; what has happened today is a very bad day in the history of this country.
I'm reminded of one of my favorite films, A Man For All Seasons. Paul Scofield gives an incredible performance as Sir Thomas More, a man of principle who gets in trouble with Henry VIII in the 1530s. It's based on a true story. The State is determined to get him whether he's guilty of anything or not.
There's a scene that's been on my mind lately.
[quote=A Man For All Seasons]
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
[/quote]
? Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
I'm appalled that so many liberals, good liberals whose side I've been on all my life, are so gleeful today. Do you not understand what you've done? The hush money case is a chickenshit case. Bragg's office already looked at it and decided it was a loser. They didn't bring the case. Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case.
I will note that the White House has been muted in their public gloating. I think their overnight internal polling is not favorable. Americans, not just those on the right, but centrists and even some liberals, are seeing this the way I see it.
A decent liberal of conscience must have qualms about this conviction. It doesn't matter if Donald Trump is the devil. The precedent set today will not work out as you hope.
This verdict is a bad thing. It does not matter what you think of Donald Trump. It's a blatantly political case: a sitting president using a state judicial system to pursue an extremely weak and petty case against his political opponent in the upcoming presidential election. Not to mention the egregiously biased judge who doesn't care that the case will be overturned on appeal. They just want a conviction today. It's shameful.
I say it's shameful even if Trump is the guiltiest bookkeeper in history, the worst hush money payer, the stupidest Stormy-f*cker ever. I think a lot of people, not just me, and not just those on the right, see this for what it is. It's the most blatant election interference in the history of this country. It's banana republic stuff.
It is possible to loathe Trump and still see that this verdict is indeed, a very bad day for this country. My liberal friends, you have sown the wind, and you will reap the whirlwind.
This is what I came here to say.
Sir Thomas More was beheaded in 1535.
Your premise that it was a weak and petty case needs to overcome the decision by twelve people who do not agree.
Your expectation that the case will be overturned on appeal is another opportunity to possibly encounter disappointment.
I agree it was a chickenshit case, in that it entailed a low level felony that rarely results in prison time, and that it probably leads some to consider his more serious crimes equally chickenshit (they aren't).
But you said some things that are just wrong.
"Do you not understand what you've done? "
What do YOU think we did? We didn't take the case to the grand jury, indict, and try Trump. If I had my way, the federal indictments would have been the only indictments, and they would have been tried by now.
"the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case"
Pure bullshit. If the Biden Administration wanted to prosecute Trump for these crimes they wouldn't have dropped the federal case. Secondly, there's no evidence of involvement by Biden or Garland. Third, it would be stupid, given the truly serious crimes Trump has committed. Bragg had local political motivations that may have led him to go out on a limb on this, but nevertheless it was in his discretion to do so*. That's why a "chickenshit case" was brought.
But even so, that doesn't mean Trump was innocent. The evidence was real, not manufactured. Trump received a fair trial, and a reasonable verdict was reached per the evidence. Trump behaved like a jackass throughout, and his cult parrotted all his childish accusations.
And yes, I'm delighted he was found guilty, because that's what the evidence showed, and because Trump was such a jackass about it all- undermining the rule of law and judicial system needlessly. There are statesmanlike ways to deal with a "chickenshit" trial, and when dealt with that way - emotions are kept in check, while respect is maintained for the rule of law and the judicial system.
Another aspect of this is the fact the trial exposed some pretty damnable behavior, irrespective of legality. He and Pecker cheated by killing negative stories and publishing false ones about opponents. Most immoral behavior is not a punishable crime, so there's some satisfaction when it is at least exposed. Interestingly, I haven't seen a single Republican make a negative comment about it. Instead, they just say "it's legal" - implying it's perfectly fine since it's legal.
* Will Republican DAs retaliate by going after Dems? Maybe, but as long as they are simply looking at real crimes, I don't care. I support holding politicians accountable.
I don't see these charges resulting in jail time anyway. He's a non-violent first offender at 76 years old. You're getting carried away with all the things he's done that he hasn't been convicted of. The guy doesn't deserve jail for this. Judges tend to be tempered so I don't expect you'll get to see the vengeance you want. And there will be appeals and appeals.
This hush money conviction is no big deal, and I doubt you'd care much if Trump were an otherwise decent guy. The judge is required to look at this conviction in isolation. He can't pile on just because Trump is otherwise a piece of shit.
This fight ends at the ballot box. Be afraid of that and stop watching the sideshow. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
This only reflects your lack on conscience on such matters. If those bible thumpers aren't persuaded by his playboyism, then what does that mean about what they think he is?
Of course there's always the risk of going too far in trying to prosecute someone that it backfires politically on the other side, which is probably the only safeguard we have left in today's hyperpolarized society. The impeachment of Clinton blew up in the Republican's faces 25 years ago and this conviction of Trump may blow up in the Democrat's faces too though personally I doubt it. Most polling seems to suggest that the public sees Trump as an obvious criminal and they seem to support the conviction on that basis. So much as people see Trump as a victim it seems to be largely coming from Trump's core base of support. Whatever bump Trump could have gotten from them has already manifested when he was indicted in the first place, which allowed him to win the primary. The general election is another matter entirely.
I personally may of may not lack a conscience and may have to one day wrestle beezlebub as he tries to drag me into the pits of hell, but nevertheless, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He's gone 4 years as a regular citizen who hasn't been left out of a single news cycle. Call him a genius or call him Satan, but either way, you'll be calling him Mr. President come November.
Man, haven't we come a far far far way from what got Nixon and Clinton ousted from the presidency.
Yeah, and people would even call this a "good thing."
I don’t really care about case text and legalism, especially from a corrupt judicial system. All of that can be bent to suit one’s political will like Bragg and the judge has done here. All this “rule of law” hokum doesn’t mean much when the law is shit.
The repetition of bromides is the game. What they lack, however, is the moral argument. The whole case was wrong to prosecute, wrong to bring to trial, and wrong to convict someone of, let alone to convict one’s political opponents in the lead up to an election. But because they cannot help themselves they did it anyways, and thanks to Trump’s resiliency, I get to sit back and watch the goons expose themselves for the world to see.
In any case, Trump’s political career will soon be over, but the stain of what his opponents have done will remain forever. All of it is now marked in history, along with a litany of other bumbling hoaxes and persecutions, and I can’t help to be happy for it.
You've previously said you don't care if your hero breaks the law or does anything immoral, so I knew you wouldn't care about the law. Of course, this makes your position self-defeating.
Sad that Trump helped make the lunatic fringe mainstream.
Clinton (I assume you mean Bill) was not ousted. He completed two full terms.
This is a lie.
Nope. Total bullshit.
It’s a good thing when a criminal gets convicted of crimes. This one isn’t too important — there are others. But you crying about it because you’ve bought into Sean Hannity’s analysis of political persecution by Biden— where there’s no evidence whatsoever — is a joke.
Spare us.
Not true. It was a very tawdry case but the facts presented to an impartial jury resulted in a guilty verdict. The Office of the President had nothing whatever to do with it, that is a MAGA lie. Here’s a factual account of the background to the case (gift link.)
Trump is facing numerous other felony indictments plus hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties. Regrettably many of these cases don’t look like starting before the election but in any case, his political fate will be decided at the ballot box, and despite all the hype, I believe he will be soundly beaten in November.
But what is really depressing is that Trump and his minions are actively attacking the rule of law and the constitutional order, every day. They are spewing lies and spawning attacks on jury members, voting office workers, and many other federal and state officials. And yet the representatives of one of the two major political parties in America are now all in on it and coming out in support of what amounts to a political personality cult. We are witnessing a real struggle for the survival of democracy in America. It’s no longer just a contest between Democrats and Republicans. Democracy itself is on the ballot.
:ok:
Skip to the end if you like, and see what convicted felon Trump said back when he was committing his felonies, about his opponent, Hilary Clinton, who he supposed might be charged with a felony.
Everything he says about others, is the projection of what he really thinks and feels about himself. As soon as I can afford to, I will pity him for his tortured existence.
"He's incredibly conflicted and corrupt."
Trump was heavily criticized for saying Clinton should go to jail. The argument back then was that first world nations didn't try to imprison their ousted opponents.
Truth is though it's a balancing act between not allowing anyone to be above the law versus being a banana republic that throws their political opponents in jail.
I think we've not achieved that balance, but have gone overboard with this campaign funding hush money whatever it is to vanquish an enemy. The question as to whether we did go overboard will be answered by the people in November. That's how democracy works, with the people getting the final say.
And it's not missed on me that Trump seeks refuge in an election, the very place he's claimed is hopelessly fixed against him. I'm actually looking forward to his victory so I can hear him declare how the people have vindicated him in a fair and honest election. It's not that I like the guy. I'm just a fan of irony of biblical proportions.
Not in a general sense, but there have been people who got worse sentence because they acted like assholes towards the judge. Trump’s continuous threats against people involved in this trial could factor in as attempts to obstruct the justice system and lead to a sentence that is more severe.
It may be that he gets three months in prison, no one knows, but even if he got one day in prison it would be of symbolic importance.
Banana republics traditionally do both, so it's more a matter of choosing which end of the banana you want to eat and which end you want to pratfall on.
The best thing you can do is get off and laugh at the spectacle.
I wish we could laugh about our politicians, but over here in Europe it's not even funny anymore. It's just sad.
So I guess American politics beats European politics in that regard.
Agreed which is why it's hard for me to take people's concerns about how unprecedented this latest ruling is seriously. I agree with some that this is certainly the weakest case that Trump had to face, but the stronger and more serious cases (like the documents and election interference cases) were intentionally delayed by Trump and his hand-picked judges to happen after the election, which may not happen at all if he wins and pardons himself before hand. In a day and age where people are casually talking about that this grand plan to avoid legal consequences as if it's a totally cool and normal thing for one to do, then concerns about breaking precedent doesn't seem to ring as strongly as it used to 10 years ago. It seems like precedent is being broken every single week as Trump tests our system of checks and balances in a way nobody else has.
What is the likelihood that Judge Juan Merchan, who violated state ethics rules by making political donations to the Democrat party and a PAC called “Stop Republicans”, is also the judge presiding over the Trump Org case and the Steve Bannon case? How are these judges supposed to be assigned?
https://www.turnoutpac.org/stop-republicans/
Is it? I've long thought so, but now I'm not so sure. Sure, the charged crime is minor, but the actions behind the crimes are not.
Trump conspired with others to perform unscrupulous acts that helped him get elected. Few of those acts are actually violations of statutes, but they are still unscrupulous. The Mueller investigation exposed some of these acts, and this trial exposed others.
Trump isn't constrained by any moral code. The only constraint on his behavior is the legal code, and then - only if a solid case can be made. Prosecuting Trump for this minor crime reminds me of the prosecution of Al Capone, for tax evasion.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LaCivitaC/status/1796638231871590661[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1785449239364907284[/tweet]
The prosecutor was the top third man in Biden’s DOJ before he left to try the case. So how is it a lie?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Election%20Commission%20has,the%20now%2Dinfamous%20Steele%20dossier
Two Tiers!
:up: :up:
Meanwhile an upside-down US flag is emerging as a rallying symbol for MAGA.
Who in their right mind would think that flying the US flag upside down was a symbol for anything other than an attack on the US? Is that going to win the popular vote?
Isn't this a spectacularly awful idea? What would the the widespread adoption of an upside-down US flag communicate to the public? Wouldn't it say that Trump and Trump supporters have everything the wrong way around? That rather than respecting the national flag, and by extension the Constitution and the rule of law, that they're turning it upside down? How could this be an effective piece of political communication?
Let's hope it really catches on as I'm sure it will be a dramatically effective vote-loser.
I said my piece and have nothing to add. I'm content to let the future speak for itself. In the fullness of time, some opinions may change as the inevitable consequences play out. There are sharp criticisms of this prosecution from the left as well as the right, so I know I'm not alone in my view.
But enough about Al Gore, Stacy Abrams, and Hillary Clinton.
By the way, Hillary committed the exact same crime. She paid for oppo research against Trump and wrote it down as legal expenses. She was fined over $100,000. Maybe you missed this story.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910
Again, my point is not whether Orange Man bad. It's the unequal and politicized application of the law that even some on the left are deeply concerned about.
Quoting Wayfarer
It's the left on a rampage agains SCOTUS these days. Respect for the law seems selective, depending on whose ox is gored. Like when Schumer publicly threatened the Supremes. Didn't see much respect for the rule of law that day.
"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."
I'm sure you objected to the (at the time) Senate Minority leader's attack on the rule of law that very day.
Quoting Wayfarer
If you will reread my post (or read it for the first time, based on what you just wrote), you'll see that I said that one could loathe Trump yet share the concerns I raised. Liberal legal commentator Elie Honig and former Democratic Governor of New York David Patterson, among others, have expressed similar views recently.
I didn't 'miss the story'. There is no 'moral equivalence' between what Clinton did or didn't do, and the many crimes that Donald Trump is now facing indictments for, and what he was twice impeached for.
As for 'respecting the rule of law', it is Trump supporters who have been sending death threats to court officials and posting the names and addresses of jurors online to encourage attacks on them. It is Trump who is encouraging his followers and minions in Congress to turn on the FBI, and attacking any judicial officers who dare try to hold him accountable. It was Trump supporters who hounded electoral officials on the baseless grounds of election fraud. There is no equivalence. Nobody on 'the left' was responsible for that day of infamy.
Actually there's considerable evidence that people on the left were responsible; namely, Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser, who denied Trump's request for the National Guard. And the J6 committee was a total politicized fraud.
But you are making my point. Trump was not on trial for J6, but you think he was. Or more accurately, you just don't care. You are Thomas More's prosecutors, willing to cut down the law to get the Devil. Many on the left simply can't see the bigger picture. You can have the last word. And in the end, history will.
Utter nonsense but at least you've made clear what side you're on. Trump watched the whole thing unfold on TV and didn't call his attack dogs off.
I thought this was interesting.
Another boring “both-sides” guy. How original— how interesting.
The history of the flag at Justice Alito’s beach house makes its presence more chilling
Yeah, 99.9% peaceful protests with .1% property damage (like burning down a police station) hyped up by Fox News and getting idiots riled up…and attacking the Capitol to overthrow an election that wasn’t to Daddy Trump’s liking, that Fox News called a “tour.”
Stark contrast indeed — about the state of one’s brain on propaganda.
There have been threats of violence by Trump supporters. We do not know the extent to which they will follow through or when such actions might occur. The January 6th insurrection attempt did not occur until two months after the election.
“How could you support a convicted felon?”
Meanwhile:
But it’s an interesting comparison the way they glorify the Floyd protests, which destroyed the lives and livelihoods and neighborhoods of regular people, and which they demonize J6 and the violence of Trump supporters, which affected really no one but the political elites in Washington. Violent protesters were let off easy for razing city blocks, but if you take a lectern or put your feet on Pelosi’s desk your thrown in the gulag for years. In one law enforcement were demonized, the other law enforcement was lionized. It’s quite the interesting schism.
The United States is practically ran by war criminals.
And Trump never committed any. They literally have to conjure them out of thin air in order to maintain a delusion.
I've just accepted the double standards as a fact of life. A black police officer was murdered during those protests and not a peep from the George Floyd crowd.
Let me know when they start razing blocks and destroying stores.
If such things concern you then pay attention to what happens, and not only to what has not happened. You do not need me to let you know.
I'm quite concerned that President Biden is now attempting to imprison his main political rival and doesn't even seem to deny such a thing. A very dangerous precedent that may very well come back to bite the Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4v7I97wKImc
Enough said.
Trump has effectively turned civil and criminal matters into political matters and is accusing Biden of doing exactly what Trump himself is doing. When Trump declared his run for President so early the astute observation was that he did so in order to avoid prosecution.
There is no evidence that Biden is attempting to imprison Trump. The judge, not Biden, determines sentencing.
Prosecutor Mark Pomerantz was on loan from law firm Paul, Weiss, which has huge connections to the Biden regime and his party . Biden appointed prosecutor Michael Colangelo to acting associate attorney general in his own DOJ. Colangelo then left to pursue Trump. Judge Merchan donated to Biden and a political pAC called “Stop Republicans”, in violation of state ethics. Merchan’s daughter rakes in millions from the Biden/Harris campaign.
Biden is attempting to imprison Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/02/far-right-mobilizing-biden-presidency?CMP=share_btn_urs
Again, I question that this outlook is 'right wing' or 'conservative'. It's no longer 'Conservative v Liberal', but those attacking the rule of law vs those attempting to uphold it, which include at least some Republicans. But then, the Republican Party as a whole has bent the knee to Trump so they bear culpability for the consequences.
:rofl:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Someone’s obsessed with defending genocide.
When you cite stats it would be nice if you had a source.
Quoting NOS4A2
:rofl:
Stop! My abs hurt.
Unlike spouting bullshit, which need not be cited. Leaves you off the hook.
It might be the soy shots, Xtrix.
Xtrix is my old screenname. And what’s “soy shots”? You mean steroid shots?
Does literally everything you write have to be absurd and incoherent? It’s like a natural law.
Anyway, stick to the stuff where Trump has never committed crimes and the real issue is Hunter Biden, etc. Much funnier than when you try to be.
An apt description. Each side suspecting the other of the same things. One result of this rhetorical
tactic is that reasoned argument is defeated.
Trump hasn’t committed any crimes, nor could you name where he did. All I get is emojis.
Biden family corruption is the real problem. 10% to the big guy. But thanks for the tip.
But don't fall for the 'equivalence' fallacy. Only one side is based wholly on lies, even though the other side might also not always be truthful.
:rofl:
He’s a felon. Just convicted. Maybe you didn’t hear about it.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes! Lol. Thanks for getting back to your funniest material.
Wait let me do one: “Trump is the greatest president in history and had the biggest inaugural crowd ever.”
Oh dear. And before the appeals, too.
There are plenty wrongly convicted felons. Should the various appeals overturn the results and rebuke the sham trial you fell for you might have to admit the same, I’m afraid. But I’m sure you’ll be quite reticent at that time, won’t you. At least we have you on record.
Here's another "emoji" for you: Trump heard on tape discussing 'highly confidential, secret' documents
And? You realize the president has the highest declassification powers in the entire US government. Would it worry you if Biden stole and held classified documents for decades, even though he lacked the declassification powers to do so?
:rofl: Yes yes!!
Please continue your incomprehensible defense of this degenerate con man. It’s comedic gold.
I’ve heard the fucking tape. Which classified document is he referencing?
Up is down and black is white. Don’t try to reason— just enjoy the show. Trump is perfect— the rest follows.
The most abject conjecture and persistent appeal to authority is their highest degree of evidence, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd enjoy it if the stakes weren't so high.
Not that much riding on some rambling imbecile on the internet. Just come to this thread to laugh a little and go about your day.
Says an election denier, a climate denier, and a Trump defender. :rofl:
To answer your question, No, there is nothing wrong with what Trump or Biden did with so-called classified documents.
All the buzzwords in a row, well done. And an emoji icing on top. We’re racking up a fine record of insight here.
:rofl:
Carry on.
That's funny. The other day you accused me of getting my world view from Sean Hannity. Today you're crediting me with openmindedness. I suppose that's an improvement.
Actually if you read my post, I get my world view on this issue from A Man for All Seasons. I'd give the Devil the protection of the law for my own safety. A point that every single respondent has totally missed. @Wayfarer says, "I see what side you're on" as if I'd opened with partisanship. I went out of my way not to. J6! J6! J6! Complete with a picture. As if that bears on anything I said.
I must say, nothing in this thread has impressed me about the assembled philosophers. Is it the Lounge, or just the Trump effect? Logic, reason and reading comprehension are in short supply.
It's called politics. You'd be wise to stay away from it.
Who did he mislead? What laws did he break/skirt around? What economic favors did he sign off on against the better judgements of its citizens? Etc. . .
If you haven't found what they have committed wrong then you aren't thinking/looking hard enough.
It doesn’t follow, for me. The evidence shows that the wrongdoing was when the “intelligence community” and the media, in the US and abroad, defrauded their citizens into believing that Russia had an agent of the Kremlin, a dictator, a criminal running the country. The result of that charade is the total moral panic Trump’s detractors now find themselves trapped within. He has become a folk devil. As a result, they have become the petty despots they claimed to have feared. Every time they mention democracy, the rule of law, or some other bromide, we are only reminded of how quick they are to violate them.
Right! It is a rhetorical tactic. There is no equivalence, but when the danger of Trump and the red tie sycophants is pointed out their propaganda machine accuses Biden and everyone else who tries to hold Trump to account of the very things that Trump is guilty of.
The erosion of trust is likely to continue no matter who is elected. 'Us vs Them' leaves no common ground. Perhaps the disarray of coalitions falling apart will lead us to something better. Perhaps not.
I read what you said very well, and it’s obvious where you’ve gotten your information, what you’ve been taken in by, and where you stake your assumptions.
This is obvious because I (and others), unlike you, follow this stuff closely. You show up spouting talking points straight from conservative media, Trump tropes and other bromides that we’ve seen many times and which are indeed boring and ignorant. It’s “Well Hillary was an election denier too!” and similar statements. If you really see it as the same thing from what Trump was doing and continues to do, then “reason and logic” really doesn’t apply to you, and you deserve exactly what you’ve gotten.
Quoting fishfry
Let the Clintons and Bidens be jailed too for all I care. The Republicans were trying for years and continue to try. Their cases are so stupid it’s not worth discussing— what they should be doing is going after stock trading and other issues like that, but because they’re just as culpable, they won’t.
So it’s not unequal — for anyone paying attention, it’s been happening for years. See Clinton 1998 or Hillary’s emails or the current impeachment “inquiry” into Sleepy Joe. Trump’s hush money case is small potatoes, but because he’s such a moron and so blatantly corrupt, it’s easy to win in court. That’s the real difference. The other cases — like overthrowing an election — are more serious.
Smile! Make America smile again.
It is interesting to watch Stewart in his old show again after nearly a decade. So much less cringey than how other “talk show hosts” handle these things, in part because he prioritizes humor.
It’s fun that he’s back for the election.
Will refrain from linking to Antisocial Bullshit (or Patriots·Win or Gateway Pundit) further here...
Trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict
[sup]— Joseph Tanfani, Ned Parker, Peter Eisler · Reuters · May 31, 2024[/sup]
22 Experts Predict What the Trump Conviction Will Mean for 2024 and Beyond
[sup]— various · POLITICO · May 31, 2024[/sup]
MAGA faithful call for riots and lynchings after Trump’s guilty verdict
[sup]— Io Dodds · The Independent · Jun 1, 2024[/sup]
US 'Civil War' Predicted on Russian State TV
[sup]— Mandy Taheri · Newsweek · Jun 2, 2024[/sup]
Trump alludes to violence by supporters if he goes to jail - but says he’s fine with house arrest
[sup]— Andrew Feinberg · The Independent · Jun 3, 2024[/sup]
Tracing backward, who/what stands to benefit from the division unrest ... parts?
Quoting NOS4A2 They've always been that way.
Quoting NOS4A2 Exactly it's amazing how much the entire U.S. government and all it's affiliations don't tire of this paradoxical rhetoric.
By the way, I don't accept that. I watched a great deal of the telecast, I found it compelling and right on target. Trump should never be considered for public office again, in light of what he was shown to have done. But again, the supine GOP have fallen in behind him, two officers who were injured trying to defend the Capital were booed by Republicans when they appeared before Pennsylvania's House of Representatives. The rot has well and truly set in.
In other news, Steve Bannon has (finally!) been ordered to report to prison.
Didn't they throw certain GOP members off the committee or deny them membership, flouting longstanding procedures? I also hear they destroyed all their records. Thousands of hours of video are still suppressed.
Quoting Wayfarer
You know how this goes. I did not come here to out-talking-point anyone. I'll see your "two officers who were injured" and raise you an Ashli Babbitt. I daresay if a white cop had shot a black woman to death for no particular reason, and the cop skated without even an investigation, certain members of society would be burning down buildings.
I truly have no interest in debating J6. It was a protest that got out of hand. Many of the protesters were peacefully escorted into the building by the capitol police. Trump's prior request for the National Guard was turned down by Bowser and Pelosi. It was a setup. The hysteria that the Dems made out of the incident is a Reichstag fire for our times.
I watched the left destroy cities, get slaps on the wrist for throwing molotov cocktails into police cars, and set fire to police stations with cops inside. The double standard is blatant.
I hear Steve Bannon's going to prison for contempt of Congress. Eric Holder didn't. Why is that?
The politically biased application of the law is far more concerning than the prospect of a second Trump presidency.
I'll agree wholeheartedly that the GOP are supine. Trump is not a Republican. He's commandeered the party for his own purposes. The regular GOPs hate him and can't wait till they get their ineffectual and depressing party back after he's gone.
I did not come here to defend the merits of Trump. I asked if you would cut down the law to get at the Devil. Many on the left say yes. I think you will rue the day.
ps -- This just came across the wire. AG Garland will defy Congressional subpoenas at his whim. I assume you'll support his imprisonment.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1798007391801262179
Take it from somebody looking at American Bullshit from the outside; it's been rotting since Reagan.
Overthrow the government. That hysterical rhetoric is childish. Nobody overthrew the government. Handful of unarmed clowns in costumes. Guess you missed the leftists interrupting Kavanaugh hearing. Or the pro-Palestine protesters occupying Congress a few weeks ago. Selective outrage, selective application of the law.
Quoting Benkei
Not equating. Calling out the hypocrisy. Cop shoots protester to death, left doesn't give a shit because it was a right wing protester. If the races and political positions were reversed, it would be George Floyd all over again. A summer of looting, burning, and killing. The left condoned it. Kamala Harris started a fund for their bail. Said the riots would continue.
Quoting Benkei
Since November 22, 1963.
I said attempt. And no, it's not hysterical. But nice try at downplaying. Does it make you sleep better?
Again, only dumb Americans don't take J6 seriously. Everybody outside saw it for what it was. A bunch of thugs trying to keep their God Emperor Trump on the throne as they have admitted to and informants in the Boogaloo, Proud Boys and other militant groups, that were there, reported on. But yeah, keep your head in the same and pretend this was the same as a riot and watch it happen again next time Trump loses.
Hysterical. Childish.
Quoting Benkei
I expect the left to riot and rampage if Trump wins. It's the left who are the danger to democracy these days. I'll concede your next string of silly leftist talking points, which I did not come here to debate. I don't have to defend Trump. Just defending the man's Constitutional rights is enough to trigger the checkbox leftists. It's pathetic to watch. Pathetic and disheartening.
I came here to ask if people would cut down the law to get at the Devil, in response to the New York trial.
And what is the response? J6 J6 J6. Why? Because you have no response to the question. You'll ignore a summer of deadly rioting, 20 killed, billions in damages, over a violent career criminal who died of a fentanyl overdose. But the guy in the war paint, fur, and horns? That sends you into a paroxysm of rage.
You are easily played.
Have a nice evening. Your inability to engage in intelligent conversation is apparent to all.
It is established many J6 protesters weren't rioters but insurrectionists and were there to keep Trump in power. That's not a riot. Proud Boys wanted to murder the vice president. Boogaloo wanted to do as much damage to the government as possible. The Oath Keepers are anti- government, some convicted to 18 years for sedition. And you're here pretending prosecutors, judges and juries did so for shits and giggles.
Your attempt to equate them is the real hypocrisy here and is dumb as fuck. It doesn't require an intelligent discussion because your premises are so far removed from reality there's no discussion to be had until you acknowledge some basic facts first.
Just can't help yourself. Done with you
No they did not deny GOP participation. The original proposal for a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex, known colloquially as the January 6 commission, was an unsuccessful effort to create a bi-partisan commission that would have investigated the January 6 United States Capitol attack. On February 15, 2021, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi announced that she planned to create a "9/11-type commission". The details were initially negotiated by Republican John Katko, and would have consisted of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. A bill forming the commission passed the House of Representatives on May 19 with all Democrats and 35 Republicans voting in support of it. However, it was blocked by Senate Republicans on May 28, with 54 Senators voting in favor and 35 voting against, failing to clear the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. After the bill establishing the commission failed, the House of Representatives created the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.
There was then negotiation to establish another form of bi-partisan inquiry but it was torpedoed by Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans, some of whom denied that the assault was an attempted insurrection at all. McCarthy meanwhile insisted on broadening the scope to include an inquiry into Black Lives Matter protests. Stymied in the Senate, Pelosi declared that the House would conduct the enquiry. The only two House Republicans to vote to establish the Committee were also the only two Republicans to serve on it: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
As far as the ‘destruction of records’ is concerned, it’s another Trump/MAGA lie.
In any case Fishfry I respect your intelligence and have learned things from you about philosophy of math. This is what makes it disappointing - to see intelligent people rationalizing the despicable
actions of Trump and his flunkeys. It’s depressing.
I see intelligent people on the left, where I used to be, rationalizing lawfare and the politicized application of justice, from Russiagate to the present moment. I'm profoundly depressed about it. You gloated about Bannon but ignored my question about Holder. And now Garland is doing the same, refusing to honor a Congressional subpoena.
I came to the Trump thread to speak for Trump's Constitutional rights; and not for the man himself. I regret getting drawn into irrelevancies. He is not on trial for J6 and I did not post abou J6. And for what it's worth, I deny it was an "insurrection." That's a childish and false charge, especially in view of the summer of leftist riots that preceded it.
"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law."
Ashli Babbitt was shot by law enforcement trying to force entry into a restricted area. If she hadn’t have been taking those actions, she wouldn’t have been shot.
Quoting fishfry Not true. There were intruders holding signs saying that the Vice President should be hung and expressing the intent to find and murder the speaker of the house. They desecrated the House and destroyed private and government property and confidential records.
The difference with Holder is that Eric Holder was asked to testify and provide documents for a period of time in which he actually was part of the executive branch. In fact he did provide many documents and he claimed executive privilege for others. The court agreed but also required Holder to turn over non-privileged documents.
Steve Bannon was being requested to testify and provide document for a period of time in which he was not part of the executive branch. Bannon turned over nothing and refused to testify. It is fundamentally different than Eric Holder’s case.
Quoting fishfry
That trial is pending.
:victory: :mask: From the inside too the reek of imperial rot has been unbearable except to the last few of generations of "my fellow American" shiteaters.
“ Federal prosecutors on Friday moved to drop charges against the last 39 people accused of participating in a violent protest on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration.
The motion to dismiss charges by the U.S. attorney's office seemingly ends an 18-month saga that started with the Justice Department attempting to convict more than 190 people.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna889531
I remember this because everyone was mocking Trump for his crowd size without saying anything about the rioters blocking the entrances.
:rofl:
Totally unbiased analysis. Very convincing.Quoting fishfry
Oh Christ. Yeah, the day one of the worst presidents in history gets shot — all downhill from there. Please.
Hysterical. Childish.
This and climate change. Those two issues are so easy and so obvious that a child can understand them, and yet individuals who would otherwise fool you into believing they’re sharp thinkers simply cannot grasp them.
To me, both are a kind of litmus test. I used to think it was belief in God (“how can anyone rational really belief this?”), but that’s changed. Actually it’s rather similar, since the dogma and brainwashing of Christianity has largely shifted to politics, and so to education, science, medicine, etc. A lot of overlap. But still, I’m much more forgiving of religious beliefs these days — seem almost quaint and harmless compared to the Trump cult, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, book banners, etc.
It is indeed depressing, but shows how easy it is to get lost and let irrationality take over. Happens to the best of us.
In Fishfry’s defense, he’s certainly far from the worst of it — just skewed on where the emphasis gets placed and a lot of false equivalence — and there’s a lot of truth in it, to the both-sides stuff. Always has been. Because there really IS a lot to criticize in either party, and the hypocrisy that gets pointed out IS real.
For example, it’s true that there was some violence and destruction of property in the 2020 protests, yes. It’s true that the people who generally agreed with the values downplayed a lot of it, despite condemning it. It’s true that the conservative media ran NOTHING BUT these negative stories, to the point where you might have been convinced entire cities were being burned down and the world was falling into anarchy and being consumed by fire.
But most of us are already beyond that analysis. Getting stuck in the endless hypocrisy accusations is boring and tiresome and regressive, and usually serves as nothing more than a cover for one’s thinly-veiled partisanship. If you want to pretend you’re independent but deep down feel that one side is a bigger threat, then that will eventually come out. Look where the emphasis gets placed. I do this too. But I don’t hide it under the cover of “both sides.” The Republicans and Trump are more dangerous in my view— period. So I vote against them because I don’t want them in power. Why? Because it makes it that much harder to make any progress. But that’s not an endorsement on Biden or the Democrats, whom I loathe. But they’re NOT the same.
Eh…rambling over. Bottom line: stop overthinking things. Stop the gaslighting. Forget the culture war nonsense. And for God’s sake, enough with the fucking both-sides Nickelodeon analysis.
Just grabbing this quote for tagging purposes, perhaps I'll get to the particulars later. I want to be more general today.
Your posts have been on my mind. I have a desire to explain myself, and explain Trump, to liberals who hate him. I'm a fallen liberal. I voted for Carter, for the useless Mondale and Dukakis. For Kerry, who said he'd "Fight the war, but better," at a time when the country longed for someone to shut down that illegal and immoral war. A war supported by Hillary and all the other prominent Dems at the time. That was just one of many data points along the way to my growing disaffection with and now my total defection from the Democratic party.
I voted for every Democrat in every election in my lifetime, until I voted for Trump. Even then it was more of a protest vote. I live in California, which goes Democrat no matter what. I often have the luxury of a meaningless protest vote. At the time I asked myself what I'd do if I lived in a swing state. Probably vote for Hillary. Maybe not. It was close.
But after the behavior and actions of the Democrats since 2016, I and many other doubtful and trepidatious Trump voters of 2016 have had our positions hardened. It's not that I don't see Trump's many faults. But the Democrats have gone off the deep end. Some call it TDS. Looking the other way on too many bad ideas and too much outright evil because they hate the Orange Man. The monster that, ironically, they created themselves. Just look at his post-conviction polls. The more corrupt lawfare, the more Americans peel away from the Democrats. If you'd ignored him you'd be beating DeSantis by now.
Anyway I realize that I can't write my grand unified theory of Trump and how it relates to my own political development, all in one post. There's too much.
Instead I'll just try to write a little at a time, inspired that someone like as yourself has curiosity about what I have to say. I think this is the first time that's ever happened. Usually it's just abuse. "Let me explain what people see in Trump." "You Trumpers all suck." I'm sure you've seen the pattern. After a while, you come to see the nature of Trump's opposition, and you have to support the guy because there is no alternative.
So when you wrote about "the despicable actions of Trump and his flunkeys," yet you still want to hear what I have to say, then that's one more listener than I had yesterday. I thank you for that.
Before going on with generalities, I want to push back on the word despicable.
The Biden administration is running the world's largest child trafficking operation at the southern border. They've lost track of 1 out of ever 4 children. "Separating families" is bad, the lefties screech. Instead, they just let everyone in. "Oh, this is your child? Come on in." The reason you separate families is not to be cruel. It's to weed out the traffickers. Liberals who don't know the first thing about the southern border have no clue. The cartels are thriving. I say that's despicable.
If you say that's just a right wing talking point, you are wrong. I know border issues. Liberals are in denial about the horrific human rights abuses Biden is enabling. Shame on the MSM that let you stay asleep, and on the Democrats and liberals who prefer not to know.
Please don't think that only one politician or party in the US is despicable.
Ok end of that rant.
Something bad happened to the left after 2016. They call it TDS. I believe it. I see the left doing very foolish and dangerous things because they hate Trump so much. The open borders, the decriminalization of crime, and the bumbling and potentially fatal foreign policy.
Trump had four years of peace and was the only president in my lifetime not to start a new war. You think that was an accident? It's something many Americans long for. It was no accident.
Another funny thing. The Trump monster is of the Dems' own making. A year ago we were all tired of Trump. I was tired of Trump, and I'm a good barometer for that. I thought DeSantis would be the nominee. Then they raided Mar-a-Lago, and the next day DeSantis was forced to come out in Trump's defense, then he faded in the polls, and Trump rocketed on up. Dems, YOU did this. We all thought Trump was done. You breathed life into him through your corrupt lawfare and political attacks.
Do you not see the irony? Do you not look at the polls? If you'd left Trump alone, DeSantis or dog killer Noem would be the GOP nominee and they'd both lose. By the way I hate the Republicans even more than the Democrats, if you're wondering. The Republicans are so effing useless. I remember when they spent six years railing against Obamacare. Then they woke up in 2017 and found themselves in possession of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. It immediately became obvious that they hadn't spent five minutes in all those years thinking about health care policy. In the end they failed to overturn it.
Hopeless. The gang that can't shoot straight.
The Dems have become the evil party, and the GOP the useless party. What's an independent-minded free thinker like me to do? It's Trump, brother. He's all there is. There isn't another. And he's up against the entire establishment. It's something to behold. People are starting to be drawn to his epic struggle.
I tell you, the Dems have created the very monster they fear.
Bottom line: I am one of the ten million or so Americans who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. Reluctantly at first. And then, watching the Dems and liberals after 2016, now enthusiastically. Not because I don't see Trump's many faults. Not even because I like him. Many of Trump's supporters don't like him much. But right now, he is the only game in town. I wish it were not so. It's where the Dems have brought us.
And really, @Wayfarer, would you like to pretend to sell me on the virtues of that desiccated husk of the stupid and corrupt career politician they call Biden? Did you see him yesterday at Normandy?
Is that what you're selling me? Sorry, I've seen the goods.
Biden's staff evidently studied Reagan's 1984 speech, as reported by Politico and the NYT; and even plagiarized parts of it, as reported by some scurrilous right wingers who watched both speeches side by side. I haven't personally verified that last bit. Fitting for known plagiarist Biden. @Benkei you did cast a disparaging eye on Reagan, did you not? Ironic that he was the go-to inspiration for your guy yesterday. And he failed miserably of course. I suppose I should ask you the same question: You sellin' me four more years of that?
Since 2016 very few if any Democrats have troubled to ask themselves the question, who voted for Democrats all their lives, then voted for Trump?
They didn't ask that. Instead Hillary commissioned the fake Steele dossier, misreported the expense (ahem) and started the past eight years of vicious political lawfare against the Great Orange Monster.
And only made him stronger in the process.
I am a lifelong liberal and registered Democrat. And liberals and Democrats, you terrify me.
Wow. I'm speechless. Dare I ask why you say that? But nevermind. I don't necessarily need to have this conversation.
Quoting Mikie
Really? "However, arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred between May 26 and June 8 caused approximately $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, and surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots." -- Wiki
And: "By the end of June 2020, at least 14,000 people had been arrested. By June 2020, more than 19 people had died in relation to the unrest." -- Wiki
But at least it wasn't the guy in horns wandering aimlessly around the capitol. That was an insurrection.
Quoting fishfry
Fine. Chomsky says it better than me, though (at 1:36):
Also recommend “Rethinking Camelot.”
I'm reading The Dark Side of Camelot by Sy Hersh. Dishes the dirt. I don't say JFK was a saint. I do say that this country has not been the same since the CIA blew his brains out in broad daylight on behalf of the deep state.
Chomsky is full of shit on the JFK assassination by the way. People have always called him a CIA asset and this is one of the data points in support of that proposition.
So you’re with Oliver Stone on this one I guess.
Seems silly to me. I don’t care that much, to be honest— could be true. What actually changed my mind was NOVA’s assessment:
Worth watching. They dismantle a lot of misinformation.
Quoting fishfry
Does he say much about it? I recall him focusing more on Vietnam and Cuba.
Anyway…Your credibility continues to wane. First repeating conservative talking points, then echoing Oliver Stone conspiracy theories, now claiming Noam Chomsky is a “CIA asset.” Oof..
Quoting Wayfarer
I understand! When the Democrats impeach Trump twice, the first time over something that Biden provably did (extort Ukraine to fire the Burisma prosecutor), it's the virtuous application of the law to all men without fear or favor. And when the Republicans use the law to hold the Democrats accountable for anything, those are "frivolous and baseless lawsuits from Trump’s minions in Congress none with any basis in law or fact, but solely driven by spite and the desire to settle scores."
It's all so simple now! Why didn't I see that before?
Quoting Wayfarer
Were you that magnanimous to law enforcement when George Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose with a cop's knee on his upper back, in conformance with police department policy? Or in the Ahmaud Arbery case, where a known neighborhood burglar resisted a lawful citizen's arrest and the citizens were not even going to be charged until the mob howled?
You like lynch mobs?
Quoting Wayfarer
As long as they spare the fly.
Quoting Wayfarer
Pelosi? The line was probably around the block.
How many did such things out of the total present in Washington that day? Out of how many still held in jail, in solitary confinement under inhumane conditions, like one of Stalin's gulags?
You condone that?
Quoting Wayfarer
Pelosi did that herself when she ripped up the SOTU speech, among other things. Not to mention her flagrant insider trading, which you or I would go to prison for.
Quoting Wayfarer
Floyd riots: 19 dead, over a billion dollars in insurance payouts for property damage, at least one police station burnt to the ground, other police stations set on fire with cops inside, government buildings attacked, two law students given slaps on the wrist for tossing Molotov cocktails into cop cars, vibrant commercial sectors burnt to the ground that will take years to rebuild.
Did you spend the summer of 2020 cheering that on?
Quoting Wayfarer
He refused, and was held in contempt of Congress. Was that the proper authority of Congress, or was that more "frivolous and baseless lawsuits from Trump’s minions in Congress none with any basis in law or fact, but solely driven by spite and the desire to settle scores."
How silly of me to even ask.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's the fair and even-handed of the law, which no one is above. Say, I think I'm getting the hang of this game!
Quoting Wayfarer
Many voters of all political persuasions and demographics see that illegitimate lawfare is all you've got, since you can't make a case for your guy.
And ... if I may be so bold as to ask ... what exactly is the case for your guy? In syllables that don't rhyme with Orange. "Vote for the burnt out husk, he's not Trump."
Catchy.
I think the circumstantial case against the CIA is stronger than the circumstantial case against Oswald. There's no proof either way. Oswald never could have been convicted in a fair courtroom. Stone mostly focusses on the Garrison case, which I haven't studied.
Did you know there's a straight line from Bill Clinton to the JFK assassination? It goes through the airport in Mena, Arkansas, which was a hub of drug and gun running while Clinton was governor. One of the pilots was the famous drug smuggler and CIA asset Barry Seal, who used to be a member of the Civil Air Patrol and knew Oswald and David Ferrie, the guy played by Joe Pesci. Theres a pretty good film called American Made starring Tom Cruise as Seal.
Shortly after the JFK assassination, three men in suits got on an airplane at a local airport, told the controller they were flying north, then flew north a ways and turned back south. Some think the pilot was either Seal or Ferrie. That's all speculation though. Once the cops announced the arrest of Oswald, the controller didn't bother to follow up the flight plan anomaly.
Quoting Mikie
If they give even the slightest credence to the single bullet theory, they're full of baloney. One, there is no chain of custody linking the bullet supposedly found at Parkland to the bullet currently stored at the National Archives as CE-399. Two, even if it was the same bullet, there were more grains of led in Connally's body that are missing from the bullet. Three, Dr. Pierre Finck, one of the autopsy surgeons, testified at the Clay Shaw trial (Garrison case) that he was ordered by a high ranking military official to not dissect the back and throat wounds. Meaning that the government deliberately made sure nobody could ever know if the same bullet caused both wounds. And four, Governor Connally swore to the day he died that he was not hit by the magic bullet, and his wife Nellie, who'd been sitting behind him in the presidential limo, agreed.
I will check out the video, thanks.
Good god— is this really what braindead right wingers find funny?
The crackhead jab was the only one not reliant on a stupid, nonexistent premise (crime is actually down) or Fox News bromide.
Reminds me of these polls where conservatives say the stock market is way down when it’s at record highs. Just living a fact-free existence. What can you do? Let stupid be stupid I guess.
I found it entertaining.
The difference between us is that you just trust stats at face value and leave it at that. Crime data in the US has been manipulated for years for political gain. It's an open secret. I walk into stores and see items locked up due to pervasive shoplifting. I don't recall it being like this a decade or two ago. But that's surely paranoia, right? Crime is lower than ever! :roll:
I've also worked in government so I'm familiar with the drivel. Gotta report something.
Oh I see— so the stats can’t be trusted, but your anecdotes should be.
Funny — I walk into stores and almost nothing is locked up. Nothing that hasn’t been locked up since the 1990s anyway.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, basically. Because shoplifting really hasn’t increased much nationally. But Fox News runs stories every night, so I can see how your brain would be effected that way.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myth-vs-reality-trends-retail-theft
Oh wait — no stats matter, only vibes and anecdotes do. Let’s go with those I guess. In which case: stock market at all time low! America is being overrun by immigrants! Etc.
:yawn:
Only one side in the American political scene is openly declaring the intention to suspend the Constitution, and running solely on the basis of vindictiveness and spite. Why this is not an outrage to any sane person is beyond me. As promised I will donate US$10.00 on the basis of losing the argument that Trump won’t be the Republican nominee. That charity will be Liz Cheney’s PAC. And bye for now.
To the extent this might be true it is not something that one party does and the other eschews. In the case of Trump data does not matter.
There's been a large gap in crime stats since 2021. Apparently in NYC the police won't even file a crime report for anything short of murder. Many precincts no longer report crime stats.
And would it even matter to you if groups like Hezbollah and MS-13 poured across our border? You don't even like the US. So what if it's enemies come in? Or the massive amount of sex trafficking that Biden's policies allow?
I already said: just go with your feelings and vibes and anecdotes.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:lol:
Because you totally know that the NYPD reporting procedures unlike those idiots (including the police themselves) who bring up this point.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm serious. If you want to see the US fail then your policies and perspectives are perfectly valid. If so just lmk so I'll let it be.
No, nor do I care. I never once mentioned New York— not that it matters, since your feelings triumph because you see lots of stuff being under glass. So crime must be rising.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Oh I know. Which is why it’s so hilarious.
Ah, yes. How could I have overlooked that? Point taken. Thank you, interlocutor. :chin:
Quoting Mikie
Do you or do you not want to see America fall?
:rofl:
What could possibly happen after the storming of the buildings?
It wasn't a swift hit-and-run type attack.
Would the mob occupy them?
I don't think that could block Congress from moving ahead later, or stop much of anything really.
Hold hostages?
From memory, most of those who worked there left or got out before the attackers took over, e.g. Pence was (predictably) ushered away by the Secret Service; there wasn't anyone stopping people from leaving (or attacking them) that I recall.
Maybe they expected that a fair portion of the US population would join in...?
Including in law enforcement and military?
That's the only way they could succeed as far as I can tell, however remote that seems.
I suppose the attack could just give an impression of a weaker, fragile state of the US government, which might be enough for some.
Attacking those buildings doesn't really come through as much of a coup d'état attempt by itself, but I might definitely be missing something.
More like a party gone haywire, though I'm sure there were some serious extremists and dedicated instigators in the mob; what about domestic terrorists or Iranian agents?
Might be more interesting to back-track what participants/organizers did, whether they got together beforehand, where (or from who) their ideas originated or otherwise were reinforced, what their motivations were, ...
I'm thinking it wasn't just the Clown that put ideas in their heads, but I'm speculating.
Further motive (who might benefit in some way), means, opportunity (nudging rioters — and shamans), ...
Without knowing all the parts, Occam would concentrate on the motivation to stop the certification of the election. The different elements set in motion, the fake elector scheme, putting pressure on the VP, Congress critters ready to seize opportunities, mobs upsetting all involved, etcetera. It is not a plan in the style of Napoleon or Lenin.
One good thing that came of the trial is that they used his infamous laptop as evidence, proving once and for all that the media, the deep state, and the useful idiots that peddle the disinfo that the laptop was Russian disinformation, are proven to be stupid, malicious, or both.
Here’s a nice reminder of how they string along their cult:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/1798457753779990987?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
:lol:
I mean, just look at what happened to Hunter Biden.
Was a Trump judge. Whole thing was rigged. It was a perfect gun application.
At any rate, Hunter later plead guilty to a misdemeanor tax charge, netting himself a sweetheart plea deal with the DOJ that essentially absolved him from the gun charges he was just convicted of. A judge later questioned the constitutionality of the deal.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/proposed-hunter-biden-plea-agreement-00108426
Imagine if it was anyone else. But this is the politics of optics. The optics of the preferential treatment just became too much for the Justice department. With whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork, a mounting criticism of a two-tiered justice system, and the corruption of the elder Biden becoming more apparent, there wasn’t any hiding it any more. So, for electioneering purposes and to divert from Joe’s crimes, they sacrificed Hunter on the alter of politics, and Joe’s dutiful followers can pretend the justice system is no longer two-tiered.
They have not forgotten. They are convinced that kissing the ring or ass is necessary if the are to be reelected. Those who refuse have decided not to run again.
Has anyone else noticed that now that all the sycophants are now wearing red ties Trump is now wearing other colored ties?
It begins:
Quoting New York Prosecution's Story About Trump Featured Several Logically Impossible Claims
Do the logicians here think that these sorts of claims are logically possible? :chin:
I suppose the other question is, "Is it logically possible to talk about Trump logically?" :grin:
Right, of course.
Quoting jorndoe
Maybe, but it may well lead nowhere. I don't know that it was well-coordinated or thought-out in any sense.
https://thehill.com/business/budget/4725520-trump-plan-to-nix-taxes-on-tips-could-cost-250-billion-analysis/
Reducing tax revenue does not result in decreased government spending- it actually increases it, by increasing national debt and the interest paid to service that debt.
My question is: why focus specifically on tips? Why not simply lower taxes (or increase the earned income tax credit) for low incomes? This seems fairer.
Yes. The payment to Stormy was made before the election, and it was made to kill the story (interfering with the election). The payment amounted to a loan to Trump, which he repaid after the election.
It reduces the incidence of government theft. It’s not their money in the first place.
Food and hospitality businesses are struggling to retain workers. This is an added incentive. He’s already lowed income taxes, and The Tax Cuts and Jobs act hasn’t expired yet. Biden is trying to eliminate it.
Because you are addressing a service industry workforce, obviously, and that is what you think they will want to hear.
Or does anyone think that Trump is a super generous tipper who wants to help the poor folk?
So - you support the government intervening to help ailing business sectors. You consider taxes to be "theft". So do you propose eliminating all the "theft", or do you accept some degree of it?
The Paul Ryan tax plan will expire next year (the personal income tax side of it), so the "do nothing" option will result in higher taxes for all individuals. Biden has committed to keeping current tax rates for everyone making under $400K, while raising taxes on higher earners and corporations. Trump has promised to keep taxes at current levels and suggested lowering corporate taxes further.
I don't consider taxation to be theft; rather, it's the cost of doing business in this country (and it's pretty profitable to do business in this country). My view on tax and spending is that Democrats are too free to spend money while GOP is always over-eager to cut taxes. Trump is both a free-spender and a tax cutter: both lunacies in a single package. To be fair, Trump does propose raising revenue with import tarriffs, but this will result in trade wars and increase inflation. I truly wish GOP had nominated a rational person who could work with both sides to try and reduce the insanity. Biden is a better bet for some level of sanity on taxes, as compromise with GOP will be needed to pass anything.
I support cutting taxes, yes. Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. Taking the earnings from a certain number of hours of labor is like taking a certain number of hours from the person.
The forecast of Biden’s tax policies as indicated by The Tax Foundation is pretty bad. The whole article is worth a read but I’ll quote the summary:
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/biden-budget-2025-tax-proposals/
For some reason raising taxes on corporations and top earners sound good to pro-government functionaries, probably because they enjoy the benefits of other people’s money and efforts too much to pass it up, but it just means they raise their prices, stop hiring, and refuse to increase wages. The rest of us bear the cost. So once you get past the pomp and fluff, Biden’s insanity reveals itself on a simple analysis.
:rofl:
Always the same stupid excuses by plutocratic apologists.
Too big to fail. Too big to jail. And too big to tax.
It’s a law of nature that 90% of profits have to go to shareholders, so naturally if more goes to taxes or workers, cuts will have to be made to maintain the status quo.
Never mind that these companies are making billions in profits off the backs of their workers. Never mind that real wages have stagnated under “trickle down” economics.
The literal Streisand Effect. I checked out the story Babs was referring to and it appears a bunch of Biden influencers, like Streisand, are going full 1984 pretending it didn’t happen.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/16/us-news/biden-appears-to-freeze-up-has-to-be-led-off-stage-by-obama-at-mega-bucks-la-fundraiser/
Why does Biden have to be led around like a child?
Biden suffers from spondylosis, which is age-related spinal arthritis, and neuropathy in his feet. These have affected his walking.
I wasn’t aware neuropathy and spinal arthritis made you space out and wander off.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1803193393784172546?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Your confirmation bias may be coloring your perception. Are you predicting he'll space out and wander off in the debate? If he doesn't, will you assume he's on some secret miracle drug that's being kept from real dementia patients?
I’ll just say it’s his arthritic spine and neuropathy in his feet.
You’ll just say whatever they tell you to.
No, I don’t envision.
Are you asking if I’d like to see government disappear?
Of course I will. The difficulty though is working out who is they and who is we.
For instance the MeidasTouch videos you keep sharing. The “network” originally formed as a political action committee to stop Donald Trump. The sole purpose of a Political Action Committee is to influence an election. Personally I much rather hear your own original opinions than theirs and the Biden campaigns, but I fear there aren’t any.
Of course there aren't. I don't have any experience on which to base my opinions, so i have to rely on theirs. My opinion is that Trump is a miserable self-hating person who projects his hatred onto others, and thinks that everyone else is as horrible as he is. But i never met him, so it is based on the horrible things he says in his recorded speeches all the time with no factual support.
In contrast, The meidas people, while they are obviously anti Trump, make much use of court transcripts, reports in Trump supporting media, and so on. They are clearly biased, but they don't lie all the time unlike most of the Trump supporters and Trump himself.
They told me to say.
But I'm so glad you have your independence, and plenty of unbiased sources!
Your comments tend to suggest you're into
Quoting jorndoe
It seems to me more an admission of guilt than a statement of any fact. I say this because the man in your last video tells me the reality of Trump's hateful movement is that they are motivated by racial prejudice and the secularization of the nation. This man says that all logic, reason, and evidence shows that "the average Trump voter" (74,222,958 of them) is not concerned with economics, but with the rising racial underclass and its encroachment on their identity and culture. One piece of evidence he provides is that those who were arrested on Jan. 6th (which I'll pretend is not too small sample) come from areas where racial minorities were making gains on racial majorities, none of which indicates their desires and motivations.
So I find another video and here is one from NBC where Trump voters express why they are voting for Trump.
So who is lying?
Many people love and depend on the state, and I wouldn't dare take it away from them.
I am tired of people taking my money. You?
Trump is lying, and some people believe his lies because they really want to. People like Trump because they like what he says. I thought you might have had something a bit more interesting, but that's all there is I guess. 4 years a president then 4 and the border problem is still the problem he is going to solve in his second term.
I wasn't expecting people to come out and say, "l love Trump because his a bigot, a racist and a misogynist, and so am I." So I'm not very surprised it didn't happen.
I am late to the game, but the Libertarians seem correct: the logical and legal reasoning involved here is remarkably bad. "Jungle juice" jurisprudence:
But you’re keenly interested in the material from the guy who can offer no evidence of his claims. There was a great little article in Rolling Stone about the MeidasTouch Network, scolding with as “Trumpian” in their dealings. Maybe the self-hating projection is hitting a little too close to home.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/meidastouch-2020-campaign-finance-trump-1152482/
The earlier video they posted was the actual video. They couldn’t tell the difference between the “cheap fake” and the real one. 1984. So funny.
Red herrings. You're listing activities that aren't inherently illegal, but are merely immoral.
The problem was that in committing these immoral acts, the conspirators failed to stay within the confines of the law. The law was most certainly broken (this was established by the evidence, and confirmed by the jury). The specific law Trump was convicted of breaking is certainly a technicality, and a trivial one - but he did break it.
But the broader context is the inherent immorality of the acts. Trump supporters tend to gloss over this, as if everything is fine as long as it's not illegal. It's ironic when his immorality results in crossing legal boundaries, and he suffers a consequence.
The consequences of Trump's (technically trivial) crime were enormous - and (IMO) that's what makes this an important case. It wasn't important because the technical crime was a big deal, but Trump made it important by flagrantly disrespecting the rule of law, and encouaging that attitude amongst his followers. A statesmanlike attitude would entail respecting the process (compare to Joe Biden's comments about his son's conviction). Trump has only himself to blame, but he blames everyone else involved - attacking with childish insults. Trump is no statesman; he's a fraudster, of which this particular (trivial) crime is just the latest example.
Yes, and in the video I linked it is construed, "Trump is crimey, therefore he must have committed a crime." This is the basic thinking. And he may have committed a misdemeanor. Hard to tell.
Quoting Relativist
Quoting Relativist
The conviction seems to be a flagrant disrespect of the rule of law, and it seems that the only interesting question is whether this kangaroo court will significantly harm our rule of law. Courts are for legal matters, not non-legal moral matters. You yourself are showing a disregard for the rule of law in construing his conviction as a moral matter rather than a legal matter.
Trump is immoral, but were he especially criminal I would expect that a clear crime could be found! No one even knows what he is supposed to have done. The jury itself couldn't even agree on that.
My guess is that you're not familiar with the technical details of the law that Trump was convicted of breaking, and are substituting some distorted view of what you think the law is (or should be). That would explain why you listed the red herrings.
Let's test that. Do you understand how Trump could be held legally accountable for the falsification of business records, despite the fact that Trump did not personally make the accounting entry? That's a question that trips up a lot of people. If you do understand why, then please identify specifically what elements of the law (§175.10) that were clearly not met.
At best, your points seemed to be contextual. That's why I responded with some contextual points of my own. I wasn't trying to present the legal elements, so they aren't "red herrings". I had stipulated the fact that Trump was guilty of the crime he was charged with. If you don't understand why this conviction was legitimate, ask questions.
Understand that I never thought this indictment should have been made. It's also possible the law will be held unconstitutional. But he's legitimately guilty of committing the crime as it's written- all the intricate details needed to establish guilt were demonstrated by evidence.
:up: :up:
Seems like your comments elsewhere answer my inquiry better.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
What gives?
Unless... A tax-free state (with government), no law (enforcement), ...?
A comment that has nothing to do with your inquiry? Sure.
What gives what? What’s with the weird punctuation? Tell me what you want to know. “I want to know…”.
Your link, NOS.
After a lot of stuff about their ad campaign, some maybe-waybes about their fund-raising and stuff. Criticism of the actual content of their reporting:— a big fat zero. I don't have to defend Meidas touch as individuals when the main accusation is ...
Perhaps Trump could sue them for unauthorised use of his playbook. :razz:
The difficulty, of course, is in deciding between competing stories and competing story-tellers. And in this context, the rules of evidence developed by the legal system along with the sceptical methods of science serve as the best models of a pragmatic way of seeking the truth.
And to bring this to a short conclusion directed at the topic in hand, If one looks at the court cases that Trump has been involved in, the general result is that he loses, whenever the actual facts are tested in court. Jury after jury, after grand jury finds against him whenever the rules of evidence are applied, and not the rules of Noddy in Toyland.
Not that justice is inevitable, and wrong decisions are never made, and as soon as I start seeing any real evidence of kangaroos or other marsupials dominating the US legal system, I reserve the right to admit I was mistaken. In the meantime, there is no balance to be found between Fox News and Meidas Touch; the former is a propaganda machine and scandalmonger, and the latter is a politically biased but fact based reporter of the terrible state of the US.
I don't need Rolling Stone to criticize the actual content of their reporting, as I've done that already, and without any riposte or reference to pro-Trump media. No doubt, the anti-Trump Rolling Stone believes exactly what the anti-Trump MeidasTouch does. My only point was to indicate the wind-sock nature of your standards, which disdains Trump's self-hating projection, but finds it interesting and worthy enough to proliferate in MeidasTouch.
Any bias towards the truth doesn't readily accept appeals to authority while completely ignoring the counter evidence, which you'll never witness on MeidasTouch or in the prosecution's case. This leads me to remain suspicious of any professed claims towards facts or balance, especially when it comes from the open prison of some European nanny-state.
You paranoia is not admissible.
I'm afraid purple prose doesn't make the inquiry any more clear, Tim.
Slaves benefitted from the scraps of food they were given, the hovels their masters built them, the tattered clothes they were given. I suppose they should have just stopped using them, but since they benefitted they owe master whatever the net amount of their benefit they received.
Serfs benefitted from the protection of their lord's army and by using his roads. I suppose if they found misery in such an unjust relationship they should have just stopped farming on their little plot of land, using their lord's mills, and carrying their freight down his roads.
The Stockholm Syndrome is evident. You seem like the type who is grateful when someone steals from you in the off-chance you might benefit from his plunder.
It’s an insult to human beings to say they benefit from their forced labor and exploitation because they eat food and drive on roads.
:D me me me
In some years there won't be any you to benefit anything. Meanwhile, civilized society is fairly beneficial. (I suppose you could cancel your membership, and go live on your own?)
Nothing I have or do is independent and free of the government. Its scope and reach is inescapable.
You you you.
It isn’t I who is arguing for benefits, so your straw man is misplaced.
You're projecting again, Tim. I answered your questions; no response but vitriol. I made a arguments; no response but vitriol.
Rather, it was you telling me I benefit from government, bringing me to recall the pro-slavery arguments from the past, which were nearly analogous. I responded by reminding you that slaves benefitted from slavery, insofar as their master provided for them. That does not mean slavery is good, that they owed their masters interest, that the relationship was just, and should shut up about their condition. You evaded this line of reasoning entirely, for what I think are obvious reasons.
Oh, I’m engaging as much as you are, even more, except without the bad faith and vitriol.
But I’ll repeat what I said earlier. Taking the earnings from a certain number of hours of labor is like taking a certain number of hours from the person. If you labor eight hours, and I take 4 hours worth of the earnings from your labor to do with it whatever I want, you are laboring for my purposes.
Taking the earnings from a certain number of hours of labor is like taking a certain number of hours from the person. If you labor eight hours, and a government agent takes 4 hours worth of the earnings from your labor to do with it whatever he wants, you are laboring for the government’s purposes.
Well, no. All of my points had to do with the original question I asked, and they were relevant to the way that you failed to address that question.
Quoting Relativist
That's fair. I don't have any interest in delving into all of the legal details. I will do that with some Supreme Court cases, but I have no intrinsic interest in the details of a kangaroo court.
I had been uninterested in the Trump case, but eventually I got pulled in due to the fact that various acquaintances and friends had provided me with different accounts of what Trump had done. One said he had interfered in the election, one said he had falsified business records, one said he had paid Daniels out of campaign contributions, etc. So I looked at sources like AP and found the same ambiguity. It seemed (and seems) that no one knows what Trump was convicted for.
So I went over to reason.com (as I often do for legal matters that libertarians have no direct stake in) and I found that a misdemeanor outside the statute of limitations is being raised to a felony and charged 34 times. Trump was convicted for falsifying business records (which requires an intent to defraud, which is not in evidence). Raising the misdemeanor to a felony requires the "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." That "other crime" is said to be a form of election conspiracy, which in turn requires unlawful means. The prosecution never settled on a theory of unlawful means, and Judge Merchan presented the jury with three theories of unlawful means: excessive campaign contribution, tax fraud (which resulted in higher taxes!), or the falsification of other business records. The judge said that the jury did not have to agree, as long as they all thought one of the three things was in effect. See "A Jumble of Legal Theories Failed To Give Trump 'Fair Notice' of the New York Charges Against Him," along with the articles linked therein.
So what did Trump do? No one has any idea, and everyone is providing a different story. No one seems to know or agree, including the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the American people, and even Trump himself. At the same time, everyone knows what the case is about. Everyone knows why the statute of limitations was not respected and the case was brought in an election year. Everyone knows why sentencing was delayed until the week before the Republican convention. It is not, as you say, that Trump is immoral. It is that the left is afraid Trump will win the election. A non-disclosure agreement is obviously not election interference, but disregarding the rule of law and using the court system to attack a political rival in an election year obviously is. The logical impossibilities involved in some of those attempts were a particularly stark example of the chicanery.
You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". So your judgement seems to be based on a mischaracterization of the case (from the article you linked, it seems). Your disinterest in delving into the technicalities -while nevertheless embracing that irrational judgement, implies you choose to cling to that judgement. That's your choice, but then there's nothing to discuss.
I think you are simply mistaken about the level of research needed to confirm that this was a kangaroo court. It's not so hard to see. If you think those articles and/or the video grossly misrepresent the case, feel free to give your argument.
[I]an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.[/i]
Trump's conviction was in an official court. The correct legal procedure was followed: he was indicted for committing specific crimes under New York law. An official trial was held. The prosecution presented evidence of his guilt, and Trump's attorneys presented a vigorous defense. The jury deliberated and judged that Trump was guilty of all the charged crimes. This was the antithesis of a kangaroo court.
The article you pointed to did not address the specific technical issues involved in the case, and instead analyzed a strawman - a distorted view of the case. If your perspective is consistent with that article, I can understand why you might conclude there was something inappropriate or nefarious. If so, then this demonstrates that indeed you have not done adequate research to form your judgement.
I had a lot of questions before and during the proceding. I did the research to get those questions answered. As I said, I was not in favor of prosecuting it - but not because Trump was actually innocent, but because it was trivial, and technically nuanced. Nevertheless, it was a legitimate trial with a legitimate verdict.
None of the lawyers who frequent these fora have claimed the Campaign Violation Cover-Up trial in NYC was a "kangaroo court" proceeding. (I'm sure I would have noticed that having been in a paralegal once upon a time.) I've also not heard that claim made by any serious, reputable, conservative lawyers (including former prosecutors, former judges or former criminal defense attorneys), only by third-rate MAGA (morons against great america) hacks on Faux News, etc.
I would suggest using a reputable dictionary and citing your source.
Here is Merriam-Webster:
2: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures
Quoting Relativist
Which is much my point.
Quoting Relativist
We can just wait and see if the appeals result in a reversal. At this point it looks like everything was for show, prosecution and defense alike.
You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how.
The trial was clearly authorized and conducted according to the law. The only party who acted irresponsibly, was Trump - by violating the gag order multiple times.
Quoting Leontiskos
That's very different from claiming the procedure was "irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular". Laws were actually broken, and it was within the lawful discretion of the DA to prosecute it. Furthermore, by trial's conclusion, I had come around to thinking that it actually was a useful exercise. Quoting Leontiskos
The trial was conducted in accordance with reasonable interpretations of the law. Appellate courts may interpret the law differently, or decide there's something unconstitutional in the law. Overturning on some technicality will not mean he didn't do the deeds.
Just for show? Maybe, but Trump only has himself to blame. He did the deeds with no regard to the legality, and he constantly attacked the system. If it's overturned on appeal, that's the system working. If it's upheld- that's also the system working.
When I worked for a big oil company, I received annual training on business ethics - and was taught to always refrain for any activity that could possibly be construed as illegal, and this was because we had a target on our backs- our corporate behavior was often judged in the most negative light. Still, lawsuits were common, but the company never attacked the legal system. The company trusted the system. Why can't a candidate for President?
At least I didn't pull a strawman definition out of thin air without citing any source at all. :lol:
That's not a great look when your sole argument has been an appeal to your own authority.
Quoting Relativist
Listen man, these dick measuring contests are fun and all, but if you have a complaint with the sources I've provided you can go ahead and provide that critique. I've been waiting for quite awhile now. If not and you're just going to keep making unsubstantiated assertions and begging the question, then I think we're done.
I googled the definition, and that's what appeared. My intent was to get you to explain what you meant, not to argue semantics.
You failed to make the case for it being a "kangaroo court" using your own definition.
Quoting Leontiskos
I told you the article attacked a strawman legal argument. This would be clear if you understood the technicalities of the actual legal argument. You told me you weren't interested in those technicalities. Seems like you've come full circle.
Again, you are laboring for the government’s purposes. When you labor for another’s purposes, involuntarily, that’s forced labor. When they take your property without your permission, that’s theft.
I have addressed what I wrote many times now, and to no avail. I’m happy enough that the public record shows Tim Wood possessing and utilizing the same logic of the anti-abolitionists as he justifies the exploitation, theft, and forced labor of human beings so that he may benefit. Thank you.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/vigilantfox/status/1804362325631041538?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
I have addressed my claim and put it right in front of you in the form of an argument, and here you are on public record continuing to avoid it. Here you are on public record continuing to use the same reasoning found in the justifications of slavery and tyranny. Others witness you do it, your subsequent bad faith, along with your slavish proclivities, and that’s fine enough for me.
Charged by a DA who campaigned on prosecuting him, tried by a judge who donates to the opposing campaign in violation of the states ethics rules, and convicted by a jury who were given poor jury instructions. They are willing to sacrifice justice itself on the altar of their mental illness.
I’ve laid out the argument almost exactly as it was first laid out by Robert Nozick half a century ago.
“taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another's purpose”
-Nozick, “Anarchy, State, Utopia”
The argument has generated much discussion which anyone can find for themselves. You are then supposed to give me a reason why it isn’t forced labor or why the argument is wrong. But for whatever reason you dodged it, even straight up ignored it.
As for it being theft, I made my argument.
“When they take your property without your permission, that’s theft.”
You’re then supposed to tell me why it isn’t theft or why the argument is wrong. But you trade your opportunity for vitriol and slander. Sorry, Tim, you’re a fake.
:up: :up:
@NOS4A2 Sentencing on 11July24 ...
Quoting 180 Proof
(Adults who can "handle the truth", click username link for my argument.) :victory: :mask:
I can’t wait!
What am I supposed to take away from those two quotes, Tim? I’ve read the book and understand the context. I already know Nozick thinks taxation is on par with forced labor, and redistribution is unjust. I don’t understand how quoting from the work I just cited is an argument against what I or Nozick have said. You’re supposed to counter it, not reiterate it. Unfortunately this isn’t the stupidest thing you’ve done yet, but getting close.
Taxation isn’t the voluntary transfer of property. That’s why the transfer is unjust and that’s why it’s theft. Society does not freely choose. Those in power do. That’s why it is slavery.
Maybe you missed/forgot/misunderstood/ignored them.
What’s your counter argument, Tim? Maybe you pay taxes voluntarily. Except I wager you would never pay more or less than what they tell you to pay. Tell me why you are not a slave to their whims.
A slave is a person who is forced to work for and obey another.
People do not freely pay it because it is a crime if they don’t. It is garnished from their wages or taken at the point of sale, and without their permission. So this nonsense about paying it freely for the good of all, as if people are getting together with their neighborhood to throw money in a pot for a community garden, is fiction.
Go freely give your money to the government,Tim. That’s the only way you can escape the canard you’ve built for yourself. You believe the lie, you spread the lie, so why not be it?
The power parents have over their children is legitimate; the power the government has of the people isn’t. One can be justified, the other cannot. You’re probably employed by the government, living off another’s wealth, so I’m not surprised.
Who pays for foreign wars? You benefit from cruise missiles dropped on wedding parties. You’re just getting together with your sensible community to build military bases on someone else’s land.
Go freely give them your money, Tim, instead of pretending that you do.
Wages and contracts are legal concepts, protected and enforced by states. They are not moral concepts. Your claim to your wages are protected under law, while morally you are most likely not supposed to be the beneficiary of most economic transactions. This is because economic transactions are not moral transactions, and only moral claims can considered to exist intrinsically. There is therefore no moral claim to wages under a contract, let alone to pre-tax wages. The whole taxation is theft, is a conceptual mess devoid of morality or historical knowledge.
There were and are plenty terrible, immoral, and dubious legal concepts. Slave codes, for example. When morality and law contradict one has to lose either his moral sense or his respect for the law. I’ve chosen to retain my moral sense, and gave up quite easily my respect for the law or anyone who practices it. Any appeal to law is just a routine fallacy, anyway, so I’ll just disregard them.
But economic transactions concern morality wherever they involve human interaction. Theft, robbery, extortion, plunder, exploitation etc. are both economic and immoral transactions because the exchange involves the treatment of others. Sharing, charity, or any fair dealing are both economic and moral transactions, and for the same reasons. When you offer me something in return for my labor, and we both agree, and the transaction is satisfied, that’s a moral transaction. The inclusion of laws and contracts, as far as economic interactions go, is immoral because it is to involve a third-party and its coercive powers in the transaction.
No more taxes (and whatever it's all called) in your or that :point: country.
Then...? First the cartels move in then the dictatorships? Explicate what you think would happen, now that your state has done away with this kind of supposed theft and slavery.
*cough* I just noticed that we may be in the wrong thread here
It is relevant because Trump is proposing to eliminate income tax.
So what did the US do before the 16th amendment? What does Monaco or UAE or Bahamas do without income tax, for example?
There are two means by which a state can generate wealth: by exploiting the labor of others, like a criminal, or through production, like everyone else. So why not quit exploiting people and start producing? Why not charge people for these so-called services?
Wrong. Agreement is irrelevant. We could agree because you threatened my wife, or because we're family and I'm partial, or simply because I like you and not the next guy. These are merely economic transactions, not moral ones. You need to be deeply steeped in a capitalist society to equate economic transactions with moral ones, so the mistake is understandable but it's a rather simplistic and unexamined position. That's where almost everything goes wrong with most of your thinking.
Moral claims are about who deserves what but market transactions are not concerned with moral outcomes at all. We can be fairly certain that whatever economic outcome we have, it is in fact an immoral one because rarely do people get what they deserve. That's a logical consequence for morality not having a market value and to the extent governments enforce certain (moral) standards, they are always introduced as a cost from an economic perspective, whereas a moral act benefits a society. Which really is just another example that the economic system not only does not aim at moral outcomes but actually encourages the opposite.
The Bangladeshi is paid too little for the pants he sows, his neighbour is affected by the toxic dyes that are unregulated there and you pay an exorbitant amount for the same pants considering the low quality (which fall apart after about a year), while being brainwashed to think the quality is acceptable and you need new pants next year (no wait, every other season) to stay fashionable. This conduct killed local tailors who couldn't compete fairly and in the end everybody is worse off. But hey, everybody "agreed" to the underlying transactions; so it's all fine and dandy and you can rest easy that as long as the market runs free, everybody gets what they deserve.
And this is today. Back when we had unregulated markets, it was down right horrible. But maybe read a bit about the industrial revolution and, later on, robber barons, etc.
See: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/historical-highlights-of-the-irs#:~:text=From%201868%20until%201913%2C%2090,of%20Internal%20Revenue%20was%20created.
I do, however, see a slight pushback from people in western societies. One would think out of moral grounds, but that rarely produce promising sustainability. No, it's rather that people have started to get fed up with the trash quality that's ever so increasing in all products. So they seek something more expensive but lasting. If this trend is growing, we may very well see the rise of tailors again, not just for suits and fine clothing, but for more common casual clothes. Based on the premise of actual quality and discounts for fixing damaged clothes by the same tailor. If a tailor were to set up a store for high quality T-shirts that actually last longer, I'd bet that they would need to expand their business fast as there would be far more customers than initially prepared for.
I speak out of personal opinion here as well. For years I've always looked for the most decently priced product and viewed the expensive ones as some unnecessary luxury. But when checking older products, been auctioned out or just found in the attic, they have lasted for decades and still outperforms new products. Older tools are much more robust and get the job done for longer. And so I took a look all those luxury level versions of products that can be bought, only to realize that the best brands just do one thing good and that's caring for the material and work that went into making the product.
Taking inflation into account, it's basically buying old sustainable products that have been updated for today. So all these cheap products that are mass produced and won't last a year is not just because modern technology help reduce prices, but rather that they've cut through normal rising inflation by cutting corners in production.
I've been looking for a good office chair since my old one broke. There's a lot of options, but most of them are plastic and will fall apart after maybe 3-4 years. So I'll go to the prestige brands instead, find something made by actual hands who cares for the material. It will cost me a small fortune just for a damn chair, but it will maybe last for a majority of my lifetime I have left. If people were to split out the up front cost of something by the estimated lifetime of the product, people wouldn't view things as luxury brands anymore, they would look at it as a personal investment.
People stare too much at the price tags and not at the value of something. But if that's changing, we may even end up in a more sustainable world in the end, without much of morality or anti-capitalism driving it.
I will support my local casual clothes tailor if they ever showed up. I would never go anywhere else.
I suggest there is moral and immoral behavior. You suggest there needs to be moral outcomes. This seems to be the principle upon which we differ, leading us to wildly different conclusions.
Given your advocacy for and defense of taxation, steeped as it is in statism, I fear you are willing to treat people as a means in order to achieve your desired end, namely, “moral outcomes”. As with all utilitarian thinking, you assume you know what regulations and prohibitions are required to reach a “moral outcome”, and that you’ll know you’ve reached one when it occurs—two impossible calculations. Worse, your quest for a moral outcome justifies you treating people unfairly, unjustly, and as a mere means for what is plainly some desire of your own rather than any discernible moral result. You’re willing to break a few eggs because you want to make an omelette.
You know better how one ought to live better then the Bangladeshi does, so you regulate everyone’s lives until you see the Bangladeshi living how he ought to. All of what you write indicates, to me, immoral behavior. After all, morality is has to do with conduct, not about the promise of some future state of affairs. And from what I’m reading this conduct is tyrannical. The desire to regiment people’s lives, to take from the fruits of their labor, all to satisfy some bureaucrat’s wishes, seems to me horrible, and I will oppose it tooth and nail.
For example, the illustration that moral standards are managed as costs in transactions is not an argument for regulation but an argument against leaving moral outcomes to markets.
Transactional agreement does not lead to moral outcomes, in fact, it leads to the opposite. For you to claim a right to pre-tax income is a moral claim but it's not supported because there was a transactional agreement. So this is insufficient for your claim. (edit) your claim that taxation is theft. If you cannot put a moral claim on pre-tax income, there's no theft in a moral sense (only in the legal sense).
I'm all for deregulation actually. Starting with all the fictitious legal persons the law allows like corporations. It will immediately lead to much more moral outcomes due to better balance between market actors across all levels of the value chain.
I’m not talking about moral outcomes. I’m talking about moral behavior. And intervening in another’s transactions and taking their property is immoral.
That income is theirs because that is the terms they agreed to with their employer.
That you are the beneficiary of a transaction doesn't mean you should be.
That is true. That one is the beneficiary of a transaction doesn't mean he should be. At some point one must prove he is entitled to the benefits. As an uninvited third party, the tax collector cannot provide that proof, therefor he should not be the beneficiary of the transaction.
It is morality wherever conduct between two or more people is concerned. In matters of trade, morality requires that people act morally and not immorally, just as in any other interaction. Fair dealing in such matters is moral. Stealing from others or extorting them is immoral.
Are you going to pretend you don't read my posts? I've already established that transactional agreement is no moral basis for a claim to the benefits of such transaction. So if you have no moral claim, it's not yet established the tax collector has no moral claim either.
You first need to prove that a transactional agreement also forms the moral basis for a claim to the benefits to that agreement. I say it doesn't exist because the transaction does not take into account moral outcomes and the economic system we live in incentives immoral outcomes as moral outcomes come at a premium.
Your only reply so far is "but I had an agreement". This does not engage in any shape or form the argument I've presented.
That’s a lie. I’ve already established a reciprocal transaction is a moral basis for a claim to pretax income. But you haven’t responded to my arguments numerous times now.
For one, I do not believe there are such things as “moral outcomes”, for the reasons I’ve already stated. I believe in moral behavior. Morality concerns behavior and conduct, not “outcomes”.
The two parties have a moral claim because the exchange concerns their property, and they acted morally towards each other by voluntarily agreeing to the exchange. The tax collector has no moral basis because he is acting immorally towards the other parties by intruding into their exchange and stealing their property. The theft of property is both immoral behavior and an immoral outcome: both parties had their property stolen from them.
You have not proven the tax collector has any legitimate claim to anyone’s income. Even where the tax man claims he desires a “moral outcome”, you could not prove that there is one.
Yes indeed. An entire ideological system that has been so useful to the ruling class rests entirely on bogus notions of freedom, individuality, and human nature. Simplistic, transactional, soulless.
Proof is in the pudding: these people vote for, and endlessly defend, Donald friggin’ Trump. Tribalistic hacks to the bitter end.
By that time Hunter Biden, the Biden crime family bagman, had stupidly left his laptop in a repair shop, and the contents found its way into the pages of the New York Post. The reporting displayed his numerous crimes for the world to see.
But the propaganda wing of the Biden campaign brewed up some misinformation in order to fool their base and any undecided voters. The Big Lie they conjured was that the laptop was Russian disinfo. They called in some favors from former deep state apparatchiks to help sell the lie to the gullible, and it worked. The information was censored and discredited in public discourse. And when Trump brought up laptop in the debate, Biden reiterated the lie.
This was one of the largest disinfo campaigns in recent memory and it defrauded the country, and exists as an exemplar of election interference. To this day no one has been held accountable.
I’m excited to see what Biden comes up with next.
For the Nos4ora2, all forms of exchange beyond what one body can do to another are not shown by what they seem through the evidence for them existing or having existed but are products of "statism".
The "social contract" as conceived by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, etcetera, is the adoption of a belief, not an attempt to understand the formation of society as something that has happened. So, there is no way to challenge N's idea on its own terms since it denies a means of comparing it to others.
I feel Baden staring down at me, questioning the relevance of that observation to the matter of the Donald as a particular being. I propose the decoupling is essential to the Trump phenomena. The petri dish, as it were.
[quote=Vanity Fair;https://apple.news/ALPSb1kF1QD6O20yYykJ0LQ] Because of all of the above, and because Joe Biden has notably done none of the above, you might think it would be pretty clear to people that of the two candidates, one of them is good for democracy and one of them is bad, and that the latter is very obviously Trump. But according to the results of a terrifying new poll, that is, somehow, very much not the case.
That poll, conducted by The Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, reveals that in the six swing states Biden won in 2020, more voters classified as “Deciders”—that is, they are likely to decide the outcome of the election—think Trump is better equipped to handle threats to democracy than Biden.[/quote]
:lol:
Trump is very worked up about the story that he called military casualties 'loosers and suckers' and repeatedly said the story has been 'debunked'. But it was presented in The Atlantic on September 3, 2020:
[quote=The Atlantic; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/]When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, near Paris, in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
[/quote]
By way of a coda my sister and I both thought that everything Trump said was a lie, but that Joe Biden looks like he should be in a rocking chair on the front porch with a blanket over his knees.
God help us. :yikes:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912686
The real criminals, it appears, are the ones running the justice system. The scam is crumbling in real time.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1806709999793787233[/tweet]
I will toot my own horn on this one because I received quite a bit of pushback from it, even from self-described lawyers. When failed congressman Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm in congress I joked that he should be prosecuted under the same legal theory that the Biden justice department was prosecuting j6 prisoners and Donald Trump. Out of fairness or stupidity, one or the other, other posters agreed. The problem was the theory was nonsense.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/841733
SCOTUS rules, in effect, that POTUS is a "King" with Absolute Immunity from criminal prosecution for Official Acts.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-supreme-court-immunity-1.7251423
So, as an official act of National Security, POTUS aka "King Joseph I" SHOULD "decree" by Executive Order (A) immediately strip US citizenship and Secret Service protection from, (B) immediately freeze and then seize all domestic and foreign assets from, and (C) immediately incarcerate in The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp Trump and his MAGA gang of January 6 & Russian Collusion co-conspirators indefinitely.
But will "King Joseph I" do this?
No. Even though, as of today, it's (apparently) legal for POTUS to do so. :angry:
It must hurt to have unconstitutional and illegal mechanisms to do politics taken away from you, so I wager Biden is quaking in his boots. But should Biden do something stupid as you suggest, there are still legal and constitutional paths to check executive power, and it’s called impeachment.
That’s when the 2nd amendment comes into play. Just another reason why the tyrant Dank Brandon regime fears the constitution.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
This could be the end of the Biden regime’s illegal and monarchical persecution of their political opponents.
[quote=former president Richard Nixon, interview 1977]Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.[/quote]
... for fuck's sake, like Rome, the Pax Americana has finally explicitly devolved from republic to dictatorship. :brow:
It couldn't happen to a nicer country. :cry:
Appearances don't count for much anyway, and a politician's words should be disregarded off-hand.
If Trump's previous presidency is anything to go by, it's really not that bad. He can't hold a candle to some of the absolute demons that preceded him.
It should be understood that you don't get to be President by having any moral standards at all. So, Trump declaring openly he doesn't is, yes, meaningless.
"The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office."
And this is really no different from other countries. You need to establish an act by an official is either "ultra vires" or "unofficial".
I can't find issue with the ruling so far but will read Sotomayer's dissenting opinion as well before giving a final opinion but wanted to give you a first reaction.
You can be sure the Dem press will be licking its lips at this.
:up:
Although the decision itself is silent on it. Barret at least would allow prosecution of official acts if:
and then continues:
It seems Sotomayer is of the opinion that there's no immunity for former Presidents from criminal prosecution. The immunity is in place for current Presidents only as not to worry about prosecution when acting in an official capacity. That reason for immunity would be undermined if Presidents have to worry about criminal liability once they are former Presidents. Immunity covers, for instance, decisions to go to war or how to run it, etc. The act must be judged against the rules that apply at the time the decision is made, which is as then-current President and not as former President. I think that principle should be rigourous in its application.
Treating it differently is like having a bread, eating it and then pretending there never was a bread. It doesn't make sense to me.
All civil servants have civil immunity. Judges and prosecutors even have absolute or qualified immunity.
"Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"?
But this is exactly what happens. Anti-vaxxers get to not vaccinate their kids. Other people get to vaccinate. Some people teach them to believe in fairy tales. Some love their kids, some don't. You cannot be prosecuted for bad parenting, only for things that clearly fall outside of your responsibilities and obligations as parents. And the ruling is the same; everything a President does within the remit of the powers conferred to him is protected by immunity and even then they could be prosecuted if prosecuting poses no danger or intrusion on the authority and functions of the Edecutive Branch.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-sentencing-date-delay-proposal/index.html
Sentencing [s]11July24[/s] 18September24 :grimace:
For what it's worth ... liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley -- although liberals have disowned him, now that he turns out to be off the reservation a bit -- has an article out in the (scurrilous right wing rag) New York Post titled,
Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling is what the body was designed for — unpopular but constitutionally correct
https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/opinion/supreme-courts-trump-immunity-ruling-is-what-the-body-was-meant-for-unpopular-but-constitutionally-correct/
It's worth a read if one is openminded about these kinds of things. The Supes didn't give presidents blanket immunity. They said that what counts as "official acts" are to be determined by the lower courts. So they're not issuing an edict. They're leaving everything open for the judicial process to play out. If you take the long view -- and that's the whole idea of lifetime appointments, the Supremes are not supposed to be buffeted about by the latest momentary passions of society, that's what the every-two-years House of Representatives is for -- so if you take the long view, this is somewhat of a moderate, sensible decision. After all, Joe Biden is president right now, and he has all the freedoms granted under this ruling. Which are none at all. The president's actions are always subject to judicial review as to whether they're official acts.
So I think this is kind of sensible, political howling and screeching from the left notwithstanding. The left calls the court illegitimate every time the court does something they don't like. In fact just last month Biden was telling us how wrong it was to criticize a legal decision when a case went against the right and the right was howling. It's all politics and this is an especially volatile election year.
The narrative that Trump will be granted evil superpowers if he wins is out there now and not going to be vanquished by facts.
https://youtu.be/7cGT9EVvS7U?si=08Vx04UGMrH18UZw
Does this mean that in this case or any other the President can use whatever means necessary to carry out an official act? Justice Sotomayor thinks it does. In her dissent she says:
I agree, but some have argued that Barrett has the better argument in her concurrence. See, for example, Jonathan Adler's piece over at The Volokh Conspiracy.
I haven't read it, so I also feel unqualified to make any statement on the matter. That this case is difficult and needs a tiered approach does not surprise me. It is actually a very complicated area of law for me, even in Dutch law I am not sure I understand exactly what the doctrine actually is. I reckon in the Netherlands, administrations cannot be prosecuted when they engage in the execution of ordinary affairs of state (Based on the so called 'pikmeer II' judgment). Executives of these administrations are immune when the administration they represent is immune. When I saw the summary of the US verdict, it reminded me of the Dutch doctrine. However, I think the US legal system is a different one, the historical context is different and the evil may well be in the details. I was surprised when Sotomayor argued vehemently against it, but I have also not read her dissent. I therefore feel unqualified to comment. (A very long comment to say 'no comment', but hey I also do law ;) )
It seems to me odd that contravening the democratic process (as assassinating a political rival clearly is) could be construed as an official act falling within the duties of the executive. But hey, I am not sure if under US law this is impossible. I find it odd, but I do not know.
Quoting Elizabeth Bangs · Jan 23, 2022
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ElizabethBangs/status/1485169558470205442[/tweet]
[sup]Blog 6 When is an old Turkish proverb not an old Turkish proverb? (Elizabeth Bangs · Dec 31, 2022)[/sup]
:up: :up:
If you haven't already, please consider this .
Turley is definitely not a "liberal". The article you linked doesn't actually analyze the decision, it just asserts that it is correct, and then procedes to chastize liberals who disagree with the decision.
He's written much more detailed legal analyses that I probably had in mind, if that particular article may have been too general.
He's not a liberal because he is a liberal who sees the recent misbehavior of liberals, and talks about it. So he gets called a conservative, and he appears on FOX and in the New York Post because Rachel Maddow and the New York Times won't speak to him anymore.
Liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz (controversial for other reasons) talks about this. He is a lifelong liberal Democrat. He defended Trump in the US Senate, and he has complained that now his Martha's Vineyard friends and neighbors won't talk to him. He said he never got this kind of response when he defended murderers.
Glenn Greenwald is another, a lifelong liberal who wrote for Salon and called out Obama's foreign policy as being an extension of Bush's. At the time I had the same impression, and reading Greenwald kept me sane. I wasn't the only one who saw what I saw. Today of course Greenwald gets the "not a liberal" appellation from liberals who don't like it when anyone has a heterodox opinion.
Comedian Jimmy Dore is another one, a Bernie supporter tarred as a right winger by the same illiberal liberals. Many other alt-media figures. Matt Taibbi, smeared as a "so-called journalist" by Dem Rep. Stacey Plaskett in the House social media censorship hearings. So many more. Any liberal who doesn't toe the line gets smeared as a right winger.
I do apologize if Turley's article wasn't detailed enough. I just skimmed it and relied on other much more detailed arguments about the case that Turley has made, and also Dershowitz. Elie Honig on CNN had the same take, that it's a bad case. Many other liberals have made that point. Of course once they criticize Bragg's case they're "not really liberals," as you illustrate.
Some excerpts:
And a shorter but essentially similar OP from the LA TImes:
Last week they said Biden is unfit to lead. Who are they for, Harold Stassen?
What's the point of the Times wasting 5000 words to yammer about Orange Hitler, as if they have anything new to say on that subject. Maybe they should just lie us into another war.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/1812250887424758148?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/hodgetwins/status/1812250157842378931?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Biden incited them to shoot Trump. Isn’t that how it works?
Grazed on the ear.
I can think of no worse contrast than Biden's campaign trying to talk up his "decent functioning," at his "big boy press conference," where he still managed to call his VP "Trump" and introduce Zelensky as "Putin" and Trump pumping his fist to the crowd after being shot at.
Maybe this will convince people that a viable candidate is needed (meaning probably not Harris). I doubt it.
Gives him a good photo, but otherwise won’t matter much by November. Just a graze on the ear.
Just a long time between now and November and America has an attention span of a gnat. So unless he finds a way to milk this for four months, I don’t see it changing much. If he had gotten hit in tje shoulder or something, that’d be different.
In any case, I’m reading nothing but “speedy recoveries” and condemnations from Democrats, from Obama on down. I assume Biden will make an official statement.
Much of the details about Biden will be forgotten. But the image of Trump pumping his fist after an assassination attempt will reverberate through history. It’s quite profound to be privy to all this stuff.
I imagine the long term effects are more likely to be in the form of Trump being more vindictive and focused on retribution against his political enemies after he wins again (quite possibly with the House, Senate, and Supreme Court all under GOP rule).
By all accounts he is a heavy consumer of right wing propagandatainment, and about as credulous as your average heavy user of that stuff. They will almost certainly argue that "the Democrats," (Biden, Clinton, etc.) and maybe other parties accused of rigging the election and the 2020 Riots like the Chinese Communist Party, sanctioned and helped to organize the assassination attack. So he will go in with the "they tried to kill me mindset," even if he doesn't totally believe it. "This means war," and all. Likewise, even if your median voter doesn't care much, politicos and politicians on the right will long remember it.
I would say I am 65/35 that Trump will win if Biden stays in at this point. Historically he always over preformed his polling by a lot and right now he is winning every swing state and even the popular vote.
If he wins, it's quite likely he has the House and Senate. If that happens, I'm 90/10 sure they are going to abolish the filibuster to push through a lot of new legislation to ensure they are less likely to lose elections in the future. As is, the system already heavily favors them (they have won more votes in just one election in over a third of a century and that was with the benefit of an incumbency they got while earning less votes). However, it's very clear that demographics are not on their side, and so the only two options seem to be radically changing the party, which is not really an option with Trumpism, or finding out some sort of system of minority rule.
This certainly strengthens the hand of the "Second American Revolution," camp in the GOP.
They won't have the votes to do this. At best, they'll have a margin of 1 or 2. Susan Collins would never go through with it.
Sure but he is President and campaigning for a second term, so he can't avoid going on TV, which means similar things will keep happening.
LOL, I'd say it's 80/20. Trump is gonna get a bump from this whole assassination attempt and be seen as a martyr to his rabid cult. Meanwhile the Dems are running an unpopular uninspiring octogenarian in cognitive decline who's selfishly gambling away our futures for a second term in office.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This is less likely since the GOP don't really need the filibuster to do alot of what they want, which is cut taxes for the rich and defunding every government program out there. The Democrats would benefit way more from getting rid of it since their policies tend to be more popular.
:rofl:
It’ll reverberate on Twitter for a week.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
So no real change.
—
Anyway— remember when his mug shot was supposed to be the biggest thing of all time? Now it’s barely mentioned or remembered.
Yeah, I’m curious to see what his statement about the attempt will be, especially since he’s been saying we need to stop Trump for his whole presidency.
Never mind. His social media handlers have already pushed it.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/potus/status/1812275407044940079?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/calebjhull/status/1812287840975200726?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
:yawn:
If he would have refused to leave or at least resisted fleeing, that would have been remarkable. But he acted exactly like someone in his entitled position acts. Run away, stay safe and protected.
Yeah, I can’t believe he left after being shot. Crazy.
He’ll be whining for years about this, of course. Someone else actually died— but he’ll milk his papercut for all it’s worth.
If he actually got shot and jumped up to fist pump— that would be something. As soon as everything was safe and he was surrounded by secret service— that’s when he immediately started the theater.
Eh, whatever. Let the tough guy have his few days in the news.
Very... erm... "strange."
It doesn’t live up to the cult fantasy, but that won’t stop them from fantasizing that he was forced to run away.
Trump. . . the TRUE American. . . pumped his fist and then shuffled off into safety shortly after.
If there's an active shooter – and especially if you've been shot – then you get away and get help. All this macho man bullshit is childish.
Hopefully that will temper the response of those who might otherwise take it as a call to arms.
Is this looming, violent, and local anarchy on the horizon?
I can assume that any American citizen can only take so much 'collapse of the U.S.' and the almost stoic acknowledgement that high political affairs are 'outside our control'.
Yea, they missed.
Indeed. Although his base are more likely to talk about Isaiah 45:13. (NIV)
Guess why :rofl:
Quoting Mikie
If anyone is conspiring in this context, it is the Democratic party. Learn to use words, Mikey.
You'd think professional assassins would know not to use 5.56mm with its garbage rainbow ballistics and would spring for 7.62mm, .30-06, or the fancy new 6.8mm 80kpsi rounds the US Army uses.
Bolsonaro was stabbed in 2018 by a member of the Communist Party. They denied any involvement and life carried on. Not gonna happen.
5.56mm is occasionally used as a DMR as a compromise, because it allows the DM to use the same ammunition as the rest of a squad. But DMRs are overwhelmingly 7.62mm or some equivalent. Every military or police "sniper rifle," uses a full sized rifle round because it makes no sense to use a cartridge with poor terminal ballistics to try to hit targets at long distances.
Both sides are guilty of that, e.g.:
Shocker. The hysterics and conspiracies continue…hilarious.
The counter to that now after this assassination attempt is "nuh uh, you are. "
We here at TPF might dissect it otherwise, but that is a knee jerk reaction that might hold water for some. How it might temper Biden going forward in presenting the right as radicalized remains to be seen. He's now in a glass house in that regard.
But overall, yesterday was a good day for Trump all the while Biden can't seem to shake off the age related attacks.
Absolutely nothing suspicious here, folks.
Happened 6 years ago already https://brazilian.report/liveblog/politics-insider/2024/06/11/stabbed-bolsonaro-lone-wolf-feds/
Random guy on Youtube said it first https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey0qVzG8_vU&t=666s Check out timestamp
Strange. I saw an image of Trump still up speaking while the sniper is being mounted (if understood correctly they knew of the shooter but didn't take Trump down).
I think even you will admit that the propaganda in one outpaces the propaganda in the other. The sheer number of moral entrepreneurs promoting the anti-Trump cause, along with the combined efforts of the press, makes the moral panic arise in one and not the other.
Can you find any newspapers magazines or documentaries comparing Biden to Hitler for example?
Yes, and I can assure you that it’s the opposite side to the one you think.
The shooter shows up in BlackRock commercial at 0:03 and 0:19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_67dyF4J7ag
The upload has been removed by the uploader
Image shows a school in Bethel Park, PA, where Thomas M. Crooks lived (not to be confused with Thomas Crooks also from Bethel Park).
Here is reupload https://streamable.com/mzfq3w
Here’s an example.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1812314098585211089?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
What can you show me that’s comparable? Assurance isn’t enough, I’m afraid.
Possible image of shooter
Yes you posted one quote from one guy before exclaiming both sides are guilty.
I posted one, you posted one. What's the problem? Are we going to spend the rest of our lives posting every instance of one side attacking the other?
I was speaking of propaganda. Maybe you post some. Something comparable to this, maybe?
Ok, a YouTube video from the same guy. So no mass media or anything. It almost has 100,000 views since 2020, which isn’t bad I guess.
So an official Trump campaign video posted by the official Trump YouTube account isn't a valid example of propaganda against Joe Biden and the Democrats? :brow:
The sheer number of moral entrepreneurs promoting the anti-Trump cause, along with the combined efforts of the press, makes the moral panic arise in one and not the other.
Can you find any newspapers magazines or documentaries comparing Biden to Hitler for example? Or anything else outside of campaign propaganda?
Kilmeade says Biden went ‘full Hitler’
Tulsi Gabbard says Biden, Democrats share same ‘core principles’ as Hitler
But also, when you have Trump's social media account post[ing] video referencing ‘unified Reich’ if re-elected, it's hardly surprising that people will respond accordingly.
So it isn’t really comparable at all. Just some comments.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5112472/donald-trump-calls-president-biden-threat-democracy
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/11-ways-biden-handler-hell-bent-destroying-america
I appreciate it, but there isn’t much to this both-sideism. There are close to 8 years worth of anti-Trumpism propaganda to peruse, but just a speech or Fox News segment on the other hand.
"In addition to the QAnon-adjacent posts, Trump shared several conspiracy theories Tuesday on his Truth Social site and he re-posted a picture of Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the words “Your enemy is not in Russia” written in black bars over their eyes."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shares-barrage-qanon-content-conspiracy-theories-social-media-pl-rcna45465
And then there's Qanon and Alex Jones. Remember the pizzagate shooter?
It’s just not as prevalent as the BlueAnon assassination-prepping we’ve received over the last few years regarding the second coming of Hitler.