|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Its crazy that even BJ is able to explain how its fraud but doesn't seem to have a problem with fraud because even he knows Trump is the fraudfather. I get how financial campaign violations are a novel legal theory in the age of citizens united but its another case of Trump being so dumb that he can't even get over the microscopic hump allowed for hush money payments. The Georgia Election interference case is a RICO case of election interference so cut and dry a lot of people instantly flipped on Trump. No one is even disputing that he's committed the crimes anymore only that he deserves special treatment because he's a rich person.
|
Northern Ireland24328 Posts
On March 27 2024 09:52 Sermokala wrote:
Its crazy that even BJ is able to explain how its fraud but doesn't seem to have a problem with fraud because even he knows Trump is the fraudfather. I get how financial campaign violations are a novel legal theory in the age of citizens united but its another case of Trump being so dumb that he can't even get over the microscopic hump allowed for hush money payments. The Georgia Election interference case is a RICO case of election interference so cut and dry a lot of people instantly flipped on Trump. No one is even disputing that he's committed the crimes anymore only that he deserves special treatment because he's a rich person.
Liberal hysteria is provably higher up his hierarchy of things to critique than pesky things like actual criminal acts.
I mean there’s being devil’s advocate and there’s advocating for the devil.
|
On March 27 2024 09:52 Sermokala wrote:
Its crazy that even BJ is able to explain how its fraud but doesn't seem to have a problem with fraud because even he knows Trump is the fraudfather. I get how financial campaign violations are a novel legal theory in the age of citizens united but its another case of Trump being so dumb that he can't even get over the microscopic hump allowed for hush money payments. The Georgia Election interference case is a RICO case of election interference so cut and dry a lot of people instantly flipped on Trump. No one is even disputing that he's committed the crimes anymore only that he deserves special treatment because he's a rich person.
I think the argument is that he DOESN'T deserve special treatment as a rich person. It seems to be believed that, yeah, he did the crimes, but so does every other rich person. It then follows that he's being persecuted for political reasons moreso than prosecuted for legal ones.
I think that's a dogshit argument, but it seems like the one we're presented with.
|
On March 27 2024 01:42 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 26 2024 23:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 22:21 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote:
The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective. But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed. “It might be illegal”? Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans is definitely illegal. The fact that they successfully prosecuted him for the crime might be a clue there. Hillary escaped Trump’s lawfare by virtue of being innocent. I took a look at the Bob McDonnell case and it seems pretty cut and dry that he did it. A businessman gave him and his family a series of extremely expensive gifts and McDonnell gave that businessman government contracts that would not normally have been given. The way to avoid the appearance of impropriety in these situations is to not accept lavish gifts from people lobbying you. Failing that you should disclose the gifts and conflict and be recused out of any decision relating to them. He failed to do that, he took the money and he gave the contract. That wouldn’t be allowed in my profession, I can’t consider bids while taking kickbacks and if I received “gifts” I would be required to not be on the selection committee. Also I’m not going to worry too much about what SCOTUS think is bribery given the last few years of disclosure about Thomas being on the payroll of billionaire neo-Nazis. Yes, the I know better argument. Twice in one chain! The court was 4-4 at that time btw, that dismissal you give really is stretch and I think we can all see that. *** I've gotten a few responses so as a quick follow up here. First I dispute, for the record, Hillary's innocence and Comey's word games. But moreover, I'm not on the Trump train or stanning for him or anything like that. I dont have any plans to vote for him this time either. But I am concerned about letting ravenous hatred cause us to go further down the slippery slope. We can all pretend that these Trump cases are a new beginning of holding the powerful accountable, but I see no reason to believe that. Use whatever excuse you want, but don't whine when the next GOP president, maybe it will even be Trump!, turns the tables.
I’m guessing this bit is partly (mostly?) responding to me so I guess I should clarify: I’m glad to hear you’re not “on the Trump train” (as his fundraising emails would put it)! I was reading between the lines, partly from this exchange with Kwark, but also from posts like this:
On March 19 2024 11:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2024 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 19 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 19 2024 08:22 Introvert wrote:
That hyperbole is part of the problem. Take this silly dust up over "bloodbath" the last few days. If you are undecided, there is a good chance you dont think hes a threat to democracy. And that, I think one big aspect of his chances for retaking the White House. In retrospect, so much of the drama of his presidency revolved around him, but pre-COVID things weren't actually that bad for most people. Then, given the frustrating tendency of Americans to forgive their politicians on left and right, they don't view COVID as his fault (and to be fair, it wasn't). Meanwhile, they know that under Biden and his policies, casually connected or not, inflation soared, the border is in chaos, and the world doesn't seem to respect us more than it did before, as Biden (and evey dem president) promises they will. Some of those things are entirely Biden's fault (the border) and some are not entirely but in no small part his fault (inflation). And barring some catastrophe like COVID, people hold thr president accountable.
It really isn't all that hard to understand. The shrieking from thr media didn't match reality, and Biden's reality sucks. He hasn't exactly kept his promises, either in tone or on policy. No one elected him to be FDR or LBJ, but he thinks he should be. What makes it hard to understand is that all that shit sounds made up. COVID was bad and Trump's handling of it was also bad. COVID happening wasn't his fault, but the fucking dumb shit he said about it during his presidency certainly was. Inflation is a problem in a lot of places right now, and is commonly blamed on corporations profiteering, not biden policy. I'm no economist and can't speak further to this, but the economists I have heard don't blame Biden, far as I can tell. The border is in chaos? I seem to recall late Obama and early Trump involving caging people and separating families. Is it actually worse now, or just convenient to claim it is? Why isn't that wall working, anyways? I thought the previous president got the thing he campained on and built a big fuckoff wall. I'm willing to believe Biden's presidency hasn't been great. That jives with my loose understanding. Things like DPB's review on Biden's presidency are useful. Things like the post of yours I quoted are as useful as Trump standing on a podium and declaring Biden a crook and the presidency stolen illegitimately. Well first, the primary point was that from the normie point of view, things felt a lot better when Trump was president. All the excuses aside, things didn't cost so much, and we actually had control over the border. On those topics, to the contrary I don't know of any serious economists who are actually blaming cooperate greed, that's the type of dumb crap Liz Warren says. Injecting trillions of dollars into the economy without increasing supply seems more likely...and the border is inarguably worse than when Trump was president. Because Orange Man Bad, Biden undid a bunch of Trump's policies and now we've had record years of the number of encounters AND illegal crossings. And again, no one believes this is because it suddenly became so much worse in Central America. You can check the numbers yourself, they are staggering. So even if you want to argue about who is the blame, Biden has undeniably failed in his promises to "restore normalcy" and combined with his clear mental decline, I think most people who are partisan Democrats don't believe he has the capacity. Combine that he lied about "turning the temperature down" of our politics and it's easy to see why anyone not a Democrat doesn't approve. The problem with DPB's big post a few weeks (months?) ago was that it was written towards a left-wing audience. The underlying viewpoint throughout the whole post was defending him from the center-left against the left. It had little appealing to the center-right, much less the further right. You're absolutely right, but that was my intention. I think it's much more likely to convince people slightly more moderate than Biden or slightly more progressive than Biden that Biden is worth voting for, than the chance that I could convince people who are center-right or further-right to vote for someone significantly further away on the political spectrum. Most of Biden's accomplishments would be more likely to appeal to liberals and moderates than conservatives anyway. Republicans don't value investing in infrastructure, jobs, unions, science, women, LGBTQ+, and the economy the same way that Democrats do. If the list of accomplishments I compiled ( https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4133#82649 ) doesn't appeal to Republicans at all, then I can't fathom what pro-Biden arguments one could make to convince Republicans that Biden deserves a second term over Trump. Are there any positives you could think of, that could persuade a Republican to vote for Biden? On every single issue Biden is a Democrat, his biggest pushback is on Israel, a topic most in the GOP are united on (no one is voting on the basis of Ukraine policy, and those that say they will are liars). So that leaves people who think that a decrepit Biden will do less damage than Trump the flawed man will do, and those who are trying to make sure he loses in the misguided attempt to reduce his influence. but I don't think there are many left in either camp. Biden doesn't have any significant policy to offer they wouldn't get with Trump, except PERHAPS a raising of the SALT cap. And he can't pretend like he's the competent, calm, adult in the room anymore, either. So there really isn't much upside if you are a Republican because of ideology or policy.
Of course on its face that post is addressing a tangential issue (“are there any reasons Republicans might support Biden?”) but that’s true for so much Trump advocacy. Surreptitiously sweeping Ukraine under the rug in a parenthetical or sliding in abusive adjectives like “decrepit” for Biden already raised my eyebrows a little bit, but probably the biggest one was encapsulating almost everything specifically terrible about Trump inside the euphemistic “Trump the flawed man” box. I’m not sure if you’re thinking of “tried to overthrow the US government” or “found guilty in a civil trial of rape” or “enthusiastically does publicity with white supremacists” or “openly promises a temporary dictatorship upon retaking office” or something else when you mention that box, but the label you put on it sounds like maybe he has a bad hair day sometimes or something.
Do you see why I might see that as the rhetorical tack of a man “on the Trump train”? Someone “stanning” him? I mean I’m happy to hear you’re not, but maybe it would clear things up a little if you talked a bit more about why you’re not planning to vote for him, and how you’re thinking about the Republican Party at this point if his influence over it is as massive as you seem to recognize.
|
On March 27 2024 09:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 08:56 BlackJack wrote:
Then you have the Georgia election interference case where the lead prosecutor hired the guy she was banging as an investigator who in turn took her out on lavish vacations to tropical paradises. I guess she missed the PowerPoints Kwark talked about.
She hired a guy she was banging as one of four contract positions. It has been proven with contemporaneous documents that he wasn’t her first choice for the job and that he only got it after some other guy who she wasn’t banging turned the job down. The position he was hired for wasn’t investigator. He got the same rate as others ($250/hr which was actually a significant pay cut for him) and was subject to a maximum billable hours cap like the others. No approvals were given to him to go over that. He was qualified for the job. There were no lavish vacations. $3,000 vacations for a high profile lawyer aren’t outlandish. Trump lost that case too. That’s not to say that she shouldn’t have disclosed the conflict and that he shouldn’t have been dismissed. She absolutely failed to follow that PowerPoint and he perjured himself a few times. Not defending them, seriously bad judgment plus his perjury ought to be disqualifying for a lawyer. I’d hope for someone to run against her on the basis of her shitty judgment. But it’s pretty apparent that you have absolutely no understanding of any of the facts of that case, from the very basic stuff like what his job title was to the circumstances of how he was hired.
What part of my post are you disputing? That I called him an investigator and that I called their vacations lavish?
As to the financial allegations, the Court makes the following factual findings. On November 1, 2021, the District Attorney hired Nathan Wade to serve as a SADA and lead the investigation that produced the indictment in this case.
Ok he wasn’t hired as an investigator, just as a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. I stand corrected.
Whether their trips to Aruba, Belize, Napa Valley qualify as lavish is somewhat subjective but I’ll happily concede that adjective as well.
|
On March 27 2024 12:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 01:42 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 26 2024 23:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 22:21 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote:
The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective. But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed. “It might be illegal”? Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans is definitely illegal. The fact that they successfully prosecuted him for the crime might be a clue there. Hillary escaped Trump’s lawfare by virtue of being innocent. I took a look at the Bob McDonnell case and it seems pretty cut and dry that he did it. A businessman gave him and his family a series of extremely expensive gifts and McDonnell gave that businessman government contracts that would not normally have been given. The way to avoid the appearance of impropriety in these situations is to not accept lavish gifts from people lobbying you. Failing that you should disclose the gifts and conflict and be recused out of any decision relating to them. He failed to do that, he took the money and he gave the contract. That wouldn’t be allowed in my profession, I can’t consider bids while taking kickbacks and if I received “gifts” I would be required to not be on the selection committee. Also I’m not going to worry too much about what SCOTUS think is bribery given the last few years of disclosure about Thomas being on the payroll of billionaire neo-Nazis. Yes, the I know better argument. Twice in one chain! The court was 4-4 at that time btw, that dismissal you give really is stretch and I think we can all see that. *** I've gotten a few responses so as a quick follow up here. First I dispute, for the record, Hillary's innocence and Comey's word games. But moreover, I'm not on the Trump train or stanning for him or anything like that. I dont have any plans to vote for him this time either. But I am concerned about letting ravenous hatred cause us to go further down the slippery slope. We can all pretend that these Trump cases are a new beginning of holding the powerful accountable, but I see no reason to believe that. Use whatever excuse you want, but don't whine when the next GOP president, maybe it will even be Trump!, turns the tables. I’m guessing this bit is partly (mostly?) responding to me so I guess I should clarify: I’m glad to hear you’re not “on the Trump train” (as his fundraising emails would put it)! I was reading between the lines, partly from this exchange with Kwark, but also from posts like this: Show nested quote +On March 19 2024 11:57 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 19 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 19 2024 08:22 Introvert wrote:
That hyperbole is part of the problem. Take this silly dust up over "bloodbath" the last few days. If you are undecided, there is a good chance you dont think hes a threat to democracy. And that, I think one big aspect of his chances for retaking the White House. In retrospect, so much of the drama of his presidency revolved around him, but pre-COVID things weren't actually that bad for most people. Then, given the frustrating tendency of Americans to forgive their politicians on left and right, they don't view COVID as his fault (and to be fair, it wasn't). Meanwhile, they know that under Biden and his policies, casually connected or not, inflation soared, the border is in chaos, and the world doesn't seem to respect us more than it did before, as Biden (and evey dem president) promises they will. Some of those things are entirely Biden's fault (the border) and some are not entirely but in no small part his fault (inflation). And barring some catastrophe like COVID, people hold thr president accountable.
It really isn't all that hard to understand. The shrieking from thr media didn't match reality, and Biden's reality sucks. He hasn't exactly kept his promises, either in tone or on policy. No one elected him to be FDR or LBJ, but he thinks he should be. What makes it hard to understand is that all that shit sounds made up. COVID was bad and Trump's handling of it was also bad. COVID happening wasn't his fault, but the fucking dumb shit he said about it during his presidency certainly was. Inflation is a problem in a lot of places right now, and is commonly blamed on corporations profiteering, not biden policy. I'm no economist and can't speak further to this, but the economists I have heard don't blame Biden, far as I can tell. The border is in chaos? I seem to recall late Obama and early Trump involving caging people and separating families. Is it actually worse now, or just convenient to claim it is? Why isn't that wall working, anyways? I thought the previous president got the thing he campained on and built a big fuckoff wall. I'm willing to believe Biden's presidency hasn't been great. That jives with my loose understanding. Things like DPB's review on Biden's presidency are useful. Things like the post of yours I quoted are as useful as Trump standing on a podium and declaring Biden a crook and the presidency stolen illegitimately. Well first, the primary point was that from the normie point of view, things felt a lot better when Trump was president. All the excuses aside, things didn't cost so much, and we actually had control over the border. On those topics, to the contrary I don't know of any serious economists who are actually blaming cooperate greed, that's the type of dumb crap Liz Warren says. Injecting trillions of dollars into the economy without increasing supply seems more likely...and the border is inarguably worse than when Trump was president. Because Orange Man Bad, Biden undid a bunch of Trump's policies and now we've had record years of the number of encounters AND illegal crossings. And again, no one believes this is because it suddenly became so much worse in Central America. You can check the numbers yourself, they are staggering. So even if you want to argue about who is the blame, Biden has undeniably failed in his promises to "restore normalcy" and combined with his clear mental decline, I think most people who are partisan Democrats don't believe he has the capacity. Combine that he lied about "turning the temperature down" of our politics and it's easy to see why anyone not a Democrat doesn't approve. The problem with DPB's big post a few weeks (months?) ago was that it was written towards a left-wing audience. The underlying viewpoint throughout the whole post was defending him from the center-left against the left. It had little appealing to the center-right, much less the further right. You're absolutely right, but that was my intention. I think it's much more likely to convince people slightly more moderate than Biden or slightly more progressive than Biden that Biden is worth voting for, than the chance that I could convince people who are center-right or further-right to vote for someone significantly further away on the political spectrum. Most of Biden's accomplishments would be more likely to appeal to liberals and moderates than conservatives anyway. Republicans don't value investing in infrastructure, jobs, unions, science, women, LGBTQ+, and the economy the same way that Democrats do. If the list of accomplishments I compiled ( https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4133#82649 ) doesn't appeal to Republicans at all, then I can't fathom what pro-Biden arguments one could make to convince Republicans that Biden deserves a second term over Trump. Are there any positives you could think of, that could persuade a Republican to vote for Biden? On every single issue Biden is a Democrat, his biggest pushback is on Israel, a topic most in the GOP are united on (no one is voting on the basis of Ukraine policy, and those that say they will are liars). So that leaves people who think that a decrepit Biden will do less damage than Trump the flawed man will do, and those who are trying to make sure he loses in the misguided attempt to reduce his influence. but I don't think there are many left in either camp. Biden doesn't have any significant policy to offer they wouldn't get with Trump, except PERHAPS a raising of the SALT cap. And he can't pretend like he's the competent, calm, adult in the room anymore, either. So there really isn't much upside if you are a Republican because of ideology or policy. Of course on its face that post is addressing a tangential issue (“are there any reasons Republicans might support Biden?”) but that’s true for so much Trump advocacy. Surreptitiously sweeping Ukraine under the rug in a parenthetical or sliding in abusive adjectives like “decrepit” for Biden already raised my eyebrows a little bit, but probably the biggest one was encapsulating almost everything specifically terrible about Trump inside the euphemistic “Trump the flawed man” box. I’m not sure if you’re thinking of “tried to overthrow the US government” or “found guilty in a civil trial of rape” or “enthusiastically does publicity with white supremacists” or “openly promises a temporary dictatorship upon retaking office” or something else when you mention that box, but the label you put on it sounds like maybe he has a bad hair day sometimes or something. Do you see why I might see that as the rhetorical tack of a man “on the Trump train”? Someone “stanning” him? I mean I’m happy to hear you’re not, but maybe it would clear things up a little if you talked a bit more about why you’re not planning to vote for him, and how you’re thinking about the Republican Party at this point if his influence over it is as massive as you seem to recognize.
I had a longer post written up but I'm pretty sure each sentence I wrote would have elicited a separate response from people lol.
In short
Go look at the top 10 things voters care about, I'm pretty sure Ukraine is low, if it make it in there at all.
Well I trash him regularly so I'm not sure there's something going on the background. I would just say that Trump was still a better president than Biden is, and that's partially because I don't see a big loyalty to the constitutional system from him either. His handling of the border and our national sovereignty is appalling, and his cynical ploys with unconstitutional actions and then railing against the Courts when they strike him down is deeply disruptive. But this is also because I don't see the capitol riot as anything more than that: a riot. In my opinion, our system as it currently stands is more susceptible to the slow degradation of powers from their rightly spheres to a different one (often to the executive) and less in danger of a coup. So on that front Biden has been far more damaging to the long term health of our republic than Trump has been, even if Trump is more unique in his problems than Biden is. Biden the campaigner and Biden the president are very different people, although I think only the uninformed would have predicted otherwise. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but there you go.
|
On March 27 2024 13:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 12:08 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 01:42 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 26 2024 23:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 22:21 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote:
The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective. But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed. “It might be illegal”? Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans is definitely illegal. The fact that they successfully prosecuted him for the crime might be a clue there. Hillary escaped Trump’s lawfare by virtue of being innocent. I took a look at the Bob McDonnell case and it seems pretty cut and dry that he did it. A businessman gave him and his family a series of extremely expensive gifts and McDonnell gave that businessman government contracts that would not normally have been given. The way to avoid the appearance of impropriety in these situations is to not accept lavish gifts from people lobbying you. Failing that you should disclose the gifts and conflict and be recused out of any decision relating to them. He failed to do that, he took the money and he gave the contract. That wouldn’t be allowed in my profession, I can’t consider bids while taking kickbacks and if I received “gifts” I would be required to not be on the selection committee. Also I’m not going to worry too much about what SCOTUS think is bribery given the last few years of disclosure about Thomas being on the payroll of billionaire neo-Nazis. Yes, the I know better argument. Twice in one chain! The court was 4-4 at that time btw, that dismissal you give really is stretch and I think we can all see that. *** I've gotten a few responses so as a quick follow up here. First I dispute, for the record, Hillary's innocence and Comey's word games. But moreover, I'm not on the Trump train or stanning for him or anything like that. I dont have any plans to vote for him this time either. But I am concerned about letting ravenous hatred cause us to go further down the slippery slope. We can all pretend that these Trump cases are a new beginning of holding the powerful accountable, but I see no reason to believe that. Use whatever excuse you want, but don't whine when the next GOP president, maybe it will even be Trump!, turns the tables. I’m guessing this bit is partly (mostly?) responding to me so I guess I should clarify: I’m glad to hear you’re not “on the Trump train” (as his fundraising emails would put it)! I was reading between the lines, partly from this exchange with Kwark, but also from posts like this: On March 19 2024 11:57 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 19 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 19 2024 08:22 Introvert wrote:
That hyperbole is part of the problem. Take this silly dust up over "bloodbath" the last few days. If you are undecided, there is a good chance you dont think hes a threat to democracy. And that, I think one big aspect of his chances for retaking the White House. In retrospect, so much of the drama of his presidency revolved around him, but pre-COVID things weren't actually that bad for most people. Then, given the frustrating tendency of Americans to forgive their politicians on left and right, they don't view COVID as his fault (and to be fair, it wasn't). Meanwhile, they know that under Biden and his policies, casually connected or not, inflation soared, the border is in chaos, and the world doesn't seem to respect us more than it did before, as Biden (and evey dem president) promises they will. Some of those things are entirely Biden's fault (the border) and some are not entirely but in no small part his fault (inflation). And barring some catastrophe like COVID, people hold thr president accountable.
It really isn't all that hard to understand. The shrieking from thr media didn't match reality, and Biden's reality sucks. He hasn't exactly kept his promises, either in tone or on policy. No one elected him to be FDR or LBJ, but he thinks he should be. What makes it hard to understand is that all that shit sounds made up. COVID was bad and Trump's handling of it was also bad. COVID happening wasn't his fault, but the fucking dumb shit he said about it during his presidency certainly was. Inflation is a problem in a lot of places right now, and is commonly blamed on corporations profiteering, not biden policy. I'm no economist and can't speak further to this, but the economists I have heard don't blame Biden, far as I can tell. The border is in chaos? I seem to recall late Obama and early Trump involving caging people and separating families. Is it actually worse now, or just convenient to claim it is? Why isn't that wall working, anyways? I thought the previous president got the thing he campained on and built a big fuckoff wall. I'm willing to believe Biden's presidency hasn't been great. That jives with my loose understanding. Things like DPB's review on Biden's presidency are useful. Things like the post of yours I quoted are as useful as Trump standing on a podium and declaring Biden a crook and the presidency stolen illegitimately. Well first, the primary point was that from the normie point of view, things felt a lot better when Trump was president. All the excuses aside, things didn't cost so much, and we actually had control over the border. On those topics, to the contrary I don't know of any serious economists who are actually blaming cooperate greed, that's the type of dumb crap Liz Warren says. Injecting trillions of dollars into the economy without increasing supply seems more likely...and the border is inarguably worse than when Trump was president. Because Orange Man Bad, Biden undid a bunch of Trump's policies and now we've had record years of the number of encounters AND illegal crossings. And again, no one believes this is because it suddenly became so much worse in Central America. You can check the numbers yourself, they are staggering. So even if you want to argue about who is the blame, Biden has undeniably failed in his promises to "restore normalcy" and combined with his clear mental decline, I think most people who are partisan Democrats don't believe he has the capacity. Combine that he lied about "turning the temperature down" of our politics and it's easy to see why anyone not a Democrat doesn't approve. The problem with DPB's big post a few weeks (months?) ago was that it was written towards a left-wing audience. The underlying viewpoint throughout the whole post was defending him from the center-left against the left. It had little appealing to the center-right, much less the further right. You're absolutely right, but that was my intention. I think it's much more likely to convince people slightly more moderate than Biden or slightly more progressive than Biden that Biden is worth voting for, than the chance that I could convince people who are center-right or further-right to vote for someone significantly further away on the political spectrum. Most of Biden's accomplishments would be more likely to appeal to liberals and moderates than conservatives anyway. Republicans don't value investing in infrastructure, jobs, unions, science, women, LGBTQ+, and the economy the same way that Democrats do. If the list of accomplishments I compiled ( https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4133#82649 ) doesn't appeal to Republicans at all, then I can't fathom what pro-Biden arguments one could make to convince Republicans that Biden deserves a second term over Trump. Are there any positives you could think of, that could persuade a Republican to vote for Biden? On every single issue Biden is a Democrat, his biggest pushback is on Israel, a topic most in the GOP are united on (no one is voting on the basis of Ukraine policy, and those that say they will are liars). So that leaves people who think that a decrepit Biden will do less damage than Trump the flawed man will do, and those who are trying to make sure he loses in the misguided attempt to reduce his influence. but I don't think there are many left in either camp. Biden doesn't have any significant policy to offer they wouldn't get with Trump, except PERHAPS a raising of the SALT cap. And he can't pretend like he's the competent, calm, adult in the room anymore, either. So there really isn't much upside if you are a Republican because of ideology or policy. Of course on its face that post is addressing a tangential issue (“are there any reasons Republicans might support Biden?”) but that’s true for so much Trump advocacy. Surreptitiously sweeping Ukraine under the rug in a parenthetical or sliding in abusive adjectives like “decrepit” for Biden already raised my eyebrows a little bit, but probably the biggest one was encapsulating almost everything specifically terrible about Trump inside the euphemistic “Trump the flawed man” box. I’m not sure if you’re thinking of “tried to overthrow the US government” or “found guilty in a civil trial of rape” or “enthusiastically does publicity with white supremacists” or “openly promises a temporary dictatorship upon retaking office” or something else when you mention that box, but the label you put on it sounds like maybe he has a bad hair day sometimes or something. Do you see why I might see that as the rhetorical tack of a man “on the Trump train”? Someone “stanning” him? I mean I’m happy to hear you’re not, but maybe it would clear things up a little if you talked a bit more about why you’re not planning to vote for him, and how you’re thinking about the Republican Party at this point if his influence over it is as massive as you seem to recognize. I had a longer post written up but I'm pretty sure each sentence I wrote would have elicited a separate response from people lol. In short Go look at the top 10 things voters care about, I'm pretty sure Ukraine is low, if it make it in there at all. Well I trash him regularly so I'm not sure there's something going on the background. I would just say that Trump was still a better president than Biden is, and that's partially because I don't see a big loyalty to the constitutional system from him either. His handling of the border and our national sovereignty is appalling, and his cynical ploys with unconstitutional actions and then railing against the Courts when they strike him down is deeply disruptive. But this is also because I don't see the capitol riot as anything more than that: a riot. In my opinion, our system as it currently stands is more susceptible to the slow degradation of powers from their rightly spheres to a different one (often to the executive) and less in danger of a coup. So on that front Biden has been far more damaging to the long term health of our republic than Trump has been, even if Trump is more unique in his problems than Biden is. Biden the campaigner and Biden the president are very different people, although I think only the uninformed would have predicted otherwise. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but there you go. Hmm, getting that feeling a little bit again. I think they call this “staying on message?” Receive any question, acknowledge it, and then pivot to what you actually want to talk about. In this case the question (admittedly, I asked more than one) was primarily about why you apparently won’t vote for Trump, and how you feel about a Republican party dominated by him. But all we get is a brief gesture at previous posts where you “trash him regularly” (Do you? I guess I have to take your word for it). All of Trump’s sins are once again stashed in a cardboard moving box, taped shut and hastily labeled in Sharpie “Ignore, Already Discussed Before.” Then pivot to a lot of stuff we’ve definitely discussed before – Biden’s slightly vague but all-encompassing inadequacies and how you think it’s all actually subtly creeping authoritarianism.
If I seem like a lunatic here, maybe it helps to point out that for years now, one of the classic Trump supporter rhetorical stances is to pretend to not be a Trump supporter. “Listen, I think Trump’s terrible! It’s just that…” and then some screed about the deep state and the lying media and the universally corrupt Democrats. Ya know, this isn’t some dyed-in-the-wool MAGA fanboy, it’s an independent, an Undecided Voter! You’d better cede ground to them, acknowledge their concerns and not push back too much. But it’s funny, any criticism of Trump you can bring up they seem to parry rather than support. Reflexively defend, even. And if you ask directly why Trump’s terrible you get a deflection, or a vague gesturing at, you know, everything, or maybe even some fairly small sacrificial defect is offered. He’s too mean to his enemies, who by the way are being very unfair to him…
And on and on it goes. So you understand why I’m a little reticent to take right-leaning arguments self-identifying as independent and Trump-critical at face value, particularly when their positions seem strategically chosen to form a defensive perimeter around the man. It’s not that I don’t think you have criticisms of him, but it seems like for every massive gaping issue with Trump, as a man and as a political platform, your first impulse is to insist it’s overblown, unfairly treated by the media, low salience, everybody else does it too, and anyway why don’t we instead talk about [pivot to attacking Democrats instead].
I think I said at the start of this that I predicted you’d come around to voting for Trump once campaign season gets under way, but for the moment you’d be in a demobilized state of mourning for his primary challengers. So you’d avoid talking about Trump directly but still gripe plenty about Democrats, clearly positioned to be easily swayed by Republican messaging before November. That all still sounds pretty plausible to me, with the exception that for all intents and purposes, your rhetorical positioning already seems explicitly defensive of Trump, not agnostic about him. Maybe it’s just that you had already, so to speak, built your fortifications in these Trump-defensive positions and even when you’re not flying his flag, you still can’t help but cover his flank.
I mean, I should acknowledge it’s awkward and maybe a little rude to be kind of analyzing and dissecting you like some preserved specimen when you’re in the room and can hear me. I apologize for that. But to me one of the main purposes of trying to comprehend others’ differing opinions is not just to understand that one individual, but to try to extrapolate about the beliefs and behavior of larger groups around the country, and doing that involves a certain amount of trying to look past the constructed facade to the underlying motivations, and if possible, discerning a trajectory. In your case it seems like you’re already quick to acknowledge that whatever criticisms you have of him are comparatively unimportant and not worth discussing, and the most salient thing to discuss is how much better he is than Biden. Am I really supposed to believe that as the election nears, and everybody mobilizes and polarizes, you aren’t going to stumble upon your old Trump flag and decide to run it up the flagpole again?
|
Norway28592 Posts
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though.
|
On March 27 2024 08:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 03:16 KwarK wrote:
It didn’t work out. Remember, the “fine” is just the amount that he would have had to pay if he was charged full price. He can’t afford to pay that fine and so the only reason he was able to pay the interest is that he fraudulently secured lower interest. He failed to meet the real terms.
Imagine a store that has veteran discounts. Trump walks in, grabs an item that costs $100, fraudulently claims to be a veteran to get a 20% discount, and pays $80. Prosecution establish that he’s not a veteran because he’s not. He defends himself saying that the store only charged him $80 and he paid $80 so what’s the crime.
His only punishment is to pay back the $20 discount he fraudulently obtained. But it turns out that he can’t do that, he doesn’t have $20, he never had $100 for the item to begin with. He walked into the store knowing that he only had $80, knowing that the item was $100, and knowing that he wasn’t a veteran.
It didn’t all work out. He stole from them. Until he coughs up the extra $20, and apparently he can’t do that, he has failed to hold up his end of the bargain. Stealing from someone with fraudulent representations is still stealing. “Just pay back what you took” is the unimaginably cruel and unusual punishment handed out by the New York judge and conservatives are up in arms at this miscarriage of justice. It’s baffling. Inaccurate. I believe less than half the judgement is the unpaid interest from favorable rates. They’re also fining him from windfall profits. Perhaps a better analogy would be getting a veteran discount and paying $80 for a $100 item and then selling that item for $150 and after it’s discovered you are not a veteran you are forced to pay back $70. $20 for the veteran discount and another $50 in profit from selling the item. All in all, these Trump prosecutions are going terribly for the Dems. For the NY civil case - it’s hard to find anyone whose heart is going to bleed for Deustche bank because they may have missed out on some interest for being dumb enough to take Trump of all people at his word. I think next up is the Stormy Daniels case which I’ve posted earlier even Vox considers to be based on an untested novel legal theory. Deploying novel legal theory to prosecute Trump makes it all to easy to beat the “Get Trump” drum. Not a good look. Then you have the Georgia election interference case where the lead prosecutor hired the guy she was banging as an investigator who in turn took her out on lavish vacations to tropical paradises. I guess she missed the PowerPoints Kwark talked about.
The first trial doesn't even start for another 2-3 weeks, so I think it's too early to say whether or not things are looking better for the prosecution or the defense. Not caring about a bank or focusing on an irrelevant relationship is very different from whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict. I understand that you're looking at the optics right now, but that also ignores the optics of the past few years when Trump did all the things he's being accused of doing.
|
On March 27 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 08:56 BlackJack wrote:On March 27 2024 03:16 KwarK wrote:
It didn’t work out. Remember, the “fine” is just the amount that he would have had to pay if he was charged full price. He can’t afford to pay that fine and so the only reason he was able to pay the interest is that he fraudulently secured lower interest. He failed to meet the real terms.
Imagine a store that has veteran discounts. Trump walks in, grabs an item that costs $100, fraudulently claims to be a veteran to get a 20% discount, and pays $80. Prosecution establish that he’s not a veteran because he’s not. He defends himself saying that the store only charged him $80 and he paid $80 so what’s the crime.
His only punishment is to pay back the $20 discount he fraudulently obtained. But it turns out that he can’t do that, he doesn’t have $20, he never had $100 for the item to begin with. He walked into the store knowing that he only had $80, knowing that the item was $100, and knowing that he wasn’t a veteran.
It didn’t all work out. He stole from them. Until he coughs up the extra $20, and apparently he can’t do that, he has failed to hold up his end of the bargain. Stealing from someone with fraudulent representations is still stealing. “Just pay back what you took” is the unimaginably cruel and unusual punishment handed out by the New York judge and conservatives are up in arms at this miscarriage of justice. It’s baffling. Inaccurate. I believe less than half the judgement is the unpaid interest from favorable rates. They’re also fining him from windfall profits. Perhaps a better analogy would be getting a veteran discount and paying $80 for a $100 item and then selling that item for $150 and after it’s discovered you are not a veteran you are forced to pay back $70. $20 for the veteran discount and another $50 in profit from selling the item. All in all, these Trump prosecutions are going terribly for the Dems. For the NY civil case - it’s hard to find anyone whose heart is going to bleed for Deustche bank because they may have missed out on some interest for being dumb enough to take Trump of all people at his word. I think next up is the Stormy Daniels case which I’ve posted earlier even Vox considers to be based on an untested novel legal theory. Deploying novel legal theory to prosecute Trump makes it all to easy to beat the “Get Trump” drum. Not a good look. Then you have the Georgia election interference case where the lead prosecutor hired the guy she was banging as an investigator who in turn took her out on lavish vacations to tropical paradises. I guess she missed the PowerPoints Kwark talked about. The first trial doesn't even start for another 2-3 weeks, so I think it's too early to say whether or not things are looking better for the prosecution or the defense. Not caring about a bank or focusing on an irrelevant relationship is very different from whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict. I understand that you're looking at the optics right now, but that also ignores the optics of the past few years when Trump did all the things he's being accused of doing.
That is true, but i would not be certain that proving that the republican nominee is a criminal, a fraudster, and generally an asshole will do anything. American elections are sadly very weird, and the republican propaganda machine is very powerful. If they can spin this to "political prosecution" (as can be seen to be tried in this thread), then Trump might even win.
American elections are just insane. In any sane world, people wouldn't elect a criminal asshole fraudster with literally no redeeming qualities, but in the US that seems to not be a problem.
|
On March 27 2024 21:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 27 2024 08:56 BlackJack wrote:On March 27 2024 03:16 KwarK wrote:
It didn’t work out. Remember, the “fine” is just the amount that he would have had to pay if he was charged full price. He can’t afford to pay that fine and so the only reason he was able to pay the interest is that he fraudulently secured lower interest. He failed to meet the real terms.
Imagine a store that has veteran discounts. Trump walks in, grabs an item that costs $100, fraudulently claims to be a veteran to get a 20% discount, and pays $80. Prosecution establish that he’s not a veteran because he’s not. He defends himself saying that the store only charged him $80 and he paid $80 so what’s the crime.
His only punishment is to pay back the $20 discount he fraudulently obtained. But it turns out that he can’t do that, he doesn’t have $20, he never had $100 for the item to begin with. He walked into the store knowing that he only had $80, knowing that the item was $100, and knowing that he wasn’t a veteran.
It didn’t all work out. He stole from them. Until he coughs up the extra $20, and apparently he can’t do that, he has failed to hold up his end of the bargain. Stealing from someone with fraudulent representations is still stealing. “Just pay back what you took” is the unimaginably cruel and unusual punishment handed out by the New York judge and conservatives are up in arms at this miscarriage of justice. It’s baffling. Inaccurate. I believe less than half the judgement is the unpaid interest from favorable rates. They’re also fining him from windfall profits. Perhaps a better analogy would be getting a veteran discount and paying $80 for a $100 item and then selling that item for $150 and after it’s discovered you are not a veteran you are forced to pay back $70. $20 for the veteran discount and another $50 in profit from selling the item. All in all, these Trump prosecutions are going terribly for the Dems. For the NY civil case - it’s hard to find anyone whose heart is going to bleed for Deustche bank because they may have missed out on some interest for being dumb enough to take Trump of all people at his word. I think next up is the Stormy Daniels case which I’ve posted earlier even Vox considers to be based on an untested novel legal theory. Deploying novel legal theory to prosecute Trump makes it all to easy to beat the “Get Trump” drum. Not a good look. Then you have the Georgia election interference case where the lead prosecutor hired the guy she was banging as an investigator who in turn took her out on lavish vacations to tropical paradises. I guess she missed the PowerPoints Kwark talked about. The first trial doesn't even start for another 2-3 weeks, so I think it's too early to say whether or not things are looking better for the prosecution or the defense. Not caring about a bank or focusing on an irrelevant relationship is very different from whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict. I understand that you're looking at the optics right now, but that also ignores the optics of the past few years when Trump did all the things he's being accused of doing. That is true, but i would not be certain that proving that the republican nominee is a criminal, a fraudster, and generally an asshole will do anything. American elections are sadly very weird, and the republican propaganda machine is very powerful. If they can spin this to "political prosecution" (as can be seen to be tried in this thread), then Trump might even win. American elections are just insane. In any sane world, people wouldn't elect a criminal asshole fraudster with literally no redeeming qualities, but in the US that seems to not be a problem.
I completely agree. While I've heard that some Republicans' final straw would supposedly be Trump being convicted of criminal charges, I don't think it'll actually mean much to those MAGA voters. If everything he's done so far has been excusable, then who cares about the law? If anything, being found guilty of dozens of crimes would just feed into the conspiracy theory that everyone is out to "get" poor, innocent Trump.
|
I'm not sure I'd say the prosecutions are "going terribly", but I would agree that their only real value is as campaign theatre.
He obviously did a lot of it. He's obviously guilty of a lot of it. None of it matters at all if he still ends up in the white house.
So, are all the cases helping keep him out of the white house, or helping re-elect him? If the latter, they are going terribly, no matter how many prosecutors manage to pad their stats in the process.
|
On March 27 2024 20:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though.
Yeah, his vote is inconsequential (mine too). I am interested in where his political allegiances (and those of other Americans who think similarly to him) lie. Same for Danglars, I mentioned wondering where he’s at on Trump these days, not because his vote matters, but because unlike Intro, he did seem to think January 6th was a travesty and Trump was to blame. IIRC he even said that in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020, not long before he got permabanned.
There were a decent number of Republicans who were talking that way 3 years ago. I can’t help but wonder how easy they’re finding it to return to the fold, as Trump continues to swear the election was stolen, promise to pardon J6ers, etc.
|
On March 27 2024 20:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 13:16 Introvert wrote:On March 27 2024 12:08 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 01:42 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 26 2024 23:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 22:21 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote:
The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective. But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed. “It might be illegal”? Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans is definitely illegal. The fact that they successfully prosecuted him for the crime might be a clue there. Hillary escaped Trump’s lawfare by virtue of being innocent. I took a look at the Bob McDonnell case and it seems pretty cut and dry that he did it. A businessman gave him and his family a series of extremely expensive gifts and McDonnell gave that businessman government contracts that would not normally have been given. The way to avoid the appearance of impropriety in these situations is to not accept lavish gifts from people lobbying you. Failing that you should disclose the gifts and conflict and be recused out of any decision relating to them. He failed to do that, he took the money and he gave the contract. That wouldn’t be allowed in my profession, I can’t consider bids while taking kickbacks and if I received “gifts” I would be required to not be on the selection committee. Also I’m not going to worry too much about what SCOTUS think is bribery given the last few years of disclosure about Thomas being on the payroll of billionaire neo-Nazis. Yes, the I know better argument. Twice in one chain! The court was 4-4 at that time btw, that dismissal you give really is stretch and I think we can all see that. *** I've gotten a few responses so as a quick follow up here. First I dispute, for the record, Hillary's innocence and Comey's word games. But moreover, I'm not on the Trump train or stanning for him or anything like that. I dont have any plans to vote for him this time either. But I am concerned about letting ravenous hatred cause us to go further down the slippery slope. We can all pretend that these Trump cases are a new beginning of holding the powerful accountable, but I see no reason to believe that. Use whatever excuse you want, but don't whine when the next GOP president, maybe it will even be Trump!, turns the tables. I’m guessing this bit is partly (mostly?) responding to me so I guess I should clarify: I’m glad to hear you’re not “on the Trump train” (as his fundraising emails would put it)! I was reading between the lines, partly from this exchange with Kwark, but also from posts like this: On March 19 2024 11:57 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 19 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On March 19 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 19 2024 08:22 Introvert wrote:
That hyperbole is part of the problem. Take this silly dust up over "bloodbath" the last few days. If you are undecided, there is a good chance you dont think hes a threat to democracy. And that, I think one big aspect of his chances for retaking the White House. In retrospect, so much of the drama of his presidency revolved around him, but pre-COVID things weren't actually that bad for most people. Then, given the frustrating tendency of Americans to forgive their politicians on left and right, they don't view COVID as his fault (and to be fair, it wasn't). Meanwhile, they know that under Biden and his policies, casually connected or not, inflation soared, the border is in chaos, and the world doesn't seem to respect us more than it did before, as Biden (and evey dem president) promises they will. Some of those things are entirely Biden's fault (the border) and some are not entirely but in no small part his fault (inflation). And barring some catastrophe like COVID, people hold thr president accountable.
It really isn't all that hard to understand. The shrieking from thr media didn't match reality, and Biden's reality sucks. He hasn't exactly kept his promises, either in tone or on policy. No one elected him to be FDR or LBJ, but he thinks he should be. What makes it hard to understand is that all that shit sounds made up. COVID was bad and Trump's handling of it was also bad. COVID happening wasn't his fault, but the fucking dumb shit he said about it during his presidency certainly was. Inflation is a problem in a lot of places right now, and is commonly blamed on corporations profiteering, not biden policy. I'm no economist and can't speak further to this, but the economists I have heard don't blame Biden, far as I can tell. The border is in chaos? I seem to recall late Obama and early Trump involving caging people and separating families. Is it actually worse now, or just convenient to claim it is? Why isn't that wall working, anyways? I thought the previous president got the thing he campained on and built a big fuckoff wall. I'm willing to believe Biden's presidency hasn't been great. That jives with my loose understanding. Things like DPB's review on Biden's presidency are useful. Things like the post of yours I quoted are as useful as Trump standing on a podium and declaring Biden a crook and the presidency stolen illegitimately. Well first, the primary point was that from the normie point of view, things felt a lot better when Trump was president. All the excuses aside, things didn't cost so much, and we actually had control over the border. On those topics, to the contrary I don't know of any serious economists who are actually blaming cooperate greed, that's the type of dumb crap Liz Warren says. Injecting trillions of dollars into the economy without increasing supply seems more likely...and the border is inarguably worse than when Trump was president. Because Orange Man Bad, Biden undid a bunch of Trump's policies and now we've had record years of the number of encounters AND illegal crossings. And again, no one believes this is because it suddenly became so much worse in Central America. You can check the numbers yourself, they are staggering. So even if you want to argue about who is the blame, Biden has undeniably failed in his promises to "restore normalcy" and combined with his clear mental decline, I think most people who are partisan Democrats don't believe he has the capacity. Combine that he lied about "turning the temperature down" of our politics and it's easy to see why anyone not a Democrat doesn't approve. The problem with DPB's big post a few weeks (months?) ago was that it was written towards a left-wing audience. The underlying viewpoint throughout the whole post was defending him from the center-left against the left. It had little appealing to the center-right, much less the further right. You're absolutely right, but that was my intention. I think it's much more likely to convince people slightly more moderate than Biden or slightly more progressive than Biden that Biden is worth voting for, than the chance that I could convince people who are center-right or further-right to vote for someone significantly further away on the political spectrum. Most of Biden's accomplishments would be more likely to appeal to liberals and moderates than conservatives anyway. Republicans don't value investing in infrastructure, jobs, unions, science, women, LGBTQ+, and the economy the same way that Democrats do. If the list of accomplishments I compiled ( https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4133#82649 ) doesn't appeal to Republicans at all, then I can't fathom what pro-Biden arguments one could make to convince Republicans that Biden deserves a second term over Trump. Are there any positives you could think of, that could persuade a Republican to vote for Biden? On every single issue Biden is a Democrat, his biggest pushback is on Israel, a topic most in the GOP are united on (no one is voting on the basis of Ukraine policy, and those that say they will are liars). So that leaves people who think that a decrepit Biden will do less damage than Trump the flawed man will do, and those who are trying to make sure he loses in the misguided attempt to reduce his influence. but I don't think there are many left in either camp. Biden doesn't have any significant policy to offer they wouldn't get with Trump, except PERHAPS a raising of the SALT cap. And he can't pretend like he's the competent, calm, adult in the room anymore, either. So there really isn't much upside if you are a Republican because of ideology or policy. Of course on its face that post is addressing a tangential issue (“are there any reasons Republicans might support Biden?”) but that’s true for so much Trump advocacy. Surreptitiously sweeping Ukraine under the rug in a parenthetical or sliding in abusive adjectives like “decrepit” for Biden already raised my eyebrows a little bit, but probably the biggest one was encapsulating almost everything specifically terrible about Trump inside the euphemistic “Trump the flawed man” box. I’m not sure if you’re thinking of “tried to overthrow the US government” or “found guilty in a civil trial of rape” or “enthusiastically does publicity with white supremacists” or “openly promises a temporary dictatorship upon retaking office” or something else when you mention that box, but the label you put on it sounds like maybe he has a bad hair day sometimes or something. Do you see why I might see that as the rhetorical tack of a man “on the Trump train”? Someone “stanning” him? I mean I’m happy to hear you’re not, but maybe it would clear things up a little if you talked a bit more about why you’re not planning to vote for him, and how you’re thinking about the Republican Party at this point if his influence over it is as massive as you seem to recognize. I had a longer post written up but I'm pretty sure each sentence I wrote would have elicited a separate response from people lol. In short Go look at the top 10 things voters care about, I'm pretty sure Ukraine is low, if it make it in there at all. Well I trash him regularly so I'm not sure there's something going on the background. I would just say that Trump was still a better president than Biden is, and that's partially because I don't see a big loyalty to the constitutional system from him either. His handling of the border and our national sovereignty is appalling, and his cynical ploys with unconstitutional actions and then railing against the Courts when they strike him down is deeply disruptive. But this is also because I don't see the capitol riot as anything more than that: a riot. In my opinion, our system as it currently stands is more susceptible to the slow degradation of powers from their rightly spheres to a different one (often to the executive) and less in danger of a coup. So on that front Biden has been far more damaging to the long term health of our republic than Trump has been, even if Trump is more unique in his problems than Biden is. Biden the campaigner and Biden the president are very different people, although I think only the uninformed would have predicted otherwise. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but there you go. Hmm, getting that feeling a little bit again. I think they call this “staying on message?” Receive any question, acknowledge it, and then pivot to what you actually want to talk about. In this case the question (admittedly, I asked more than one) was primarily about why you apparently won’t vote for Trump, and how you feel about a Republican party dominated by him. But all we get is a brief gesture at previous posts where you “trash him regularly” (Do you? I guess I have to take your word for it). All of Trump’s sins are once again stashed in a cardboard moving box, taped shut and hastily labeled in Sharpie “Ignore, Already Discussed Before.” Then pivot to a lot of stuff we’ve definitely discussed before – Biden’s slightly vague but all-encompassing inadequacies and how you think it’s all actually subtly creeping authoritarianism. If I seem like a lunatic here, maybe it helps to point out that for years now, one of the classic Trump supporter rhetorical stances is to pretend to not be a Trump supporter. “Listen, I think Trump’s terrible! It’s just that…” and then some screed about the deep state and the lying media and the universally corrupt Democrats. Ya know, this isn’t some dyed-in-the-wool MAGA fanboy, it’s an independent, an Undecided Voter! You’d better cede ground to them, acknowledge their concerns and not push back too much. But it’s funny, any criticism of Trump you can bring up they seem to parry rather than support. Reflexively defend, even. And if you ask directly why Trump’s terrible you get a deflection, or a vague gesturing at, you know, everything, or maybe even some fairly small sacrificial defect is offered. He’s too mean to his enemies, who by the way are being very unfair to him… And on and on it goes. So you understand why I’m a little reticent to take right-leaning arguments self-identifying as independent and Trump-critical at face value, particularly when their positions seem strategically chosen to form a defensive perimeter around the man. It’s not that I don’t think you have criticisms of him, but it seems like for every massive gaping issue with Trump, as a man and as a political platform, your first impulse is to insist it’s overblown, unfairly treated by the media, low salience, everybody else does it too, and anyway why don’t we instead talk about [pivot to attacking Democrats instead]. I think I said at the start of this that I predicted you’d come around to voting for Trump once campaign season gets under way, but for the moment you’d be in a demobilized state of mourning for his primary challengers. So you’d avoid talking about Trump directly but still gripe plenty about Democrats, clearly positioned to be easily swayed by Republican messaging before November. That all still sounds pretty plausible to me, with the exception that for all intents and purposes, your rhetorical positioning already seems explicitly defensive of Trump, not agnostic about him. Maybe it’s just that you had already, so to speak, built your fortifications in these Trump-defensive positions and even when you’re not flying his flag, you still can’t help but cover his flank. I mean, I should acknowledge it’s awkward and maybe a little rude to be kind of analyzing and dissecting you like some preserved specimen when you’re in the room and can hear me. I apologize for that. But to me one of the main purposes of trying to comprehend others’ differing opinions is not just to understand that one individual, but to try to extrapolate about the beliefs and behavior of larger groups around the country, and doing that involves a certain amount of trying to look past the constructed facade to the underlying motivations, and if possible, discerning a trajectory. In your case it seems like you’re already quick to acknowledge that whatever criticisms you have of him are comparatively unimportant and not worth discussing, and the most salient thing to discuss is how much better he is than Biden. Am I really supposed to believe that as the election nears, and everybody mobilizes and polarizes, you aren’t going to stumble upon your old Trump flag and decide to run it up the flagpole again?
There is plenty of criticism of Trump's rhetoric in this thread already, though I find much of overblown and have defended him from what I think are unfair attacks, for instance when he called cartel traffickers "animals." To the members of my family who really like Trump I can be exasperating 
But I think there is another thing here that I've mentioned also. From a policy standpoint, Trump's presidency was so much better than I expected and much of it was doctrinaire Republicsnism. You are in the end asking me if i prefer the tenure of a Republican or a Democrat, and it really isn't even close. I do have policy disagreements with Trump, but the primary reasons I am not supporting him are that I think he's a bad person and that he won't actually do some of thenhard things that needed to be done. That's why I liked DeSantis, he's conservative. he is smart, studies things before he does them, doesn't lose focus, and doesn't put his foot in his mouth.
I am concerned that the ploys being deployed against Trump won't end with him, we've talked about this before but I think the slippery slope is real, and going after someone for something they might technically have done but isn't enforced against others is highly worrying. And some of the charges are just bunk. The Stormy Daniels one for example.
As for why so much focus on that... well that's what's in the news! That's what the Dems and the media (but i repeat myself) are so focused on. And it's understandable, polling says people view Trump's presidency better than Biden's in retrospect, so it's easy to see why their focus is in court.
|
On March 27 2024 22:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 20:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though. Yeah, his vote is inconsequential (mine too). I am interested in where his political allegiances (and those of other Americans who think similarly to him) lie. Same for Danglars, I mentioned wondering where he’s at on Trump these days, not because his vote matters, but because unlike Intro, he did seem to think January 6th was a travesty and Trump was to blame. IIRC he even said that in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020, not long before he got permabanned. There were a decent number of Republicans who were talking that way 3 years ago. I can’t help but wonder how easy they’re finding it to return to the fold, as Trump continues to swear the election was stolen, promise to pardon J6ers, etc.
Pretty sure Danglars and I had a similar take on Jan 6 when it was happening, it would be easy to check i think. I don't recall him changing his position, but if he did I suspect it would have more to do with subsequent shenanigans in the states and in the house than the riot. Could be wrong though. Bur if either of us are not supporting Trump that would be him coming around to my side  either way I guess no need speculate on the (forcefully) departed
|
On March 27 2024 22:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 22:33 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 20:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though. Yeah, his vote is inconsequential (mine too). I am interested in where his political allegiances (and those of other Americans who think similarly to him) lie. Same for Danglars, I mentioned wondering where he’s at on Trump these days, not because his vote matters, but because unlike Intro, he did seem to think January 6th was a travesty and Trump was to blame. IIRC he even said that in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020, not long before he got permabanned. There were a decent number of Republicans who were talking that way 3 years ago. I can’t help but wonder how easy they’re finding it to return to the fold, as Trump continues to swear the election was stolen, promise to pardon J6ers, etc. Pretty sure Danglars and I had a similar take on Jan 6 when it was happening, it would be easy to check i think. I don't recall him changing his position, but if he did I suspect it would have more to do with subsequent shenanigans in the states and in the house than the riot. Could be wrong though. Bur if either of us are not supporting Trump that would be him coming around to my side either way I guess no need speculate on the (forcefully) departed
I scrolled through a few pages of the thread on January 6th/7th, but I don’t think you were very active that day. Found a bunch of embattled Danglars posts, though, including (in retrospect, overly optimistic) statements like this:
On January 07 2021 05:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2021 05:20 Nouar wrote:
At least now, we are pretty sure there is no future for Trump in politics, and it should be the clean break between the republican party and Trump.
Moderate republican voters should be forever reluctant to support him if they value "law and order" (Well I do hope so... But my beliefs in what is sane or not have been consistently shattered by republicans this past decade that I even doubt that now) Yeah, Trump is done with politics. This is the treason stuff. And now Trump's trying to "lock the barn door after the horse has bolted."
At least at the time, Danglars’ take was “this is the treason stuff.” Supported impeach and remove, said in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020. Idk about then, but at least today your take is essentially “the capital riot was just a riot, NBD” and events like January 6th (and politicians like Trump inciting and celebrating them) are not a threat worth worrying about.
|
United States42228 Posts
Trump’s policies, by and large, objectively failed. He negotiated a surrender to the Taliban that involved releasing large numbers of their soldiers only for those soldiers to overrun the country. He started a trade war with China that bankrupted American farmers and forced a multibillion dollar taxpayer funded bailout of the industry. He pushed through tax cuts while engaging in greater deficit spending than ever seen before.
His signature campaign policies, building a wall, replacing the ACA, repaying the entire national debt (?), bringing back coal, ending trade deficits etc. just didn’t happen. Objectively.
|
On March 27 2024 23:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 22:46 Introvert wrote:On March 27 2024 22:33 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 20:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though. Yeah, his vote is inconsequential (mine too). I am interested in where his political allegiances (and those of other Americans who think similarly to him) lie. Same for Danglars, I mentioned wondering where he’s at on Trump these days, not because his vote matters, but because unlike Intro, he did seem to think January 6th was a travesty and Trump was to blame. IIRC he even said that in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020, not long before he got permabanned. There were a decent number of Republicans who were talking that way 3 years ago. I can’t help but wonder how easy they’re finding it to return to the fold, as Trump continues to swear the election was stolen, promise to pardon J6ers, etc. Pretty sure Danglars and I had a similar take on Jan 6 when it was happening, it would be easy to check i think. I don't recall him changing his position, but if he did I suspect it would have more to do with subsequent shenanigans in the states and in the house than the riot. Could be wrong though. Bur if either of us are not supporting Trump that would be him coming around to my side either way I guess no need speculate on the (forcefully) departed I scrolled through a few pages of the thread on January 6th/7th, but I don’t think you were very active that day. Found a bunch of embattled Danglars posts, though, including (in retrospect, overly optimistic) statements like this: Show nested quote +On January 07 2021 05:25 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2021 05:20 Nouar wrote:
At least now, we are pretty sure there is no future for Trump in politics, and it should be the clean break between the republican party and Trump.
Moderate republican voters should be forever reluctant to support him if they value "law and order" (Well I do hope so... But my beliefs in what is sane or not have been consistently shattered by republicans this past decade that I even doubt that now) Yeah, Trump is done with politics. This is the treason stuff. And now Trump's trying to "lock the barn door after the horse has bolted." At least at the time, Danglars’ take was “this is the treason stuff.” Supported impeach and remove, said in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020. Idk about then, but at least today your take is essentially “the capital riot was just a riot, NBD” and events like January 6th (and politicians like Trump inciting and celebrating them) are not a threat worth worrying about.
Eh, could be wrong about Danglars, but I seem to recall using the phrase "throw the book at them" in reference to the rioters and him agreeing. But along with that (at least in the days following) i disagreed strongly with the idea that this was an event worthy of the "month+#" format and as big a deal as 9/11. So I have been consistent on that I think. Either way, if there is a coup in America at some point I think that would be the very end of Ameican democracy, not the beginning of the end. The system will be broken before that happens. And this "coup" had no chance of success, meanwhile the breakdown of the Constitutional system continues even now.
|
On March 28 2024 01:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2024 23:22 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 22:46 Introvert wrote:On March 27 2024 22:33 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 20:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though. Yeah, his vote is inconsequential (mine too). I am interested in where his political allegiances (and those of other Americans who think similarly to him) lie. Same for Danglars, I mentioned wondering where he’s at on Trump these days, not because his vote matters, but because unlike Intro, he did seem to think January 6th was a travesty and Trump was to blame. IIRC he even said that in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020, not long before he got permabanned. There were a decent number of Republicans who were talking that way 3 years ago. I can’t help but wonder how easy they’re finding it to return to the fold, as Trump continues to swear the election was stolen, promise to pardon J6ers, etc. Pretty sure Danglars and I had a similar take on Jan 6 when it was happening, it would be easy to check i think. I don't recall him changing his position, but if he did I suspect it would have more to do with subsequent shenanigans in the states and in the house than the riot. Could be wrong though. Bur if either of us are not supporting Trump that would be him coming around to my side either way I guess no need speculate on the (forcefully) departed I scrolled through a few pages of the thread on January 6th/7th, but I don’t think you were very active that day. Found a bunch of embattled Danglars posts, though, including (in retrospect, overly optimistic) statements like this: On January 07 2021 05:25 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2021 05:20 Nouar wrote:
At least now, we are pretty sure there is no future for Trump in politics, and it should be the clean break between the republican party and Trump.
Moderate republican voters should be forever reluctant to support him if they value "law and order" (Well I do hope so... But my beliefs in what is sane or not have been consistently shattered by republicans this past decade that I even doubt that now) Yeah, Trump is done with politics. This is the treason stuff. And now Trump's trying to "lock the barn door after the horse has bolted." At least at the time, Danglars’ take was “this is the treason stuff.” Supported impeach and remove, said in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020. Idk about then, but at least today your take is essentially “the capital riot was just a riot, NBD” and events like January 6th (and politicians like Trump inciting and celebrating them) are not a threat worth worrying about. Eh, could be wrong about Danglars, but I seem to recall using the phrase "throw the book at them" in reference to the rioters and him agreeing. But along with that (at least in the days following) i disagreed strongly with the idea that this was an event worthy of the "month+#" format and as big a deal as 9/11. So I have been consistent on that I think. Either way, if there is a coup in America at some point I think that would be the very end of Ameican democracy, not the beginning of the end. The system will be broken before that happens. And this "coup" had no chance of success, meanwhile the breakdown of the Constitutional system continues even now. It wasn't the very end because it wasn't successful.
"There can't have been a coup attempt because it didn't succeed in ending democracy" is a very weird stance to take.
|
On March 28 2024 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2024 01:28 Introvert wrote:On March 27 2024 23:22 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 22:46 Introvert wrote:On March 27 2024 22:33 ChristianS wrote:On March 27 2024 20:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Isn't Intro californian? So him voting or not isn't really relevant. I do agree he seems to tacitly support him, though. Yeah, his vote is inconsequential (mine too). I am interested in where his political allegiances (and those of other Americans who think similarly to him) lie. Same for Danglars, I mentioned wondering where he’s at on Trump these days, not because his vote matters, but because unlike Intro, he did seem to think January 6th was a travesty and Trump was to blame. IIRC he even said that in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020, not long before he got permabanned. There were a decent number of Republicans who were talking that way 3 years ago. I can’t help but wonder how easy they’re finding it to return to the fold, as Trump continues to swear the election was stolen, promise to pardon J6ers, etc. Pretty sure Danglars and I had a similar take on Jan 6 when it was happening, it would be easy to check i think. I don't recall him changing his position, but if he did I suspect it would have more to do with subsequent shenanigans in the states and in the house than the riot. Could be wrong though. Bur if either of us are not supporting Trump that would be him coming around to my side either way I guess no need speculate on the (forcefully) departed I scrolled through a few pages of the thread on January 6th/7th, but I don’t think you were very active that day. Found a bunch of embattled Danglars posts, though, including (in retrospect, overly optimistic) statements like this: On January 07 2021 05:25 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2021 05:20 Nouar wrote:
At least now, we are pretty sure there is no future for Trump in politics, and it should be the clean break between the republican party and Trump.
Moderate republican voters should be forever reluctant to support him if they value "law and order" (Well I do hope so... But my beliefs in what is sane or not have been consistently shattered by republicans this past decade that I even doubt that now) Yeah, Trump is done with politics. This is the treason stuff. And now Trump's trying to "lock the barn door after the horse has bolted." At least at the time, Danglars’ take was “this is the treason stuff.” Supported impeach and remove, said in retrospect Biden was the right choice in 2020. Idk about then, but at least today your take is essentially “the capital riot was just a riot, NBD” and events like January 6th (and politicians like Trump inciting and celebrating them) are not a threat worth worrying about. Eh, could be wrong about Danglars, but I seem to recall using the phrase "throw the book at them" in reference to the rioters and him agreeing. But along with that (at least in the days following) i disagreed strongly with the idea that this was an event worthy of the "month+#" format and as big a deal as 9/11. So I have been consistent on that I think. Either way, if there is a coup in America at some point I think that would be the very end of Ameican democracy, not the beginning of the end. The system will be broken before that happens. And this "coup" had no chance of success, meanwhile the breakdown of the Constitutional system continues even now. It wasn't the very end because it wasn't successful. "There can't have been a coup attempt because it didn't succeed in ending democracy" is a very weird stance to take.
I mean also don't really think it was a coup, I'm not sure the people who broke in really thought they were going to install Trump as president anyways through violent means. I thought it was a protest that went very wrong. Calling it a coup is giving it too much credit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
