Food for thought...
- Thread starter Moosefish
- Start date
@OriginalGatorHator yea, I assumed you were trolling. So i trolled back. If you were serious, then so was I. Lol
Man I can’t even imagine what you’re saying. I just feel bad for you.
I'm actually doing really well outside of my frustration at our political system. I start my training for a 50 mile race Tuesday. My life has honestly never been better. I just think our government is broken. Maybe beyond repair.
Roe vs Wade was a prime example of the government using the Supreme Court to make law instead of interpreting it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. But I guess I disagree with you on how to get it back to some common sense.
Dayum…..good luck to you.
Can’t imagine going that far. Done a half a marathon twice, that was enough for me. Mostly 30-45 minutes on treadmill and weights now.
That is a LONG haul….respect.
Well, I'd start by getting corporate money out of politics. Ban both PACs and Super PACs. And make only the original $2,500 limit per election, $5,000 if you have both the general and primary by citizens and not corporations for donations. If I had the power to change anything it would be that
All it is, is getting better one mile at a time. The training for me is the best part. Hitting those 6 mile a day on the trails in the summer heat toughens you up more than most things. Both mentally and physically
Yeah corporations have taken over government. I can agree with you on that but to me we need to start with the clear and present danger and that is this scum bag in the White House.
Yep, ran 5 miles a day for 6-7 days a week for around 25 years without fail (outside). Relaxing, satisfying & euphoric.
Knees want take that kind of pounding anymore. So I use a treadmill w/incline & finish with weights……still pretty much get the same feeling with less hurt.
But if you are doing 50 miles in one run, my hats off to you brother.
1. In this trial? Yes. That was the point of what I shared.
2. In other trials or charges? Certain aspects, absolutely.
There are too many new/"creative" applications or examples of the same/worse behavior not being treated the same, to argue otherwise.
1. Correct me if I'm wrong: Are you arguing that because Trump is so "bad" in other areas, then misuse of the justice system is "ok"?
2. Why does McCarthy have to mention/reference all that you did? His subject was this recent trial. He has absolutely referenced some of what you did, in the past.
3. Regardless if I agree or disagree w/ some of your examples, "undermining" the rule of law is far different than the justice system actively perverting it.
4. I'd argue that some of your examples of why Trump is 'bad' (e.g. indictments) are actually examples of abuse of the legal system...and go hand-in-hand w/ what I shared above.
💯Corporations should not be considered people. It is not a restriction of free speech to restrict corporate donations.
But if you are going to consider corporations "people," they should be restricted the same as people
If you want to fix that, you gotta fix the court. Citizens United one of the most transparently corrupt rulings ever.
Perfectly describes the modern Democratic/communist Party in power. They promised to fix things, and are trying to destroy everything.
What you shared is one lawyer/pundit's opinion, nothing more.
He writes "The DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed 'with intent to commit another crime.'”
In fact, the DA proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, per a duly sworn jury.
I get that you like it because he shares your priors, and Honig / NY Mag are getting there clicks. Trump will get an appeal, and another chance to prove his "innocence," but for now he is a felon. Further, no one here - and not Honig - are questioning whether or not he did it. He did. Honig, et al. just don't like the mechanism. Which is a fair point of view, but not the only one, and for now it is mooted.
If you are curious what the former FEC Chairman would have said, had he been allowed to (and not severely restricted), here you go. This seems like it might have made a difference:
A respected, former JD Lawyer in NY, & not a fan of Trump. His opinion reflects many others, from all political persuasions...his article simply (imo) summarized everything.
That's the point.
I "like it" because he has been summarizing things very well for non-lawyers.
The 'he did it' is what the debate is about & why I shared it. Dismissing it because it's "moot" misses the point.
I think we are typing across one another.
Trump will have an appeal.
Outside of that, it's a lot of bad facts.
These are a lot of technicalities with an inaccuracy or two mixed in.
Daniels pressured Trump? lol.
Basically, re: the technicalities he'll have an appeal and that's the sort of stuff that will matter.
The law taketh and the law giveth away - down in Florida a friendly judge is stalling a case that is far more germane. And currently SCOTUS is also stalling their decision on immunity re: the DC case. So... on balance, he's gotten lucky imho, as we all knew he would.
Stalling? More like handling it the correct way.
One reason the Florida case isn't going to be tried is because they have to figure out how to deal with classified material. The other, of course, is that Jack rigged the evidence and the Judge has figured it out. It's why Jack was trying to rush it. Not predicting it, but I would not be surprised if the case is dismissed.
SCOTUS is going to remand the immunity case bc the trial court mishandled it.
Fani will likely be removed from her case before it starts back, if ever. But now she had her own RICO case to defend.
The E. Jean Carroll case will be reversed too. She would be well advised not to buy that Bentley yet.
Your football spike. 🤣
-\_😉_/-
it is as I say
tbc - I don't think Trump will go to jail. He's old. But I'll continue to laugh at his humiliations, whether or not he wins in November
well... here come the inevitable Honig responses... again, he's an opinionator and we all know what those are worth. so weight these debunkings as you will:
one of the better sourced, regarding one of the most repeated Honig points:
The charges against Trump were "obscure" and "nearly entirely unprecedented."
One of the most common criticisms of Trump's felony convictions is the convictions are illegitimate because similar charges have not been brought against others. Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor and current CNN commentator, argued in a column that prosecutors "contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey."
As Honig acknowledges, at the most basic level, this is not true. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree. That charge, which is a felony, involves falsifying the records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. A March 2023 analysis by Just Security found that prosecuting the falsification of business records in the first degree is "commonplace" in the New York District Attorney's office and used "to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized." The analysis summarized the dozens of similar prosecutions in a 24-page document.
Prosecutors argued that Trump falsified the business record in order to commit another New York crime, a conspiracy to promote an election by unlawful means. Prosecutors argued the unlawful means included violating federal campaign finance laws with illegal corporate and individual contributions, falsifying other records (including those made by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen), and mischaracterizing the payments for tax purposes.
It is true that prosecuting someone for falsifying business records to conceal a campaign finance violation is uncommon — but that is because the crime itself is uncommon. There are not that many people who run for political office in New York who also run their own businesses. And even fewer who falsify business records as part of a conspiracy to conceal violations of campaign finance law to help them win.
The idea that the prosecution is unusual is important only if it suggests that the government routinely lets others get away with similar conduct. There is no evidence suggesting that this is true.
Last edited:
That's because fraud cases (of which there are many in NY) inevitably contain falsification of records.
This has been discussed before.
If this reporting is accurate, Trump has an entirely new set of issues to deal with.
It’s almost as if he feels he is above the law and is willing to do anything to protect his personal interests.
Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign
Witnesses in the various criminal cases against the former president have gotten pay raises, new jobs and more. If any benefits were intended to influence testimony, that could be a crime.
McCarthy laments the deterioration of the rule of law and attributes that primarily to progressives. That’s why Trump’s contribution to that degradation is highly relevant to the discussion.
In addition, his piece is both highly dramatic (his “friends on the verge of weeping” sounds very Trumpian) and he makes statements of fact regarding Bragg’s thought process and demeanor that he can’t know or even support (Bragg didn’t bring the case initially because the case was so weak it was beneath him).
He characterized fraudulent bookkeeping as “funky”. That’s a funny word for fraudulent. He claims Bragg remained cagey about the underlying charges. That’s a lie. He claims Merchan was blatantly conflicted, which is also a lie. Judges are free to contribute to political campaigns and my understanding is that he made a $20 donation, $15 of which went to Biden. That’s not a conflict. If the argument is regarding his daughter, that’s also not a conflict and if it is than at least Thomas and probably Alito need to recuse themselves from the Trump cases before the SCOTUS.
If the facts are so compelling in Trump’s defense, why tell so many lies about the case, about the gag order, about testimony and so many other aspects of the case. Just focus on the facts, which Trump and right wing media has not done at all.
Regarding the other indictments, I guess we will see how those play out. Take a few minutes and read a few of the fake elector indictments. They outline a compelling case against the defendants.
Why are we here? A porn star came forward. Why? Why was this particular nda followed so closely? She got paid more than once. Who prodded her to come forward to hurt trump’s election chances. This is the dirty part no one talks about. The Dems created this issue for Trump. I would say he created it for himself, but Daniels has told 100 different versions of what happened at this point. You have two liars. Both saying different things. We know you believe Daniels despite the mountain of lies and horrible character flaws she has demonstrated. I am just no sure. You believe her without impunity.
This is the part that kills me. Chest puffed out. He is a felon. You guys won, but you also did this to put him there. She never comes forward otherwise. That is the basics of the case. The rest of it is spin. It was a well thought out hatchet job that worked. That is the actual moral of the story.
firstly, I think that's premature.
I would say we all lost because he was not only nominated, but won, and, worse, has now totally taken over one party, such that a) it no longer has a policy platform and b) its fundraising apparatus has been hijacked. This not to mention the permissive effect his behavior has had on the more deplorable elements of our society (speaking of white nationalists, etc., not of normal, traditional, long-time Republican voters who are either tuned-out or who hold their nose or whatever they do to sleep at night.)
yeah, I suggest you stop trying this line. At least accept that he is who he is and that no one but Donald J. Trump is responsible for his behavior / actions / long history of criminality.
Last edited:
If you find the circumstances of this case frustrating, you must have been apoplectic when Trump personally attempted to use a congressionally-approved aid package to strong arm the head of state of an allied country to open an investigation into his political rival. Not only was that an effort at a political hatchet job, it was personally executed by the sitting President.
Or perhaps that is different.
Of course will. Why on earth would he feel the need to do so? How many times had he been investigated and threatened up to that point. You and nice can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim he is a demon and think what your side has done to try to get him is also all on the up and up. It has already been proven otherwise. Throughout his Democrat life, where he was above the law due to large donations to the right people, he has done ridiculous things. I don’t like hearing him talk even. The dictator comment for me just drives me nuts. He was asked that so he could back off of the troll job he has done. What does he do. Double down. Instead it has been used against him as nauseum. When he was referring to day one executive orders. Anyone with a brain can comprehend that, but you aren’t dealing with smart voters out there. Especially the ones you are trying to turn. Just look at the ad play on this if you disagree.
This whole thing was set in motion when she was asked to come forward. That is the dirty truth. I don’t blame you both for deflecting that line of thinking. It is ugly. Doesn’t mean it isn’t the truth. Neither one of you have denied it as a fact. Because you both know that is what happened. lol.
The politics are becoming so ugly on both sides. What is important is being lost. It takes away from what needs to be done. Haven’t seen an ad yet that mentions any actual policy issues or fixes offered. I am put out with all of it.
I'd be with you 100% as long as you also got union money and government dept (like the DOE) money out of politics. At that point we could talk about term limits and the power unelected bureaucrats have ammassed over the yrs.
This is fair.
I just don't get why you want to absolve him of his part in all that (not to mention his actions that make him vulnerable to the salacious attacks - nor his routinely salacious attacking style).
I don't see political ads because I don't watch television, and I don't watch television - here speaking of news - because it's all talking heads talking over one another, obscuring policy issues or fixes.
I am no big fan of the DNC, so set that aside, but I have to say the Biden administration lays out its policy objectives almost daily via Twitter, etc. in his speeches, and in legislation. Whatever he's doing in ads speaks more to a political environment that prioritizes focus groups, consultants, polls and achieving "cutthrough" in order to be heard among the shouting.
As for policy, you may not like Biden's agenda, which is fine and good - we need push and pull in our legislative bodies. And that's where the need for a serious Republican Party is so urgent. Until Trumpism is eradicated (and I would argue, until we get real campaign finance reform), we won't make progress.
I don’t nice. I don’t see he and Biden as any different on a personal level. They are both bad people. Really bad. I have shown you that man pinching an 8 year old girls nipple on camera. And she has confirmed it happened now older. His daughter even said he is inappropriate. I know you can what about with Trump and his daughter. My point is, there is no difference. Not to mention Joe is a compromised old man. You want to gloss over the hur interview and the 1000’s of mistakes he has made on camera. Fine. It is a problem.(you can’t deny the stuff Biden has done on camera in public, which you obviously absolve him of)
So for me it comes down to two things. Policy and functioning human. Don’t get me wrong. After four more years trump will likely look like Biden does now. But four more years for Biden likely ends in the grave. Then you have a half wit running the country.
I would have voted for someone else in the primary. It is all I can do, but Biden is a 50 year politician too. He acts like it. You go back and look at what he believed 40 years ago all the way up to today. I bet it hasn’t changed much privately, but publicly it isn’t in the same stratosphere. Which means as a politician he sucks. Just rides his constituents. We have seen it by how bad his presidency has been. I would have appreciated a Biden from the 90’s. He might have been racist ironically, but at least he had middle ground policy.
what do you mean by DOE? I guess I am not aware that they fund / contribute specific candidates, which I would have to think is illegal - do you mean the Teachers' Union? if so, yes.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, the pols you expect to rescue us from "Trumpism" are literally the same group of people that have created the toxic political environment. Many say the divisive politics of personal attacks started in earnest during the Clinton yrs when both sides went nuclear but but politics has always been a full contact sport. The difference was until recently, both sides governed from the center left/center right where compromise was possible.
Today, I'm not sure how you compromise with a group that ignores federal law and allows open borders and then uses the tax payer's treasure to seed hundreds of thousands of unassimilated aliens all over the country. I'm not sure how you compromise with 2 Dem POTUS's that ignore court orders. (O drilling bans & JB loan forgiveness)
When I hear Trump, I certainly hear a narcissistic jackass but that jackass promised to work for orderly immigration, free but reciprocal trade, criminal justice reform, less regulation and more economic opportunities for everyone. Imo, that's not what we need to be saved from and quite frankly, Trump's attitude fits right in with the DC crowd. None of them are benevolent angels.
Similar threads
