USA Politics

[Yax]

It's like you don't register that your arguments have been met with counter-arguments (that you don't adress). Specifically your claims in this post have been answered these last two couple of pages (and even before that).

Let's get back to the real issue, as to how the prosecutions of Menendez might get in the way of his re-relection. They better drop those fast!

 

[____no5]

Most of what you call counter-arguments were missing the point, so what to address? As soon as Vaneyr countered:

To elaborate a bit more, is it "lawfare" if a murderer is convicted? What about a rapist? A thief? If not, why not? What if any of those is a political candidate? Should we drop any legal matters because they run for office? Should criminals just run for president so that they can't be convicted of their crimes?

I addressed it:

When you judge a common criminal you don't rush it. In this case we have a race and clearly law is used to damage Trump in that race. If you use the law to damage your opponent it's lawfare.

 

[LooseCannon]

You're wrong, though. These things have been under investigation for three fucking years! How is that "too quick"?

 

[Jer]

@____no5's primary vehicle:

He ignored everything brought up the last time this came up, he's selectively ignoring the arguments now, and he's apparently using a comment from Mosh in a misleading context as evidence of corrupt intent on the part of the U.S. government. I guess that's what passes for evidence and reason in Xi's China. Congratulations.

 

[____no5]

Now what China has to do with anything, com on.

 

[Jer]

Now what China has to do with anything, com on.

Already asked and answered, but your memory is obviously selective, just like your level of engagement with the facts.

Either offer a comprehensive evidence- and reason-based defense of your position and directly answer the many valid criticisms of it, or just stop spewing baseless anti-U.S. propaganda. Or I guess you could just keep behaving like a fool and being called out for it -- whatever floats your boat.

 

[Vaenyr]

Most of what you call counter-arguments were missing the point, so what to address? As soon as Vaneyr countered:

I addressed it:

No, you very specifically did not adress my main question, which I asked twice already:
How is the legal system used to damage or delegitimize Trump?

And your answer to that was "Damage".

You are objectively and factually wrong on this issue, yet somehow refuse to acknowledge that. Nothing is being "rushed". Jan 6 2021 was three years ago. This comes across as beyond disingenuous and I'm wondering why you even try.

The facts are simple: Trump broke the law and is facing the consequences to that because it is constitutional. It's not Trump's political enemies. It's the CONSTITUTION that has him face these consequences.

 

[Perun]

You could argue that the constitution is one of Trump's political enemies, though.

 

[Vaenyr]

Heh, true.

 

[Azas]

Don't want to sound like a pretentious fool, but I will try I said many moons ago, that @____no5's information channels s*** d*** b***

 

[Jer]

Dean Phillips: I’m Being Blackballed — and It’s Joe Biden’s Fault

What the Minnesota Rep’s unsurprising media struggles say about our news ecosystem.

www.politico.com

The media and DNC gatekeeping around Democratic presidential challengers has been pretty appalling. There's really no excuse for there not being debates between Biden, Phillips, and Williamson in the run-up to the initial primaries, and some states just arbitrarily throwing their delegates to Biden without even holding a primary is absurdly undemocratic.

It's hard to run around painting yourself as the defender of democracy when you're unwilling to actually participate in the democratic process for the intramurals.

 

[____no5]

Already asked and answered, but your memory is obviously selective, just like your level of engagement with the facts.

Either offer a comprehensive evidence- and reason-based defense of your position and directly answer the many valid criticisms of it, or just stop spewing baseless anti-U.S. propaganda. Or I guess you could just keep behaving like a fool and being called out for it -- whatever floats your boat.

But you were wrong then and you are wrong now. The fact that one lives one country, especially of that nature it may have the effect to make you hate it.
There many people who live here, became rich here, even made families and children here who absolutely detest it and are pro-US to the bone. So it's irrelevant where a person lives.

And it's not that my memory is selective but sometimes your arguments are so bizarre and out of place. What to reply? I haven't ever, ever argued that your views are those due to being American, because it's not the right argument, let alone not being a native and just live there as I do in China. I have worked and lived in 5 countries, so I have a few more POVs than the average Joe. But again it's not the right argument. It's not even polite in some ways. You are an interesting person and I know you are a good man inside, but sometimes it's like you trying hard to provoke. Anyway because I believe those good things about you I don't always reply to your provocations; I don't wish to clash just for the sake of it.

 

[Jer]

There many people who live here, became rich here, even made families and children here who absolutely detest it and are pro-US to the bone. So it's irrelevant where a person lives.

It’s not irrelevant, it’s just not wholly determinative either, and I didn’t say that it was. But I assume that your very casual assumption of deep-seated corruption everywhere is based on something, and since it’s clearly not based on the facts in evidence here, your daily contact with top-down corruption and its normalization within the society you live in is a likely cause. Perhaps you’re just a fundamentally irrational conspiracist instead, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.

And it's not that my memory is selective but sometimes your arguments are so bizarre and out of place. What to reply?

Follow Perun’s link from earlier and you will see yourself making the same exact baseless claims now that you made back then, and see yourself completely ignoring the counterarguments, not following up on the evidence presented to you, and just returning to your original talking points as if no conversation had happened at all. That is what a bizarre argument looks like, and you proffer them with unfortunate regularity.

I have worked and lived in 5 countries, so I have a few more POVs than the average Joe. But again it's not the right argument.

But it’s not my argument, it’s just an observation offering a possible explanation of why your point of view is so distorted that you simply ignore facts and reason and lapse into unsupported kneejerk anti-U.S. ranting.

If you say it has nothing to do with living in China, then OK — but now you don’t even have an excuse for why you’re so far off base and refusing to engage with the facts presented to you.

It's not even polite in some ways.

Well, neither is completely disregarding valid counterarguments and just spewing propaganda while pretending you’re engaging in debate. That’s a waste of everyone’s time and is disrespectful to the people attempting to engage with you. But you do it repeatedly.

You are an interesting person and I know you are a good man inside, but sometimes it's like you trying hard to provoke.

Yes, bad arguments made in public need to be aggressively challenged so they don’t have the opportunity to take hold without a proper vetting. If you don’t like that sort of attention, then you should either try harder to not make bad arguments in the first place, or you should be prepared to explain why your arguments aren’t actually bad after all. Unfortunately you keep falling short on both counts.

 

[____no5]

Well, neither is completely disregarding valid counterarguments and just spewing propaganda while pretending you’re engaging in debate. That’s a waste of everyone’s time and is disrespectful to the people attempting to engage with you. But you do it repeatedly.

Propaganda? Pretending? Seriously? It all seems projections to me. Lately it’s very convenient to throw the word “propaganda” and not very respectful either.

 

[____no5]

You are objectively and factually wrong on this issue, yet somehow refuse to acknowledge that. Nothing is being "rushed". Jan 6 2021 was three years ago. This comes across as beyond disingenuous and I'm wondering why you even try.

But Vaenyr I’m not only talking about January 6th, there are 90+ charges against Trump, only a small part being related to that incident.

And again, I didn’t even argue* that it is wrong to go after Trump or anything.
At least not this time round.
I just said that whatever happens to Trump currently which is 90+ charges against him (only a small portion being January 6th related) is a case of lawfare without paint it too much as good or bad either.

So to sum it up: Was Trump at fault in January 6th? Yes.
Is the legal system being used to put him out of the presidential race? Yes.

Why do I believe so? Putting aside the rush argument, because out of 91 charges only 4 are January 6th related.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/trump-charges-jan-6-classified-documents/

 

[Vaenyr]

But Vaenyr I’m not only talking about January 6th, there are 90+ charges against Trump, only a small part being related to that incident.

And again, I didn’t even argue* that it is wrong to go after Trump or anything.
At least not this time round.
I just said that whatever happens to Trump currently which is 90+ charges against him (only a small portion being January 6th related) is a case of lawfare without paint it too much as good or bad either.

So to sum it up: Was Trump at fault in January 6th? Yes.
Is the legal system being used to put him out of the presidential race? Yes.

Why do I believe so? Putting aside the rush argument, because out of 91 charges only 4 are January 6th related.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/trump-charges-jan-6-classified-documents/

See, you once again shift the framing instead of engaging with the point! You claimed the process is rushed, I explained that Jan 6 was three years ago. Now you're shifting to his other charges, many of which are based on events even older than Jan 6, in other words another example why you are factually incorrect on this matter. Please engage in good faith instead of these little games.

And you still haven't explained in what way this is lawfare instead of it simply being the justice system at work. This might shock you, but Trump didn't only break the law on Jan 6, he did so on other occasions as well. Like the way he handled the classified documents, the lies he spread about that whole situation, or his pathetic attempts to change the voting outcomes in Georgia. I mean, your very own link explains exactly what he did and why he's being indicted. The man broke laws. It is irrelevant if he's running for president or not.

Should politicians be above the law? Like I've told you multiple times in this thread already, yet you never acknowledge it: Trump brought this on himself. No, it's not his "political opponents" as you seem to believe. Your comments on this matter are entirely divorced from reality and seem to be fueled by right wing, Fox-style rhetoric. I implore you to sit back and read up on the entire thing.

Lastly, if Trump didn't want to be indicted he shouldn't have attacked democracy and violated his oath to the constitution. You claim this only happens because he's running for president. The truth is this happens because he committed despicable acts while being president. Important distinction. Furthermore, you can't come in here using intentionally provocative language like "lawfare" and not expect to be backlash, especially when you haven't properly explained why that term is supposed to apply to this situation beyond saying "it just is".

 

[____no5]

Many have mishandled documents even without being presidents, including Biden.
Anyway. I understand it’s important for you to believe that 91 charges for an ex president is justice as usual.
Fine, have it your way. It’s pointless to continue.

 

[Vaenyr]

Many have mishandled documents even without being presidents, including Biden.
Anyway. I understand it’s important for you to believe that 91 charges for an ex president is justice as usual.
Fine, have it your way. It’s pointless to continue.

Why is it important to you to defend Trump at all costs?

He didn't just "mishandle" documents. He lied and refused to comply. Biden mishandled them and immediately cooperated. There's a world of difference.
I'm assuming that you're not a Trump supporter so I genuinely have no idea how someone could so vehemently ignore actual facts and has to constantly distort the truth to somehow equate Trump to other politicians, when his wrongdoings are well documented and leave little doubt.
So, seriously, why are you defending Trump with disproven and outdated talking points? You were the one who started with "lawfare", so stand by your point and defend it, instead of dropping the argument and returning in six months repeating the same exact points as if people didn't offer plenty of counter arguments.

 

[Jer]

Propaganda? Pretending? Seriously?

When you keep saying baseless shit, ignoring the refutations, but going through the motions of typing words as if you’re trying to have an actual conversation, then yes, seriously. If you can’t back up what you say, but keep repeating the same opinion over and over again no matter how much it’s been discredited, that is pretty much the definition of propaganda.

Many have mishandled documents even without being presidents, including Biden.

And they all get investigated. If their behavior is uncooperative or egregious enough, a grand jury may be empaneled to see if an indictment is appropriate.

We already discussed this before, if you follow Perun’s earlier link. I sent you a direct link to the actual indictment and encouraged you to read it, but you have never responded to indicate that you read it or commented on why it didn’t affect your opinion, and you’re parroting the same uninformed opinion today. This suggests that you’re more interested in pushing your uninformed opinion than getting to the truth.

Either read the indictment and explain yourself, or leave yourself open to continued criticism for your terrible arguments. Up to you.

Anyway. I understand it’s important for you to believe that 91 charges for an ex president is justice as usual.

Valid arguments have been given for exactly why it is justice as usual. So far you have utterly failed to explain how the system could have been corrupted and manipulated into “lawfare” despite multiple patient explanations of how the whole process works and how long it takes. You’re making the charge, so the burden of proof is on you. So far your only “argument” is that the timing and number of counts doesn’t pass your personal smell test, so it must be corrupt. Well, read the fucking indictments, pay attention to what you’ve already been told multiple times about how the process works, and then offer a fact- and reason-based argument for your position if you can, and then you will be taken seriously.

It’s pointless to continue.

Yes, your continued behavior is making that quite clear.

 

[____no5]

See, you once again shift the framing instead of engaging with the point! You claimed the process is rushed, I explained that Jan 6 was three years ago. Now you're shifting to his other charges, many of which are based on events even older than Jan 6, in other words another example why you are factually incorrect on this matter. Please engage in good faith instead of these little games.

I didn't have the time searching for evidence moving inside airports, customs etc. I was hoping that for something as evident as the rushing of justice someone would pick it up for the sake of truth. Nobody did. The huge number of charges was an alright argument, so I brought that up instead.
Anyway, the charges might have been 3 years old, but only recently were filed.

Trump announced that he would run in November 2022, but of course it was known that he would run much earlier than that. Now look:

1. In the fall of 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil suit against Trump.
2. In March 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg became the first prosecutor to bring felony charges against Trump.
3. Jack Smith filed charges for documents mishandling in June 2023.
4. Georgia case was brought up last August.

Why is it important to you to defend Trump at all costs?

I don’t defend Trump. I just think it's the wrong path trying to get him out by all means, especially using justice to do so.
This story reminds me the case against Golden Dawn in Greece, where justice had to prove and fast that GD was a criminal organisation to expel it from the parliament.
Nobody wants such a party inside the parliament and we finally kicked them out, but I never had any illusion that it wasn't a lawfare, even if the goal was noble.
And I never had any doubt that it was damaging for our democracy. And so it will be for US no matter if Trump is stopped or not.