USA Politics

MrKnickerbocker said:
I also function with a feeling for good or bad. If it’s paying off pornstars, hitting on its own daughter, and “grabbing them by the pussy” then it’s a sex offender.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about hitting own daughter. Paying off pornstars why not? Grabbing obviously is offensive except that it was a brag recorded 10+ years ago so going after that it's witch hunt in my view. Back then I was anti -Trump and thought strange to

MrKnickerbocker said:
Ignoring facts for strong feelings is madness.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what I consider a fact you discard but still is valid for me so what I can do? I don't need to be a lawyer to know that an ex president receiving 34 charges for the same thing is hugely biased and political. Is it technically allowed? Yes. Am I convinced? No way.

MrKnickerbocker said:
I also notice my questions about yesterday’s Trump plans have gone completely unanswered, which I can only assume is due to further lack of being informed.
Click to expand...

I agreed with your scepticism with more than 2/3 which means I'm also sceptic about Gaetz but I understand why Trump wants to reward him. Of course not for what you think.
But I didn't find those questions relevant to the flow, first because I don't consider myself a Trumper so it didn't ring a bell and second I had so many to answer at that point that I skipped those. I definitely didn't like Musk in government even though I like Musk. And I raised my eyebrows with both with Vivek in same department, which own establishment also I found bizarre. Anyway, maybe it would be for the good, let's see.

Trump is the lesser evil that's it. De Santis would be better. But Democrats under Biden managed to shift my opinion for the parties too. Now Republicans are the better guys for me, new faces like Vance not the old school neo-cons.

Jer said:
No, I’m not going to accept a false equivalence between a completely unsupportable opinion (yours) and an easily supportable one (mine). You haven’t even attempted to explain how your version of events could possibly be true, let alone be likely to be true, and you’ve made it clear with your later comments that you don’t even care whether it’s actually true as long as it feels true to you.

This proves that you’re a raving anti-intellectual, and literally everything you say should be viewed with suspicion because you don’t care what the truth is. It also makes any attempt at intellectual discussion with you pointless, because you reject the basic principles of reason. Thanks for wasting all of our time with your baseless rants, but I’m done.
Click to expand...

If your definition of intellectual were the media claiming that Biden is sharp as a tack to literally threw him under the bus a week later, I don't want to be such. I could trust my own eyes that he was not as sharp.
What feels true is important in a world where everything is design to manipulate us. Our decisions are based on that since for most things we are not even remotely experts. Elections are based on that. The fact that Trump won the way that he did, despite this unprecedented war against him, should be a huge wake up call for you. Especially for this case. Because this is what got Trump elected. The perceived (I guess I'm allowed to use perceived) weaponisation of justice against him. He once again was in the spotlight and victim. Game over.
Obviously it's not possible to prove beyond any doubt that this was lawfare. It is designed not to. Then what we left with is our feeling. And especially in this case, even in Blue States there were significant shifts towards the GOP so people really didn't buy it.
 
____no5 said:
Paying off pornstars why not?
Click to expand...
Paying off pornstars is fine, but falsifying your business records to cover up the fact that you paid off that pornstar is NOT. Do you even know anything about the trial? Anyone besides a rich-ass billionaire does that and it's game over, locked away. Trump does it and he gets elected president. Criticize the law, I don't care, but people cannot be held to different standards under the law. Especially if you're running as a "law and order" president. For the love of god, please read up on what actually happened.

SWoRKslHVtqEasqYCJ.webp
 
I had found this case bizarre and unworthy since the start. And in 2016, I was peak anti-Trump quite obsessively, but still didn't like it. He had a sex with a pornostar. So what? It was during the campaign, he reacted poorly by the standards of a seasoned or acting politically correct politician which he wasn't. I never thought it was a good case or that it should be initiated against a sitting President by cornering Cohen to confess.
 
I'm gonna scream.

The problem was not that he had sex with a pornstar.

The problem was that he falsified business records to cover up the money he paid her to keep quiet.

Do you understand.
 
Yes, this is what I meant by saying that
____no5 said:
he reacted poorly by the standards of a seasoned or acting politically correct politician which he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Publicity plus elections was good enough as a means of punishment I don't think it should have been brought to a court against a president when there are free elections.
As a Greek politician once said "you send an ex Prime Minister home, not in the court". Meaning that the people is good enough to decide via elections, no need courts in most of cases, especially a petty case like hush money. What's more, this politician was his opponent. I agree with that logic.

PS: The result was after the trial Papandreou was elected again. Karamanlis who had objected the idea of trial proved to be right.
 
First we are talking for Heads of State not mere politicians. Those people are symbols for a country. There is a reason that secret service protects ex Presidents as well. For important misconducts such as January 6th I see the value of considering an investigation /trial. But not for hush money. Not for a Head of State of a country with free elections and press.

Nobody is above the law, but for a Head of State in a democracy with free elections and free press, I say let's leave the people to decide for petty crime, or it will always feel as lawfare.
*And often will bring the opposite result, just as in Greece and US examples.

It sounds contradicting but it actually protects the democracy (what more democratic than people to decide?) and deeper division of the country. And protects the image of the country outside.

Those things are common sense or should be. Cannot be written, but they can be followed as all things common sense.
 
Trump was a criminal long before he was a president. He's a world renowned con artist. He's cheated anyone who's ever worked for him. Literally hundreds of people did work for him and he didn't pay. If you think for one second this guy gives a single solitary shit about you or this country, you're a dupe.

Not to mention all the times he's been accused of rape. Even his ex-wife accused him of beating and raping her.
 
Agreed, but that's the beauty and immense power of democracy. American people washed away his previous sins.

I too was at awe in 2016 how Americans voted for him. How it was possible? Or even permissible?
I was angry by how he was picking and firing his cabinet like if he was still in a reality show. But in the end I realised it was powerful and wildly beautiful. This is democracy for good or bad. And US has strong institutions very strong.
And it didn't turn out to be that bad. If you exclude January 6th which is so controversial it was a good presidency.

*EDIT: And in the case of Trump, unlike other politicians who turn to be rapists or criminals afterwards, people knew what they were voting for. As press was fighting Trump like nothing before. That's why I said they washed his sins away.
 
Last edited:
@Mosh (sorry, didn't want to quote giant wall of text, not that I don't appreciate your response)

It's odd. We're nine days removed from election and from what I've gathered of the transition building so far, I think the second Trump term is going to be as full of incompetence as his first term. Susie Wiles demanded to have control of access to Trump during the transition interviews in order to be Chief of Staff but apparently was blindsided by the Gaetz nomination for Attorney General. Gaetz wasn't even on the shortlist and there were supposedly serious candidates interviewing on Monday for that role.

He's going to be a lame duck President from Day 1, and while that may cause him to feel a bit more empowered within the Executive, the Legislative houses are going to have to watch their own back for their own electoral chances. The three big cabinet announcements yesterday didn't receive enough praise to make it sound like they'd want to pass, and Thune indicated they'll be interviewed in the Senate for appointment. RFK Jr's nomination for HHS Secretary I imagine will be kneecapped by the all powerful pharmaceutical lobby. As I mentioned in my previous post, I could very well be wrong and all are either confirmed by the Senate or by recess, but again, Senate wants to retain some power for themselves.

One of Trump's main economic policy points through the campaign was utilizing tariffs, but even then Republican congressmen have come out against them including Thune. Hell, even Tommy Tuberville is pushing back against them and he's one of Trump's staunchest allies in the Senate. Could Trump have dangled the tariffs out there to use as a bargaining chip for other parts of his agenda? Maybe, but as evidenced by his first term, he's just not a shrewd politician. Hell, Schumer and Pelosi had him by the pinky finger in 2017-18 and that was with them respectively down 52-48 and 241-194 in their respective houses of Congress.

I've heard some talking heads take some of these cabinet nominations as some sort of 4D chess move on Trump's part to see how loyal the Senate would be. Well, he lost his pick for Senate Majority Leader and is already getting pushback here, sooooooooo I'm just not seeing that.

Wiles is having trouble controlling him already and it's been a week. The Senate doesn't appear to be wanting to rubberstamping every thing that comes in front of them. The House appears to be gearing up for another Speaker fight in January once they're sworn in that might cause Johnson to come running to Democrats to bail him out yet again.

Same as it ever was.
 
Ok so what shall we do then? Everything is known about this man, con artist, bad payer, abuser. All is known and people still vote for him. Do we reject the vote? You tell me.
 
____no5 said:
Ok so what shall we do then? Everything is known about this man, con artist, bad payer, abuser. All is known and people still vote for him. Do we reject the vote? You tell me.
Click to expand...
There's nothing we can do. If people want to vote against their own best interests then thats it. We're easily the dumbest first world nation and thats how this happens. Seems like Trump is actually a pretty good representation of his electorate.
 
Americans could vote a law in the future if someone has a criminal record not to be elected. Would you want that? I don't think so, as this would lead to lawfare on steroids.
I think that was the rationale for Founding Fathers not imposing any restrictions of such kind i.e., criminal record in order to be elected. Let people be the ultimate judge.

I was in your place 8 years ago, completely disappointed that Trump was elected but when I looked closely, even after January 6th, I realised how US has forged the value of democracy in its people and how strongly this idea lives. It's like a sacred thing for this Nation. So fear not. There's no single President that can bring this down.
I am more worried about people trying to "save" Democracy by trying to stop (or so it seems to me) others from being elected.
 
____no5 said:
Americans could vote a law in the future if someone has a criminal record not to be elected. Would you want that? I don't think so, as this would lead to lawfare on steroids.
I think that was the rationale for Founding Fathers not imposing any restrictions of such kind i.e., criminal record in order to be elected. Let people be the ultimate judge.

I was in your place 8 years ago, completely disappointed that Trump was elected but when I looked closely, even after January 6th, I realised how US has forged the value of democracy in its people and how strongly this idea lives. It's like a sacred thing for this Nation. So fear not. There's no single President that can bring this down.
I am more worried about people trying to "save" Democracy by trying to stop (or so it seems to me) others from being elected.
Click to expand...
The American people should be smarter than to elect an orange, narcissistic, conman as their president. But obviously we're not. You don't even have a point. You're arguing against no one. You chose a shitty president, accept it.
 
Perun said:
That is one of the most insane things I ever read. I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone can honestly think something like that.
Click to expand...

I explained it in more detail in following posts. This is Democracy. People knew exactly who they voted for. What would you change in the process?
 
Perun said:
No 5, it's not democracy. It's mob rule.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand why. This guy was a public figure for decades. Media were fiercely against him thus people were well informed.
Then he had to pass through primaries, through his party establishment and then election.
I don’t see what else should have happened so voters were more informed in 2016.

Not to mention that if Democrats went with Sanders Trump would have never won. A perfect storm. But you can’t say it wasn’t a fair fight.
 
I've been trying to come up with a more detailed reply to your latest takes, but I gave up after I realised that we would first have to go through what a law is, why people came up with a legal system, what civilisation is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top