Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
who suffered from moments of confusion..Again, to someone insulated in a bubble, this statement is not misleading.
To someone who lives in reality. Unlike you, my world doesn't revolve around what people believe.
You poor soul, you really think political sentiment is permanent.It is when the Democrats...
It isn't, full stop. The democrats lost 2024 because the American people were convinced that the party in power was to blame for their perceived ills. That opportunity to blame the democrats for everything will not be available to republicans in 2026 or 2028. Now republicans actually have to win it, and so far they're failing badly.
This is what happens in a country where 80% of the population is fighting amongst each other for 7% of the wealth. The constant theme of every election, regardless of whose in power is change. That's what people want, and it will continue until someone actually delivers for working people. What Trump is doing right now is the opposite of that.
This is what happens when you embrace diversity to the extreme, you get a fragmented and unworkable party.
lol right, can't have all those black and brown people with jobs. Cause that's the real issue in America.
A party that prioritizes ideological purity and identity-based factionalism over a unifying vision for the future makes it impossible to maintain a cohesive coalition.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
if the president is in the room, why sign by proxy unless the president cannot perform the duties of his office. What's actionable there is the 25A, but Bisden's VP and Cabinet where a coven of cowards.
So... A cabinet unwilling to invoke the 25th amendment are a bunch of cowards? Let's remember that...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would have only canceled out if Trump resigned due to mental incompetence just like Biden was forced to do. To a far left insider, it's no big deal, but to normal Americans, knowing that the country was rudderless for nearly 4 years
For four years the country was in the hands of an educated, experienced and serious man who suffered from moments of confusion. And they were so concerned about that that they replaced him with a childish, ignorant imbecile who lives in a constant state of confusion. Spare me the speech on how concerned "normal" Americans were.
Trump is still talking about making Canada the 51st state, you gonna acknowledge that or just pretend this isn't something you would consider a predicate to stick your grandpa in a group home over?
with no oversight from the press was a shock enough to walk away....for good it seems.
You poor soul, you really think political sentiment is permanent.
Politics is a pendulum, it swung towards Trump in 2016 and everyone freaked out. It swung towards the democrats in 2020 and everyone declared Trump politically dead. Now it swung back to Trump in 2020 and now everyone's pretending there will never be a contested election again (well, actually Trump might see to that).
People voted against democrats in 2020 because they blamed Biden for global inflation. The anger is already boiling over now because Trump has done nothing to fix it and is already making it worse. 2026 and 2028 are not looking good for republicans at all and they all know it. This fantasy you have about a United States never forgetting the drooling delusional scenile old man whose very presence endangered us all thanks to the Democratic party is pure fiction. Voters have already forgotten. Your guy is in charge now and showing the world why America fired him the first time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
so you agree.
Not sure how you interpreted my pointing out why your question is silly as agreement. Perhaps you'd care to read it again and this time absorb the point.
And *if* Trump is working for Vladimir Putin that would be treason.Lol, Okay Al Green. Enjoy the disapproval I guess.
What is wrong with you? Do you even understand the post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As portrayed by right wing podcastsThat's not true. Many of these left wing corporate media outlets fully admit they made a mistake by misleading the public on Biden before he was forced out.
Anything and everything that could have went better is a mistake with the benefit of hindsight, which is somehow always 20/20. What I'm talking about is the extreme way you and the rest of the MAGA right loves to portray the situation - as some massive conspiracy to pretend a drooling old man who thinks he's living in 1980 while a nefarious cabal around him works too fool everyone by pronouncing him as the sharpest man on earth.
Has Biden lost a few steps from his peak? Of course. Did the team around him try to hide his lesser moments and showcase his better ones? Yes, of course, that's what every political team and every campaign around every president/candidate does (look at the daily sanewashing of Trump). Were there plenty of people recounting their own anecdotal experiences of Biden being energetic and sharp based on what they've seen and even experienced first hand? Yes, of course.
Nothing about this is remarkable, but you guys act like Biden was replaced by a body double to hide the corpse in the WH residence. Biden showed over and over again that despite his senior moments he was still very aware and capable of making big decisions, but you wouldn't know that when all you see if him are the reels of slip ups and rhetorical stumbles Fox news would compile and play on a loop to satisfy the right's daily thirst for Biden dementia porn.
That's not to say how his cognitive status wasn't an issue, it absolutely was. In any normal race it should have been a major concern, but when his opponent is the most ignorant imbecile in American political history it kind of cancels that out. Trump just yesterday was still talking about how Canada will become the 51st state. Nothing Biden has ever said was that stupid and disconnected from reality.
they ruled that he couldn't use the Hero's act in the way he was trying so that program had to be stopped.This is a prime example of a misleading statement. You are leaving out the critical reason WHY they ruled that way.
The reason stated was specifically in regards to the way the Biden administration tried to use the law in question. That's how legal rulings work. SCOTUS rules on the question before it, they don't make vague declarations in anticipation of every possible case that may also come before it.
He's a question for you; if Biden's subsequent attempts to relieve student loan debt (as in the ones that were ultimately successful) were in defiance of the Biden v Nebraska ruling why didn't the courts stop him?
Answer: because it wasn't. You would recognize that if you valued rational thought over Twitter posts that sound tantalizing.
you do not dispute that the courts are attempting to exercise authority over national security concerns (not relegate it to Congress), which is arguably an unprecedented violation of the constitutional separation of powers. The courts were never designed to have that kind of over-reaching power.
The courts are doing exactly what the constitution intended for them to do; act as a check on an executive trying to exercise power he doesn't have. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about national security, the president does not get to throw the constitution in the trash and do whatever he wants. He doesn't get to lie and claim we're at war just so he can invoke emergency powers that were limited to situations that don't apply here in reality. He doesn't get to go around the law by redefining up as down and declaring the sky is green. In the real world, facts matter. Logic matters.
And also, for like the third time now, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with national security. The ruling applies to treatment of individuals already in custody. They are no more a threat to the American people in a federal prison than they are in a Venezuelan prison. This is all a show because that's what Trump is, a reality TV star. MAGA can't tell the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The constitution gives the president the power to sign or not sign legislation. If the president was not in the same room as the autopen and the document, that raises serious 25th amendment concerns.
Yeah... *If*.
And *if* Trump is working for Vladimir Putin that would be treason.
We can play the what if game all day long. If you want to pretend to be engaging in reasonable speculation you need evidence. Trump has none, cause as usual it's just diarrhea of the mouth with him which the rest of the political right then feels the need to try and clean up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nobody meaning all of corporate left wing media
As portrayed by right wing podcasts
Not claiming that, but a radical district judge should not have the undisputed power in that area.
I don't disagree with the level of power these judges can have over the administration, but they're not the end all be all first off all, you guys act like there's no next step in the process. Second, it's just hypocrisy by the right to be so furious over this. You guys had no problem with radical judges stopping Biden or Obama. Funny how every anti abortion case prior to Dobbs ended up in Amarillo Texas.
If the political right didn't have false equivalences you'd have no argument at all.I don't know why this is your go-to defense.
Because it's absolutely true.
There is a huge difference between the SCOTUS telling a president he has no authority with an issue the SCOTUS ruled as falling under the duties of Congress. (and then have the president say he was going to do it anyway, clearly violating the Scotus mandate to leave the issue with Congress)and...A radical left district judge claiming HE has the ultimate authority in matters of national security.
Another perfect example.
First of all you are blatantly misrepresenting what Biden actually did, probably because of a few ill advised words he gave in a speech.
Congress did not say Biden couldn't relieve student loan debt, they ruled that he couldn't use the Hero's act in the way he was trying so that program had to be stopped. Biden then found another way. Again, this is the exact same thing Trump did with the travel ban by first announcing he was going to invoke a religious test to then get that shut down so he turned it into a geographical ban that just happened to target Muslim countries, but that was too blatant so after tweaking the countries to include non-muslim ones it was allowed to be enacted. Same damn thing, and no one in the left claimed Trump was defying the courts.
Second, you are, as I already pointed out, not even talking about the same things categorically. You're comparing what president allegedly did with what federal judge ruled. Not even the same sport.
Third, you are again, blatantly misrepresenting the ruling. The judge did not say or rule that he is the end all be all on national security, that's just plain stupid. He ruled that the law Trump is invoking doesn't apply at the given time, which is common sense. He's invoking a wartime power during a time of peace, a law that targets other countries against alleged gang members, and didn't even give these individuals a hearing to determine that they are gang members. Trump is just making shit up, that's not how abiding by the law works. The judge is absolutely correct, that's not radical, it's common sense.
This is a false equivalence on top of a false equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And as I already pointed out, the constitution says nothing about that. It simply gives the president the power to grant pardons, the idea that the wrong method of signing a document nullifies it is silly.
What is a perfectly reasonable requirement is that there is some documentation. It's insane that the same guy claiming Biden's pardons are null and void for using autopen is the same guy who argued for years that he can declassify documents with nothing more than his own mind. But that's Trump. No one cares because the absurdity and hypocrisy is just baked in with him, even while you guys complain about Biden or other democrats for things that pale in comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is the legal procedure? How do we know the president activated the autopen?
How do we know the president's hand written signature wasn't forged? We can play this game all day long.
The pardon power is laid out entirely in the constitution, pretty sure it doesn't have an anti-auto pen clause.
Presidential pardons are definitely a problem in this country but this is a stupid angle for which to be addressing it. Legal documents are signed by auto pen all the time, but as usual, Trump comes along with his 78 IQ asking questions only a 10 year old would find thought provoking and now we as a nation have to debate whether the earth is round.
If you want to ask a legitimate question about the constitutionality of a pardon how about; is it constitutional for a president to pardon someone for any crime they may have committed before any criminal activity has even been investigated let alone charged? Or, is it constitutional for a president to pardon violators of a vaguely described activity within a vague location over a vague time period without even naming the individuals he pardoned?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
and you can't even admit his complete dereliction. Auto-signing pardons, and all.
Do you really want to talk about presidential pardons?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I see you don't dispute the big lie repeated ad infinitum about Biden's cognizance.
It's a waste of time. Nobody disputes that 80 year old Biden is not 65 year old Biden, but what you guys pretend is that he's some senile plant drooling on the couch thinking he's King Henry. That's just stupid, but when all you do is watch right wing podcasts that's what you're spoonfed.
Hard X for doubt noting the deafening silence on the left when Biden pissed all over a scotus ruling regarding school loans when they clearly said only Congress had the authority...
If the political right didn't have false equivalences you'd have no argument at all.
After being ruled against Biden found a different way to accomplish what he wanted that fit within the legal framework, the same thing Trump did when he was shot down on his travel ban so came back with a different version that eventually passed muster. Nobody called that a constitutional crisis.
The Trump administration here was told directly to turn the planes around and was just like "nah, you can't tell us that". That is not even in the same ballpark, it's just sheer disingenuousness to claim it is.
Contrast that with a radical leftist judge intervening in matters of the executive authority regarding national defense.
I thought we were comparing Biden to Trump? Oh, I see how this works; just point to anything bad and jumble it all together no matter how irrelevant because it sounds more powerful that way.
This is what not having a real argument looks like.
Just because Donald Trump is utters the magic words "national security" doesn't mean the law and the constitution go out the window. He still needs to provide evidence, especially when it's plainly obvious that he's just using obscure laws as a pretext to do whatever the hell he wants. His own border czar already made clear that he doesn't care what any judge tells them, yet here you are pretending that this administration cares about due process and the rule of law. Its ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Additionally, Newsbusters and Media Research Center have tracked CNN and found around 5 obvious misleading statements on average per day rising to an average of 15 misleading statements per day when adding in statements with subtle bias. MSNBC ranked much higher in daily misleading statements.
What a stupid comparison. Even if these numbers are accurate, you're (well obviously you didn't write this) comparing a 24 hour news network that does nothing but report on world events all day long everyday and does so with multiple hosts, pundits and guests all with different points of view to one man as if to suggest it's all the same. That's absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
and now Democrat judges are trying to turn planes full of Venezuelan terrorists around to romp around the USA.
The Trump administration has yet to provid evidence to anyone that any of these individuals are terrorists, they just called them that as an excuse to invoke emergency powers that were never intended to be used in such a frivolous way.
Given the administration's proven and repeated lack of regard for the truth when it comes to touting their accomplishments, anyone who takes their claims at face value is either grossly ignorant or a downright moron.
And by the way, the individuals at issue were already in US custody, so even if everything the administration is alleging regarding how dangerous these individuals are, that still doesn't justify deporting them before this issue could be adjudicated.
Democrats must feel no pulse on the American populace.
What democrats feel begins with a regard for reality, which is often nuanced. These individuals may be dangerous, but there is this thing in America we call due process and that kind of matters. What this judge ruled is that there is no indication their due process was respected and that the government has an obligation to abide by it before taking drastic action against someone in this country. It's kind of a common sense notion, or at least it used to be before Trump took a wrecking ball to our national IQ.
*Queued the usual GP response; cherry pick one sentence, ignore the rest, them reply with some version of "oh yeah well lots of people agree with me"*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
One is arrested when the people responsible for receiving the payments every month are actually found. All we know at present is that the money is leaving the treasury to what may be an illegit address that the Treasury doesn't know is fraudulent.
Translation: "We have no evidence that any of this is actually happening, but we have faith it is because the Trump administration told us so".
When DOGE figures it out, the money will stop, and the people responsible will be held to account.
And when will this be exactly? At what point will reality hit after no one gets arrested?
Remember you've had a DOJ for the last 4 years that only weaponized justice.
The DOJ was never weaponized. You guys cannot provide a single example of weaponization, it's always the same nonsense where you simply point to a republican getting arrested and then without even examining what they were arrested for or the evidence just claim the arest itself is the proof. It's intellectually depraved nonsense.
Trump is accused of telling 30,000 lies in his term. Psychology Today published an article some 15 years ago [neaning it's probably worse today] that the average person lies 20 times daily. Over four years, plus leap year, that amounts to about the same number with rounding Trump is merely average, no worse than you or me
The average person isn't talking to the entire nation every day. They're not being questioned by the press about their decisions which are impacting the lives of over 300 million people at home and 8 billion globally.
Moreover, the 30k lies Trump told is just the accounting of his public statements. The psychology today article is talking about every interaction with every person all throughout the day. That is an entirely different thing. If we added all the lies Trump told behind closed doors and to his wife and kids that number would be astronomically higher given his demonstrated disregard for any tether to reality.
This is such a disingenuous argument.
Then it's Congress's job to slash funding, not by executive fiat.Glad you recognize that.
I'm not the one bragging that the president I voted for is slashing government spending without any regard to what Congress appropriated.
Why? Until you can figure out thatYou just played the same game, boyo.
I'm playing the game of reality where facts matter. You're playing the game of repeating spoonfed talking points as if they were fact, then ignoring the fact checks just to keep repeating the same lies.
There was no $50 million shipment of condoms to Gaza. Are you ready to admit that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The alleged cuts [Medicare, Social Security] are claimed by Democrats, but unsubstantiated by Trump or Musk. They are not cutting into those programs, other than those who are collecting benefits for people who have been dead for years upon years. That's called fraud.
That's called a lie. They have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that any of that is happening, and common sense already tells us it's not. Multiple experts on the social security system have explained why the system operates the way it does so these claims already smack of egregious ignorance at best, and if such fraud was actually happening people would be getting arrested.
Trump has constantly and consistently said "No cuts. Why don't you believe it?
Because he's the most pathological liar in the history of American politics. Also, see above.
They are cutting waste and abuse, such as funding education loans, which individuals have taken out with the assurance they, personally, will pay them back, and now feel [by Biden's promises] they are entitled.
Then it's Congress's job to slash funding, not by executive fiat.
Also cutting the nonsenses of USAID payments, like condoms for Gaza?
Now you're just demonstrating your dishonesty. I already posted the fact check for you in the last thread and you ignored that entirely only to bring it back up here.
There were no $50 million in condoms sent to Gaza. That is a lie told to you by liars who lie because they know gullible people like you will believe this garbage.
What damage is Trump actually causing? Show me.
Why? Until you can figure out that we did not send $50 million in condoms to Gaza there's no reason for me to waste my time showing you anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
What authority would trump have to start slashing spending if the government shut down?
When the government shuts down, funding for all non essential programs are immediately halted. In that situation the executive branch gains full authority to determine if any essential program is actually "non-essential" and stop funding for that as well. Normally Congress holds that power but if there's no Congress, it all defaults to the executive.
But maybe the public would view it as trump has been exceeding his authority and causing dysfunction and trump was bein trump an throwing a hissy fit till he gets his way. I wouldnt assume the public would view it one way or another, but I guess half the population approves of trump now, so maybe it'd be split down partisan lines
That's the argument the democrats would make but it will fail. Again, republicans voted to keep the government open, democrats voted to shut it down. They're not winning that argument. And we've seen this many times before. Every time the government shuts down it's the party voting against it that gets the majority of the blame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re not missing anything. It’s just facts over feelings
Oddly enough, it seems we agree. The democrats have no leverage here, but it seems that thought is just too grim to accept so they have to appeal to vague terms like "fight" and "stand up" which in this situation really doesn't mean a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So do you agree with Schumer and the defectors, or AOC and the house Dems?
Created:
Posted in:
With a number of Senate democrats voting to close debate on the republican CR and allowing the government to stay open many of them are getting torched from the left. I am trying to figure out why.
The arguments I hear over and over are that the democrats are supposed to fight, not lay down. They say the republicans used this CR to make harmful cuts and the democrats gave in to them without anything in return. I have a few problems with this.
First of all, if the government shuts down my understanding is that this will give Trump full latitude to decide which government programs are essential, basically giving him and Musk free reign to cut whatever they want with no legal recourse. And if the government shuts down how does it reopen? No one seems to know.
Secondly, the politics of this would be terrible for the democrats. They do not get to claim the republicans shut the government down when they are literally the ones who voted against keeping the government open. They will get blamed for the shut down. And at a time where Trump and the damage he is causing is making headlines everywhere, this is the perfect opening republicans need to blame the democrats for Trump's failings.
The way I see it, until the mid terms the democrats have two jobs; stop or slow the republicans substantively, and get out of the way politically. Voting to shut down the government accomplishes the opposite in both.
What am I missing here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Children develop more autonomy over time, and they should be allowed to exercise all consent appropriate to their level of understanding.
This has next to nothing to do with anything I just said.
Common, fight me on this.
Why? Everytime I or anyone else points out to you why your position is flawed you won't address it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Q1. Do you believe a 4 year old should be able to consent?To some things they can understand, yes. The UN "Convention on the Rights of the Child" says that children have evolving capacities and should participate in decisions affecting them.
This was the third time I asked two very specific questions, finally you acknowledge it but seem to have purposefully ignored the second. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty, if you were being honest and intellectually curious you should have no problem answering simple good faith questions.
But as far as the one question you did answer... you believe a 4 year old should be able to (legally) consent to having sex. Ok.
The first problem with all of this is that you frame your position as being in favor of the right of children, which is to say you're fighting for their best interests. Meanwhile, you are advocating a position that would objectively lead to harm for children. You really need to reconcile that. You cannot with a straight face argue that pedophiles world wide would not jump up and cheer if the position you are taking suddenly became law.
The second problem is that the logic you are using to make these arguments is fundamentally flawed. To go back to your point before:
No person has all knowledge, thus it is not necessary to have all knowledge in order to consent, only some knowledge, which children can have. If all knowledge was necessary to consent, then no person would be able to consent, which doesnt work.
No one is suggesting that anyone needs all knowledge to make their own decisions. This argument is based on the classic slippery slope; "if we let two men marry what's to stop someone from marrying their dog?", or "if we lower the drinking age, what's to stop 7 year olds from buying liquor?". Just because we go one step further doesn't mean we're doomed to never stop. Most boundaries are arbitrary, that doesn't mean they don't serve a very important purpose. We can argue over where that line should be drawn, but to argue that the potential for any movement at all makes the line harmful or irrational fails.
Children are far less equipped to make serious consequential life decisions, sex is one of them. And allowing them to make that decision opens them up to a far greater potential of abuse. The good you are trying to frame your argument as being in support of is far outweighed by the bad. It's that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Q1. Do you believe a 4 year old should be able to consent?
Q2. Do you have any response to the point I made about children being easily manipulable and the harm that would certainly follow from what you are suggesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Children can learn things, thus they can consent to things they know. No person has all knowledge, thus it is not necessary to have all knowledge in order to consent, only some knowledge, which children can have. If all knowledge was necessary to consent, then no person would be able to consent, which doesnt work.
You are dodging the questions;
Q1. Do you believe a 4 year old should be able to consent?
Q2. Do you have any response to the point I made about children being easily manipulable and the harm that would certainly follow from what you are suggesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why? Is granting children the right to choose really something you want?Yes. If children cant consent, then they either are property with other people making decisions for them, which is slavery, either other people cant make decisions for them, and then no decisions can even be logically made and every option is wrong, which cannot work.
Q1. Do you believe a 4 year old should be able to consent?
Q2. Do you have any response to the point I made about children being easily manipulable and the harm that would certainly follow from what you are suggesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cool, now go find a competent Democrat to replace Trump.
Why does the democrat need to be competent? Clearly no one in the right cares about that.
We don't need 12 years, a few more months of this and even Trump supporters will be missing Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why would anyone think that children cant consent?
In addition to all the reasons FLRW gave showing how children are prone to making decisions that will negatively impact them later on in life, children are also much more easily manipulable. So allowing them to decide leaves then far more vulnerable to abuse.
Common, fight me on this.
Why? Is granting children the right to choose really something you want?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Right, which makes them different.But changing the rules when you happen to benefit from the rules is fine. Like, politicians are allowed to raise their own salaries; people don't really care if it's not too much of a raise.
I have no idea what your point is here.
Politicians raise their own salaries because literally no one else is empowered to do it, and if you think about it it's probably best that way. The alternative is to give an outside actor the power to dictate what they get paid, not exactly a great alternative.
Trump was indicted in four different jurisdictions because he committed obvious and serious crimes.What were the obvious and serious crimes?And Jan 6 was horrible, but the left thought he committed a bunch of crimes before Jan 6, so you would have to resort to crimes before Jan 6.
January 6th is the most obvious example and that made up 2 of his 4 indictments. Hoarding classified documents and obstructing the FBI's investigation into there whereabouts is pretty damn serious to. Of his 4 indictments the least serious one is the crime his personal attorney literally served 3 years in prison for where Trump was listed as co-conspirator in the charging documents. So the best argument anyone has against any of the indictments is to argue it's fine for Cohen to be incarcerated for the crime but not the guy he worked "in coordination with and at the direction of" when he committed it. That's absurd.
Everything else was civil, but rape and business fraud after pretty serious charges and the evidence at least for the fraud charges is not reasonably disputable. Oh and there's Trump's fake university. Oh, and don't forget about his flagrant abuse of his charity's funds.
The guy is a walking fraud, just no one was paying attention until he became the most powerful man on earth. Funny how that happens.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, nice self own with your source where I can copy and paste reality over your propaganda.
Did you have any plans to explain what this self own supposedly is, or you just figured you'd claim it and paste a bunch of words repeating everything I've said in this thread and think that would suffice?
And every normal person covering the scam trial said over and over again that the "other crime" was never ever specified.
Which I just proved to be a blatant lie.
It's not copying and pasting for me correctly, comes out gibberish. But it's right here, page 12, it literally lists the four crimes the prosecution was allowed to argue as the "other crimes" with the statute number and everything.
Right there, page 12. Can you read?
And the crooked partisan party operative DA himself said he didn't need to specify it.
"He added that New York state law does not require him to specify the underlying crime in the indictment."
"In the indictment" genius. The indictment came a year before the trial began. By the time they were able to present to the grand jury they had to have all this sorted out which they did, and the proof of that is the pretrial court documents I just provided whether the judge lists the literal criminal statutes that were approved to be argued to the jury.
This is why you and your party failed, and why your propaganda fails.
Yeah, because people don't read and will just believe everything their podcast idols tell them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The charges neither include, nor even identify, the additional crimes
The defense was well aware of what the additional crimes were before the trial began. Here is one of the judge's orders from February 2024 where it specifically lists all the applicable statutes (page 11 - it's literally an entire section titled "other crimes")
The fact that you guys keep repeating this nonsense regardless of how probably objectively false it is is yet another fact demonstrating how disconnected from reality you all are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
If there's widespread agreement then it's not a problem in need of being solved.How widespread are you talking about?
Enough to enact the solution.
How many lies did Trump do vs the generic politician in a 4 year term?
The Washington Post tracked it at over 30k lies over the 4 year term. We don't know exactly how that compares to other politicians because no politician has ever lied so much to the point where anyone needed to track their count.
Trump probably did it more, but how many lies is too many lies?
It's not about the number, it's about what their lies say about them.
Someone who lies about having an affair is just trying to cover up their own embarrassing behavior.
Someone who lies about their record is trying to escape their past without taking accountability for it.
Someone who lies about what they intend to do once empowered is trying to con people into voting for them and then not deliver on their promises.
Someone who lies about everything, including the most obvious things is either completely disconnected from reality (a polite way of saying they're crazy) or they simply do not value the concept of truth itself.
All 4 of these are bad, the last use in a whole different category of bad for reasons I've already explained. In many ways though, the ambiguity of the last example is part of Trump's superpower. The fact that we don't know which one it is actually helps him politically because it muddies the water to the point where neither accusation sticks to him. You call him crazy and someone else says he knows what he's doing. You call him evil and nefarious and someone else says he really believes what he's saying. You can't have a verdict without clarity.
Trump is like a bed of nails, any one of them would puncture your body but when there are so many of them then none of them have the ability to cause that kind of damage. It all just gets lost. The man is so terrible that he becomes unrecognizable, and if his terribleness is not recognizable then it can be rebranded as something else. I think that's exactly what has happened here.
I don't think Obama ever went to bullshit level degeneracy.
Not even close. That's the difference between Trump and any other politician (although many are trying to follow in his footsteps); if Obama tells a lie her can be confronted on it and if it's shown to be a lie he would feel forced to admit it. With Trump is you catch him in a lie he just makes even more shit up and then attacks you for daring to call it out.
The former is like playing basketball with someone who swipes at your arm and accepts when you call foul. That person you can play a game with. Trump is like someone who tackles you like he's playing football, then when you call foul he pretends there's no such thing as fouls and berates you for being a pussy. No basketball game there is possible.
In politics, the game is supposed to be that we debate or differences and we win by pursuasion. Trump isn't playing that game. With Trump it's about power pure and simple, this is why he leans into violence - because that's where that game is ultimately resolved. The more he destabilizes our country with this the closer we come to full scale political meltdown.
That's why Trump's lies are a whole different category of worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They were not anywhere near close to obvious crimes because the DA objectively conspired with the Judge to not specify the underlying crime.
You're such a liar. You just keep repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times you are smacked in the face with reality.
Here it is again. Maybe this time you will actually engage, or more likely not since it is easier to just repeat the same garbage later after pretending the below was never pointed out to you.
People don't suddenly decide to become a felon at 70+ years old when they have everything to lose by doing so.
Correct, which is why some of these cases went back decades. Turns out when you decide to run for president with your qualifier being your business record, people take a harder look at your business record. And when people take a harder look at your business record, the crimes you've been committing will gain more attention. Who knew?
The public rightfully saw this as a hatchet job orchestrated by autocratic power mongers.
Because propaganda works. Out of the four indictments the weakest case by far both morally and legally is the one involving a crime that his personal attorney was incarcerated for 3 years over. So even if you could ignore the other three, your best argument is still that it's ok for his attorney to go to jail for it but not the guy he committed the crime "in coordination with and at the direction of". Not exactly a strong argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Any US politician that wanted a Canadian style term limit structure is going to have to change the rules mid game is the thing.
Right, which makes them different.
Nobody would be trying to jail him if he didn't run for POTUS, so the idea is a backfire.
Trump was indicted in four different jurisdictions because he committed obvious and serious crimes. It's not about "trying to jail him", it's about deciding that someone who committed obvious and serious crimes and to which those crimes have been publicized to the entire population should be held accountable.
The reason why I say he's probably right about needing another term to stay out of jail is because he can't help himself. Especially after being given presidential immunity by the SC he's feeling really bold so sooner or later he'll probably overstep even their obscenely generous take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Left wing cultists are literally setting Teslas on fire as he wrote that nonsense.
Wow, Billy Bob on Twitter set his Tesla in fire. Let's keep that one in our back pocket so we can pull it out when we need it to own the libs.
Great job.
Letting gang member illegals out on the street to fuck up Americans...
Can you provide any example where the left advocated for this anywhere?
while complaining that a barrier shaker didn't have to spend more than 3 years doing hard time....
So funny how you like to hyperfocus on every detail of every instance of every crime committed when the perp is an illegal but when it's a Trump supporter who is then pardoned by Trump you suddenly feel the need to downplay it. It's almost like you don't actually believe in the ideas you claim to be all about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
"By amassing a cult following that would be willing to throw away the constitution and commit violence on your behalf, then pardon many of them thereby signaling that violence under your administration is ok if committed on your behalf, then use that support to pressure members of Congress into doing whatever you want."Sounds familiar, almost like the pot calling the kettle black
Curious to know what non existent fantasy you think happened on the left that is equivalent to this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you do the math it's about the exact same amount of deaths per capita in Canada from fentanyl as it is in the US from guns. So is gun violence a national emergency? Asking for a friend.Democrats are not going to touch a black man's right to kill another black man with a gun. That would be racist.
Yeah, that's the usual dismissive and unserious response I was expecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So is creating the PMCRU and hiring 20 people in a lab in Toronto to screen 2000 doses a year adequate?
If this was a US agency DOGE would have fired them already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That is 38,196 Canadian deaths over 8 years to Fentanyl.Canada only has a population of 40 million people.I get that 40,000 fentanyl deaths may seem small compared to a population of 40 million, but the impact is severe when considering the daily toll. In 2022 alone, opioids were responsible for about 20 deaths per day, which is more than many other common causes of premature death. To me, this reflects at least some level of public health emergency.
If you do the math it's about the exact same amount of deaths per capita in Canada from fentanyl as it is in the US from guns. So is gun violence a national emergency? Asking for a friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
but probably not.I will have to reassess your grasp on reality.
So... You think he will get a third term?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe don't use the word "dictator" so flippantly then.
Maybe read what I wrote and stop blaming me for your own lack on reading comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Not really. How hard was it for states to put in mask mandates in 202 if the state was MA (a state that wanted them)? Very easy.
If there's widespread agreement then it's not a problem in need of being solved.
Because we as a society do not have the checks in place anymore to ensure those who have a platform to reach millions of people know what they're talking about.So what's your solution?
Real world solution? I don't have one. Fantasy solution? Kids should be taught epistemology and critical thinking in school. That would go a long way but republicans stand in opposition to that. Gee I wonder why.
I would be unsurprised if he did it the most, but how much compared to other politicians annually. You would also have to measure for intensity as well (which is very arbitrary). Is it worse to say the vaccines cause autism or no state in the US legalizes elective 9 month pregnancy abortion? The left winger would say #1, the right winger would say #2.
The fact that you talk about Trump's lying as "well maybe he's worse" is mind boggling.
Like I said earlier, Trump's lying is on a whole new level from anything we've ever seen. He lies about everything from big things to silly things, and he does it with not only no commitment to reality but not even a commitment to consistency. Sam Harris had probably the best takes on this I've heard which is that he distinguished Trump as being not a liar, but a bullshitter. The former sounds worse, but the latter is actually way worse.
A liar is someone trying to convince you what they're saying is true. That takes work and failure leads to consequences for that person. To avoid those consequences the liar has to work within the truth. Bullshiting is about destroying the very concept of truth, it's about asserting yourself as being impervious to it and empowering your followers to do the same.
Lying tends to contain itself only to the issue at hand. Bullshiting, especially when done in this fashion as Trump does, destroys our ability to even have a conversation with each other. And it might sound the way I've described it like bullshiting leads to less deciept because it's out there in the open but that's not true at all. Once the very concept of respecting the truth is gone people are more free to say whatever they want whether it's true or not so people don't even know who to listen to anymore and everyone becomes less and mis educated.
There is no one in American politics like Trump. There is no comparison.
They dropped the federal charges, and that's only because he won the election.Why would this be relevant unless it's a concession?
What do you mean? I called him a criminal and you replied asking didn't they drop the charges, the implication being that if they dropped the charges he's not a criminal. So to that point the reason they dropped the charges matters.
Trump isn't the only on that attacks the press and courts. The left does this with Fox News and the Supreme Court on Roe.
Classic Bothsidesism.
The left doesn't call the free press the enemy of the American people nor does the left reflexively dismiss any verdict they don't like as the product of corruption or partisan bias without any thought the way Trump does.
Did you watch the video? Is that really your take away?
the Russian federation against our will?Yes because we don't speak Russian.
Now you're just not being serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How does one become an actual dictator in America? Or is that just more "storytime with DoubleR?"
No, it's more proof that you don't read anything you respond to. You just see buzzwords like "dictator" and concoct the rest of the response in your mind.
Remy made a comment that solving political problems is easy, so I pointed out that it's only easy if you're a dictator. Nothing about that common sense response has anything to do with Trump or any current affairs. It's a statement about the reality of having to work with other people who often disagree with you. You would have figured that out of you had bothered reading what I wrote. You know what, I'm not even sure why I'm still typing, clearly this is too many words and you've already tuned it all out while your mind works overtime to invent the next strawman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Well, "his country deciding" is really, "a former PM deciding". Trump happens to be the current leader of the US; but whether it's current or prior should be irrelevent.
It's not irrelevant at all. Playing the game within the rules is one thing, changing the rules mid game just to suit yourself is something different entirely. The latter is the very thing at issue.
When you say this, do you mean:1. Trump's Personal FINANCIAL benefit.2. Trump's Personal IDEOLOGICAL benefit.3. Other
3
He's an ego maniacal narcissist who doesn't want to give up power. He has no respect for the constitution, American history or America's future. He cares about himself and staying in power is how he makes himself feel important. He also believes (and maybe rightly) that staying in power is the only way to keep himself out of jail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@sadolite
The criticism about Trump is *why* he wants a third term, the answer is because he's actively trying to rewrite our constitution for his own personal benefitHow exactly does one man do that?
By amassing a cult following that would be willing to throw away the constitution and commit violence on your behalf, then pardon many of them thereby signaling that violence under your administration is ok if committed on your behalf, then use that support to pressure members of Congress into doing whatever you want.
It's worked quite well so far, in fact Trump is literally president right now because of the threat of violence against members of Congress who as the woke liberal Mitt Romney recalled, were unwilling to disqualify Trump from office only because they feared for their own safety.
Will it work here? It very well could, but probably not. The point has nothing to do with how likely this all is, the point is about what this says about the man we just handed power back to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is demonstrating every day just how competent he is and people are now seeing it for themselves.yep, which is why his approval is so high rn. And Democrats approval is so low.
This is just mindless childish trolling. Quote my actual words and maybe I'll respond.
we've been making substantive arguments to *explain why* Trump is so terribleYeah, and those propaganda outlets are bleeding viewership because
There you go again, telling me what other people think. Do you have any thoughts of your own? Are you ever going to share them? Is politics nothing more than a game of owning the libs to you? And if so, why? If you don't believe anything then why hate the libs?
In the first term Trump was ....You mean blocked by the swamp
lol right. So the guy who gets elected and then empowers the world's richest man who also donated an obscene amount of money to his campaign to go into the government and get rid of every program he doesn't like while that very same billionaire continues to profit off of government contracts...
Yeah, that's the guy draining the swamp.
You aren't this stupid.
announcing tariffs only to cancel them and then put them back on only to cancel them again. The man has no idea what the hell he's doing.And it's just too bad The Democrats have no plan to regain the public trust
Because of right wing propaganda that will fort example pretend I didn't say what I just did and instead pretend the democrats are the point.
Absolutely pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Solving a political problem is easy if you want to. For example, there is no such thing as, trying to "end LGBT hate laws". You either do it by signing some documents or you don't.
Yes, it's really easy to solve political problems... If you're a dictator. When you are a democracy and you have those pesky rules in place to ensure adherence to a constitution and the protection of rights for all, it's gets far more complicated.
Great, now use that 142 to Google the definition of "collective".Well why is the IQ of America falling?
Because we as a society do not have the checks in place anymore to ensure those who have a platform to reach millions of people know what they're talking about.
Yes I'm talking about the internet broadly and social media more specifically. But Trump has now taken that to a whole new level. He was tailored made to make us dumber - an complete imbecile who is likable and through a combination of inherited wealth, a massive ego and the work of his reality TV producers has been built up for decades to be seen as a successful genius. Then this imbecile goes out and says the stupidest things, and in so doing gives the morons among us the validation they need to not only believe it, but to idolize him for being the only one brave enough to speak out. No, he's just the only one dumb enough to believe the things he says.
And now that he has amassed this cult following, public officials to stay in their gif graces now have to pretend the things he says aren't stupid at all which only further validates the people who think these things and reels otherwise reasonable people in. It's a downward IQ spiral.
I'm as bothered with election deniers as I am with everyone dying. It sucks that it's reality, but what you gonna do?
Not empower the people out there spreading this nonsense.
What do you think would be the good ideas to debate about?
How we're going to bring down the price of groceries. How we're going to reverse the wealth gap trend where now 80% of this country's population are scrapping over 7% of the country's wealth. What our immigration *laws* should look like, etc.
Not whether we should annex Canada, or how we're going to get rid of all this [non-existent] voter fraud.
Trump is a liar; so is every politician. Trump might do it the most, but if I say, "1 lie is too much", then I exclude every politician. The alternative is saying, "X lies are too much" and X will be arbitrary.
So what? The fact that the line we draw on what's "too much" is arbitrary doesn't mean we don't draw a line and it certainly doesn't mean we pretend that someone who lies more isn't worse than someone who lies less.
And no, it's not "Trump might do it the most" it's that Trump is in am entirely different category of lying than anything we've ever seen.
They dropped the federal charges, and that's only because he won the election.
He's an autocrat who they think is here to save our democracy.I think we will have elections in 2028 whether Harris or Trump was in office. To terminate the constitution, you need 3/4 of the states, and Trump doesn't have that.
Russia still has elections. You have an incredibly naive view of how democracy's fall apart.
This video is old but might help.
Well, keep in mind, you've seen me criticize Trump enough here, you know I'm at the algebra stage and not the 2+2 stage.
I'm not talking about you, it's a generalization.
Now, what would be wrong with annexing Canada?
You have to be kidding me.
Would you have a problem of Russia made us part of the Russian federation against our will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Most left wingers oppose third terms on principal as do I.So then criticize Trudeau for getting a 3rd term.Hold Trump and Treadeau to the same standard.
We are, you would know that if you read a word I said.
Trudeau didn't decide third terms were ok, his country did. That has nothing to do with him.
The criticism of Trump isn't about the principal, that was the point.
The criticism about Trump is *why* he wants a third term, the answer is because he's actively trying to rewrite our constitution for his own personal benefit. That's what people are talking about, so if you're going to criticize the left criticize is for what we're actually talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Putinmanbad, Orangemanbad were the worst one-liners for Americans.
They are terrible one liners, which is why they're only uttered by people like yourself and those on podcasts like Tim Poole's. On the left we've been making substantive arguments to *explain why* Trump is so terrible and all you have in response are these stupid one liners and gross mischaracterizations. If you had a real argument you would make it.
argue that you're right cause other people say soIn a Democracy, the majority gets to decide what is moral and right.
Yes, but not what is true
Second, this isn't a democracy genius, it's a debate site. No one gives a shit what you think other people believe. Share your own thoughts and opinions that you are willing to back up or go away.
4 years ago, Americans thought that Democrats could do better than the Orangeman. Now they are convinced that they cannot.
What hilariously stupid statement. Trump is demonstrating every day just how incompetent he is and people are now seeing it for themselves. In the first term Trump was shielded by people who at least understood how government functions and why it functions that way, now he's surrounded himself with people whose only qualification is overt subservience, and it's showing. Firing people only to then realize what they do and rehire them back, announcing tariffs only to cancel them and then put them back on only to cancel them again. The man has no idea what the hell he's doing.
People thought Trump was good on the economy because of what they remember about 2019. What they'll learn in this term is that it was all bullshit. 2019 was nothing more than a continuation of the progress of 2016. It was never because of Trump, it was in spite of him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It costs America nothing to admit the reality that the regime change coup in 2014 didn't pan out
This has nothing to do with 2014. No one is talking about 2014.
Ad Homs are the last resort of a defeated person.
Or of someone tired of talking to the wall. You're just not serious. You respond only to the points you want to respond to, you offer little more than one liners, and mostly everything you say is irrelevant to the actual conversation. The only thing you seem to care about is how as position will play out politically, and the closest you come to proving that you are right is to argue that you're right cause other people say so.
It's just a waste of time. If there were more people on this site I wouldn't bother, but whatever. I'm bored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Hold Trump and Trudeau to the same standard for term limits. Either be fine with term limits for them BOTH or be against it for them BOTH.
That has nothing to do with the issue.
Most left wingers oppose third terms on principal as do I. The idea is to ensure presidents are temporary guardians of the constitution, which helps to ensure they will fight to protect it knowing they will be a private citizen again in the foreseeable future. Trump however is doing everything he can to dismantle it, so his seeking of a third term is an extension of the assault he's already waged on our democracy.
There is no world where Trump leaves graciously and turns power over to a democrat preaching the importance of respecting or democratic process. He wants a third term so he can try and rig the next election for himself just like he tried in 2020, except this time he'll have his sycophants planted in every area of the federal government to help him.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
My view is The US and NATO started the war by expanding when they said they wouldn't.
How does the expansion of NATO justify Russia invading Ukraine?
Created: