|
Killer robot posted:You know how outside of Trumpist circles you sometimes see people complaining about how some complex policy or messaging problem hasn't been solved because feckless Dems allow it to be that way or whatever, and when you ask what they should do they say "I don't know but those big brained politics guys should and if they're not doing it it's because they don't want to?" Yeah, I get it. Whenever I bitch about something, I try to at least offer a loving IDEA (UHC, actual recycling, more nuclear power, no stock trading for congressional members, break up the Big Banks, free college, raise the SS/FICA tax cap) about how to go about fixing poo poo. Anything beyond "more bibles, guns and flags", thoughts and prayers or something that fits on a Red Hat/bumper sticker. Every once in a while, I'll get into a discussion with a Republican who is actually FOR some or a lot of these things and it always stops me in my tracks and gives me a small measure of joy. Or, of not joy, at least HOPE. When that happens, I try to point out how much most people (like us) have in common and that we're not as divided as we're made out to be, but then they drop a SOROS BOMB on me, talk about late term abortion baby murder, BLM Antifa riots, the pledge of allegiance or kids using litter pans in schools and the conversation breaks down from there.
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:It’s fascism. Their preferred solution is the same one that Tacitus described the Romans using : they make a wasteland and call it peace. They don’t want the problems solved in a constructive manner, they want everyone punished for daring to be not be in line with their worldview. Deteriorata posted:What does any of that have to do with Trump's legal troubles? That was the first thing I addressed in my post, folks. I happen to think that Trump's Legal Problems are at least somewhat tangentially related to the election coming up in 7 months.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:That was the first thing I addressed in my post, folks. I happen to think that Trump's Legal Problems are at least somewhat tangentially related to the election coming up in 7 months. How exactly are his hypothetical policies relevant to his trials? Is his economic agenda part of his defense? And I even answered your question, but you didn’t care enough to respond.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:My god is that matty squids music!? I will never, ever get over Mr. Calamari.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:How exactly are his hypothetical policies relevant to his trials? Is his economic agenda part of his defense? Because the poo poo he's going through now is going to inform and be a part of an election that he might genuinely win - one that's openly built around revenge on the DoJ and others - and will also inform his campaign in which case, anything he's going through during these trials, the hypothetical (vengeful) things he's saying he'll do, whether he skates or not, whether he winds up in jail, whether any of this crap is still hanging in the balance in any way at all come November, to my mind, are all absolutely 100% relevant topics to the thread discussion and I'm honestly baffled how anyone could think otherwise. We have an historic situation here where a former President is being tried for the first time on various crimes, including 91 felonies; A person who led an attempted overthrow/coup of our democracy on 1/6, all while certainly being the nominee of one of the two Major Party candidates and who can very well win and do a DJT2: MAGA Boogaloo on our democracy. In which case, look the gently caress out because 3 out of every 5 people you might meet is all in on it and someone like Joe Biden can't stop it. What does any of this NOT have to do with these loving trials? Reminder, that I started this thread in reaction to 1/6 and it morphed into the DJT Legal Trouble thread. So I'd say right there that there's at least some overlap at a minimum. I don't know how we discuss these trials without talking about the campaign but I'm all ears on suggestions. Me, personally, I can't separate the legal poo poo from the fact that this rear end in a top hat is currently running - not for OFFICE, mind - but for PRESIDENT and is currently leading in most polls right now. I don't think this is a derail at all but, if need be, the mods can give me a probe and tell me to take it to an election thread or something (where the trials will be discussed and we can have the opposite argument) but any honest discussion of these legal proceedings absolutely must include election talk Sorry for discussing a presidential candidate under an historic indictment during an election year and poring over his horrifying fascist campaign promises and wondering what his supporters think, I guess. Sorry for straying out of bounds and being off topic? Maybe? What am I missing here? Respond to what? ASk me again please, sorry. Or was that it up there and I covered it ? I tried to be thorough. thanks E: I pored through your post history and couldn't find the question I didn't answer. Hopefully I covered it up there ^^^^ BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 22:02 on May 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
This thread gets unreadable when it veers into election chat. There's enough going on with the legal stuff to keep the thread busy, we don't need it to be a catch-all for everything Trump related. IMO this thread should be about the trials of Trump and those around him. Election chat should go to the CE thread or a specific election thread if/when it exists. Obviously I'm just a schmuck and not a mod, so my opinion carries no real weight. However, if this thread starts overflowing with election chat I'll just abandon it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
IMO it's not that it's not relevant it's that it's a whole other huge area of discussion that overshadows the actual day-to-day goings on of the trials, and is probably better served as a discussion in an election thread.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Because the poo poo he's going through now is going to inform and be a part of an election that he might genuinely win - one that's openly built around revenge on the DoJ and others - and will also inform his campaign in which case, anything he's going through during these trials, the hypothetical (vengeful) things he's saying he'll do, whether he skates or not, whether he winds up in jail, whether any of this crap is still hanging in the balance in any way at all come November, to my mind, are all absolutely 100% relevant topics to the thread discussion and I'm honestly baffled how anyone could think otherwise. I mean this in a sincere and affectionate way : I think you need to go touch some grass. My evidence is that this was your post that started this : BiggerBoat posted:Somewhat off tangent, but I wonder what Trump supporters think he would do differently with regards to Russia, Ukraine, Gaza, Isreal, Iran, campus protests, etc. because it's all a real clusterfuck with no real clear cut solution to my eyes. Do they even know? Or is it just "I would fix it on DAY ONE - signed, DJT" and that's good enough for them? Obviously, Joe Biden has no answers either, is in way over his head and has a head full of mud so I'm not even saying the approach would altogether be worse, but has Trump even said what his would be and how it would be different? and here I am responding Xiahou Dun posted:It’s fascism. Their preferred solution is the same one that Tacitus described the Romans using : they make a wasteland and call it peace. They don’t want the problems solved in a constructive manner, they want everyone punished for daring to be not be in line with their worldview. This is the part you're ignoring, even though you quoted it. I spent significantly more time actually engaging with the meat of your post, the burning question that you feel is incredibly relevant to this thread, than I did asking what it had to do with the thread topic. But instead of actually responding to that, which somehow isn't important anymore (to the point I'm reminding you of it), you posted... whatever the gently caress you wanna call that ""justification"". Which didn't actually give any reasons why the topics are related, you just bolded how historic and bad this election cycle is. The trial(s?*) this year (or lack thereof) are certainly going to be relevant throughout discussion of the November election. That doesn't mean they're relevant to the trial. In fact, since this is a complicated sub-topic that is related to the larger topic, it makes a lot of sense to wall it off from larger election discussion so that nuanced issues of law don't get drowned out with inevitable horse-race shenanigans. Most of the larger stories here wind up getting posted in the USCE thread, because a big happening in Trump's prosecution is also a US news story ; the converse is not true, i.e. the Gaza protests are relevant in the USCE thread but not here. Do you want to take a break, maybe grab a walk or do I need to start condescendingly discussing how while all dogs are mammals, no that doesn't mean all mammals are dogs. *lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
Agreed, this is explicitly not a holistic thread about all of America, just one small set of (very interesting and important) current events. We have that other thread already elsewhere
haveblue fucked around with this message at 22:45 on May 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:There was an investigation into the conspiracy. Trump committed 10 counts of extremely well documented obstruction of justice which should reasonably allow anyone to draw the appropriate inference that Trump was hiding the details of the conspiracy. Just as a friendly reminder, explaining does not equal endorsement. But also that's the thing. Resting your case on 'inference' is never a wise move. And... yes, it's a First Amendment speech issue when what you are demanding he be charged for and your case rest on a public statement he made. You need to actually determine if it falls under the First Amendment or not, and if it is in fact criminal speech. The thing is, as stated the bar for that is extremely high. It has to demand violent action immediately. "Hack her emails" isn't violent, so it fails there.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
I'm also unsure exactly how they relate at this point, these are very different events that occurred at different points in time, months if not years apart. The speech is not conspiracy, it is not proof of conspiracy, it doesn't suffice as enough evidence to suggest a conspiracy, and the defences Trump has are numerous and myriad and only just one or two would be enough to stop a case cold dead in its tracks. The 10 counts are we talking about the impeachment hearings? Another completely different event, way and well after the fact of this speech? I don't see how any of this of what you're saying Murgos means that the system could've just arrested Trump for the emails just because he said some political words at a campaign speech. If anything it seems like its contradicting whatever argument you're attempting to say here because if there was an investigation that culminated in Congress passing articles of impeachment isn't this the system working as designed? The US is a law based society, the point is to explain why the law doesn't allow what the Bible was asking, I don't understand what you're trying to argue. This isn't carrying water for Trump, it's pointing out that the argument is nonsense. e to add: Like it seems to me like this whole argument is post-hoc, because of things that were found out via investigations afterwards Trump obviously should've been arrested at the moment in question? We didn't know that then, and by the time we knew he was President.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:I will never, ever get over Mr. Calamari. The fact that I became aware of Matthew Calamari and Tony Balogna within weeks of each other broke my brain in a way that I can't recover from. All I need now is some rear end in a top hat called like Stephen Lasagna to be fundamental to one of these New York issues and I'm getting locked up in a mental asylum.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
Paulie Lasagna might be the name of my next RPG character.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:I will never, ever get over Mr. Calamari. I'm never getting over Chesebro. The fact that he thought he could help steal an election with a red shirt last name like that boggles my mind.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
Nervous posted:I'm never getting over Chesebro. The fact that he thought he could help steal an election with a red shirt last name like that boggles my mind. I just looked him up and he started losing it after he became a bitcoin billionaire.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
If we’re going to bitcoin world for funny names, you’re not going to beat CARL MARK FORCE IV
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 02:40
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:Paulie Lasagna might be the name of my next RPG character. Unknown Armies, Urbanomancer of Atlantic City.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Yeah, if the attorneys are at all smart they asked for substantial retainer up front. The fine can be paid for from the retainer and then rebilled back to Trump. I believe Giuliani was the last legal genius who would agree to Trump paying them Tuesday for a legal brief today. Dude even got ripped off on his legal fees fundraiser where Donny took most of the money to pay his non Giuliani lawyers. It's actually surprising that we had so many lawyers who were both all about harebrained criminality and taking IOUs. It's unfathomable that Trump made it all the way to last year before he burned through them all.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 04:57
|
|
|
Lammasu posted:I just looked him up and he started losing it after he became a bitcoin billionaire. multimillionaire even cheese bro would probably stop doing lawyer things if he made a billion (but it might not stop him from doing a treason)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I believe Giuliani was the last legal genius who would agree to Trump paying them Tuesday for a legal brief today. Dude even got ripped off on his legal fees fundraiser where Donny took most of the money to pay his non Giuliani lawyers. To paraphrase an old saying, the only two truly inexhaustible resources are greed and stupidity.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 10:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm also unsure exactly how they relate at this point, these are very different events that occurred at different points in time, months if not years apart. The speech is not conspiracy, it is not proof of conspiracy, it doesn't suffice as enough evidence to suggest a conspiracy, and the defences Trump has are numerous and myriad and only just one or two would be enough to stop a case cold dead in its tracks. You are horribly confused. The 10 obstruction counts were from the mueller report where Mueller was investigating Russian interference into the 2016 election based on evidence that Trump was already working with Russia prior to his, “Russia, if you’re listening” statement. It’s not post-hoc it’s all the same criminal act and the wider conspiracy should allow for those statements to be part of the crime and not protected by free speech. That speech was a criminal act. It’s not been charged because of a massive obstructive act by not only Trump and his family and friends but also the AG, several senior members of the DoJ, FBI and also congress.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You are horribly confused. No I'm not confused, you're arguing something that is completely irrelevant. We're talking about the Speech made by Candidate Trump. The speech by Candidate Trump back when he was a candidate. The Mueller report, and all of those surrounding investigations only occurred after Trump was already President. The point and argument we are discussing is that the speech made by candidate Trump on the campaign trail does not rise to criminal incitement, and is insufficient to press any charges, and likely insufficient to even launch even investigations because of the massively high bars to clear. Nothing you're saying is making any sense with respect to the argument that's actually happening, its like you think we're saying Trumps not guilty of anything but thats whats being discussed at all! The argument is just, "Trump couldn't be thrown in jail just because of a campaign speech." Everything you're saying is stuff that happened after the fact; and also has no relevance to the current proceedings or why they should go any faster or waive the constitutional rights and protections all Americans have.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Here's hoping https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1787478165830488528
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
“If appropriate or warranted” is gonna be debated in the future… it’s long past appropriate but I’m sure he would argue that it’s never appropriate to do that
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Trump could take a poo poo on the gavel and he wouldn't get thrown in jail for it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Trump could take a poo poo on the gavel and he wouldn't get thrown in jail for it. I can see some wishy washy bullshit testing-the-waters thing where Trumbo is "incarcerated" by not being allowed to go out to McDonalds for lunch break and shitposting during the trial hours and then goes free at the end of the day. It's exactly the kind of toothless, mealy-mouthed bullshit punishment I've come to expect that lets the judicial system say "IT TOTALLY HAPPENED YOU GUYS HE GOT PUNISHED, IT'S COMPLETELY FAIR AND EXACTLY LIKE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU POOR PEOPLE!" while everyone on all sides knows exactly how limp-dicked and useless they all are in the face of a rich person.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
Some of you really need to up your antidepressant doses. This is a win! Just go "lol"!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Has anyone asked the AI to whip up a photo of Trump wearing a ball gag?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
withak posted:Has anyone asked the AI to whip up a photo of Trump wearing a ball gag? "I'm sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation. 🙏"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:10
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Some of you really need to up your antidepressant doses. This is a win! Just go "lol"! A thousand dollar fine to a rich man, even one who is currently cash poor like trump, Is like emptying a beach with tweezers. Him having to attend the trial in the first place is mkre of a win than this fine.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:10
|
|
|
withak posted:Has anyone asked the AI to whip up a photo of Trump wearing a ball gag? It turns out this was the inciting incident for Skynet.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
Yeah, literally the only meaningful consequence he's faced so far is having to show up, and our legal system explicitly denies that can be considered a real consequence.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:A thousand dollar fine to a rich man, even one who is currently cash poor like trump, Is like emptying a beach with tweezers. The win is the judge putting him on notice, obviously not the fine.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
Caros posted:A thousand dollar fine to a rich man, even one who is currently cash poor like trump, Is like emptying a beach with tweezers. When a judge says this: quote:Because the offensive statement was made prior to this Court's Decision of April 30 and because the People are seeking only a monetary fine, the Court will, once again, fine Defendant $1,000. However, because this is now the tenth time that this Court has found Defendant in criminal contempt, spanning three separate motions, it is apparent that monetary fines have not, and will not, suffice to deter Defendant from violating this Court's lawful orders. THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby put on notice that if appropriate and warranted, future violations of its lawful orders will be punishable by incarceration. It's absolutely a loving win. That is judge-speak for "this is your last chance, fucker, next time you're going in a cell" and "hey, prosecutors, please do not be shy about asking Trump to be jailed for future violations, I'm totally on board with that and you don't have to be scared that it's overreach".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Some of you really need to up your antidepressant doses. This is a win! Just go "lol"!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:I'll go ahead and speak for all of us when I say our hope, celebration and all that has been permanently put on hold until we actually see the day because anything else is exhausting. This. There is a reason there is a trope of “oh ho, he’s never gonna wiggle out of this one” (does so anyway) everytime it feels like something will matter something comes along and says he’s fine. I welcome it if it happens but I really need to see it happen first to feel anything but “yeah sure ok”
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
I don't see how putting Trump in jail for contempt works logistically. He has to have Secret Service protection, so do those guys just go to jail too or what. My assumption is that if he were convicted and given jail time, they'd work out some sort of house arrest situation but for contempt of court I don't think a week's confinement in one of his luxury penthouses is a good deterrent.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:When a judge says this: This is basically what he said last time, though. Yes, I agree, the third strike may actually land and when it does I will celebrate but his previous ruling said: quote:"this Court will not tolerate willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment.” That is, fundamentally, the same warning. I have no method to escalate this beyond jail time, and small fines won't work, so jail. This hearing was already scheduled when that ruling came out, the statements had already been made before that warning was given. No one gave a drat about today's contempt hearing in general because we knew Donny wasn't going to go to jail for statements made before the previous warning. Rightfully so Imho, because that is how escalation works. Having the judge reiterate 'no, really, jail' and hit him with a thousand dollar fine doesn't really move the needle given that we already rightly expected the next escalation to be jail if he did it again. I'm not saying 'nothing matters'. Just that this, specifically did not matter. It was a thousand dollar fine and a reminder of what we already heard and understood last week. Caros fucked around with this message at 16:48 on May 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:I don't see how putting Trump in jail for contempt works logistically. He has to have Secret Service protection, so do those guys just go to jail too or what They'll either coordinate with, or actually become and function as, the guards I hope they get moved into guard housing, and one of the guards is mad at this enough to file a lawsuit about it, so we can revisit the only piece of Third Amendment jurisprudence we have
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
I can understand "I'll believe it when I see it" but also there isn't really much basis to say that this means nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:49
|
|