Reply With QuoteLone Gunman got his way then, and the thread moves here...
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Isn't it strange how most of the right wingers on this site have already discredited the judge, court system etc.....Originally Posted by Keyser Soze
Lone Gunman got his way then, and the thread moves here...
All he had to do was to not click on the thread
Cause and effect again
I think this case was one of the weakest against Trump - of course he fudged the books because he used campaign funds to pay off a porn star he had a one-night stand with... but I am not sure if it had come out it would have had any effect on the outcome of the election. This happened just after the Access Hollywood tapes came out where he bragged about sexually assaulting women - if that didn't shift the dial, I am not sure him having sex with a porn star would have, given his past history of misogyny and cheating on all his previous wives that republicans are happy to gloss over. I think a lot of people will think "so what?".
People who support or vote for Trump have every right to support and vote for him. That's democracy. But I wish they would own their decision and be honest about who he is. An ex US colleague of mine works in Child Safeguarding and Counselling of victims of child trafficking - she has worked with a lot victims and survivors of child trafficking and child abuse - many who have been victims of some of the rich and powerful (elites I guess you would call them) - from across the political and judicial spectrum. She worked with some who were trafficking to the US from Eastern Europe and ended up in Trumps modelling agency - trafficked for his agency or ended up there after being trafficked is a bit unclear. However, there is no doubt Trump has sexually assaulted underage girls - some under NDA's and afraid to speak out because they have been intimated and threated. One girl was willing to testify about being raped as a 14 year old. But she was intimated and withdrew the complaint - scared for her life.
And let's be honest - none of comes as a surprise to any of us, Trump has a history of really, really bad behaviours and morals. The reason I mention it is that we can all see Biden is a dithering old man who is getting worse and worse - and the democrats made a huge mistake by allowing him to run for a second term. But if you support Trump, just admit who he is and stop trying to take the moral high ground. He's a wrong-un.
Thanks for succinctly clarifying he can't get this appealed all the way to the supreme republican court.
There you go - straight into the Left v Right tribal bullshit without giving though to the process. I see that took a split second autopilot decision.
So you think that openly hating Trump, being heavily pro-Biden, from a pro-Biden famipy heavily campaigning for him, trussed up my a Democrat AG and in a Trump hating state looks objective, fair, and balanced? And no conflict of interest? That is a novel way of assessing things. There is nothing so blind as a man that cannot see. Or read, in Biden’s case.
The Democrats could have been clever and respected due process by choosing a state that was balanced between Republican v Democrat, had an AG that was independent (or at least looked independent), could have chosen a politically independent judge too. At least the optics would have carried a veneer of objectivity, without a clear conflict of interest. It could also have been done far earlier in the electoral cycle.
The way this was carried out confirmed my belief that the US is a mafia state - where Republicans and Democrats abuse the legal system to convict opponents. Had it been a Democrat such as Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton or Obama in the dock, I would have wanted the same approach - free of politics. But then again that is me. I like fairness. I like objectivity. I like a clean legal system and a fair fight. I like the elimination of conflicts of interest.
But for some that is clearly not the case. Tribal politics comes first, and principles, sensible economics and a fair legal system come after. Primitive tribalism reigns supreme in your head, and that of others.I think that what this thread shows is that such an unprincipled bent appears to also apply to quite a few on the Left (although this applies to Fascists). I note several Lefties on here that never change their Labour vote, are the same ones who are completely have their eyes closed and fingers in their ears.
When you look at Socialist countries and Mafia countries, the supporters always think it is fair to pin their opponents regardless of fairness or respect for law. In China Xinping eliminates his enemies this way. Communist Cuba the same. Latin American countries such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina have this dark variant of politics. It is the single argument that Hayek got correct - that behind all variants of Socialism is the desire for authoritarian control. It starts off as soft Left, and when you cannot force it upon people, the gang mentality (unions) appear, ostraciation of people with opposing views, imprisonment of opponents and corruption of the legal system. The soft Left have to go Hard Left and the Hard Left l, left unchecked move closer and closer to Communism, unless it is weeded out.
In this case the people that support the way this legal process has ocurred disregard democracy, liberty, innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial. As long as your political opponent gets taken down by whatever means, it is OK to bend the process and apply corruption. That says more about the people who support it than the people triggering the process itself.
Idiots on the Left. Idiots on the Right. Tribalist politics by the swivel-eyed, seeing enemies and opponents everywhere as if it were a field of war or sport, rather than a serious subject and debate to run countries. Baboons. Laughable.
I agree that the Stormy news probably wouldn't have had an impact. But that's with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the pussy tape seemed to be a nail in his coffin, and he even came out with an apology video - something that he bitterly regretted doing as it made him seem weak. As Hope Hicks said in her testimony, there was panic in the camp at that point that he was on the verge of losing his campaign.
The Democrats didn't choose the state.
The crime was in New York and was against NY state laws, so the Manhattan DA brought the case. It could only happen there, just as the nuclear secrets case is in Florida where Mar a Lago is, the Georgia racketeering one is in Georgia, and the Capitol case is in Washington DC.
Maybe Trump should have done the crime somewhere more favourable instead!
They are also conveniently ignoring the Jury selection process. The Judge didn't convict, the DA didn't convict, a jury of his peers did.
It’s funny how there are two threads on a past president yet hardly a word in respect of Sleepy’s foreign policy particularly the reluctance to broker peace talks in respect of conflicts they are indirectly involved in.
The Russia Collusion hoax is a case study in what happens when people don't understand how the media works, which is imperative when it comes to sourcing and interpreting data correctly.
You did well!
Trump makes it explicit: he wants the US Supreme Court to somehow prevent his sentencing in New York. pic.twitter.com/khV9owT0sc
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) June 2, 2024
You know for a fact that the Russian collusion story was a hoax?
Like I said, the media are very good at what they do.
You didn't answer my question
I knew early on it was a hoax because I read the source documents.
Oh well, in that case, it must have been a hoax. As you were.
Actually, fwiw, I never believed there was any collusion as such, but there’s strong evidence to suggest there was Russian interference that affected the end result. Are you denying that or just the collusion bit?
It was all ginned up and quite damaging as it exposed their entire modus operandi. Foreign countries are always running interference operations on their rivals, but that's another topic altogether.
No - it is the same topic.
https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/179...LhmySD2aRt-GNg
Trump Hater Crumbles as Piers Morgan Asks One Simple Question
PIERS MORGAN: “Why is Bill Clinton able to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office when he’s President and lie to the American people about it on national television? And why is he able to pay off Paula Jones $850,000, four times as much, five times as much as the Trump payment to Stormy Daniels, to get rid of a sexual harassment claim, again, while he’s President, and he has no criminal court recourse for that? Why is that deemed to be better than what happened with Trump and Stormy?”
FRANCESCA FIORENTINI: “I don’t think anyone is making that case, Piers.”
PIERS MORGAN: “No, I’m asking you, what’s the difference? What’s the difference?”
FRANCESCA FIORENTINI: “The difference is that he didn’t cook the books financially using his own, like using back channels in order to pay.”
PIERS MORGAN: “So paying somebody off who says you sexually harassed her, paying her nearly a million dollars while you’re the President of the United States and then having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lying about it, that’s fine because he’s a Democrat?”
FRANCESCA FIORENTINI: “Only the leftists in your mind are making that argument.”
Are you saying the various security services around the world are all best buddies with the leaders of every country?
No - I’m saying it is the same topic.
If that is true it would be the same in all cases, which it's not.
What are you wittering on about now?
There was no proven collusion between Trump and Putin to a standard that would allow a criminal conviction. But moving away from the strictly legal definition of collusion there was consistent collaboration, sharing of aims and intelligence and a convergence of ideas and interests. The result was that Russian state actors, and private troll factories directed by Putin allies, aided Trump and attacked Clinton throughout the 2016 election campaign.
That is not ‘another topic’. You claim ‘hoax’ whilst at the same time admitting Russian co-ordinated interventions in the election to aid Putin’s buddy Trump. In non-legal terms there is clearly collusion. But there was not enough evidence to meet the very high and legalistic bar needed for a US federal prosecution.
But what Russia did - what you admit they did (whilst falsely claiming that all governments do it - many don’t have the capacity, and they have to chose a side) - is heart and centre of the story, ‘the topic’.
I have no idea what ‘the same in all cases’ means.
Posting Permissions
