Jump to content

The Idiocracy of Donald J. Trump


chasfh

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The biggest concern I have in all this is that it's all going to be primarily about paying off the woman, and not about the treason. The Trump Daniels thing is almost the exact same as John Edwards using campaign funds to pay hush money to the woman he was having an affair with, and he got acquitted. Even Clinton Lewinsky was more or less swept under the table as nothing more than he was a bad widdle boy. If they decide to go after him Capone-style and fail, I don't know how they can think they can get him on the bigger stuff afterwards. At that point it will look legitimately political. So the indictments had better have some crimes that are more than about tawdry mushroom-headed sex.

You got one chance when you go after the king. One. Best not miss.

If I remember correctly the Edwards case ended in a hung jury. Not the best case scenario. I'm in the camp that would prefer to see the Georgia case go first. A little too quiet there for my taste 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Campaign finance violations.

That’s the crime. I couldn’t give a rats ass who Trump screwed with and when. Non-issue, except as it relates to the charge.

Who isn’t acknowledging this?

The John Edwards thing was about about campaign finance violations. He was acquitted, and his only penalty was that the Democrats spun him off into the wilderness. Here, if Trump gets acquitted, he ain't going nowhere but the 2024 Republican ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Campaign finance violations.

That’s the crime. I couldn’t give a rats ass who Trump screwed with and when. Non-issue, except as it relates to the charge.

Who isn’t acknowledging this?

Right, but it's not something that most Americans will take seriously.  It will be viewed as something that all the politicians do.  I wish they had one of the more serious cases come up first.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Also, I really wish they wouldn't keep referring to him having had sex with and then paying off a "porn star". First of all, it makes him look cool to a lot of people, including the people who need to be convinced that he's a disgusting rat. Secondly, there is nothing I can see about the story that turns specifically on her being a "porn star", as opposed to being any other ordinary woman, so that part is irrelevant to the alleged crime. It's part of every story about it because it's prurient, so it's sexy (in a journalistic way) and maintains interest, page views and thus ad revenue—but again, makes him look cool.

I think it makes him look like a pig and I would bet a small majority of adults agree.  However, I don't think most view it as a major criminal offense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It reminds me of the first impeachment where I think they had a weak case among all the other rumored more serious stuff.  I think they are going to screw this one up too.  They've got all kinds of legitimate stuff to nail him on and this one is just going to look political and not taken seriously.  

The one thing is this does make it easier on DOJ as those grand juries wrap up. The seal has perhaps been broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Did they not vote for her becaudse of that or did they just use it as an excuse for hating her in general.  

I think that the FBI mishandling of the case made a lot of low information voters believe there was some kind of fire behind the smoke that of course in the end wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Did they not vote for her becaudse of that or did they just use it as an excuse for hating her in general.  

I actually voted third party in large part because of that. It's small fries now, but trust me when I am in a role where we are told all the time we can be fired and arrested for mishandling classified info, yes.

 

image.jpeg.3088675a9adc02e0b8494b53ddd6ca39.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I actually voted third party in large part because of that. It's small fries now, but trust me when I am in a role where we are told all the time we can be fired and arrested for mishandling classified info, yes.

 

image.jpeg.3088675a9adc02e0b8494b53ddd6ca39.jpeg

I am also in a role where I am dealing with confidential data all the time.  I don't necessarily agree with the rules, but I follow them.  But then we had to work at home and it gets more complicated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, the DA in Manhattan can’t worry about what is going on elsewhere with crimes. If they see something they do something. There’s no rule that you if you aren’t convicted of X then you can’t be charged with Y. There’s also no rule that if one person wasn’t convicted of X then no one else should be charged with X.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

The thing is, the DA in Manhattan can’t worry about what is going on elsewhere with crimes. If they see something they do something. There’s no rule that you if you aren’t convicted of X then you can’t be charged with Y. There’s also no rule that if one person wasn’t convicted of X then no one else should be charged with X.  

And there's a tendency among pundits and observers to act like this is all being hashed out in a smoke filled room.

That isn't how any of this works. There are different entities looking into different possible crimes committed by the former President. When different entities can make a decision to bring a case or how they bring one is going to differ based on how long the investigation has happened, manpower, how much evidence needs to be examined, etc.

In this case, it just happens that that the Manhattan DA got there first. It is what it is

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know what Aleppo was prior to Johnson's slip. Honestly, I tuned a lot of politics/world affairs out from... oh... 2009-early 2016. Life was a lot happier then, easier to get along with people. I may try to go back to those days.

As for whether or not he should have been indicted. The fifth amendment says that is up to a Grand Jury, which gives the DA some plausible deniability here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, oblong said:

The thing is, the DA in Manhattan can’t worry about what is going on elsewhere with crimes. If they see something they do something. There’s no rule that you if you aren’t convicted of X then you can’t be charged with Y. There’s also no rule that if one person wasn’t convicted of X then no one else should be charged with X.  

Yes, you are right.  I am just concerned with how it is going to be viewed and I am disappointed that this one came up first.  The other cases might all get slowed down enough where nothing happens before November, 2024.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I didn't know what Aleppo was prior to Johnson's slip. Honestly, I tuned a lot of politics/world affairs out from... oh... 2009-early 2016. Life was a lot happier then, easier to get along with people. I may try to go back to those days.

As for whether or not he should have been indicted. The fifth amendment says that is up to a Grand Jury, which gives the DA some plausible deniability here.

I didn't know what it was either.  And I agree that life is better without politics.  I figured I'd get away from it when Trump lost, but he and the stupid clowns that surround him just keep coming up over and over.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stein and Johnson combined for over 270,000 votes in Florida, more than double Trump's margin of victory.

Stein had 51,000 votes in Michigan. Almost 5 times Trump's margin of victory.

Stein had 31,000 votes in Wisconsin. Roughly 1.5 times Trump's margin of victory.

Stein had 49,000 votes in Pennsylvania. 5,000 more than Trump's margin of victory.

If these Jill Stein voters would have voted for Hillary, Roe would not be overturned, thousands fewer people die from COVID, and there would have been no insurrection. Hope these third party voters accomplished whatever it was they were looking to accomplish. 

Edited by Motown Bombers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Stein and Johnson combined for over 270,000 votes in Florida, more than double Trump's margin of victory.

Stein had 51,000 votes in Michigan. Almost 5 times Trump's margin of victory.

Stein had 31,000 votes in Wisconsin. Roughly 1.5 times Trump's margin of victory.

Stein had 49,000 votes in Pennsylvania. 5,000 more than Trump's margin of victory.

If these Jill Stein voters would have voted for Hillary, Roe would not be overturned, thousands fewer people die from COVID, and there would have been no insurrection. Hope these third party voters accomplished whatever it was they were looking to accomplish. 

If Hillary was a better candidate, she would have won. Don't blame this on people who couldn't stomach her. Also, I talked several people in Florida off of Trump and onto Johnson. You don't know how many of those people would have voted Trump one on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edman85 said:

If Hillary was a better candidate, she would have won. Don't blame this on people who couldn't stomach her. Also, I talked several people in Florida off of Trump and onto Johnson. You don't know how many of those people would have voted Trump one on one.

That's fine. I hope you and others who voted for 3rd parties who had 0% chance of winning accomplished whatever it is you were looking to accomplish. That's fine you couldn't stomach her. Guess you can stomach Trump more. You admitted you voted for Johnson because of Hillary's emails. It apparently wasn't even anything about Johnson that won your vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they weren't trying to accomplish anything.  They were voting for who they thought was the best candidate.  If Clinton was a better candidate she wouldn't have lost to a clown.  I was going to vote for Sanders until I fould out that Massachusetts doesn't count write-ins.  

Edited by Tiger337
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Maybe they weren't trying to accomplish anything.  They were voting for who they thought was the best candidate.  If Clinton was a better candidate she wouldn't have lost to a clown.  I was going to vote for Sanders until I fould out that Massachusetts doesn't count write-ins.  

Well Edman said he voted for Johnson because of Hillary's emails. He 100% knew that Johnson was not going to win so what exactly was the point of the vote? What exactly made Johnson a better candidate other than he wasn't Hillary or Trump? 

Massachusetts doesn't matter so I guess it's ok to throw away your vote there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      284
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    Hinchman11
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...