tuscl

Mark this day

gammanu95
My casual drinking is your alcohol poisoning.
Thursday, May 30, 2024 9:43 PM
It is not surprising, but it is still incredibly frustrating that Donald Trump was found guilty by a deeply prejudiced NYC jury. With a series of bullshit made-up crimes, a judge who is biased and compromised beyond measure, in a district who would rather see 100 muggers go free than single MAGA hat in public, there was no way this trial could have had a better outcome than a mistrial. This is the darkest day for America as a democratic republic. I want democrats and leftists to remember this: you guys started this. Two bullshit weaponized impeachments. Lawfare to torment and bankrupt your opponents and interfere with elections. This is how banana republics begin. I hope Putin nukes NYC the day after Trump leaves. Fuck 'em, the USA would be better off without them.

89 comments

  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    This is like reffing a subway series with an all Bronx umpire crew. The fix was always in. If Trump goes to jail, he's going to get Clintonized.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    Lock him up
  • gammanu95
    •
    a month ago
    ^demented old man thinks it's okay to imprison a person convicted of non-violent crimes
  • gammanu95
    •
    a month ago
    Trump's website for donations has crashed from the surge of logins
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    ^ Lock him up LOL I’m in your head loser
  • misterorange
    •
    a month ago
    ^^ I'll mail him a check if necessary.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    Welcome to the world of political candidates working to jail the opposition. It will not stop with Trump (or Republicans for that matter). A dangerous precedent has been set.
  • Jascoi
    •
    a month ago
    i DONT like trump. but he was RAILROADED. and will be a better choice than sleepy joe.
  • Muddy
    •
    a month ago
    I think big picture it's a good thing. People are finally waking up to how the fix is in and how deep all this corruption is. I don't think New York and New Jersey are going to go for Trump this November but it's going to be VERY close. There's an uprising right going on now around here, people have had it. It's amazing to see though first hand.
  • motorhead
    •
    a month ago
    “Welcome to the world of political candidates working to jail the opposition.” — I do not like Trump. But let the above statement sink in. It’s chilling. Is America becoming the Soviet Union, or Cuba or China?
  • WiseToo
    •
    a month ago
    Biden's handling of the Israel - Gaza war, the handling of the college protest demonstrations and the illegal migrant situation in NYC will have a far greater effect on NYC voters than the Trump decision. They may just not vote or vote for some third party candidate, but I doubt they will go for Trump. And as NYC goes, so goes the state.
  • rickdugan
    •
    a month ago
    As motorhead rightly said, to see the criminal justice system weaponized in this way is indeed chilling. This is a sad day for our democracy. Remember, what can happen to me, can happen to thee, when the shoe is on the other foot. Part of what has always ensured a peaceful transfer of power to newly elected presidents was the restraint shown by new administrations in avoiding seeking revenge against political rivals. When a country's leaderhas to worry about what his rivals will do when he no longer has power, he is tempted to try to keep power. It's why every dictator tries to stay in control for life, fighting tooth and nail and even committing atrocities when necessary. Until now we have been blessedly free of this concern, but I fear that what is happening with Trump will set the stage for a future President to try to stay in office in perpetuity.
  • founder
    •
    a month ago
    Anyone who thinks an past president of the United States of America, a world leader in all things freedom, should be locked up had better find another country. Because if we lock Trump up, America will begin a rapid demise into a uniparty-government-ruled-separation-of-classes banana republic.
  • shailynn
    •
    a month ago
    I don’t mean to sound like a pussy but I don’t ever recall being “scared” for an election. I fear some bad stuff is going to go down in November regardless of who wins. There’s probably going to be riots somewhere, and I hope it’s not on the same scale as the George Floyd riots of 2020.
  • Mrsuntan
    •
    a month ago
    My advice is that if you support Trump, put ALL of your money into DJT stock. Please.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    In advance of possible election riots, the idiot mayor of Boston is talking about not enforcing property crimes up to and including breaking and entering with property damage (aka BLM riots). Ammo is going to skyrocket on this news. Thankfully I'm stocked on that, and alcohol.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    It’s really not a matter of what any of us think, Mr Trump’s behavior and actions, made it impossible for there to be any other outcome to this fiasco, the prosecution may very well have been political, but making enemies intentionally, is what leads to outcomes of this nature. If you believe that this man didn’t bring it on himself by his own actions than you folks are really deluding yourselves.
  • skibum609
    •
    a month ago
    Making enemies intentionally? Like you and Gam? Do you actually believe you posted something that ridiculous? Making enemies on purpose makes it ok? Delusional beyond all belief. Just an awful post. delude away that was beyond awful. Making enemies on purpose makes it ok. Wow.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @twentyfive - I get that don't like him, but "he brought this upon himself" is like saying the rapist saying "she shouldn't have dressed like that." They've been going after Trump since before he got elected. AGs openly campaigning on getting him for a crime to be determined, and with the way they stretched statutes of limitations and definitions of predicate crimes, this total was so ridiculous that my most avid progressive friends are shocked. This is going to escalate. I said the same thing when Clinton was impeached. All the rejoicing is extremely short sighted.
  • rattdog
    •
    a month ago
    this year will be the most important one on many fronts. this year 40 countries will be holding presidential elections. and for most of these countries, including ours, it's trending towards a direction that many will become way even more miserable than they are at this moment.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    It has nothing to do with me liking or not liking him, if he had kept his big mouth shut, and not intentionally picked a fight with the judge, who was quite clearly lenient despite his arrogant behavior this outcome probably would have been much different. I am not happy to see a former president in this position but he is solely responsible for his own behavior and his own actions, it’s a reckoning that’s been a long time coming, and it’s an unfortunate thing to put the country through. If Mr. Trump cared about anyone other than himself this would never have happened. Don’t make me laugh by telling me he is getting raped because of his dressing provocatively, he’s creating this chaos because he believes he is above the law.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    ^ Mouthing off isn't a crime. The judge repeatedly ruled in favor of the prosecution and gave them broad leeway to convict Trump (can't agree on the predicate crime, anyone?) Trump's crime was winning the presidency in 2016. Everything else has been a pretext. Don't be blind, or act surprised when Republican AGs and prosecutors start feeling their oats.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    ^ I’m not trying to convince anyone just expressing my own opinion. I have less than no interest in the debate, the simple fact is twelve people on a jury of his peers has had their say, you can respect the rule of law or not. It’s not very complicated.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    ^ Rule of law also includes an appeals process. My "opinion" is backed up by the nature of the indictments and trials.
  • sinclair
    •
    a month ago
    ^The Jews also said Jesus was guilty of crimes and sentenced him to death.
  • JamesSD
    •
    a month ago
    USA! USA! USA! God bless America!
  • JamesSD
    •
    a month ago
    Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time
  • JamesSD
    •
    a month ago
    (A Person)'s guilty of a very, very serious crime. (They) should not be allowed to run for president. -Donald J Trump (paraphrased)
  • gammanu95
    •
    a month ago
    Anyone who has less than no interest in the political and legal ramifications of twisting the US judicial system to punish enemies where no real crime exists should take Founder's advice and GTFO. I always knew you hated America, and you have just proven it. All patriots who cherish free elections and representative government have a deeply vested interest in what happened today and how it the ramifications play out.
  • uniquename
    •
    a month ago
    Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
  • Nobodygtyu
    •
    a month ago
    Political views aside, it's so embarrassing that grown men slurp and simp for a politician.
  • JupiterHotCakes
    •
    a month ago
    Wow this thread has really jumped the shark if we’re now comparing Donald J Trump to Jesus H Christ. WTF! The fact that he is still considered a viable political candidate in 2024 means we’re truly living in the upside down, folks. He tried to fucking steal an election and get his VP to rip up the constitution to get it done! The dude can’t even turn a profit on a casino but we’re gonna let him tear our country apart so he doesn’t to go down in the history books as a one-termer? I’m no Biden lover but I’d just as soon vote for the dead corpse of Bill Walton before I let him have the keys to the White House again. Stop crying about it being a dark day for democracy and stick your faces in the tits of a hot and deserving dancer (who most likely ain’t voting for him either).
  • skibum609
    •
    a month ago
    I hate Donald Trump, but not the people supporting him. I hate progressives and the people who vote with them and see none of them as Americans. The open border policy people whining about democracy are stupid hypocrites who are too stupid to realize they are the danger. Sinclair you are one fucking scumbag. You must be a Muslim. The Romans sentenced Jewish Jesus to death and after he died some stupid fucks created a new religion. Go fuck mohammed.
  • WiseToo
    •
    a month ago
    ^At every Passover festival the Roman governor could set free a prisoner chosen by the crowd. Pilate asked the crowd whether they wanted Barabbas or Jesus set free. The chief priest persuaded the crowd to ask Pilate to set Barabbas free and have Jesus put to death. They shouted for Pilate to crucify him. When Pilate saw that a riot might break out, he washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, “I am not responsible for the death of this man!” The whole crowd answered, “Let the responsibility for his death fall on us and on our children!” Then Pilate set Barabbas free and handed Jesus over to be crucified. (Matthew 27:1-2, 11-26)
  • Pussylicker2
    •
    a month ago
    If Trump goes to jail, he'll be "suicided" like Jeffery Epstein, Vince Foster, and others.
  • TheSingularity
    •
    a month ago
    One can only hope. Trump was bad for the republican party. He's now made us the party of criminals the way we always said the dems were. And there's still three other cases that he is more likely to be convicted for than he was here. Don't commit crimes if you don't want to be a convicted felon. Would love to see this be the catalyst for my party to clean house of him, mtg, boebert, eyc and get back to traditional conservatism like that of McCain and the Bushes.
  • Jmanskald
    •
    a month ago
    All you illiterates need to take this shit to the Politics forum and leave the rest of us to slobber on titties in peace.
  • skibum609
    •
    a month ago
    A conviction by a Bronx jury in a case presided over by a democrat and brought by a democrat for political purposes only is not a conviction in the normal use of the word. This is Dreyfus in our country, brought by the same ignorant bigots, just for slightly different reasons. Watching the Democratic party march in the streets supporting the Palestinian terrorist rats makes much more sense now against this backdrop.
  • 5footguy
    •
    a month ago
    "traditional conservatism like that of McCain and the Bushes" 😂 The irony of calling someone a criminal for paying off a hooker and supporting a guy who invaded a country on the basis of "WMDs" ... do you have no self-awareness or are you just trolling?
  • Studme53
    •
    a month ago
    Historic day yesterday. When future scholars write about the rise and fall of the United States, yesterday will be cited as a significant event like Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon and Kristallnacht.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    If he gets jail time, the secret service goes with him. Safest prisoner ever.
  • gammanu95
    •
    a month ago
    This bell, once rung, cannot be unrung. Eisenhower stopped Nixon from suing when Kennedy stole the election from him. The democrat party has no such great patriot and statesman when Gore sued Bush in 2000. The Firector of the FBI confirmed that Hillary committed felonies and other crimes in her midhandling of classified information. Trump wanted to prosecute, but his advisors warned against starting a cycle of prosecutorial retaliation, which would begin the banana republic decline of the United States. The democrat party is so jealous and power- hungry that they went all in. They are the Fascists, prosecuting your political opposition is textbook Fascism. Republicans in Congress, state offices, and district attorneys, need to stop being polite and seeking comity. The only way the Democrat party will understand the gravity of what they've just done will be if they get their hands burned by the same iron. The gloves are already off.
  • shailynn
    •
    a month ago
    Collection of Editorials in response to yesterday’s events. [view link]
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    ^ Almost no one else opinion I trust less than a newspaper"s editorial board. Maybe back in the day when they were the arbiters of the news, they meant something. Now with so many other sources they're just another voice in the crowd.
  • iknowbetter
    •
    a month ago
    I agree with Lemmy. I’m no fan of Trump, but these were all “trumped up” BS charges for really insignificant misdemeanor offenses. No DA would ever prosecute an anonymous citizen for these “crimes”. The fact that our political / legal system is able to be weaponized to defeat a political opponent is really scary.
  • minnow
    •
    a month ago
    g95, & ikb +1
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    I disagree that no DA would ever prosecute these charges. They’d tack them on to charges for the underlying crime as additional leverage to get a plea. They might even prosecute solely without charging the underlying crime, but they’d plead them down to a misdemeanor on one count and a fine. No plea was going to happen here, so you wind up going all the way to trial on all 34 counts. Same was true for the E Jean Carroll and Trump Organization fraud cases. Ordinarily, those would have been settled for far less than the eventual judgment because the risks of losing were so high.
  • jackslash
    •
    a month ago
    Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts. He received a fair trial, and 12 average citizens found him guilty. The convicted felon Donald Trump is starting to pay for his crimes. He lost the lawsuit against him by E. Jean Carroll, charging he had defamed her by denying he sexually assaulted her. Trump also faces felony charges in the Georgia election interference case, the January 6 case and the classified documents case. The US government got the top secret documents back only by raiding Mar-a-Lago. Why was he so intent on keeping classified documents? Was he going to sell them to Putin or was he just going to give them to his Russian master? Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up! And throw away the key!
  • gammanu95
    •
    a month ago
    ^anyone who feels this way cannot be recognized as a fellow American.
  • 5footguy
    •
    a month ago
    A "fair trial" presided over by a judge who donated to Biden's campaign. It was a paltry amount, but any amount means the judge should absolutely not be presiding over this case. From a BBC article: "Soon after Trump was arraigned, records emerged showing Justice Merchan had donated a total of $35 to Democrats during the 2020 election. That included a $15 donation to Joe Biden's campaign, NBC News reported, as well as $10 donations to groups called the "Progressive Turnout Project" and "Stop Republicans". New York state, following the American Bar Association's guidance, prohibits judges from making contributions to political organisations or candidates. Even though the donations were ill-advised, they would be "viewed as trivial, especially given the small sums", Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University, told the BBC. Justice Merchan did not recuse himself over the donations." Most of you are incapable of objective introspection, but just pretend that you're not boot licking cowards, and ask yourself, if a judge presided over a case against Joe Biden, and the judge had contributed $1 to Trump's campaign, and $1 to "Stop Democrats", would you think it's fair?
  • CJKent_band
    •
    a month ago
    This day is marked as the day in which Trump’s conviction on all counts in his first criminal trial affirms the principle on which the United States was supposedly founded — that everyone is equal under the law and that no one, not even a billionaire and former and possibly future POTUS , should enjoy impunity or immunity. :D
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    a month ago
    Why be upset? His bought and paid for SCOTUS will overturn it anyway.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    ^ Was the SCOTUS bought and paid for when they pulled rights to abortion and gay marriage out of thin air? Or only when they rule in a way you don't like?" 1. The judge did not allow the then-head of the FEC to testify that no campaign laws were broken. 2. The judge allowed the prosecution to claim in their closing argument that violations of election laws were proven to be broken, they were not. 3. The judge did not allow the Trump org CFO to testify 4. Several jurors committed perjury about their neutrality. 5. The judge would not consider a change of venue in a deep blue part of a deep blue city. 6. The judge himself contributed to the Biden campaign (small amounts but still shows a sharp partisan lean), and whose daughter raises money for Democratic candidates. 7. The judge allowed salacious testimony that had no bearing on the alleged violation. This trial was more predetermined than professional wrestling. Trump's fundraising website crashed from the eagerness to donate. I wonder when Democrats will be tried in West Virginia. It's the norm now.
  • gammanu95
    •
    a month ago
    The only way to limit and undo the damage that the democrat party has done by maliciously prosecuting the a former Republican president will be to respond in kind. On his (or her) second day in office, the first thing the next Republican president should do is have Hillary Clinton indicted in Mississippi or Florida grand juries for her violation of the espionage act and Crooked Joe indicted for his unlawful storage of federal documents. Hunter, Garland, anyone else they can reign in should also be charged for all of their crimes and malfeasances. The NY Bar should be sued and forced to disbar Merchan and that DA Fatty Braggy for their part in this disaster. The only think I would still consider to be a step too far, a step the democrat party has already taken, is too interfere with a presidential election by attempting to imprison the leading opposition candidate. I want you never-Trumps, blue-no-matter-whos, democrats, and liberals to just stop and consider that last sentence (the progressive and leftists already support such state Fascism): The government of a "democracy with free elections" is attempting attempting to convict and imprison the leading opposition candidate. The trial was held in a government loyalist city, with a loyalist prosecutor, before a loyalist judge. The loyalist judge prevented the defense from calling in witnesses and testimony that could have exonerated him. The prosecutor was not required to disclose which actual laws were broken. Most assumed the conviction was a foregone conclusion. This wasn't Russia or Iran. This was the United States of America where a deeply unpopular president with low odds of re-election has had his justice department and party allies in major cities change laws and erase constitutional freedoms to ensure that his chief opponent will not be able to run against him. How depraved must you to be to sanction that?
  • Book Guy
    •
    a month ago
    I see so many false statements asserted as though they are fact that I am sure Fox News informs this thread. Please, recognize that the combination of "Fox" next to "News" is an oxymoron.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    a month ago
    @Puddy_Tat: "Was the SCOTUS bought and paid for when they pulled rights to abortion and gay marriage out of thin air? Or only when they rule in a way you don't like?" SCOTUS did not pull the right to abortion out of thin air. What they did was determine that Roe V Wade was based on the wrong interpretation of law. I read the decision and, as much as it pains me to say, they had a point. A much better defense of the right to abortion would be a religious freedom one. Unless you're not fond of Jews, that is.
  • Book Guy
    •
    a month ago
    On the subject of abortion, I think the American Left got it wrong back in the 1970s when they attached it to privacy and personal bodily integrity rights. They could perhaps have done better long-term if they had, instead, presented abortion as a business opportunity for small doctor-led clinics nation-wide, and had somehow attached the right to making a profit off of small businesses to the right for a doctor to engage in a profitable medical practice in whatever manner he would choose, unfettered by over-reaching government influence. Make it more like cosmetic surgery for ethically questionable aims, where the perceived "wrong" of an act takes back seat to the potential profit from it.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @george - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" isn't a great grounds for codifying abortion. For one, the Christian Bible doesn't say much about it. Some take the line of John the Baptist stirring in his mother's womb in joy at 6 months as a condemnation of abortion, but someone who believes abortion is murder isn't starting a ban at 6 months. Islam is surprisingly liberal, permitting it up to 20 weeks, but Muslim countries tend to forbid abortion well before that. I know some strains of Judaism (I don't know the source) say it's at the first breath. What if a religion requires brutal animal or even human sacrifice, like voodoo with the loa? It doesn't get protection. I don't know which amendment or document would hold a right to abortion, but as far as I'm concerned, the abortion argument should be strictly on bioethical grounds, when the fetus has a working CNS (~14 weeks). The brain is when we decided if a born individual is "dead" or "alive," so it's consistent. That's around where Europe places the line, as well, so this isn't just me speaking. When Democrats had 60 in the Senate under Obama, I wonder why they didn't codify it then. My point being, live by the Supreme Court, die by the Supreme Court. Instead the Dems are all sour grapes, talking about packing the court or reshaping the rules...because if it isn't the tool of progressives, something has to be awry, right?
  • Book Guy
    •
    a month ago
    Though I'm a Progressive (not necessarily a Democrat) I nevertheless can concur with a good deal of what Puddy_Tat just said. The Supreme Court is definitely not supposed to be the "tool" of either Left or Right, and I do see a LOT of left-leaning complaints that the court can no longer be relied on for their agenda. Well duh, and honestly that's a good thing. I want that agenda, but I want it legislated. Just trying to pipe up with cross-the-aisle style agreement whenever I can manage it. :)
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    a month ago
    @Puddy_Tat: "'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' isn't a great grounds for codifying abortion." SCOTUS and other courts have made lots of rulings concerning the establishment clause. Just as it doesn't permit "respecting" a religion, it also forbids *restricting* one, except as regards the violations of others' rights, e.g. human sacrifice and the other straw men you raised. Judaism explicitly places the mother's health and safety over the unborn, and abortion is definitely an option.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @george - the safety and health of the mother is less than 10% of abortions, and something that all but the most adamant pro-lifers would allow. It doesn't speak to the majority of abortions which are elective and 1st trimester, and that's why I consider myself effectively pro-choice. With respect to Americans' surveyed beliefs, I'm square in the middle and aligned with the Western European social democracies. Human sacrifice is an extreme example to demonstrate that you can't just slap the label "religion" onto anything and get it allowed. The Satanic Temple is trying to say abortion is a sacrament of their religion, but no one takes it as a sincerely-held religion--it's a giant trolling of uptight Christians. I don't see any Jewish group lobbying for legal abortion on the grounds that it constitutes a religious practice. Don't know what you're seeing in the religion argument that no one else seems to be. Besides, the court has not restricted abortion, it has placed it in the hands of the states. While some states' practices, like rewarding people who rat out pregnant women crossing state lines to get an abortion, scare the ever living fuck out of me (it's straight-up KGB shit), it appears to be in its proper place, constitutionally. So it's not going anywhere, anytime soon. Some people say Roe v. Wade should have stood because of stare decisis, but Dred Scott and Plessy stood longer than Roe v. Wade did and got overturned regardless. Realistically it'll take a massive, sustained shift of public opinion (not the trench warfare of today) that changes the composition of both Congress and the Supreme Court to restore legal abortion nationwide.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    Not sure how this conversation came around to abortion, but Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision with the majority opinion written by a republican appointed justice. It certainly was controversial, but it’s been the law forever or almost forever for all of us reading this post. Should’ve left it alone.
  • founder
    •
    a month ago
    Abortion was never a law, it was a right based on the court's opinion. Congress should try to make it a law. Why do you think they haven't already?
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    Too bad most of you reading this post can’t remember what happened prior to the 7-2 ruling in Roe v Wade. If you want to know how it came about you should look into how abortions were performed prior. It was terrible and you can make all of the laws restricting abortion you like, it’s still not going to stop desperate women from getting pregnant and aborting their fetus, much smarter to regulate it and have performed in a safe environment rather than the back alley butchering of women, that was pretty common back then.
  • motorhead
    •
    a month ago
    “It would was terrible and you can make all of the laws restricting abortion you like, it’s still not going to stop desperate women from getting pregnant and aborting their fetus” — Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. 😊 The same could be said for gun control laws. The left clamors for restrictive gun control laws after every mass shooting yet no law will stop the desperate criminal from obtaining one.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    @Motorhead Big difference desperate woman aren’t criminals, unlike those folks buying a gun illegally, and there is a legal path to buying a firearm.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    @founder Roe v Wade affirmed the right to privacy, and basically stated that a woman has the right to consult with an advisor and receive treatment without government interference, this recent reversal, Dodd, claims the government has the right to refuse privacy to women, and intervene in what was previously allowed. The main problem here is the state taking away women’s rights to privacy, and even worse some states seem to have authorized private parties to intervene, reeks of big brotherism and empowering private parties to act as unauthorized state agents.
  • Studme53
    •
    a month ago
    I personally am ok with abortion, especially for mothers and fathers who can’t/ won’t support their offspring. I don’t want to pay for your kid! That being said, there are sincere people with valid points on both sides of the abortion issue. I understand people who are against the snuffing of a helpless life. And it’s not rare, abortions are happening on a massive scale. Approximately 30% of AA pregnancies are terminated by abortion. The reality is, if fetuses could vote, Joe Biden would be banning every abortion.
  • Book Guy
    •
    a month ago
    I'm OK with abortion too, though I know I will never have one. Early-term abortions, world-wide, are very common, to the point that I think it's fair to say they're being relied on as a form of birth-control. The prevalence of the idea that any abortion is some horrible desecration of human life is a mid-20th-century invention, propagated mostly by Evangelicals with specific political aims in mind, not motivated by a belief in those lives' sanctity or desire to protect those lives. Look to the history of the anti-abortion movement, you'll see plenty of minor opponents with very little sway, generally viewed as cranks and fringe nut-cases, until Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell and similar realized they could galvanize White rural voters into supporting the party of pro-Big-Business and anti-Labor to the benefit of the Republicans. How else to move a starving coal miner into the self-destructive behavior of voting in favor of trickle-down economic policies and supply-side stimulus and tax-cuts for the rich, other than to create moral imperatives and hook them to his religious life? I advocate for the law following teachings such as in the Bible on the subject of abortion -- stating practically nothing.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    As far as abortion, it seems to be more the result of stupid unprotected sex (including the pull-out method) than it is using as a method of birth control. Even a medical abortion has unpleasant side effects, physical and psychological. The "privacy" argument from Roe was always shoddy. Constitutionally, it's meant to be in the states, as fucked up as some of the consequences have been. If America wants legal abortion, they should vote in enough pro-choice congresspeople to pass a law...then, it'll take a pro-choice majority on the SCOTUS, which will take a generation and likely making the Republican party itself pro-choice. I used to be a hardcore pro-lifer who believed anyone participating in abortion should be charged with Murder 1. A lot has changed since, and while I'm "morally" pro-life (I have donated to crisis pregnancy centers in the past), I'm "legally" pro-choice for reasons like the biomedical determination I mentioned earlier, the rat-out-thy-neighbor we're seeing in red states, the difficulty and invasiveness of policing women's menstrual cycles (hint: we could double the number of police and detectives and STILL not do it effectively), and the functional barriers in place to determining that an abortion was necessary for the life of the mother. For one thing, medically, ANY pregnancy for a woman under 16 is INHERENTLY a health risk. I don't know why it gets delayed when there's near-unanimous medical agreement on it. I also think there's a backlash against the Biden administration shoving abortion and its medical/"privacy" agenda up our ass, like trying to force Catholic hospitals and pro-life physicians to participate in abortion. If you say "don't like abortion, don't have one," why not "don't want to perform an abortion, you don't have to participate in one"? Bringing this full circle, @book guy, that alliance of Chamber of Commerce Republicans and the religious right is fracturing. Republicans are becoming the working class party while the Democrats are increasingly driven by the wealthy. Progressive principles are a class signal as much as anything--it isn't urban blacks that want de-policing and the ending of gifted programs. Democrats are no longer hiding their contempt for "bitter clingers" and "deplorables" known, for people who want traditional families, shoot guns, and attend churches that don't wave pride flags. I make good bank, own property and stock, and would benefit from some Dem priorities like repealing the SALT deduction (the ultimate affluent blue-stater handout). But I'm a proud class traitor, and shit scared of what'll happen if this lawfare gets validated. For the first time in my life, I'm not only voting for Trump, but donating four figures to his campaign. Hey, it's cheaper than Bidenflation cutting my effective net worth by 20%.
  • Book Guy
    •
    a month ago
    @Puddy_Tat You make fair points. I agree, the privacy-argument was thin at best. (Calls to mind the commerce-clause argument on a lot of other subjects.) And I agree, the Dems have begun to become (have completely become?) the party of "elites" and have largely lost the Labor movement, while the Repubs have begun to become (completely?) the party of the working class. Excellent expression that encapsulates a lot of these ideas, "Chamber of Commerce Republicans." Glad to know that you understand what I'm talking about, at least. :) "Morally" pro-life and "legally" pro-choice could be my stance, too, except there are some people I think need to be aborted but that's another point. And the whole "if you don't like ... don't have" and what you mention that it implies ("don't have to participate in") is not offensive to me, but wasn't what I was getting at. My quip "I know I'll never have [an abortion]" was just a point that I'd personally never have an abortion because I'm male, har har get it making a funny. I don't like the way you use the word "progressive" (the specific policies you've just mentioned aren't ones that I espouse at all, but I call myself a "proud Progressive" for a lot of other reasons; then again, it's possible that there's no way to have category A without category B, so maybe I'm contradicting myself, but that's a different discussion). I'm sorry you'd vote for Trump and send him money, but you make the fairest points I've heard lately in favor of that direction. A level of revulsion at the available Democrats (often justifiable) to me isn't (yet) enough to justify support of the insurrectionist criminal. But I do get what you're getting at. Maybe they'll both accidentally die ... or get teleported to Mars ... ?
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @book guy - thank you, you seem like one of the more thoughtful people here on any side of the spectrum. I would note that there's also a disconnect between labor union leaders and their rank and file; leaders are still loyal to the Democratic party while the Democrats' openly shitting on their values is pushing them into the Republican camp. We're seeing this most strongly with black and Hispanic voters, both of whom are more culturally conservative than whites. It's not because of Trump's economic policies like his tax cut (which I was dead set against, as I think the national debt is about to become a big problem...1/3 of our debt is coming due in the next year and it'll have to get financed with higher-interest debt...Yellen is playing a dangerous short term game; this year we will spend more on debt service than all national defense). Then why? It's because Trump is the first to acknowledge they've been ratfucked by globalism and free trade, which was the predominant ideology from Clinton through Obama. Their jobs have been shipped abroad, often in the name of environmentalists. They get condescended to with phrases like "learn how to make solar panels." Yeah, you're going to trade a $120,000 a year petroleum engineering job for $40,000 a year labor. Good rule not to talk to people like they're retarded. We're also seeing the feminization of the Democratic party. They're becoming Nurse Ratched's, taking away freedom in the name of security, security, security. Hence why Trump's gain among blacks and Hispanics is almost entirely among MEN, who are hard wired to want risk and gain. And on both, we're seeing the teacher's union under Randi Weingarten responsible for years of learning loss and child mental illness up to and including suicide. What she has done is utterly criminal. I'd like to know how you, personally, define "progressive" and why you embrace the label. The ones I see calling themselves "progressive" (the Squad, Bernie Sanders), the "democratic socialists" (there's no such thing, socialism = force) are essentially Marxists biding their time. What do I see they stand for? (1) Diminishing of our role in the world, (2) viewing any wealth in the country as theirs, on loan to the businessmen and professionals who made it, and wanting to confiscate it to fund their schemes, (3) putting the federal government at the center of American lives, (4) self-loathing, believing that America is fundamentally a force for exploitation and acting accordingly (the whole BLM movement among other things), (5) contempt for law and tradition (we've lost exponentially more freedom under Biden than Trump), (6) glorification of the street criminal and persecution of self-defense, like we're seeing in major cities) and especially (7) division of Americans by interest groups and pitting them one another. This can only end in disaster. Note, I'm not a down-the-line Republican, I'm pro-choice, VERY pro-birth-control (make it available like vaccines or Sudafed, behind the counter), I don't think straight white Christian males are the most persecuted individuals in America, and would raise some taxes. But voting Democrat means 1-7 above. Note 2, I do not like Trump. He is not particularly effective at passing conservative priorities, he is unfocused and narcissistic, he is reactive and can't pick his fights, he is indisputably of low personal character. But the crazier accusations--that he's a Russian agent, that he committed an "insurrection" that could have never kept him in power and in fact he told them to stop and go home, that he would reinstate slavery (like a lot of black people believe), lack merit to me. I'm enjoying our discussion, Book Guy. Interested in your definition of progressive...I just see what people out there that call themselves progressives are doing. Logging off for the night. Peace.
  • JamesSD
    •
    a month ago
    Regarding Abortion, you realistically would need 60 votes in the Senate to actually pass it as law. There's no way to sneak it through in reconciliation like some stuff that only needs a simple majority and can't be filibustered.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    @founder. I didn’t say abortion was a law. I said Roe v Wade was THE law for 50 years. That is also part of the answer to your question of why congress never passed an abortion law. First, they didn’t need to. Roe v Wade was precedent. Second, despite being probably the most supported right across political lines with 65-70% support, you have candidates who can’t take a middle position and agree on legislation. From both sides.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    On the case itself we have 75 posts. Complaints from supporters of Mar A Lardo? Selective prosecution. Biased judge. Blue venue. What has nobody said? HE DIDNT DO IT. Maybe this was a Jay Z 99 Problems case “you were doing 55 in a 54” but there weren’t facts in dispute. The jury came back quickly. That’s what happens when you don’t defend the case. @puddy - where is your source for Weisselberg “not being allowed” to testify. I’ve seen Lara Trump say this too. The defense didn’t call him to testify. How is that on the judge?
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @Hank - "Mar A Lardo," way to show your objectivity. If it's not a crime, just twisted into one on dubious merits, does it matter if he did it or not? Celebrities pay hush money all the damn time. Weisselberg was slimed until he wouldn't be seen as reliable. I'll admit it's according to Trump's legal team (Emil Bove), but procedural hurdles to it were everywhere. No less than CNN liberal Elie Honig said if it were anyone else, this wouldn't have gone to trial. All this wasn't a finger on the scales of justice, it was a whole fist.
  • Book Guy
    •
    a month ago
    @Puddy_Tat (quick point -- I've seen your inquiry and your 7 points, etc., just don't have time to put together anything articulate right now)
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    I’m not objective. I can’t stand the orange menace. It doesn’t make what I’m saying any less true. The hush money wasn’t a crime. Concealing it was. That said, I don’t think he should’ve been prosecuted for this. He’s done much much worse. This is like a speeding ticket. But it doesn’t mean he’s not guilty. He slept with Stormy. He signed a hush money NDA and agreed to pay her $130k. That is legal. But why go to such lengths to cover it up if not to conceal it from voters in 2016? Why not just pay her? He’s rich. But instead, he comes up with some crazy scheme where Cohen takes out a home equity loan and pays her out his own pocket. Then Weisselberg runs the math and writes down on paper to double it to $260k then add another $160k and pay Cohen out over 12 months. Remember, Cohen got a salary and bonus for working for Mango Unchained. These weren’t ordinary legal fees. It was a concealment scheme. Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men “why the two orders colonel Jessup? If your orders were that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, why was it necessary to transfer him off the base?” If the hush money payment was legal, why was it necessary to cover it up? The answer is because he didn’t want it to hurt the election. Weisselberg was “slimed?” I guess by slimed you mean convicted of fraud, and then later convicted of perjury? Yes, his testimony would be suspect. But the defense could’ve called him as a witness. The statement that the judge prohibited Weisselberg from testifying is objectively false.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @hank - No, it does make what you're saying less true, because you interpret everything in the most negative possible light. The "if he's innocent, why did he act guilty?" defense is a prime example of that. Why would someone willingly allow salacious testimony to color it? At most, it was a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations long since ran out. Instead, it was raised to a felony, brought by a man who campaigned on getting Trump and didn't prosecute until election season, on the notion that it concealed a crime that couldn't be agreed upon, let alone convicted of, and the judge even gave instructions that they didn't need to agree upon the predicate crime. And the salacious gossip has been validated by the judge allowing Stormy to talk about the details of their sexual encounter. OK, let's stipulate that it wasn't the judge who stopped Weisselberg from testifying. I did a little digging and it sounds like a stretch by Trump's lawyers. But if his testimony would have damaged Trump, or wouldn't have been believed, it's moot. Serial-liar-with-a-grudge Cohen was allowed to take the stand. I'm amazed how the same people who talk about the judicial system being imperfect are willing to cover their eyes and ears when it comes to Trump and the most contrived prosecution in my lifetime. No matter whether you like Trump or not, this case is a litmus test of one's honesty. Prominent Dems up to David Fucking Axelrod said this wouldn't have gone to trial if it wasn't Trump.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    If you actually want to debate, you have to deal with facts that go against your position. If you just want to toe the Fox News line, then you can just discount everything I say because I’m biased. I’ve pretty much posted only facts. Fact, the judge didn’t prevent weisselberg from testifying. You got that from Fox News or Trump allies. It’s not a stretch. We don’t need to stipulate. It’s false. And I agree with you that this shouldn’t have gone to trial. Most defendants would’ve pled to a lesser charge and paid a fine. Stormy’s testimony was as much on the defense strategy as anything else. They could’ve admitted the affair and then her testimony wouldn’t have been necessary. But the defense’s opening statement denied the affair so her testimony became necessary. The judge even objected to some of her testimony and criticized the defense for not objecting enough. That’s their primary job and they blew it.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    ^ And calling anything you don't like "the Fox News line" is a snide dismissal, not an argument. I say you're biased because you clearly have a double standard for Trump. Your juvenile name calling only confirms it. I should hope you say the same thing when Democrats get charged in Wyoming or West Virginia. I've cited many instances of impropriety, of which you've countered one. It should say something that CNN and MSNBC analysts have said this should have never been brought to trial, as well as longtime Democratic soldiers like Axelrod. Glad you agree this shouldn't gone to trial. That's an admission that this whole affair was a travesty. At least the other cases don't--yet--involve this sort of chicanery. But I fully expect it to come to that. Right now, the election of Donald John Trump is the bulwark against routine attempts to jail or disqualify every opposition candidate. The worm always turns.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    a month ago
    The case shouldn’t have been brought. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty or didn’t commit a crime. Even you said it was a misdemeanor. The guy engaged in a conspiracy to cover up his affair and now he’s the victim. Instead of holding him accountable for his bad decisions and actions, all we get is that it’s the judge’s fault, the jury’s fault, the witnesses’ fault, Bragg’s fault. Don’t want to get charged with a bullshit crime? How about you don’t commit the crime in the first place.
  • twentyfive
    •
    a month ago
    It’s getting boring the Trump supporters whine about anything that is contrary to their version of reality, they insist everything that happens where they get called to account, fact is the jury was agreed on by both sides, the trial was fair, rulings were pretty evenly distributed, and the complaint about venue has less than zero credibility considering Trump was judged by his peers New Yorkers jus like him. With that being said I’m glad he got convicted, y’all keep throwing shit on the ceiling, just because it stinks doesn’t change a thing. 34 counts guilty, appeal it, I doubt it will change the verdict.
  • Puddy_Tat
    •
    a month ago
    @Hank - You could have stopped with the first sentence. Big difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. This is yet another instance of the double standard for prosecution. Dictatorships have laws too; they just have a different standard of enforcement for friends vs enemies. The judge was biased--he donated to Biden (the amount is insignificant, he cared enough to act on it), the trial was suspiciously timed for an alleged offense that occurred 8 years ago, the AG openly campaigned on getting Trump. If you want to quote A Few Good Men (one of my all time faves, BTW), "these are the facts, and they are undisputed." I've quoted a number of left legal experts that say this case wouldn't have been brought against anyone except Trump. That says it all. Now, we're going to see lawfare in every election going forward, further eroding trust and making America more like Russia. Don't think this is going to be limited to one side. The precedent has been set.
  • CostaTheCrazyGreek
    •
    a month ago
    I got 3 words for you MAGA....COPE AND SEETHE.
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    a month ago
    This is probably the best thing that could have happened to him with regards to the election. Even being a convicted felon doesn't prohibit him from running, taking office, or being President. The Constitution rules in this regard, and there's not restriction listed there. No state, as per a recent SCOTUS ruling, can interfere with a federal election, and taking him off the ballot if he otherwise qualifies to run. All this does is convince his cultists that he's being persecuted, and support him even more. Combine that with a crap economy and a corpse for an opponent, and he's a virtual shoe-in for the race. Stupid fucking Democrats thinking it'll have any negative effect on him.
  • motorhead
    •
    a month ago
    I was hoping for a Hail Mary pass during the convention that the Republicans would nominate a better candidate. Now I fear this verdict may have handed the election to Trump. It seems only the hardcore Democratic base seems this is fair. I think many middle of the road independents might swing red.
  • Muddy
    •
    a month ago
    Gregory Peck, where have you gone?
  • skibum609
    •
    a month ago
    Anyone mentioning a news support as being flawed and using that as proof of their position is simply stupid and childish. Progressives and their snide Fox news comments are the perfect example of such stupidity.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion