Today in hypocrisy...

[Pooter]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:19 PM, ClearedHot said:

I don't think you understand the law....it is ONLY a crime (and a misdemeanor at that), if he then used those "altered" books to raise or borrow money.  That two year clock ran out YEARS ago.  Now I know you are a rah rah hang the Orange Man guy but if you want to connect it to the election that is a federal statue, something the NY DA can't prosecute and something the DOJ already looked at and elected to pass on.  By the way to make it a felony it has to be in an effort to hide another crime.  Lets say somehow this lunacy is a felony, that clock is five years and again it ran out a long time ago.  This is nothing but the democratic hate machine generating drama.

You guys are creating a martyr.  Prior to this there was a chance he was going to lose in the primaries...now the base will harden in response and he will win the nomination.  Even the talking heads at CNN have admitted it...let it go...let him fade to oblivion.

Even the New York Times agrees...

 

The underlying crime being trying to influence the outcome of an election.. you know that little thing. 
 

And I'm sure the prosecution wouldn't debut these charges only to get immediately top-roped by a 5 year timer they forgot to account for. Turns out there quite a lot more nuance to that as well which I'm sure will be fiercely argued in court. 
 

The legal analysis I've seen of this case that seems legit all zeros in on the prosecution having to prove trumps intent behind the payments. Because the intent speaks to the possibility of a larger crime.

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm confused.... so are we allowed to protest in the halls of convening legislative bodies or are we not? Which one is it? 

This time is (D)ifferent.

[Pooter]

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. If they space out the prosecution of the payments, the Georgia fake electors scheme, and the classified documents, they'll keep the media lens squarely focused on trump to the detriment of any other candidates on the right all the way through this year. 
 

Trump's significant but non-majority base will galvanize around his martyr status, edge out any viable Republican candidates, and virtually guarantee dems a win in 2024.   

[dream big]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. If they space out the prosecution of the payments, the Georgia fake electors scheme, and the classified documents, they'll keep the media lens squarely focused on trump to the detriment of any other candidates on the right all the way through this year. 
 

Trump's significant but non-majority base will galvanize around his martyr status, edge out any viable Republican candidates, and virtually guarantee dems a win in 2024.   

I wouldn’t give the Democratic Party that much credit but it’s not that far fetched to think about. They know anyone but Trump would humiliate Biden and Kamala. Biden still hasn’t announced that he is running and the election is only about a year and a half out. 

[ClearedHot]

11 hours ago, Pooter said:

The underlying crime being trying to influence the outcome of an election.. you know that little thing. 
 

And I'm sure the prosecution wouldn't debut these charges only to get immediately top-roped by a 5 year timer they forgot to account for. Turns out there quite a lot more nuance to that as well which I'm sure will be fiercely argued in court. 
 

The legal analysis I've seen of this case that seems legit all zeros in on the prosecution having to prove trumps intent behind the payments. Because the intent speaks to the possibility of a larger crime.

So by this logic, shouldn't Hillary have been brought up on the exact same charges?  She paid for a fake dossier with the expressed purpose (nothing to unpack on intent), of influencing the outcome of a Presidential election.

[GKinnear]

13 hours ago, Pooter said:

The underlying crime being trying to influence the outcome of an election.. you know that little thing. 
 

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left. 

 

I'm trying to reconcile your two statements here.

The first one seems to back the DA's legal analysis that trying to influence the election using his personal money is somehow a crime. 

The second leads me to believe you support election influencing from one party to ensure the unelectable candidate is the nominee.

What am I missing that would prove these statements both conform to a logical, consistent set of principles, outside of a political perspective?

 

Edit:  I'll allow it was business money on the Stormy Daniels payoff...that Trump owned, so potato / potato.  As I understand it, the only person defrauded financially was Trump.

Edited April 8, 2023 by GKinnear

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, Pooter said:

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. 

So it’s your opinion that the Democrats are using the judicial system to intentionally affect the outcome of a future election?  Does this bother you at all?

[Lord Ratner]

10 hours ago, Pooter said:

I do think there's a fun question in here to unpack though..

Are the democrats targeting trump because they actually think they can take him down, or are they doing it to prop him up so he wins the nomination?
 

If it's the latter, which it probably is, it's a great move from the left.  I think they believe trump is utterly unelectable in a general election so they want to ensure he's the nominee. If they space out the prosecution of the payments, the Georgia fake electors scheme, and the classified documents, they'll keep the media lens squarely focused on trump to the detriment of any other candidates on the right all the way through this year. 
 

Trump's significant but non-majority base will galvanize around his martyr status, edge out any viable Republican candidates, and virtually guarantee dems a win in 2024.   

🎯  

 

They saw how his candidates did in the midterms. After that there can be no doubt.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[Biff_T]

I can't wait for the tit (😉) for tat that follows.   DAs in conservative cities going after dems and vice-versa.  There will be no one left to run the country.  Show me one politician in DC that hasn't committed some sort of crime that us commoners would serve time for.  They've all done something shady to get where they are.  All of them.  

[Pooter]

4 hours ago, GKinnear said:

I'm trying to reconcile your two statements here.

The first one seems to back the DA's legal analysis that trying to influence the election using his personal money is somehow a crime. 

The second leads me to believe you support election influencing from one party to ensure the unelectable candidate is the nominee.

What am I missing that would prove these statements both conform to a logical, consistent set of principles, outside of a political perspective?

 

Edit:  I'll allow it was business money on the Stormy Daniels payoff...that Trump owned, so potato / potato.  As I understand it, the only person defrauded financially was Trump.

Well one is potentially a crime, and the other is a strategic decision about when to prosecute that potential crime. Seems like a pretty simple distinction to me. 
 

And I'm not saying trying to influence an election is bad. That's literally what running for office is. That's why people raise money, and run attack ads, and try to win debates.

But the common thread here is: don't be an idiot. If you have skeletons that will hurt your election chances and are going to pay people off, be smart about it and don't get caught. Because you can bet the other team is going to have a field day if they figure out what you did. 
 

Im not really interested in making value judgments either way. You all know my opinions on trump but on the flip side of the coin, I don't think the Dems are on some morally virtuous crusade. They're making hay while the sun is shining. That's it. 

[GKinnear]

18 hours ago, Pooter said:

Well one is potentially a crime, and the other is a strategic decision about when to prosecute that potential crime. Seems like a pretty simple distinction to me. 
 

So you're arguing that if election influencing is executed at the institutional level, then it's ok?  Especially when that institution is the same one who determines what legal actions are pursued in the Criminal courts?

To your point about potential crime...the DA's supposed to know what the crime is before charging.  He may not legally have to publish the underlying charge on the indictment, but morally & ethically he is.  There is a perception of purely political prosecution, which is anathema to the Constitution and the rule of law.  At a certain level, I think Stalin and Mao are a little jealous of how this case is going.

The potential for conflict of interest, capricious, targeted, etc. seems very high if this were in the DoD.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were an IG report if that were the case.  Maybe that's on me, by viewing the whole situation through the USAF perspective.

 

 

[Pooter]

On 4/9/2023 at 7:03 AM, GKinnear said:

So you're arguing that if election influencing is executed at the institutional level, then it's ok?  Especially when that institution is the same one who determines what legal actions are pursued in the Criminal courts?

To your point about potential crime...the DA's supposed to know what the crime is before charging.  He may not legally have to publish the underlying charge on the indictment, but morally & ethically he is.  There is a perception of purely political prosecution, which is anathema to the Constitution and the rule of law.  At a certain level, I think Stalin and Mao are a little jealous of how this case is going.

The potential for conflict of interest, capricious, targeted, etc. seems very high if this were in the DoD.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were an IG report if that were the case.  Maybe that's on me, by viewing the whole situation through the USAF perspective.

 

 

I don't know what to tell you guys, you're all looking for some virtuous moral north star in a game completely devoid of morals. You're absolutely right, it's capricious, targeted, and almost certainly strategically timed for maximum election impact. 

But if you don't like it, don't give them an opening. Be smarter than them. Because you can bet the left will try to capitalize on any indiscretion just as I would expect the right to do if the roles were reversed.  Trump is the epitome of the phrase "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."  
 

It's also pretty funny that you mention perception.  Because a majority of Americans support the indictment.  This is not playing as some horrific travesty of justice anywhere other than very right wing circles. And this next point doesn't speak to the validity of the case, but since you mentioned perception.. it appears the majority perception in America is that trump has existed almost entirely outside the rule of law, so people don't seem to have qualms about the book finally being thrown at him.

Trump being held accountable for something.. literally anything.. is a far cry from Maoist/Stalinist political persecution.  But you keep trying to sell that one through 2024 and see how far it gets you.  

[filthy_liar]

I think Pooter's point is pretty clear and easy to understand.  The Dems are making sure that Trump gets the nomination because they believe they can beat him.  And they also understand that the Reps are stupid enough to let that happen.  And if that does happen, the Dems will be in the White House for 4 more years.  Its kinda obvious what they are doing.

The only question mark is Biden.  Can he be the face of the Dems for 4 more years.  And that's where Republicans and conservatives have gone full retard.  Biden can barely put a sentence together.  He is blatantly anti-conservative in his policies.  He's old.  He can easily be defeated by a strong Republican candidate.  But Republicans will find a way to put the idiot Trump back into the general election.  And he will lose.  Don't know if Biden will defeat him, but a Dem definitely will.

[HuggyU2]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

The only question mark is Biden.  Can he be the face of the Dems for 4 more years.  

Nope. 

Enter Gavin Newsom...

[High-n-Dry]

5 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Nope. 

Enter Gavin Newsom...

God help us all if that scum bag makes it into office.

[Pooter]

52 minutes ago, High-n-Dry said:

God help us all if that scum bag makes it into office.

Gavin Newsom might be in a three way tie with kamala and trump for the most hated political players in America right now. If Dems go with Gavin that will be a major mistake. His negatives are huge and most of the country is highly aware of the shithole California has become. 
 

Stretching Biden for another term is the best play for the left. Other than a left field Yang/Tulsi ticket that they'd never do in a million years. The game at this point is basically whichever party can alienate fewer people wins, so as long as trump is running Dems have a great chance with the senile houseplant

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Pooter said:

His negatives are huge and most of the country is highly aware of the shithole California has become. 

California is literally the epitome of what happens with progressive policies…and yet you’re saying the country wants progressive policies?

Btw, I always find it funny how people like Nsplayr enjoy living in a state like Tennessee, but yet will tell you how bad TN is wrt their politics and how much better Cali is…but continues to stay in TN.

[Biff_T]

I'd advise anyone considering to vote for Gavin Newsom to choke themselves.  If they happen to live through the choking, they should come visit our once great state of CA.  There are more homeless people here than live in Wyoming. Everytime it rains, our beaches get covered in needles from the thousands of homeless that discard their waste into the creeks and rivers where they have established shanty towns.   Instead of Disneyland, visit skid row.  My favorite part is how people here complain about how shitty it is and blame conservatives, yet all of the shittiest parts of CA are dem controlled.  Look at the difference between OC and LA or SD and LA.  You will see the actually results of years of shitty decisions in the Golden State.   You can literally see the difference between OC and LA when you cross county lines.  LA county is a giant terd.  

[Pooter]

19 hours ago, HeloDude said:

California is literally the epitome of what happens with progressive policies…and yet you’re saying the country wants progressive policies?

Btw, I always find it funny how people like Nsplayr enjoy living in a state like Tennessee, but yet will tell you how bad TN is wrt their politics and how much better Cali is…but continues to stay in TN.

No I'm saying people vote mainly along party lines and when they don't do that, they vote on candidate personality. Which is why running a bland houseplant is the better move than Kamala or Gavin.. both deeply unlikeable people for a litany of reasons. 

[GKinnear]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:00 AM, Pooter said:

It's also pretty funny that you mention perception.  Because a majority of Americans support the indictment.  

I didn't mention support for or against, but rather the perception of a "purely political prosecution"...which is supported by my 69 second Google search of published polls.  To your point, CNN has it as a majority in support, ABC has a plurality.  Based on the the highly divided political arena in America currently, neither is highly surprising.

On 4/11/2023 at 1:00 AM, Pooter said:

Trump being held accountable for something.. literally anything.. is a far cry from Maoist/Stalinist political persecution. 

Agree to disagree for now.  Beria's famous quote (Show me the man and I'll show you the crime) keeps bubbling up in my mind when I see updates in this case.  I'm trying to find reasons why it's not applicable, but so far I haven't seen any reason that it's not.  America's rule of law has meant that the law is equally applied to all, regardless of class or political boundaries.  That's partially why the civil rights movement was so successful, the rigged jury and court system was unfounded and couldn't withstand the scrutiny when it was exposed to the country. 

If the DA has a history of downgrading felonies to misdemeanors, then upgrades a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations, that the DOJ decided against prosecuting....it begs the question of how that is equal justice? 

With all the discussion recently about bias in every system, I think I'm starting to recognize when someone's biases are unduly influencing the outcome.

On 4/11/2023 at 1:00 AM, Pooter said:

I don't know what to tell you guys

And that's my issue...no one can or will.  So again, it seems that instead of Blind Justice in this case, the DA is explicitly viewing this for political gain...either his or the Party's, which brings me full circle back to Stalin.

On 4/11/2023 at 1:00 AM, Pooter said:

But you keep trying to sell that one through 2024 and see how far it gets you.  

Just to clarify my point, my main point is about our Court system, not election politics (tangential at best).  I would hope that elected officials would course correct back to equally applied justice, regardless of the (R) / (D) following their name. 

 

[HeloDude]

On 4/13/2023 at 3:22 AM, Pooter said:

No I'm saying people vote mainly along party lines and when they don't do that, they vote on candidate personality. Which is why running a bland houseplant is the better move than Kamala or Gavin.. both deeply unlikeable people for a litany of reasons. 

If Kamala or Gavin are so bad, then why were they able to win their Dem primaries in California? 

[Scooter14]

If Kamala or Gavin are so bad, then why were they able to win their Dem primaries in California? 

You pretty much answered your own question.

Because it’s California, that’s why.

You think they would win anywhere else?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Biff_T]

12 hours ago, HeloDude said:

If Kamala or Gavin are so bad, then why were they able to win their Dem primaries in California? 

Because a large majority of Californians are mouth breathers.

[dream big]

12 hours ago, HeloDude said:

If Kamala or Gavin are so bad, then why were they able to win their Dem primaries in California? 

Because it’s California, give it a visit and it will all make sense!

[SocialD]

16 hours ago, HeloDude said:

If Kamala or Gavin are so bad, then why were they able to win their Dem primaries in California? 

 

 

Because people like this get to vote. 

 

https://youtu.be/ZTpgqqLyAs8