783
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
783 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
3951 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The "hush money" framing is such a cutesy, bullshit spin to neuter the actual repeated and unapologetic fraud here. Basic human and business ethics concerns to side for a moment, It's purely fraud against the American people without remorse and it's actual election interference.
You wouldn't say that a serial killer that stabs and kills their victims is on trial for "night night pokes". How was this allowed to get casually accepted like this without challenge from society?
"My neighbor in Tel Aviv is in jail for murder, or, as we call it, enhanced tickling."
-Colonel Erran Morrad (Sacha baron cohen)
I don't even know if they care about the -ism, they want a pyramid system with them above the law. Like Russia with Putin and his clique of friendly oligarchs who can do whatever they want, until they displease him, which is when suddenly they'll get arrested for "corruption".
Can you expand more on the election interference part?
Totally understand inciting an insurrection to be interference, but using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use.
So the falsifying is the illegal bit.
The rest of the tweet is moralising.
More to the point, the paperwork crimes would have been misdemeanors if he hadn't been doing it all for the explicit purpose of influencing an election. That's what made them felonies.
Yeah, if he was upfront about things then there would be no criminal case
However saying he set up shell companies to carry out falsification isn’t moralising
Writing "disgusting transactions" is moralistic.
Doesn't help to win over Republicans.
I think you misread. He said "disguising", which only means intent to keep hidden by masking the truth.
The only disgusting (immoral) part of this is Trump cheating on his wife.
Everything else could have been achieved perfectly legally (i.e. without disgust) if Trump had been smart.
I don't want to disgust you, but "intending to keep things hidden by masking the truth" is practically the definition of politics.
Dude, you have trouble reading. It says "disguising". Your side really fails at the most basic human functions, over and over again.
And finding something disgusting is a moral position.
That tweet doesn't mention the word disgusting at all.
Ah. You are correct. I take it all back. Disguise is not a manipulative word.
Correct it isn’t. Also your whole idea of “manipulative words” is moot because every single word can or can not be
You literally misread that word in the tweet. it never says that.
Ah. You are correct. I take it all back. Disguise is not a manipulative word.
You really are one of the dumber nazis who try to make it on here
Not sure where you get Nazi from.
There’s your problem
I don't think anyone is still naive enough to think you can win over Republicunts. The way to stop Trump is to battle voter apathy and tear down barriers to vote, because the majority will not vote for Trump if they get to cast their votes.
I read somewhere that higher voter turnout in general benefits Trump (like in 2016).
^(People should still vote though)
I can find both opinions: Helps Trump / helps Biden, so probably nobody the fuck knows. I am still sure that the reason Trump won in 2016 was too many Democrat voters being put off by Clinton + the "Bernie Bro" crowd staying home.
Agreed.
I would add that some Trump supporters would possibly have been persuaded to vote for Bernie.
We see what we expect to see...
Others here have addressed your assertions
Others here have rejected those assertions.
I have no idea if that statement is true. I just wanted to illustrate how unhelpful your comment was.
Your tactics here are extremely transparent.
My only tactic in this particular thread branch is to encourage you make more effort with your replies.
Happy for you to keep expending useless energy here so deep in a threaded comment. Please, do reply again, everyone is interested and meaningfully impressed by your intellect.
I refer to my previous answer.
More please, we're nothing without your validation.
Okay, now respond again. You're not able to resist, watch.
Sea lion has gotta sea lion.
Is a vacuous comment.
That was not the legal issue of the case, though. Campaigns have to be very transparent with how they spend contributions, for obvious reasons, and it was easy to prove that this appropriation was obfuscated.
Ah, so it was the obfuscation itself. What was obfuscated is irrelevant.
It is.
What he did was try to hide payments made to benefit his campaign. Would you consider illegally financing a campaign to be election interference?
Not just the financing, but hiding the Stormy Daniels story during the election. They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the "grab them by the pussy" video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign). THAT'S where the election interference came into play.
Isn't this part a normal election strategy in the US? And not illegal itself?
If it's something of a monetary value that benefits the campaign, it must be reported. And it definitely has a monetary value, since he paid money for it.
Honestly, I'm not sure how exactly the law is written. I believe that was a factor out of several that raised the misdemeanor of falsification into a felony (by doing so to conceal a crime). The judge's instructions to the jury was that they needed to be unanimous that a crime was being concealed, but they didn't have to agree on which one(s). Unless some members of the jury go to the media (for their sake, I sure hope they don't) and that gets brought up, we'll probably never know which way that wind was blowing.
Thanks.
In the future I'm sure politicians on all sides will be paying people to keep certain facts quiet. I was just trying to confirm what is legal and what is illegal.
Well, some people enjoy my night night pokes. Your momma, for instance. ...sorry