3 ms·

Australian here. My 2 cents. For some reason I kinda like Trump in spite of his antics & theatrics. "Like" may be a strong word. In some respects I "like" Biden

Australian here. My 2 cents. For some reason I kinda like Trump in spite of his antics & theatrics. "Like" may be a strong word. In some respects I "like" Biden too, I've enjoyed some of his speeches, the coherent ones. I recall Trump's 2016 election victory speech was actually good, well said. Read the transcript. He was sincere in his complements to Hilary, and he emphasised uniting everyone and repairing division which is exactly what leaders should do more often. In my country we've had some shocker victory speeches from both sides of politics. Rambling egotistical diatribes feature heavily, or straight up reinforcing division and team-sport gloating. This trial. I don't get it. $130,000 is nothing. NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA. America is funny. Bill Clinton lied about his affair with an employee while he was president. The Stormy affair supposedly happened long ago. Regardless of how much Trump is disliked, this trial and conviction is a circus. It confirms "lawfare" is indeed a thing, aimed at what looks to me like a crime no worse than jay-walking, relatively speaking. Good luck USA.

ModernMech 2y ago
If you don't understand the trial, maybe you should have followed it. > Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Trump cared. He cared enough to pay her $130,000 for her silence, because he thought if she said what she had to say, he would not have won. This was the finding of the jury, and all that matters as far as his conviction. > Enter the legal NDA. If it were paid with legal funds. But it can't be paid for campaign funds, because they have to be accounted for. That's illegal. And you can't get around paying with campaign funds by having your fixer do it for you and then reimbursing him through disguised "legal payments". That's fraud. Trump did both, so therefore today he's a criminal and a felon. > this trial and conviction is a circus. You didn't even pay attention to it, so how would you know? The trial was not a circus at all. It was all above board, the defendant's rights were maintained. Do you have anything specific to say as to how and why it was a circus? Question: Do you think a candidate for high office should be able to commit and cover up crimes if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected? If not, if they do cover up and commit crimes, and are then elected, do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted if those crimes later come to light? Or are you immune from any crime you commit to get into office as long as you get elected to that office? Because it really seems like people want that to be the case.
- exodust 2y ago
  Your comment epitomizes the staunch posturing of the expressive political circus that brought this case in the first place. > "therefore today he's a criminal and a felon"... This token is repeated ad nauseam. As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"..."Trump is dangerous" etc. Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". So simple! You're basically saying "if only your cognitive abilities weren't so lacking, you'd see the trial wasn't a circus at all. Nothing to see here!" USA is a hugely important ally to my country. We want USA to do well, no matter what party is in power. I wish more people would get behind their president while they're in office, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. Same in my country. It's clear that significant cohorts seek to tear people down with endless negativity, even advocating civil unrest if their choice of president doesn't eventuate. Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > This token is repeated ad nauseam. It's been a single day... > As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why people would be happy about this. > Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law" Not exactly a statement one needs to prepare, it's what he's been saying for 4 years. > Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". I'm not questioning your cognitive abilities, I'm calling you ignorant in as nice a way as I can. In your post you recited a bunch of things you are confused about: - $130,000 is nothing. It's not nothing, it's $130,000. In fact it wasn't only $130,000, the total payments to Cohen was $420,000. Either way, you should see the amounts normal people are prosecuted for. The Just Security article linked elsewhere in this thread shows people prosecuted under this law for returning unpurchased items at a store and using store credit. So prosecutors better be lifting their heads for $130k. - NDA payments are legal Not if they are unreported and excessive campaign expenditures. - classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime If it's done intentionally as a lie to conceal a campaign finance violation, hell yeah that's a crime. - Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Trump cared, he thought his wife and family would care, but moreover he thought his voters would care, and he voiced that fact to Hope Hicks, which she testified at trial. All these facts were learned at trial. So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial. > Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent. So you can't point to a specific circus in the case of this trial as alleged. Instead you gesture vaguely to political tantrums, which is unconvincing. But note the person throwing the biggest tantrum at the moment is in fact Trump and Republicans. Everyone else as far as I can tell is acting like an adult.
bjt1997 2y ago
Also why now and not before? Trump is a New Yorker and a famous one at that. It seems like his great crime is that he won against their diva.
mcphage 2y ago
> NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA. Neither having sex with a porn star, nor paying a porn star to be quiet about the sex is illegal. Fraud is illegal, though, and is much worse than jay-walking.

ModernMech 2y ago

If you don't understand the trial, maybe you should have followed it. > Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Trump cared. He cared enough to pay her $130,000 for her silence, because he thought if she said what she had to say, he would not have won. This was the finding of the jury, and all that matters as far as his conviction. > Enter the legal NDA. If it were paid with legal funds. But it can't be paid for campaign funds, because they have to be accounted for. That's illegal. And you can't get around paying with campaign funds by having your fixer do it for you and then reimbursing him through disguised "legal payments". That's fraud. Trump did both, so therefore today he's a criminal and a felon. > this trial and conviction is a circus. You didn't even pay attention to it, so how would you know? The trial was not a circus at all. It was all above board, the defendant's rights were maintained. Do you have anything specific to say as to how and why it was a circus? Question: Do you think a candidate for high office should be able to commit and cover up crimes if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected? If not, if they do cover up and commit crimes, and are then elected, do you think they shouldn't be prosecuted if those crimes later come to light? Or are you immune from any crime you commit to get into office as long as you get elected to that office? Because it really seems like people want that to be the case.

exodust 2y ago
Your comment epitomizes the staunch posturing of the expressive political circus that brought this case in the first place. > "therefore today he's a criminal and a felon"... This token is repeated ad nauseam. As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law"..."Trump is dangerous" etc. Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". So simple! You're basically saying "if only your cognitive abilities weren't so lacking, you'd see the trial wasn't a circus at all. Nothing to see here!" USA is a hugely important ally to my country. We want USA to do well, no matter what party is in power. I wish more people would get behind their president while they're in office, regardless of whether they voted for them or not. Same in my country. It's clear that significant cohorts seek to tear people down with endless negativity, even advocating civil unrest if their choice of president doesn't eventuate. Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > This token is repeated ad nauseam. It's been a single day... > As if the objective is less about justice and more about political ammo; gleeful celebration of tokenized, distributed memes and sound bites. Again, maybe you don't understand American politics if you don't know why people would be happy about this. > Biden had his prepared statement ready to go: "Nobody is above the law" Not exactly a statement one needs to prepare, it's what he's been saying for 4 years. > Your comment begins with "you don't understand", followed by "you didn't pay attention". I'm not questioning your cognitive abilities, I'm calling you ignorant in as nice a way as I can. In your post you recited a bunch of things you are confused about: - $130,000 is nothing. It's not nothing, it's $130,000. In fact it wasn't only $130,000, the total payments to Cohen was $420,000. Either way, you should see the amounts normal people are prosecuted for. The Just Security article linked elsewhere in this thread shows people prosecuted under this law for returning unpurchased items at a store and using store credit. So prosecutors better be lifting their heads for $130k. - NDA payments are legal Not if they are unreported and excessive campaign expenditures. - classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime If it's done intentionally as a lie to conceal a campaign finance violation, hell yeah that's a crime. - Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Trump cared, he thought his wife and family would care, but moreover he thought his voters would care, and he voiced that fact to Hope Hicks, which she testified at trial. All these facts were learned at trial. So yeah, you would not be asking these questions had you paid attention to the trial. > Left and right, tantrum politics is the norm. If you can't see the circus, you are unable to remove yourself from the circus tent. So you can't point to a specific circus in the case of this trial as alleged. Instead you gesture vaguely to political tantrums, which is unconvincing. But note the person throwing the biggest tantrum at the moment is in fact Trump and Republicans. Everyone else as far as I can tell is acting like an adult.

bjt1997 2y ago

Also why now and not before? Trump is a New Yorker and a famous one at that. It seems like his great crime is that he won against their diva.

mcphage 2y ago

> NDA payments are legal, but we're told that classifying the payment incorrectly is some great crime? Give me a break, it's a porn star! Who cares if they had sex 20 years ago? Obviously a running president doesn't want a disgruntled porn star blabbing about old raunchy encounters, factual or otherwise. Enter the legal NDA. Neither having sex with a porn star, nor paying a porn star to be quiet about the sex is illegal. Fraud is illegal, though, and is much worse than jay-walking.