1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DanielSimpsonDay

    DanielSimpsonDay Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  2. lakefront

    lakefront Well-Known Member

    Then this is just a big scam by Mueller and the prosecutors?
     
  3. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member


    Whenever somebody brings him up, wingnuts dismiss it by talking about the Bush National Guard thing.
     
  4. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Whatever you thought of his politics, John McCain is a goddamned American hero.
     
  5. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, who allegedly helped arrange hush-money reimbursement to Cohen, granted immunity.

    Trump says he barely knew this guy, too?
    Weisselberg and Cohen. How long until Hannity claims it’s a Jewish conspiracy?
     
  6. Rainman

    Rainman Well-Known Member

    Um, nothing in what you posted points to a campaign finance law violation.

    Here is the quote from what I posted from Alan Dershowitz:

    "If [the prosecution] believes Cohen, that the president directed him to do it, then it’s not a crime at all," Dershowitz said. "If he doesn’t believe Cohen, then Cohen has committed a crime, but not the president."

    Dershowitz also took issue with the idea that Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen, saying, "You don’t become an unindicted co-conspirator if your action is lawful, even though the action of the other person is unlawful."
     
  7. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    David Foster Wallace:

    But, see, we do know how this man reacted. That he chose to spend four more years there, in a dark box, alone, tapping code on the walls to the others, rather than violate a Code. Maybe he was nuts. But the point is that with McCain it feels like we know, for a proven fact, that he’s capable of devotion to something other, more, than his own self-interest. So that when he says the line in speeches in early February you can feel like maybe it isn’t just more candidate bullshit, that with this guy it’s maybe the truth. Or maybe both the truth and bullshit: the guy does – did – want your vote, after all.

    But that moment in the Hoa Lo office in ’68 – right before he refused, with all his basic normal human self-interest howling at him – that moment is hard to blow off.

    David Foster Wallace on John McCain: ‘The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys and the Shrub’ – Rolling Stone
     
    swingline and Double Down like this.
  8. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

  9. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Maybe bringing this up in 2016. The family is so cautious, that they tend to make their biggest declarations (or hottest takes) days, weeks, months or in this case years after what they are referring to is no longer relevant.
    I have to think the Trump/Pecker relationship wasn't a secret in 2016, should have done it then.
     
  10. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    In the case of McDougal, Cohen pleaded guilty to encouraging American Media, publisher of the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, to pay McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet. That violated two campaign-finance laws: one that makes it illegal for a corporation to give money directly to a campaign, and another that limits how much any individual can contribute.

    The Daniels case is different. If Trump had paid the money to her directly, that would not necessarily be illegal, if it had been accounted for correctly. A candidate can contribute any amount of money to his own campaign. But all such contributions have to be publicly reported as campaign expenditures, and the Daniels payment, which Trump clearly did not want disclosed, was not reported.


    Did Trump just inadvertently admit to violating federal law?
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  11. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Interesting strategy by Hunter to blame everything on his wife. Do you think she's OK with that plan?

     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    To me, a major perversion of America begins and ends with this very little thing that nobody seems to see the same way as me. I have never seen supporters of Trump as "conservatives." Nor have I ever seen "liberal" as a pejorative, even though people who don't get me on here (less so iby people who actually know me) have called me conservative at times.

    Conservatives, speaking generally, are traditionalists. Trump is (always was) a charlatan preaching a hodge podge of populist bullshit. There was nothing traditional, or coherent about any of his bullshit -- other than it rallied people looking to hate others. Conservative values, depending on the person, might include things like fiscal discipline and protecting certain societal norms (as they see them). The fact that Trump flouted, and continues to flout, those norms (not just politically, but personally), yet has people who support him, tells me those people are not "conservatives."

    To me, this is more akin to people rooting for sports teams. Your team can do no wrong. It doesn't matter what player (one you used to hate, maybe) they pick up. Now he's yours and you embrace him. He can do no wrong.

    For what it's worth, most liberals to me, aren't really liberal either. But I'd need to paint a wide variety of people with a broad brush that will apply in varying degrees to explain what I mean. But being liberal itself? With that comes things like civil liberties, which are at the core of liberalism. Things like the Bill of Rights, which was revolutionary for its time, which is what supposedly made Americans free and a place where you could be an individualist (which was considered liberal!). A true conservative would NEVER think of liberal as a pejorative term, just by virtue of the fact that it's liberal to support, for example, freedom of speech. And as we know, that is something Donald Trump would do away with in a second if it allowed him to act like a Banana Republic dictator. So why would anyone characterize him in philosophical terms? To me, he should be characterized in narcissistic terms.

    I guess what I am trying to say, in my long-winded way, is that we have spent the last 30 or so years of my life progressively destroying the meanings of those kinds of political (and really philosophical) terms, and in the process what our political system really became to a greater and greater degree was a game of theft and corruption (as we run up debt and a political class of both "liberals" and "conservatives" lines their pockets) bolstered not by core conservative and/or liberal beliefs, but by an ends justify the means mindset. I don't want to overstate it. That kind of thing has always existed in America, even if America has just grown in size and degree of everything. But to me, people who support Trump aren't idealogues of any type. Unless you consider, say, Yankees versus Red Sox an ideological choice. In any case, it's how you ended up with people (not conservatives, unless the term has taken on entirely new meaning) embracing the biggest charlatan on earth.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page