They (GOP) said as much, many times.

Today in Trumpenfreude:

Past being prologue, on paper Loser-1 has lost $2 billion since last Friday 26March as Trump Media (DJT) stock crashed again on NASDAQ. Dead Grift Bounce! :lol:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/business/trump-media-stock-sinks-post-merger-low/index.html

He didn't lose anything unless he was holding shares.

He most likely cashed in at the expense of his loser supporters.

He has almost 79 million shares ...

https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-truth-social-spac-vote-841820869418c37ad7eed04f2af42854

It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is. — Tzeentch

The problem is complicated by the fact that it is PERCEIVED corruption that triggers populism - and those perceptions can be manipulated through lies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie

Their approach to foreign policy also differs greatly. Trump is prone to a tactical approach that is often driven by impulse (e.g. Trump's dropping out of the Iran nuclear deal against the advice of his advisors; imposing tarriffs). Biden's more strategic approach is most apparent in his dealings with China (see this Brookings analysis).

Policies aside, the general approach of the MAGA "movement" is pretty troubling, with its embrace of conspiracy theories, alternative "facts", weaponization of victimhood, disrespect for rule of law, and courting of racists. The sooner this "movement" gets defeated, the better - so that there can be a greater emphasis on policy debate based on an agreed, common set of facts.

Earlier this week internet sleuths, doing the job of the media class, discovered that the daughter of the judge in the Stormy Daniels sham trial was a digital marketing consultant, whose company raked in millions from the campaigns of Biden/Harris, Adam Schiff, and other anti-Trump demagogues.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/06/politics/trump-judge-daughter-attacks-explainer

So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism, which risks exposing the incestuous relationship between anti-Trump politicians, election opponents, and the prosecution to the court.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-gag-order-expanded-after-attacks-on-new-york-judges-daughter

The judge, his daughter, and the DNC clients who line their pockets, all gain from Trump’s conviction. The likelihood of a fair trial has been tossed in the garbage along with the US constitution. Despite’s Trump’s censorship more and more of this fascism is being exposed.

So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism — NOS4A2

Gag orders are not uncommon, and are arguably constitutional (see this) - because there is a tension between personal free speech and the right (by both defense and prosecution) to a fair trial. Trump's previous appeal of a gag order was upheld, and it seems like this one would be also. Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence. The political activities of a family member (or of a judge, for that matter) have no bearing on the ability of the judge to be an impartial arbiter.

The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. Besides, prior restraint is forbidden in the United States. If the judge wishes to avoid threats he ought to just recuse himself and quit being corrupt.

The corrupt deserve to be threatened — NOS4A2

Trump will have the opportunity to defend himself at trial, based on evidence. You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what?

Are you a fan of vigilanteism?

Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial?

The judge used prior restraint to censor the defendant in order to shield his daughter from being exposed for being a DNC apparatchik. Meanwhile Stormy Daniels can make documentaries and Michael Cohen can write books, which according to your logic almost certainly leads to threats.

Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial? — NOS4A2

He can, so why doesn't he? Attacking a judge's daughter is not a defense of the crimes charged. At best, it's childish. At worst, it taints the jury pool and could lead to violence.

Free-speech is a right granted by the Constitution, and needs be interpreted in the context of that Constitution. That's the job of the Courts irrespective of the way you'd prefer it be treated.

Daniels and Cohen telling their perspectives through books is hardly the same thing as personal attacks. Trump is equally free to write a book explaining his perspective - that would be a rational way to defend himself.

A restraint on verbal attacks will not hurt his chances at trial. But if the judge does treat Trump unfairly, and this leads to conviction, he will have grounds for appeal. That's the way the system is designed to work- and with Trump's financial resources, he can take full advantage of Constitutional protections to ensure he is treated fairly. Contrast this with poor people who go to trial and can't afford to take every nuance all the way to the Supreme Court.

He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections.

Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. Perhaps worse, the more and more this corruption and the weaponization of the court continues the more threats people will get. People can only observe so much injustice before they start to pop off. So if judge wants to protect people he should stop being unjust and corrupt, because doubling down clearly isn’t helping.

You have judged the Judge to be corrupt based on what? — Relativist

He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections. — NOS4A2

A familial connection to a daughter engaged in political campaigning does not entail a judge acting unfairly. What WOULD imply unfairness would be a pattern of questionable, one-sided decisions. Trump may hope that occurs because it will be grounds for overturning a conviction on appeal.

The gag order does not prohibit Trump from attacking the judge, but please explain why it's a good idea to do so. Also explain the negative impact to him for being unable to attack the daughter.

I'll speculate: it's the same pattern he has displayed in elections: "if I lose, it was because of corruption". It plays well to his base (critical thinking isn't their strong suit), in a way that is totally self-serving while also undermining trust in the criminal-justice system. That's one of the real dangers to Trump becoming President again. To his non-fans, his attacks spark outrage - diverting attention from the damning facts.

The questionable decision is the gag order, the violation of a human right, which I’ve already mentioned is using prior restraint, and the refusal to recuse himself. Not only that but the mere appearance of bias, and the fact that the daughter and her clients stand to benefit from a conviction, demands recusal according to state statute. The fact he hasn’t recused himself yet and has refused to do so is judicial misconduct on its face. And it only makes him appear more biased, or ignorant of the law, or both, forever tarnishing the integrity of the justice system.

Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it.

Trump routinely alleges bias. He also asked for Judge Chutkin's recusal. In the Trump University case, Trump asserted that the Judge would be biased because he was "Mexican". You have parroted Trump's assertions, while providing no actual reasoning - with the exception of your applying your principle of free-speech absolutism. We simply disagree on that, as I explained. But on that front, I asked you to explain how Trump is harmed by the constraint on verbal attacks on the Judge's daughter, and you said:

"Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. "

The 2nd part is downright false: the public is already fully aware of the information. But you need to explain how ad hominem attacks on a judge's daughter helps his case. (Legal case? political case?)

Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it. — NOS4A2

I'm fine with getting information out in the public, but it's ironic that this case is about Trump working to prevent information about himself from becoming public. Do you agree we're all better off knowing what he did: the affairs and election-interfering coverup?

This case is the weakest of the 3 federal cases, both in terms of Trump's actions and in terms of the strength of the case (apparently it depends on pinning other uncharged, federal crimes on Trump). But it's very interesting to see Trump's reactions, because they confirm his unfitness for office. A President should support the criminal-justice system, not try to undermine it. A reasonable person would simply argue his innocence, and that the facts presented at trial will demonstrate this.

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:

Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.

Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”

You: “I see no difference.” — Mikie

The fallacy you're engaging in is one dimensional comparisons based on the two whole strawmanning my position as having said they are exactly the same.

I didn't say they are exactly the same with exactly the same policies and same actions and so on.

The first straw man is presenting a difference in a single dimension to then draw conclusions about the whole.

The difference between the Republicans and Democrats on climate change really is slight in nominal terms, but in substance there is a big difference. Republicans are explicit climate change deniers and explicitly in the pockets of the oil lobby, whereas Democrats are covert climate change deniers and covertly in the pockets of the oil lobby.

The democrats on the issue of climate change are the duplicitous corrupt party rather than overtly corrupt.

It is not actually a foregone conclusion that being undermined is better than being overtly attacked. It could be, but it depends on the circumstances which is the theme of the second and general objection to your thesis.

Secondly, there is obviously many dimensions of comparison, not just one, and better and worse is a wholistic assessment.

Trump does have positives, for example he is at least corrupt for himself and his personal aggrandizing and family members, rather than corrupt in service of delusional and corrupt ideology such as Neo-conservatism. It is entirely possible that had Trump won in 2020 that neither the war in Ukraine would have occurred or this genocide in Gaza, for the simple fact since Trump serves himself no one is sure how he will react to things. Israel knows they have Biden by the balls (precisely because Democrats are supposed to be, if not anti-war then war sceptical, and precisely because the Democrats are covertly corrupted by Aipac rather than overtly corrupted by Aipaic and explitly in service of fanatical evangelical support of Israel, there's no opposition party in this current genocidal campaign). There weren't new major wars during the Trump administration, which is a potential positive of Trump on that single dimension.

Now, we clearly agree that both Trump and Biden are terrible candidates and neither is fit to be the leader of nation, far less a powerful one.

Your second level of straw man in your retort is presenting my position as implying either Trump is better than Biden or then there's no difference and thus no difference in outcomes.

My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better.

When you have two extremely bad candidates it mostly down to external circumstances what the differences in outcomes will be. Just as two equally good leaders (good morally and in political competence) you would be content leading in any situation but one maybe better than the other in the given circumstances, precisely because even if comparable in goodness they are not exactly the same, comparably bad leaders one equally dissatisfied in them leading but one maybe worse than the other due to particular circumstances. In both cases, it is not a trivial task to make out the best of two good leaders or the worst of two bad leaders.

So my main issue with your position is in trivializing the task of comparing Trump to Biden.

There is equally trivial arguments in favour of Trump, for example we can easily imagine political situations (especially when there are tensions between the largest nuclear powers) where simple common sense is required from the leader, and presumed puppeteering of Biden by his "competent team" breaks down or then never really existed, and, the simple inability of Biden to understand what is going on due to cognitive decline results in disaster (for example there's one general with simply an insane plan, or then Biden order something insane all by himself, and the military simply carries it out); whereas Trump in the same situation, as mendacious as he his, is at least able to exercise common sense and understand the basics of what people are saying to him. True, Trump is almost as old, but as I've already explained, physical and mental decline in old age is exponential, so being even slightly ahead in an exponential process can be a large quantitative difference.

Point being, a comparison would need to get pretty deep not only in the intrinsic differences of Trump and Biden but the actual circumstances. We can imagine many situations and processes in which a corrupt and bombastic Trump would bumble and fumble through to a better outcome than a corrupt and demented Biden, and vice-versa, and so we would need to weigh the differences against the likelihood of those situations arising.

Then there's second order differences. For example, one may concede that having a senile geriatric serial plastic surgery patient deciding on important military matters is pretty terrible and it would indeed be better to have a somewhat more lucid Trump in that situation, but then go onto argue that Biden's national security team would be better than Trump and they'd manage things essentially ignoring what Biden says. I would actually argue against this, that Biden's Neo-conservative national security team is completely dedicated to evil and delusions in service to that evil, but it's the kind of second order argument one could make.

For example, a second order argument in terms of climate change is that a overt climate denialist in the White House results in more action on climate change in the rest of the world who are then motivated to "get on with it", and, more importantly, can't hide behind the duplicitous United States pretending to do something about climate change to avoid domestic pressures. "No, no, no, we need the US on board" is a more plausible argument to make (from corrupt European sycophants for example) with a Biden administration than a Trump administration. "Look at Trump! The US isn't going to do anything, we need to just do what we can do and move things forward in the rest of the world" is only a powerful argument when you have Trump in the White House.

As disgusting as it is, Europeans vassals line up to suck Biden's dick, whereas European elites as a whole at least considered the possibility of not being vassals any more. Of course being a vassal is so comforting and they ran back to kiss the ring as soon as it was offered again, but Trump's US focus and bombastic nature does at least encourage more critical thinking in, for lack of a bette word, the "Euro-bitch" class of bureaucratic wankers.

Of course, we can then go onto third order analysis, for example: let's assume all the above, but it turns out that if the US is too weak then all hell will break loose as we're constantly warned, and the only people who can manage the US empire to avoid too much weakness are the Neo-cons and things would just fall apart without them and we'll be plunged into a 1000 years of Chinese communist rule without them. Obviously by my wording I wouldn't buy such an argument, but it is the kind of third order argument that can be made: that something is worse in a way peculiar to circumstances prevents something even worse from happening (a sort of evil equilibrium).

A third order consideration that is more likely is the effect of Trump or Biden on corruption. Where I would focus my efforts (if I have the time) in arguing major points in favour of Trump is in the empirical difference of new wars starting (I am of course aware of the point of view that Trump was a disaster precisely because he didn't start new wars and that the wars of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden are all justified reactions to "bad things" they had nothing to do with starting and everything is now better in all those countries that benefited from liberation, but obviously would argue against that position) along with Trump's impact on corruption: If Trump were to be elected, his primary motivation would be revenge and this could result in purging large sections of corrupt officials while four years would not be enough time to consolidate a new network of corrupt scum. This sort of explosive event could (certainly not guaranteed, but could) lead to a power vacuum in which non-corrupt actors could more easily emerge than in a Biden administration continuing and expanding the grift at all costs.

Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie

No difference in corruption of both parties turns out to be 100% accurate and the time to get out of the paradigm of "the other side is worse" and back a third party was indeed 20 years ago. For, even substantial voting for a third party is a disciplinary measure on corruption, and had that been done 20 yeas ago (or much, much sooner) then there would in fact be stark differences now between the parties (or even better proportional representation would have become a thing, which easily solves the problem of corruption by simply enabling parties in the same policy space to be no-cost disciplined for their corruption by simply voting for the other party with essentially the same policies).

You get to this point, where you don't like either choice as you just stated, precisely because of buying into the fear mongering of the other side when the rot is only starting and then getting "locked in" as the quality of candidates (and thus legitimate fear) simply gets worse and worse over the decades (in a legal environment that increasingly legalizes and rewards corruption).

Precisely because people focused on this "there is a difference if you squint hard enough!!" 20 years ago ... and 30 years ago ... and 40 years ago ... and 50 years ago ... people weren't focused on the systemic corrupting of the system in which both parties were completely willing and active partners. The consequences of corruption however are far, far worse than most policy differences (exceptions being pretty rare) and, as important, far harder to reverse. In a non-corrupt system most bad policies that gets enacted this election cycle can just be changed in the next (again, exceptions are pretty rare, most policies are reversible); but corruption is not a simple switch, you don't just pass a law and the system switches from being corrupt to being not-corrupt. Corruption seeps into every nook and cranny of the system, becomes self-reinforcing as corrupt networks dominate anti-corrupt networks and therefore expand both in scope and entrenchment and will fight (with very corrupt means) to defend and expand their power (therefor the "friction", to use soulless economic language, faced going backwards is enormous and increases, essentially exponentially); whereas in a non-corrupt system the only friction to changing bad policies is making the case and voting (I am only considering democracies here).

Point being, extremely unusual circumstances are required to reward corruption in your own party. True, disciplining corruption will result in different policy, but if it is indeed bad policy as you believe or then an equally or more corrupt candidate, then that eases the work of returning to power (you'll then have empirical evidence for your beliefs). Rewarding corruption on the other hand is likely to just make a mess of your preferred policies and given this advantage to your opposition.

The fallacy you're engaging in is one dimensional comparisons based on the two whole strawmanning my position as having said they are exactly the same. — boethius

No— I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and how one administration is clearly better than the other. It happens to be an excellent example, given the stakes of climate change.

My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better. — boethius

Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple.

But I always love being lectured about “fallacies” in a plodding, undergraduate-level way. My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here.

It should take any human being older than 7 about 10 minutes to determine who the worst candidate is. That you’re struggling with it isn’t my business. I’ll ignore the rest of your diatribe.

My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better.
— boethius

Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple ... My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here. — Mikie

:100: :up:

:up:

No— I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and how one administration is clearly better than the other. It happens to be an excellent example, given the stakes of climate change. — Mikie

You're response to my objection that you are taking one example and drawing a wholistic conclusion, is "I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and one administration is clearly better than the other!!"

The current administration is literally completely engaged in financing, supporting, helping to execute and then just gaslighting everyone about a literal genocide and you're bold enough to say one administration is "clearly better than the other" based on a single naive example.

Not only do you fail to even attempt to argue that the corrupt, bad-faith, covertly in service of the oil industry and mendacious duplicity of the Biden administration on climate change is superior to an overtly climate denialist position of the Trump administration, but climate change is not the only high stakes issue.

In terms of how things "legally are supposed to work" Biden could launch nuclear weapons in a complete delusional fantasy reliving the Cuban missile crisis. That's also a high stakes issue that requires some consideration. Either you'd need to argue that statistically 86 year olds (the age Biden will be at the end of his administration) should not be questioned in their mental competence as such nor with the overwhelming evidence of Biden really actually entering geriatric dementia, or then you'd have to argue that "his team" are super competent and are only pretending (i.e. gaslighting everyone) Biden is competent to be president and make nuclear use decisions insofar as it seems necessary to defeat the orange man, but if that situation actually arose then they'd stop pretending and take power away from Biden and send him to the ol' folks home (and that there would always be time to do that, even if one general is pushing for nuclear use and would execute on an order from the president, arresting anyone who disagrees as is his legal duty to do, as generals are not in charge of evaluating the president mental competence but a bunch of other political people which it's not the place of generals to second guess).

Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple. — Mikie

Again, there's literally a genocide and your position is: Don't pay attention to that and even question if genocide should be rewarded at the ballot box!! Climate change!! Climate change!! Pay attention to that ... but not so close attention that you wonder if the covert climate change and service to the oil lobby of the democrats is actually worse than an overt climate change denial and service to the oil lobby of the Republicans (that being undermined can be worse than being attacked, and so therefore it is not "perfectly clear").

current administration is literally completely engaged in financing, supporting, helping to execute and then just gaslighting everyone about a literal genocide and you're bold enough to say one administration is "clearly better than the other" based on a single naive example — boethius

Climate change is an existential risk. So that example is particularly relevant. But there are multiple others— that was one, yes. I’m not basing my entire judgement on that one example, though. (Some might argue that’s a kind of “fallacy” on your part.)

True, I don’t like Biden’s foreign policy either. I see no reason to believe Trump will be better about that.

If you want to twist yourself into a pretzel to continue believing that both are basically the same, or there’s no reason to believe one is “better” than the other, then you go right ahead. But you really aren’t paying attention in that case.

but not so close attention that you wonder if the covert climate change and service to the oil lobby of the democrats is actually worse than an overt climate change denial and service to the oil lobby of the Republicans — boethius

The democrats have been better on this, beyond question and on every metric. The IRA alone is point enough. I’ll gladly get into the details if you’d like. But ask yourself what Trump would do — actually, we don’t have to imagine. We know what he did while in office: took us back 10 years. Appointed an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA and withdrew from the Paris Accords.

Also, there are two choices. It’s Trump or Biden. No one likes that, but that’s the reality. Given those choices, there’s no point pretending it’s a hard decision.

Yes, supporting genocide is sickening. So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them.

With Trump you get all of the above. With Biden, you get one: now-wavering support for Israel. Trump would not be the least pressured by or concerned with anti-genocide protests.

It’s not the same, it’s not equal, it’s not hard to see which is worse. The choice is not difficult.

One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect, like the undermining of the justice system, or the proliferation of threats against public servants, all because he makes comments on social media. There is no evidence for it.

It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored.

But it’s also the cause of the backlash in the first place. No one, especially Trump, is ordering people to threaten the court or to lose faith in the justice system. The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. When people see that the judge’s daughter is a big-time consultant for the Biden/Harris campaign and Adam Schiff, they think that’s ridiculous and unjust. Why, of all judges, is it this one? Is there no judge without kids who work for Biden/Harris campaign? Is there no judge who has not assumed Trump’s guilt in earlier cases? This is why even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate.

One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect — NOS4A2

You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:

Trump's "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks, contained disinformation, serve no positive purpose, and will almost certainly result in threats of violence — Relativist

The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. — NOS4A2

And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.

There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.

There is no evidence for it. — NOS4A2

Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".

Here's an article about some acts carried out by Trumpists:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889

even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate — NOS4A2

Being a Democrat appears to anti-Democrat bigots as a conflict of interest. No evidence of personal gain has been identified. Loren Merchan works for a firm that does digital campaigning and online fundraising. Those activities will continue irrespective of the outcome of the case.

It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored. — NOS4A2

I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?

You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.

The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. — NOS4A2

You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.

You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:

If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. If there is no punishment for their malfeasance I would hope people let them know how they feel.

And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.

There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.

He’s done nothing wrong. The alleged crimes are made up out of thin air, and used as they are to influence the election in Biden’s favor. Have you explored the evidence that attests to this?

Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".

Standing down isn’t a in any way nefarious, I’m afraid. Invoking his name during a criminal act is no evidence that his rhetoric leads to criminal acts.

I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?

His rights were violated on the basis of prior restraint. I’ve mentioned this a few times now.

You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.

And you’re a censor, so it’s no wonder you’ll defend censorship. But it isn’t just my judgement. It’s also the judgement of the Supreme Court. Censorship on the basis of prior restraint is the most pernicious of all forms of censorship.

You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.

I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. I’m not cherry picking any cases here. I’m saying it of all of them. But typical of anti-Trumpism is the misrepresentation of an opponents views in a base effort of propaganda.

What I said is that free speech is a constitutional right that must be interpreted in the context of the Constitution, and that the courts have the authority and responsibility to interpret it. Gag orders are indeed prior restraint, but courts have upheld them for the purpose of ensuring the constitutional right to a fair trial. Such orders seem a very limited constraint-the speech limitation is narrow and persists only for the life of a trial. I don't always agree with SCOTUS decisions (e.g. Dobbs), but I defer to them by default unless I encounter compelling arguments they're wrong. You've given none other than proclaiming unlimited free speech is a "human right".

Is there a situation where a gag order prohibits voicing something in the public interest or that is grossly unfair? Conceivably yes, but the constraint on Trump is a poor example of it. He's not harmed (as you noted- it's politically helpful to him to claim martyrdom), and there are no facts being withheld from the public. So again, your complaint seems based solely on free-speech absolutism as a "human right". Labelling me a "censor" for not agreeing with you seems ad hominem- not a rational case.

I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. — NOS4A2

My bad, I jumped to the conclusion that you were parrotting GOP talking points. Sorry.

I acknowledge there's evidence Bragg was politically motivated to charge Trump. However that doesn't imply it's a false accusation, or even that it's unfair: Cohen went to prison but his co-conspirator didn't even get charged until Bragg indicted him.

Bragg's possible political motivation doesn't have any bearing on the federal charges brought by Smith. Rather, those charges are of the utmost seriousness and reflect on Trump's fitness for office. It's a pity if those cases are delayed until after the election; the public does have a right to know if the GOP candidate is a criminal.

Being a Democrat appears to anti-Democrat bigots as a conflict of interest. — Relativist

Being a conservative, to an anti-conservative, is tantamount to being a literal Nazi.

Its a big carousel of stupid.

Trumpism is an authoritarian[a] political movement that follows the political ideologies associated with Donald Trump and his political base[32][33] incorporating ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism.b] Trumpist rhetoric heavily features anti-immigrant,[43] xenophobic,[44] nativist,[45] and racist attacks against minority groups.[46][47] Other identified aspects include conspiracist,[48][49] isolationist,[45][50] Christian nationalist,[51] protectionist,[52][53] anti-feminist,[17][13] and anti-LGBT[54] beliefs. Trumpists and Trumpians are terms that refer to individuals exhibiting its characteristics.

What's not the like? The problem isn't a gag-order, the problem is Trump and his voter base who like to pretend it's about corruption when it's about the above. Just a ball of a lot of hate courtesy of decades of neoliberalism.

rumpism is an authoritarian[a] political movement that follows the political ideologies associated with Donald Trump and his political base[32][33] incorporating ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism.b] Trumpist rhetoric heavily features anti-immigrant,[43] xenophobic,[44] nativist,[45] and racist attacks against minority groups.[46][47] Other identified aspects include conspiracist,[48][49] isolationist,[45][50] Christian nationalist,[51] protectionist,[52][53] anti-feminist,[17][13] and anti-LGBT[54] beliefs. Trumpists and Trumpians are terms that refer to individuals exhibiting its characteristics. — Benkei

Careful so you don't step on someone's free speech by labeling them as something they say they definitely aren't while some apologist calls you out for calling them stupid racists rather than trying to bridge the societal gaps by giving them the intellectual respect they themselves demand to deserve.