It seems to me more an admission of guilt than a statement of any fact. I say this because the man in your last video tells me the reality of Trump's hateful movement is that they are motivated by racial prejudice and the secularization of the nation. This man says that all logic, reason, and evidence shows that "the average Trump voter" (74,222,958 of them) is not concerned with economics, but with the rising racial underclass and its encroachment on their identity and culture. One piece of evidence he provides is that those who were arrested on Jan. 6th (which I'll pretend is not too small sample) come from areas where racial minorities were making gains on racial majorities, none of which indicates their desires and motivations.

So I find another video and here is one from NBC where Trump voters express why they are voting for Trump.

So who is lying?

Many people love and depend on the state, and I wouldn't dare take it away from them.

Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2

Do you never tire of this nonsense?

I am tired of people taking my money. You?

So who is lying? — NOS4A2

Trump is lying, and some people believe his lies because they really want to. People like Trump because they like what he says. I thought you might have had something a bit more interesting, but that's all there is I guess. 4 years a president then 4 and the border problem is still the problem he is going to solve in his second term.

I wasn't expecting people to come out and say, "l love Trump because his a bigot, a racist and a misogynist, and so am I." So I'm not very surprised it didn't happen.

Yes. The payment to Stormy was made before the election, and it was made to kill the story (interfering with the election). — Relativist

1. Was Trump charged with paying Daniels?
2. Were the actions he was charged with performed before or after the election?
3. Was a payment to Daniels illegal?
4. Is withholding information election interference?

I am late to the game, but the Libertarians seem correct: the logical and legal reasoning involved here is remarkably bad. "Jungle juice" jurisprudence:

But you’re keenly interested in the material from the guy who can offer no evidence of his claims. There was a great little article in Rolling Stone about the MeidasTouch Network, scolding with as “Trumpian” in their dealings. Maybe the self-hating projection is hitting a little too close to home.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/meidastouch-2020-campaign-finance-trump-1152482/

The earlier video they posted was the actual video. They couldn’t tell the difference between the “cheap fake” and the real one. 1984. So funny.

Was Trump charged with paying Daniels?
Were the actions he was charged with performed before or after the election?
Was a payment to Daniels illegal?
Is withholding information election interference? — Leontiskos

Red herrings. You're listing activities that aren't inherently illegal, but are merely immoral.

The problem was that in committing these immoral acts, the conspirators failed to stay within the confines of the law. The law was most certainly broken (this was established by the evidence, and confirmed by the jury). The specific law Trump was convicted of breaking is certainly a technicality, and a trivial one - but he did break it.

But the broader context is the inherent immorality of the acts. Trump supporters tend to gloss over this, as if everything is fine as long as it's not illegal. It's ironic when his immorality results in crossing legal boundaries, and he suffers a consequence.

The consequences of Trump's (technically trivial) crime were enormous - and (IMO) that's what makes this an important case. It wasn't important because the technical crime was a big deal, but Trump made it important by flagrantly disrespecting the rule of law, and encouaging that attitude amongst his followers. A statesmanlike attitude would entail respecting the process (compare to Joe Biden's comments about his son's conviction). Trump has only himself to blame, but he blames everyone else involved - attacking with childish insults. Trump is no statesman; he's a fraudster, of which this particular (trivial) crime is just the latest example.

Trump is no statesman; he's a fraudster, of which this particular (trivial) crime is just the latest example. — Relativist

Yes, and in the video I linked it is construed, "Trump is crimey, therefore he must have committed a crime." This is the basic thinking. And he may have committed a misdemeanor. Hard to tell.

But the broader context is the inherent immorality of the acts. Trump supporters tend to gloss over this, as if everything is fine as long as it's not illegal. — Relativist

Trump made it important by flagrantly disrespecting the rule of law — Relativist

The conviction seems to be a flagrant disrespect of the rule of law, and it seems that the only interesting question is whether this kangaroo court will significantly harm our rule of law. Courts are for legal matters, not non-legal moral matters. You yourself are showing a disregard for the rule of law in construing his conviction as a moral matter rather than a legal matter.

Trump is immoral, but were he especially criminal I would expect that a clear crime could be found! No one even knows what he is supposed to have done. The jury itself couldn't even agree on that.

The conviction seems to be a flagrant disrespect of the rule of law, — Leontiskos

My guess is that you're not familiar with the technical details of the law that Trump was convicted of breaking, and are substituting some distorted view of what you think the law is (or should be). That would explain why you listed the red herrings.

Let's test that. Do you understand how Trump could be held legally accountable for the falsification of business records, despite the fact that Trump did not personally make the accounting entry? That's a question that trips up a lot of people. If you do understand why, then please identify specifically what elements of the law (§175.10) that were clearly not met.

- Well, you brought up the payment to Daniels, not me. You brought it up because it happened prior to the election, and it is at least temporally possible that something that occurred before the election influenced the election. Then I asked if he was charged for the payment, and you started sprinkling red herrings all about. The article asks how actions taken in 2017 could have influenced an election in 2016. If you're abandoning the payment to Daniels as the action taken, then what action influenced the election? It should go without saying that the action should be related to the charge.

Sounds like you're confirming that you don't understand the law he was charged with. Your points were red herrings because you were implying no actual crime was committed, but your points weren't relevent to the elements of the case.

At best, your points seemed to be contextual. That's why I responded with some contextual points of my own. I wasn't trying to present the legal elements, so they aren't "red herrings". I had stipulated the fact that Trump was guilty of the crime he was charged with. If you don't understand why this conviction was legitimate, ask questions.

Understand that I never thought this indictment should have been made. It's also possible the law will be held unconstitutional. But he's legitimately guilty of committing the crime as it's written- all the intricate details needed to establish guilt were demonstrated by evidence.

I wasn't expecting people to come out and say, "l love Trump because his a bigot, a racist and a misogynist, and so am I." So I'm not very surprised it didn't happen. — unenlightened

:up: :up:

Many people love and depend on the state, and I wouldn't dare take it away from them. — NOS4A2

Seems like your comments elsewhere answer my inquiry better.

Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2

I am tired of people taking my money. — NOS4A2

What gives?

Unless... A tax-free state (with government), no law (enforcement), ...?

Seems like your comments elsewhere answer my inquiry better.

A comment that has nothing to do with your inquiry? Sure.

What gives?

Unless... A tax-free state (with government), no law (enforcement), ...?

What gives what? What’s with the weird punctuation? Tell me what you want to know. “I want to know…”.

MeidasTouch is correct in pointing out the dangers President Trump poses to democracy, and undeniably effective in spreading that message to its social media followers.

Your link, NOS.

After a lot of stuff about their ad campaign, some maybe-waybes about their fund-raising and stuff. Criticism of the actual content of their reporting:— a big fat zero. I don't have to defend Meidas touch as individuals when the main accusation is ...

But being on the right side of the Trump fight does not make an organization above scrutiny. And when MeidasTouch faced questions about how it used the $5 million donors entrusted it with to beat Trump, its response was straight out of the Trump playbook.

Perhaps Trump could sue them for unauthorised use of his playbook. :razz:

It is perhaps apposite to say something semi-philosophical about "bias". It is surely the duty of the media, and ordinary mortals not to be even-handed as between truth and falsehood, but to be maximally biased towards the truth. If every true statement is balanced by an equal falsehood, then no communication can happen at all.

The difficulty, of course, is in deciding between competing stories and competing story-tellers. And in this context, the rules of evidence developed by the legal system along with the sceptical methods of science serve as the best models of a pragmatic way of seeking the truth.

And to bring this to a short conclusion directed at the topic in hand, If one looks at the court cases that Trump has been involved in, the general result is that he loses, whenever the actual facts are tested in court. Jury after jury, after grand jury finds against him whenever the rules of evidence are applied, and not the rules of Noddy in Toyland.

Not that justice is inevitable, and wrong decisions are never made, and as soon as I start seeing any real evidence of kangaroos or other marsupials dominating the US legal system, I reserve the right to admit I was mistaken. In the meantime, there is no balance to be found between Fox News and Meidas Touch; the former is a propaganda machine and scandalmonger, and the latter is a politically biased but fact based reporter of the terrible state of the US.

I don't need Rolling Stone to criticize the actual content of their reporting, as I've done that already, and without any riposte or reference to pro-Trump media. No doubt, the anti-Trump Rolling Stone believes exactly what the anti-Trump MeidasTouch does. My only point was to indicate the wind-sock nature of your standards, which disdains Trump's self-hating projection, but finds it interesting and worthy enough to proliferate in MeidasTouch.

Any bias towards the truth doesn't readily accept appeals to authority while completely ignoring the counter evidence, which you'll never witness on MeidasTouch or in the prosecution's case. This leads me to remain suspicious of any professed claims towards facts or balance, especially when it comes from the open prison of some European nanny-state.

Any bias towards the truth doesn't readily accept appeals to authority while completely ignoring the counter evidence, which you'll never witness on MeidasTouch or in the prosecution's case. This leads me to remain suspicious of any professed claims towards facts or balance, especially when it comes from the open prison of some European nanny-state. — NOS4A2

You paranoia is not admissible.

What gives what? What’s with the weird punctuation? — NOS4A2

Droppings of the troll. Novel, though, to try to hide behind ellipses.

I'm afraid purple prose doesn't make the inquiry any more clear, Tim.

Well let's clear it up for you. You wrote this:

Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2

I'm thinking that 99.999% of your life was and is benefitted directly and indirectly by taxes. If taxes are theft, then you owe whatever the net amount of your benefit received, less taxes paid. Hmm, how much would that be? Right? You cannot have or gain an interest in what is not yours. And further, of course, you will immediately stop using anything having to do with taxes, right? Or are you just a fool making stupid statements. My guess, you're just a fool making stupid statements.

Slaves benefitted from the scraps of food they were given, the hovels their masters built them, the tattered clothes they were given. I suppose they should have just stopped using them, but since they benefitted they owe master whatever the net amount of their benefit they received.

Serfs benefitted from the protection of their lord's army and by using his roads. I suppose if they found misery in such an unjust relationship they should have just stopped farming on their little plot of land, using their lord's mills, and carrying their freight down his roads.

The Stockholm Syndrome is evident. You seem like the type who is grateful when someone steals from you in the off-chance you might benefit from his plunder.

What stupidity! Do you travel on a road, use a vehicle, read a book, eat food you didn't kill or grow yourself, receive medical care, live in a structure of some kind, have electricity, wear clothes, drink water, and on and on and on? Your remarks are an insult.

It’s an insult to human beings to say they benefit from their forced labor and exploitation because they eat food and drive on roads.

It’s an insult to human beings to say they benefit from their forced labor and exploitation because they eat food and drive on roads. — NOS4A2

Without being too personal, where and how do you live? And try to name something - anything - you have or do that is both independent and free of government.

in the off-chance you might benefit — NOS4A2

:D me me me

In some years there won't be any you to benefit anything. Meanwhile, civilized society is fairly beneficial. (I suppose you could cancel your membership, and go live on your own?)

Nothing I have or do is independent and free of the government. Its scope and reach is inescapable.

me me me

In some years there won't be any you to benefit anything. Meanwhile, civilized society is fairly beneficial. (I suppose you could cancel your membership, and go live on your own?)

You you you.

It isn’t I who is arguing for benefits, so your straw man is misplaced.

My impression is that you are libertarian and pro-democracy. Is that correct?