A person becomes a criminal when he commits the crime, not at the point of a criminal conviction. The Caroll lawsuit was based on him having committed a crime. Tax fraud and obstruction of justice are crimes. Conspiring to overturn an election is a crime- an extremely serious one.

None of which resulted in any criminal convictions, correct?

Funny how you selectively apply that excuse.

You’ve convicted him of crimes but no one else has. Crazy how that works out.

He was convicted of 34 felonies tho. Nobody cares, they elected him anyway.

...his accountant wrote “legal expenses” instead of “hush money”.., — NOS4A2

Fraud, black and white. Many would go to jail for such a crime.

His accountant wrote “legal fees” instead of “hush money”. This might have been a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations ran out in 2019 (if ndas were illegal), but now a felony proven with inadmissible evidence, allegedly to hide another crime that cannot be mentioned. This the first time in history anyone has been convicted of this shit.

Remember when Trump made guest appearances in The Nany sitcom back in the 90's? He also made a guest appearance as an amateur voice actor in The Simpsons.

I think he appeared in other comedies as well during that era. Never appeared on Seinfeld, though. And Seinfeld is the best sitcom of all times.

And the other 33 felonies?

Same one, repeated 33 times.

Same one, repeated 33 times. — NOS4A2

Well, that makes no sense.

This the first time in history anyone has been convicted of this shit. — NOS4A2

It's probably the first time in history that anyone has recorded hush money as legal fees. Fraudsters are known to be very creative in their efforts to evade the law.

Then what should he have written?

A little more salt-mining.

They used to be so proud of a Swift endorsement. Now no one is into their brand.

Taylor Swift Was Booed at the Super Bowl—and Donald Trump Was Cheered. What Is Going on?

United States of Kakistan
10February25 (FAFO day 21)

As the "deep state" is being bulldozed and replaced – with fear-muzzled, bipartisan acquience – by the Project 2025 state, I'm reminded of the world-historical power of human stupidity ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/967127

Then what should he have written? — NOS4A2

Nothing, because it was not an allowable expense. That's why it's fraud, he recorded it as "legal expenses", when it was a personal payment. For example, have you ever tried claiming money you paid to a prostitute as "legal expenses" on your tax return?

It was not Trump who designated the payments, which were legal. It was others at the organization. There is no evidence that Trump even knew what they were for. He only signed for it, as he often did with his money. Big crime, I guess.

The alleged crime was that he falsified business records with the intent to disguise another crime, and that alleged crime was that he used “unlawful means” to promote his election, or some obscure bullshit. The problem is no intent to disguise another crime was proven, no “unlawful means” were found. Nor was there any crime to disguise in the first place.

In any case, Trump’s new elite law team has recently formed to appeal the ruling, and we’ll find out who the real criminals are.

Of all the fucked up things the US government gets up to, which the American people blatantly ignore, up to and including genocide (Vietnam, Cambodia, East-Timor, Gaza, etc.), the hush money thing is where you suddenly draw the line?

Trump's election must have fried something in your brains or something, or maybe you were never very clever to begin with.

Every day I find it harder to take this forum seriously.

Do want us to add a little addendum that excoriates the Vietnam War after each comment, in a thread that has nothing to do with the topics you mention?

If you want more anti-American threads go check out Reddit.

How is the endless list of grave moral transgressions of the US not relevant in a thread which consists almost exclusively of whinging about the moral fibre of its current president?

It just makes you look like a bunch of ignorant morons is all - pretty disappointing on a forum that's supposedly filled with intelligent people.

To be fair it is a free for all in this thread, so go nuts and remind us of Vietnam. I don’t care. I just think it’s stupid to insult people for writing about the topic of a thread. Maybe start a new one.

Do you share the enthusiasm of your man Viktor Orbán for the "current president"?

The world has been changed in a few weeks by the Trump tornado. An era has come to an end. Yesterday we were the heretics; today we are the mainstream. — Viktor Orbán

@Tzeentch is Hungarian?

I just think it’s stupid to insult people for writing about the topic of a thread. — NOS4A2

I'm not really trying to insult anyone. It's just getting embarassing.

"My man" Viktor Orban? Did I miss something or are you just exhibiting the same type of intellectual rabies as everyone else in this thread?

Tzeentch is Hungarian? — Arcane Sandwich

I don't think so. I only remember he has spoken approvingly of Viktor Orbán's struggle against the EU and NATO.

Did I miss something or are you just exhibiting the same type of intellectual rabies as everyone else in this thread? — Tzeentch

Do I have intellectual rabies?

Of course there is. — Benkei

No there isn't. They are express policies of racism, sexism and bigotry. On their face, and on analysis.

It's been funny seeing people argue doing nothing resolves problems — Benkei

That's a wild leap to make. Not one which applies to me, at any rate. I have no idea what the rest of that comment is getting at/supposed to say/what the point it. Sounds like you just don't like people disagreeing with you, and so say things to convince yourself of a moral high ground.

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function. — tim wood

You cannot solve a problem by doing the same thing which caused it (unless you're suggesting there are extant conflicting policies - some of which arbitrarily protect or raise certain groups, and some of which remedy that obvious injustice - but obviously, that's batshit to claim). And the proof is already in the pudding on this one, anyhow. It's not really an 'opinion' issue anymore.

“It’s not a complex thing to do.” — Donald Trump on his Gaza plans.

Is all the yelling here due to thinking that DEI efforts are against choosing on merit?
That wasn't my impression, rather the opposite, it's intended to apply when choices aren't based on merit (which isn't hypothetical), hence diversity equity inclusion.
Either way, RFK Jr sure wasn't appointed head of Health on merit. :D



Someone somewhere else was trying to come up with historical analogies to ...

HIV, transgender care, climate change and other federal websites go dark
^{— April Rubin · Axios · Jan 31, 2025}

Our Service Academies have been infiltrated by Woke Leftist Ideologues over the last four years. I have ordered the immediate dismissal of the Board of Visitors for the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard. We will have the strongest Military in History, and that begins by appointing new individuals to these Boards. We must make the Military Academies GREAT AGAIN! — Donald J. Trump · Feb 10, 2025

As USAID retreats, China pounces
^{— Robbie Gramer, Eric Bazail-Eimil, Phelim Kine · POLITICO · Feb 10, 2025}

He only signed for it, as he often did with his money. Big crime, I guess. — NOS4A2

I guess so too, because I know that if I did something like that I'd be considered a criminal. I mean, you sign for something criminal, then later claim that you didn't know anything about what you signed for. I'm sure the judge would just laugh at my excuse, and say, you know, the reason you sign for it is to acknowledge that you know what you are paying for, sorry buddy you're guilty. Shit like that just doesn't ever hold up in court.

How is the endless list of grave moral transgressions of the US not relevant in a thread which consists almost exclusively of whinging about the moral fibre of its current president? — Tzeentch

Obviously, the latter is the subject of the thread, the former is not.