Current Affairs 2024 POTUS race

[dylsexicbleu]

You misunderstand the differences between 2000 and 2020. When Gore lost Bush v. Gore, he didn't start leaning on state officials, plotting slates of fake electors or hold a rally to put a mob on the Mall on January 6. Gore was not prosecuted because he did not commit crimes.

Nixon not being prosecuted was a political calculation. Ford, a fellow Republican, figured nothing good comes of prosecution for anyone, and probably cost himself any shot in the 1976 election with the pardon.

One fact making the Nixon pardon less dangerous is that Nixon could not run again. If Gore does what Trump did in 2000, he probably gets prosecuted. Just because he says he'll retire from the political theater doesn't mean he will. Nixon, by contrast, could not mount a comeback.

Again, so political calculations were front & centre of the decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute Nixon and now Trump. The difference between Gore & Trump is that SCOTUS had already ruled on Gore long before the inauguration. However, before the SCOTUS ruling both campaigns did send out goons to interrupt re-counts in Florida. In Bush's case to prevent recounts, in Gore's case to encourage recounts in heavy Dem areas only. Neither man(or their campaigns)were prosecuted.

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Bollox

He’s a filthy criminal who is loved by bigoted fools

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime. I have no real opinion on whether Donald Trump is a criminal or not. My argument is merely that these prosecutions are politically motivated. Many, if not most, politicians in modern America have committed various crimes sometime in their career(it's the nature of politicians I'm afraid). The vast majority go unpunished because the motivation is not there politically.

Trump, a businessman with something like 50 years of business practice behind him, has been in hundreds of legal cases throughout the decades. He's won some of these cases, he's lost others. He's probably come out even-ish legally over the decades. Now, after a stint in politics he is having Federal and State legal systems trying to utterly destroy him. Coincidence? Almost certainly not.

Anyway, no matter the verdict I think ultimately SCOTUS undoes many of the prosecutions against him.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime. I have no real opinion on whether Donald Trump is a criminal or not. My argument is merely that these prosecutions are politically motivated. Many, if not most, politicians in modern America have committed various crimes sometime in their career(it's the nature of politicians I'm afraid). The vast majority go unpunished because the motivation is not there politically.

Trump, a businessman with something like 50 years of business practice behind him, has been in hundreds of legal cases throughout the decades. He's won some of these cases, he's lost others. He's probably come out even-ish legally over the decades. Now, after a stint in politics he is having Federal and State legal systems trying to utterly destroy him. Coincidence? Almost certainly not.

Anyway, no matter the verdict I think ultimately SCOTUS undoes many of the prosecutions against him.

I’m driving but look forward to reading this properly and responding in kind. It seems a more level response tbh

 

[dublinbluenose]

Again, so political calculations were front & centre of the decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute Nixon and now Trump. The difference between Gore & Trump is that SCOTUS had already ruled on Gore long before the inauguration. However, before the SCOTUS ruling both campaigns did send out goons to interrupt re-counts in Florida. In Bush's case to prevent recounts, in Gore's case to encourage recounts in heavy Dem areas only. Neither man(or their campaigns)were prosecuted.

Requesting a recount and trying to prevent counting are not two sides of the same coin.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I don't have to supply any evidence that things would be ameliorated under Trump.

I stated yesterday that this wasn't a compare and contrast exercise. My attack on Biden is not to suggest Trump gets you anywhere more hopeful.

Biden has participated in a policy of genocide visited upon the Palestinian people. There's no avoiding that - as much as you might try and present him in a better light by comparing him per se with Trump. Democratic voters are seeing this and are being turned off voting for him becuase they know you don't reward people who are in a pact with foreign leaders who have committed war crimes and who are now in the cross hairs of the International Criminal Court.

A YouGov poll this week of battleground states shows that a fifth of Democratic and Independent voters won't support Biden in November unless he imposes a ceasefire on Israel and forces through full humanitarian aid into Gaza.


The election victory is there for Biden if he does that, but the odds are that he'll get right behind the Israeli's (with a bit of handwringing in the media) until the bitter end.

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Requesting a recount and trying to prevent counting are not two sides of the same coin.

Requesting? Various recount locations had groups of people trying to gain access to count centres. Now, im not a prosecutor, I do not have the legal authority to demand internal campaign communications that prove these men were specifically sent by the campaigns. However, it's politics, if we are all being honest we know there was likely co-ordination going on between those high in the campaign and local ne'er-do-wells. Yet, no-one was prosecuted.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Again, so political calculations were front & centre of the decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute Nixon and now Trump. The difference between Gore & Trump is that SCOTUS had already ruled on Gore long before the inauguration. However, before the SCOTUS ruling both campaigns did send out goons to interrupt re-counts in Florida. In Bush's case to prevent recounts, in Gore's case to encourage recounts in heavy Dem areas only. Neither man(or their campaigns)were prosecuted.

There's no question that Ford made a political calculation on Nixon. I could argue the precedent has haunted us ever since. Reagan wanted Iran-Contra, his top aides thought it was illegal, and they burned for it until Bush 41 pulled their irons out of the fire with pardons. It's a license for presidents to order stupid stuff and let someone else pay the price.

The difference between Gore and Trump is that Gore did nothing illegal. If Trump had hung up his spurs after the election, he almost certainly walks without trial in the New York case and in the classified documents case. Bluntly, they don't receive the same level of public scrutiny, and there isn't the appetite for prosecution. The Jan 6. and Georgia cases don't exist, in that world.

I would call this case in New York politically motivated. I wouldn't say the same about the classified documents case, but I also think the details can be kept under wraps if Trump is out of the public eye. It's a prosecution no one wants if Trump no longer has skin in the game, and the intelligence community is better off quietly fixing the problems. It's the kind of story that under normal circumstances is broken by a reporter once Trump is safely dead.

 

[Walken]

I think he's mentioned he's an academic, no wonder the kids are screwed these days.

is he balls, look at the tosh he cites

 

[Martin Alvito]

is he balls, look at the tosh he cites

There are bad academics, just like in any other walk of life. Corrupt ones, too, like the ones in the fossil fuel companies' pockets.

There's also the fact that I met plenty of absolutely blind ideologues over the years, when it came to their personal politics. They might have a great full prof posting at a top university, and be able to rationally evaluate who's winning this election from data, but their political beliefs might as well have been handed to them on stone tablets by God himself.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

I don't have to supply any evidence that things would be ameliorated under Trump.

I stated yesterday that this wasn't a compare and contrast exercise. My attack on Biden is not to suggest Trump gets you anywhere more hopeful.

Biden has participated in a policy of genocide visited upon the Palestinian people. There's no avoiding that - as much as you might try and present him in a better light by comparing him per se with Trump. Democratic voters are seeing this and are being turned off voting for him becuase they know you don't reward people who are in a pact with foreign leaders who have committed war crimes and who are now in the cross hairs of the International Criminal Court.

A YouGov poll this week of battleground states shows that a fifth of Democratic and Independent voters won't support Biden in November unless he imposes a ceasefire on Israel and forces through full humanitarian aid into Gaza.


The election victory is there for Biden if he does that, but the odds are that he'll get right behind the Israeli's (with a bit of handwringing in the media) until the bitter end.

The whole purpose of this thread title is a compare and contrast exercise. That's LITERALLY what it is

So go post about how bad Biden is in the two threads I mentioned yesterday designed to do just that, carte blanche.

 

[Walken]

There are bad academics, just like in any other walk of life. Corrupt ones, too, like the ones in the fossil fuel companies' pockets.

There's also the fact that I met plenty of absolutely blind ideologues over the years, when it came to their personal politics. They might have a great full prof posting at a top university, and be able to rationally evaluate who's winning this election from data, but their political beliefs might as well have been handed to them on stone tablets by God himself.

Bad academics or even insincere ones still know how to cite information correctly without immediately defeating their own argument. It's one if the very first skills you learn

 

[LinekersLegs]

I don't have to supply any evidence that things would be ameliorated under Trump.

I stated yesterday that this wasn't a compare and contrast exercise. My attack on Biden is not to suggest Trump gets you anywhere more hopeful.

Biden has participated in a policy of genocide visited upon the Palestinian people. There's no avoiding that - as much as you might try and present him in a better light by comparing him per se with Trump. Democratic voters are seeing this and are being turned off voting for him becuase they know you don't reward people who are in a pact with foreign leaders who have committed war crimes and who are now in the cross hairs of the International Criminal Court.

A YouGov poll this week of battleground states shows that a fifth of Democratic and Independent voters won't support Biden in November unless he imposes a ceasefire on Israel and forces through full humanitarian aid into Gaza.


The election victory is there for Biden if he does that, but the odds are that he'll get right behind the Israeli's (with a bit of handwringing in the media) until the bitter end.

Forgetting Yemen again I see, and anything that might tell us about Trump’s future actions re Gaza.

Despite what you stated it is actually a compare and contrast exercise if you care about Gaza, or a whole host of other topics both international and domestic. One of these two old men will be president in January. I’d prefer it to be Biden.

And with that I’m going to leave you to your specious arguments.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Bad academics or even insincere ones still know how to cite information correctly without immediately defeating their own argument. It's one if the very first skills you learn

There was a "plus one" (spouse) in the philosophy department at my undergraduate institution. Top school. She lacked those skills. They used her as an instructor to enable athletes to pass the consensus hardest mandatory course for all students.

(No, it was not Stanford. They're just the ones most notorious for that sort of thing. Lots of schools do it.)

I know a full prof in medicine at a top 15 US university who actually locked all of his colleagues out of their private practice during a dispute.

So if you told me Dave teaches at the UK equivalent of Directional [insert state here] University or a community college, I would shrug. Rationality is fully optional even at the best universities if you bring enough prestige, and even the best schools have the odd clod.

 

[Ruairi77]

So you (and the posters who clicked like on your post) seem to now agree with me that this is a politically motivated prosecution. If Trump retires from the stage, and does not run for President, he gets a pass on this 'crime'.

If the authorities are politically motivated for this prosecution then there is a high probability the other prosecutions are politically motivated too.

I dont get the right wing outrage at politically motivated prosicutions.
At the same time they're tying themselves in knots trying to convict the presidents son and impeach the president.

If you want to be POTUS, you've got to be squeaky clean or expect the opposition to use your history against you.
If Trump doesn't win the presidency, his tax dodging and bank fraud likely goes under the DA's radar as the city would prioritize the tax take over a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it's always been here.
And for the SCOTUS to throw out any conviction, I presume they'd have to establish a precedent that any former POTUS has immunity. I doubt even they would do that.

 

[Walken]

There was a "plus one" (spouse) in the philosophy department at my undergraduate institution. Top school. She lacked those skills. They used her as an instructor to enable athletes to pass the consensus hardest mandatory course for all students.

(No, it was not Stanford. They're just the ones most notorious for that sort of thing. Lots of schools do it.)

I know a full prof in medicine at a top 15 US university who actually locked all of his colleagues out of their private practice during a dispute.

So if you told me Dave teaches at the UK equivalent of Directional [insert state here] University or a community college, I would shrug. Rationality is fully optional even at the best universities if you bring enough prestige, and even the best schools have the odd clod.

Its possible but unlikely Dave works or is involved in academia given how he presents his information and arguments.

He's got retired middle management written all over him