*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

So either the judge and proceedings are biased against him or he has terrible lawyers who haven't got the bollocks to advise Trump properly, which means telling him what he doesn't want to hear. If what he's saying is reasonable evidence, then it's not reasonable for the judge to dismiss it. On the other hand, if it's not reasonable evidence, then his lawyers really do need to get control of their client.

His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.

The judge ruled before the trial began that this is nonsense.

Note: this is not a criminal trial. The burden of evidence is "more than likely" not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for... he has this nasty habit of not paying his lawyers over the past many years. Maybe not all his lawyers, but certainly there are some high profile cases where that's been public news.

[Poopadoop]

I do like how the first thing that springs to Ong's mind is that the judge is biased. The second is that Trump has bad lawyers. Absolutely nothing about the wisdom of ignoring the court's explicit instructions and doing whatever you want in court as if that's ever going to fly.

[OngBonga]

His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.

If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for...

Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

If a defendant in a civil suit chooses not to defend themselves at the trial, that is their right.
In so doing, the court precedent is to rule unfavorably against the defendant on all counts.

In this specific trial, the judge already ruled Trump guilty before the trial began. That is well established to be "normal" for civil cases. It doesn't always go like that, but Trump's lawyers waived the right to a jury. In so doing, it is up to the judge to determine innocence or guilt.

The trial is not to determine innocence or guilt, that's already been decided, it is to determine the severity of consequences for the fraud that was committed.

If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

IDK the particulars of the differences between civil fraud and criminal fraud, but these charges have been pressed by the New York Attorney General as civil charges, as I understand it.

And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

The real issue for Trump is A) he is a noted real estate mogul and the false claims (only some of which are subjective) are well within the expected expertise of someone with those credentials and B) He's on record (audio and visual) of stating that he uses these documents to secure financial loans and opportunities.

So his claims of ignorance on either count are just not holding any sway in a court of law. The notion that such egregious misstatements about the square-footage of his home might be accidental are not believed. Trump openly admits that the objectively false statements in his filings are "mistakes" but insists his valuation of his properties several times bigger than anyone else's valuations are because those people are wrong. Which, again, isn't convincing anyone in the courts.

The fact that he's already admitted to the undeniably false contents of his claims really hurts any argument that the other "mistakes" weren't intentional.

Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.

I mean... the lawyers get to choose whether or not to take the job. They are not court appointed public defenders.

If they look at the case and they're like, "I can't win that case." that's enough for most lawyers to not take it. Why waste their time and resources on a lost cause? Well, for the money, obv. But then when the client has a reputation of not paying his lawyers... well....

[Poopadoop]

He also famously doesn't listen to his lawyers either. So for all we know, they did tell him 'nonononono, don't read that out,' and he did it anyways.

I'm also seriously disappointed this is not being televised.

[OngBonga]

I do like how the first thing that springs to Ong's mind is that the judge is biased.

I do like how the first thing you do is challenge what I said when anyone with basic reading comprehension would more than likely conclude that I was offering one highly unlikely scenario followed by a highly likely one. I guess you had to work hard to find a reason to argue with that small comment of mine.

[OngBonga]

There's clearly a USA/UK difference between the distinction of civil and criminal at play here. I mean, in the UK you don't get sued for criminal acts before getting criminally charged for it. If a British criminal court fails to successfully prosecute someone for an alleged crime, then as I understand it there is no hope of a civil case succeeding unless there is new evidence, and that new evidence would probably result in a criminal retrial before any civil proceedings took place.

There might be an element of a lower threshold of proof for civil courts that result in exceptions, and I might also just be flat out wrong, but morally speaking if someone is guilty of a crime they should face a criminal court before a civil court.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A quick google search for difference between civil and criminal fraud has explained some things.

A) you can't be tried for one then the other. The prosecutor has to pick one or the other. Often in these cases, the prosecutor can try to press both charges simultaneously, in the same trial, but the jury would only be able to convict on 1 of them.
This can vary widely state by state.

B) The civil charge doesn't even care about guilt. It only cares that harm was done. The defendant in a civil case cannot see personal punishment under the law, per se. The law is only there to determine if a fraud was committed and what appropriate compensation shall be awarded to the defrauded parties. (They may deem this a punishment, but legally, it's not classified that way.) Financial remuneration is the only expected outcome of a civil fraud case. The defendant cannot face prison time or any other legal punishment.

C) The lack of criminal punishment removes the state's requirement to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed fraud. Instead, the prosecution only needs to show that the defendant "more than likely" did the fraud.

D) Civil fraud can be levied against someone who doesn't themself commit fraud, but whom has others commit fraud for them.


That's the main differences I gleaned, anyway.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Happy Thanksgiving.

It's a US holiday based on ... uhh... let's not talk about it.
Just have a gratuitously obscene amount of food with your family or smth.

[OngBonga]

Personally I think that you guys shouldn't celebrate Thanksgiving. It's a British import and you decided all that time ago that you didn't want us to be your overlords.

[oskar]

Just dropping in to lock in my 2024 US presidential election predictions, which are as follows: Trump and Biden both die of dementia. It's Kamala Harris against Ron DeSantis. They somehow both lose, giving the title off POTUS to the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson... Who is that even? Anyway, that's your new president. Mike Johnson. I'm pretty sure of it.

[Poopadoop]

Trump and Biden both die of dementia.

I lol'd.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Trump voters prob. think it's fake news and vote him in, anyway.
Some rich asshole turn out their new AI Trumpbot that rules us all from here on out.

God Bless America!

[oskar]

good point

[OngBonga]

Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".

[Poopadoop]

Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".

Our PM just made a transphobic joke while the mother of a murdered trans teenager was a guest in the House of Commons. I'd say we're catching up. Still a ways to go though, Trump-level douchiness is a pretty high bar.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".

It's a shitshow, for sure.

The good news is that most Americans that aren't on TV / the news / whatever big money platform are pretty sensible and nice people.

I mean, don't bring up politics or they'll maybe transform into a total nutjob, but even then... most aren't that terrible. Just the typical hypocrisy I've seen around the world.

Everyone wants the gov't to give them more stuff and fuck off less, but also, they mostly just want to be in charge so they can choose who gets fucked over. Which is fucked up, but altogether normal around the world, AFAICT.

Seems totally madness to be all, "Ermagherd, I can't believe they treat me like this! They should actually be treating *those people* like this. SMH. So unfair." But there it is. Humans gonna human.

[oskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H8I-YGElbA&t=377s


Legally changing my name to Fifteen Nine Elevens right now.
This is like the girl math memes from a month ago, but with presidents.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Biden bending his back to justify an unjustified invasion and land grab by Israel while still condemning the same by Russia.

The fact that the US wont put any teeth behind calling out Israel's response as "problematic if true" is fucked up, and being protested across many college campuses in the US, including my own.

Funny how all the police in the surrounding regions show up to end a peaceful protest, but you can't get one to set foot on campus when there's an active shooter. By funny I mean problematic if true.

[oskar]

The funniest thing is that even after completely embarrassing himself for Netanyahu, Biden lost his homeys by one performative action that was likely just intended to appease anti-genocide voters before fall.

[Poopadoop]

The funniest thing is that even after completely embarrassing himself for Netanyahu, Biden lost his homeys by one performative action that was likely just intended to appease anti-genocide voters before fall.

They can always vote for the other guy.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tr...ppies-13129050

[oskar]

They can always vote for the other guy.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tr...ppies-13129050

These guys are putting up a fight, but they're facing stiff competition at the world clown awards:

[OngBonga]

Biden bending his back to justify an unjustified invasion and land grab by Israel while still condemning the same by Russia.

Is it the same though? I don't remember Ukraine's elected leaders entering Russia and murdering, torturing and kidnapping random Russians.

Not that I support Israeli "land grabs", because I absolutely do not. It's just that Israel are responding to a Genghis Khan style assault on their territory, while Russia are responding to their NATO paranoia. One is a very clear and obvious threat, the other is not. Israel's goal of destroying Hamas is morally reasonable, given the risk that Hamas poses to Israeli security.

After what Hamas did, Palestinians should have immediately taken to the streets to overthrow them. That would have given the population the moral high ground, and possibly might have resulted in Israel taking a less aggressive posture, and play a longer game. Instead the Palestinians celebrated, spat at naked hostages, then appealed to the world to stop the big bully from beating them up.

Don't elect terrorists.

Israel's response is of course problematic. And it's shocking that American police are cracking down on peaceful protest in Freedomland. I appreciate that violent and anti-Semitic protests do need to be dealt with, but that doesn't appear to be what the police are cracking down on. They appear to be cracking down on the freedom of assembly and protest.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong bending over backwards to differentiate the killing of innocent, non-combatant, non-military people into "good" and "bad."

Ong forgetting that the stated reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because the Azov Nazis were doing terrorisms to Russians.

Ong pretending he doesn't know the last election in Palestine was over 18 years ago / claiming the people being killed for their place of birth is justified because a leadership they never had the chance to vote for is their "chosen" leadership.

Ong suddenly believes the PR from aggressive militant governments at face value without stark incredulousness.

There was a justified and proportionate response Israel could have made. They (Netenyahu) have no interest in an appropriate or proportional response. They have no interest in remaining within their own national borders. They have repeatedly targeted civilians. They aren't even limiting their campaign against Hamas to only the 1 occupied territory. In Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, Israel has amplified military operations targeting civilians who have no connection to Hamas.

Israel has the right to defend itself, but what is happening is not self-defense. It's an aggressive land grab.

[OngBonga]

Ong forgetting that the stated reason Russia invaded Ukraine was because the Azov Nazis were doing terrorisms to Russians.

I haven't forgotten. There's a big difference between this and Hamas though. Hamas actually committed a serious act of terrorism against Israel. These neo-Nazis did not do anything to Russia other than maybe exist in a neighbouring country.

Let's be clear about one thing. There is a serious problem with Nazis in Ukraine, and this is not a security threat to Russia.

Ong pretending he doesn't know the last election in Palestine was over 18 years ago

I haven't heard any noise demanding fresh elections or an attempt to overthrow Hamas. Their system of democracy might be far from our standards, but Hamas are still the popular choice, largely because they oppose the existence of Israel.

ng suddenly believes the PR from aggressive militant governments at face value without stark incredulousness.

Not at all. But I could say exactly the same about anyone who believes anything Hamas says. They too are an aggressive militant government engaging in PR.

There was a justified and proportionate response Israel could have made.

Well this is where we might find some common ground. It's just that I'm fortunate enough to be a distant observer and not someone tasked with deciding what response is appropriate. Nobody should be surprised that Israel have decided that Hamas needs to be destroyed, especially since Israel cannot rely on the Palestinian people to do the job. The question is, what is the minimum required force to achieve the goal of destroying Hamas? I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make that call.

They aren't even limiting their campaign against Hamas to only the 1 occupied territory. In Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, Israel has amplified military operations targeting civilians who have no connection to Hamas.

Well Hamas isn't the only threat. There's a much more serious threat to the north... Hezbollah. And Israel need to be concerned about them too. These groups have a shared ideology, and it doesn't include the existence of Israel. I'll say it again - I most certainly do not support Israeli land grabs, they are hugely counterproductive, and yes this is happening right now under the guise of national security. But what do you think Hamas would be doing if they were the dominant military power? Grabbing land, that's what.

So it's a bit difficult to pick a side based on land grabs. Conventional warfare sucks, but it's largely avoidable. This war certainly was avoidable. All Hamas had to do was stay the fuck in the Gaza Strip. All Israel had to do to avoid the events of last October was to not exist. Do you see the difference?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well Hamas isn't the only threat. There's a much more serious threat to the north... Hezbollah. And Israel need to be concerned about them too. These groups have a shared ideology, and it doesn't include the existence of Israel. I'll say it again - I most certainly do not support Israeli land grabs, they are hugely counterproductive, and yes this is happening right now under the guise of national security. But what do you think Hamas would be doing if they were the dominant military power? Grabbing land, that's what.

All nations are threats to other nations. That doesn't justify violence against civilians / non-militants / non-combatants.
Nothing does.
It's brutal murder with no justification.
Fighting against people who want to kill you is one thing. Killing everyone in their general vicinity is totally a different thing.

Telling everyone who's not a combatant to go to a certain place to be out of harms way, then bombing that place when they get there is beyond any forgivable or defensible act. It's not an act of war or of justice against terrorists. It's brutal murder.

So it's a bit difficult to pick a side based on land grabs. Conventional warfare sucks, but it's largely avoidable. This war certainly was avoidable. All Hamas had to do was stay the fuck in the Gaza Strip. All Israel had to do to avoid the events of last October was to not exist. Do you see the difference?

This isn't a war, WTF? There was a terrorist act, and in response, Israel, (Fucking Israel of all nations!!) has turned to wiping out everyone who lives in a general region / under a specific gov't in response.

The word genocide isn't being thrown around lightly, here. Israeli leaders have repeatedly used language indicating the "total annihilation of Hamas" and when questioned about civilians and people who are not associated with Hamas, they answer, "There is only Hamas there." Like WTF?!? There absolutely is not "only Hamas" there. It's not even "only where Hamas is" that you're killing civilians, FFS.

This isn't a balanced fight. It's the 5th grade bully kicking ass in the entire 2nd grade class.
Oskar said it better than me.

[OngBonga]

Before October, I considered the Islamic threat against Israel to be largely exaggerated. By that, I mean I didn't think that Hamas would be so brazen to attack like they did. I thought maybe you might get acts of terrorism in Israeli cities, sponsored by the likes of al-Qaida or whatever they're called these days, but Hamas raiding border villages like Mongols, raping and pillaging? I didn't think that would happen. I didn't think they actually wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Now I do.

That kind of threat has to be dealt with.

[oskar]

In the very recent history leading up to October the 7th you had years of mostly peaceful protests in the March of Return in which countless atrocities by Israel were ignored by its allies. Mass arrests of Palestinians who were being held without charges, the release of which was a major reason for Hamas taking hostages back to Gaza for exchange. You had the Abraham Accords that left Palestine feeling left out once again. You had Trump moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. An unprecedented expansion in settlements and settler violence. The bombing of the AP building in Gaza that once again was ignored by Israel's allies. The defunding of UNRWA under Trump. The killing of Abu Akleh and the assault on her funeral by Israeli police.

If you make peaceful resistance impossible... and so on. Because I am an empath, I can say: October 7th: bad, actually. But what did they think was going to happen? -Well, I don't even think Hamas thought it was going to happen at the scale that it did. It looks like they severely underestimated the incompetence of the IDF. What is indicative of Hamas being the dog that caught the car here is that they almost immediately offered to give up the hostages in return for a ceasefire with no other conditions. Bad deal. But Netanyahu didn't take it, because it enabled them to do what they're doing now.

If you listen to what Likut members say about Palestinians, there really is no ambiguity, and I hate people who dance around the word genocide when you have members of the Knesset constantly say things like they want "total annihilation" and "wipe out the seed of Amalek from under heaven" and "drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza" and "if you don't give up precise weapons, we will use our imprecise weapons" and "there are no innocents in Gaza" and "We are fighting Nazis, you expect us to give food and water to Nazis?" and so on. It's laid out very well by South Africa's case in front of the ICJ if you want to listen to the 3h deposition, they make a pretty concise case.

But what do you think Hamas would be doing if they were the dominant military power? Grabbing land, that's what.

Like a wise TV chef once said: If my aunty had wheels, she would be a bicycle. Hamas will never be the dominant military power. Most of what they can do is make fireworks out of unexploded 2000lb bombs Israel dropped on them and shoot them at the iron dome while celebrating the US tax money they burned.
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516...the-west-bank/

[CoccoBill]

The US could stop the war tomorrow, if they ended their military support of Israel. Not saying they should, could or would, but I would say it's been clear since the 50s that the neighboring "hostile" nations can't pose an existential threat to Israel even combined.

Well put by Oskar.

[oskar]

The US could stop the war tomorrow, if they ended their military support of Israel. Not saying they should, could or would, but I would say it's been clear since the 50s that the neighboring "hostile" nations can't pose an existential threat to Israel even combined.

Well put by Oskar.

I think it has been firmly established that nobody in US politics will end support for Israel because of the genocide. They may however stop support if Israel stops being useful as a colonial outpost in the middle east. Israel has been very useful strategically, but it is very questionable of how much value it is if it keeps doing stuff like randomly blowing up Iranian generals in Syrian embassy's without even informing the US and completely ending any pretense that they are interested in a 2 state solution. If it turns out they shot down that helicopter, Iran is going to be big mad.

On the other hand you have Bin Salman who is desperate to be allowed in the cool kids club. Everything the UAE do is like: hey look, we're the good middle east. Look, Dubai is pretty cool, right? Don't come too close, but from over there... shiny, huh?

So if you have a viable diplomatic partner in the middle east, and your current diplomatic partner is doing genocide with no pretense, then maybe there will be a shift in diplomacy. Israel also seems historically unstable from the inside. The shit Haaretz writes about Likut right now is just about the harshest you will read in any international paper, and that is a paper run by other Zionists.

[OngBonga]

Seems highly unlikely Israel had a hand in the helicopter clash. Much more likely to be an internal hit. This guy was basically involved in a two horse race for the keys to the Supreme office, the other guy being the current Supreme Leader's 2nd son, who now has a clear run at the top job.

Mossad might have assassinated generals and lots of other important people, but, to my knowledge, have never taken out a head of state. Doing so is an act of war, and if this is what had happened I feel like the rhetoric coming from Iran right now would be a great deal more hawkish.

It's either an inside job, or perhaps the very unlikely possibility of an actual accident in thick fog.

[oskar]

I saw video of zero visibility fog on the day of the crash, sot hat's probably what happened. Authoritarian countries have a bad track record of aviation safety. Always someone doing the old "Do you know who I am?! You will get us to our big thing post haste!" or something like that.

Still only a matter of time until Israel engages in a provocation that can't be ignored. It looks like end-stage fascism over there. They're already going final-solution on Gaza. I think it's kind of funny that there's a surge of outrage now that there's another attack with lots of video footage... What did people think happened to the other 40,000 dead? You drop bombs on people, they get crushed and burned to death. I swear a majority of people have no concept of object permanence beyond their immediate vision. If they don't see it happening in front of their eyes they cannot even conceptualize it.

I didn't even know Iran had a president tbh. Who knows what's going on over there.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, I don't have a big enough masochistic streak to watch a Biden-Trump debate, but I've heard it said that the Ds are freaking out right now over how senile sleepy Joe looked. Trump did his usual lie lie lie thing but as usual his supporters won't care.

gl America and the World.

[oskar]

I think we shouldn't be too harsh. He's a first term president doing his best. He might be off to a rough start, but he still has room to grow and it's still early in the race... or something to that effect according to Kamala Harris. Reminds me of that Norm SNL bit "Emma Plinket from Kentucky finally graduated college at the ripe age of 89. What's next for Emma?" *leans in* "Death!"

I've heard Joy Reid and Jake Tapper basically scream at the President to step down. It would be insane for him to keep running. It was insane for him to be carried through the primary in 2019, but he's done. They are gift wrapping Trumps second term if they keep him in the race.

[Poopadoop]

I'm looking forward to next year, by which time the UK will have one of the few sensible gov'ts in the civilised world. Take that, Eurorightwingloonytards!

[oskar]

Damn right! Who would have thought it would be the Land of Lords and Ladies of all places, where progressivism can score a goal? Did you guys just make a case for accelerationism or was it the perfect storm?

[Poopadoop]

Damn right! Who would have thought it would be the Land of Lords and Ladies of all places, where progressivism can score a goal? Did you guys just make a case for accelerationism or was it the perfect storm?

I'd say the latter. Covid, war in Ukraine, inflation, and a completely incompetent and corrupt government all coalesced into one giant ball of contempt for the Tories. People aren't excited about Labour they're just sick of the Tories.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is a wrap up of some of the corruption.




My friend in Barnoldswick sent me pictures of an old building burning down in (or near) the town. There was loose speculation that "kids" started it. I asked her if the fire department was just letting it burn, since the pictures were of a full blaze with no sign of firefighters in the pic.
She replied there hasn't been a fire brigade in her town for quite some time.

IDK if that's related to funding cuts for public services, but WTF either way.
Barnoldswick isn't a big town, but like all British cities, everything's really packed in close together. Like a row of houses looks like a single building at first glance / everything's built literally touching the next building with no path between them. If a fire breaks out in one of those rows, with no fire brigade to stop it... there goes the neighborhood.

[Poopadoop]

"Video unavailable in your country." We can't handle the truth!

Following the 2008 crash, the Tories got into power in 2010. Their first move was austerity:to start cutting funding for everything, everywhere. Fourteen years later, and people are finally starting to figure out why there's not enough doctors, not enough nurses or careworkers, not enough teachers, not enough police, not enough firefighters, not enough trains, potholes everywhere, and raw sewage flowing through our rivers and streams (ok, that last was due to selling our WATER to private companies, then letting them do as they pleased with it, but you get the idea).

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Video unavailable in your country." We can't handle the truth!

It's a recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. The episode title is "UK elections."

[oskar]

If Biden wants to do something really funny, he could, as an official act, have Trump assassinated.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As I understand it, probably.

SCOTUS just made a huge power grab, in the guise of sending power to the lower courts.
But none of this that gets to the lower courts is going to end there. This is a new, untested precedent. It will be appealed up to SCOTUS whenever the first case that comes along tests this.
SCOTUS will then rule whatever the hell they want, since they gave themselves the power to do so.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The most fucked up thing is hearing Dems try to defend not pulling support for Biden in the upcoming election.
Biden is a limp fish. He's lost his ability to inspire and lead. It's not ageist, it's just the facts. He's losing his base while running against a convicted felon.

The Republican base is as fired up as ever, either in direct support for Trump or in direct opposition to the doddering fool that is Biden.

Dems are talking like they were 8 years ago. Like Trump can't win 'cause he just sucks. Trump got elected in part because no one wanted to vote for Hillary - she was not inspiring the base to draw voters out. Trump sucks *to you*, but not to his base. Don't they fucking get this?!?

"Oh it's too late to pull Biden from the ticket. It would send the convention into disarray! Trump is such a trainwreck that even sub-par Biden is a better choice."
They're literally pissing away not just their victory but their entire chance to show that they're opposed to the entrenched cronyism that Trump used to fire up his base 8 years ago.

FFS.
I don't understand how Dem leaders and voters can't see the writing on the wall. Biden is not getting anyone excited. Trump is, as ever, firing up his base.

Momentum heading into the vote will matter a great deal, and so far, it looks like Biden is losing his and not even clawing it back.


***
And where is VP Harris? What are her positions? What is her draw?
The Dems can't even seem to make her a presence, let alone a positive.

[Poopadoop]

T Biden is not getting anyone excited.

Listen here, you consarned whippersnapper! That's malarkey! Sleepy Joe will take you behind the woodhouse and beat you in a driving contest! He'll help covid and ruin welfare! Twenty-three skidoo!


The problem isn't just that he's unfit for office now. It's that he's not going to get better over the next four years. How anyone can vote for him even if he's not Trump is beyond me. At least Trump is conscious.

And his family deciding to tell him to keep going, wtf is with that?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thankfully, my vote for POTUS is a wasted thing, so it doesn't matter who I vote for.
St. Louis will vote overwhelmingly Dem, but the rest of the state of Missouri will vote overwhelmingly Rep. And all my state's electoral college votes will go to Trump, regardless of what St Louis does.

There's a lot else on the coming ballot for which my vote will matter, but for the Presidential election, I'm just a spectator.

[oskar]

It looks like Biden just isn't stepping down on his own, which leaves Dems with no options other than maybe the 25th? Not having a primary at all is really biting them in the ass right now.
Biden had a good term, if you forget about Israel/Gaza for a second, but he's not even mentally there enough to deliver a stump speech when prompted. Abortion was a slam dunk question. Hugely unpopular result of Trump's presidency. Within 30 seconds Biden turned it into: illegal immigrants are raping our women! Funny! I died. But that's not a simple slip-up. He's gone. Elvis has left the building. Forget about: should he run? What about: Should he be president right now?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Jesus, the SCOTUS ruling was much worse than I realized.

The US President is now immune from any criminal prosecution for virtually anything they do while in office. Furthermore, nothing they do while in office can be used as evidence in any criminal trial over something that happened when they weren't in office.

Technically, this isn't 100% sweeping across all circumstances, but the court basically ruled that the president can only be held accountable if they're not officially acting in the office of the President... which is like... what does that mean, how can it be proved, who gets to decide what does and doesn't count? There's no line, there.

So fuck the whole point of creating a democracy without a king.

Biden could now, in theory, just openly murder Trump on live TV, and face no criminal consequences. He could order anyone else to do so, and while that person is not protected, the President could pardon them, even preemptively. The President could order the murder of the whole of their political opponents and that's now immune from criminal prosecution, and again, they can pardon anyone who assists them in this coup, granting them immunity as well.

What the actual fuck.

[Poopadoop]

What the actual fuck.

Sounds pretty fascist.

[OngBonga]

It's hard to believe that the President would face legal immunity for literally murdering his political rivals.

Mojo you yourself say "virtually" anything they do in office. So, what are the caveats if it's not murdering your political rivals?

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's hard to believe that the President would face legal immunity for literally murdering his political rivals.

Mojo you yourself say "virtually" anything they do in office. So, what are the caveats if it's not murdering your political rivals?

The immunity is blanket over any action that is "acting in the office of the President." Not only can they not face criminal charges, anything they do while acting in the office of the President is not allowed as evidence in any court.

The only thing that isn't clear is if *anything* the president does is "outside" their actions in the office. Any argument can be made to that effect.

If the President orders the assassination of anyone (political rival is just an example), and that person follows the order, that person is accountable for their crime. However, one of the powers of the President is to pardon any crime by any criminal. So the person who gives the order is immune and can pass on immunity as they please.

[OngBonga]

Well the President can already pardon someone for killing his political rival, the only question at hand here is whether the President himself can order such a thing and face no legal consequence.

Not that it's going to happen. USA remains a democracy. Even with blanket immunity, a President, and indeed his party, rely on votes to remain in power, or at least remain in opposition. If the President were to commit a criminal act that is hard to argue is "acting in the office" and face no legal consequences, he and his party are highly likely to still suffer massive political consequences. So it's not like the President is King. Nobody votes for a King.

The President still has to act in a way that the American people can tolerate. Trump pushes that close to the limit, but even he wouldn't get away with murder.

[oskar]

I have to say I really have to hand it to Trump. I did not think that when shutting up is the smartest thing to do, he would be up for the job, but he's doing it! He's saying nothing on Biden. He was low-key nice at the debate. Very minor jabs. He's just letting the narrative run out, praying that Biden makes it through.
I'm sure his campaign has the ads featuring every time Biden's brain fell out live on air ready to go the second the DNC locks him in.
Trump's MIT-brain may not be firing on all cylinders when it comes to sharks and batteries, but his TV-brain has not failed him yet!

[MadMojoMonkey]

I have to say I really have to hand it to Trump. I did not think that when shutting up is the smartest thing to do, he would be up for the job, but he's doing it! He's saying nothing on Biden. He was low-key nice at the debate. Very minor jabs. He's just letting the narrative run out, praying that Biden makes it through.
I'm sure his campaign has the ads featuring every time Biden's brain fell out live on air ready to go the second the DNC locks him in.
Trump's MIT-brain may not be firing on all cylinders when it comes to sharks and batteries, but his TV-brain has not failed him yet!

His political acumen is top notch. He's a shit leader, but he is world-class at giving the crowds what they want.

[oskar]

Weren't presidents already effectively immune for official acts? I guess there's still a difference between knowing you're immune up front, or having to sweat for a pardon.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Biden is treating this like a personal hobby goal. When asked if he didn't win in the election what would he think, his answer was, "I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about."

FFS, no!

Ignoring the use of the word "goodest" which was later re-transcribed as "good as" which isn't any more grammatically correct.
This isn't about doing the best you can. This is about the future of American democracy.
You can't tell me this is about the future of democracy, and then tell me if you don't win, you'll be OK with that.


When asked if any other Democrats could beat Trump in the coming election, he replied, "About 50 of them."
So if you believe that there are 50 candidates that can beat him, and your party is fracturing over supporting you, then fucking call for a live debate between the top runners of those 50. Make the DNC meaningful. Odds are, really, that Biden still wins that process, but at least it's a fucking democratic process that lives up to what he says he stands for.

[oskar]

It was a running joke in 2019 that they were hidin' Biden, and every time he spoke it was a disaster. I do not understand how the DNC functions. In a normal year, ok, you don't want to have the appearance of discord within the party so you're not going to challenge a sitting president... but everyone knew about Biden.
Every interview he has done since the debate was a disaster. They're trying to spin it like it's a win when he can complete a sentence. It's like that Tim and Eric's Bedtime Stories episode about the air traffic controller who keeps causing mid-air collisions, so instead of firing him, they assign him a sleep therapist. Every time Biden speaks it's the public relations equivalent of a mid-air collision and every Blue Maga moron is like "Listen Jack, we have to defeat Trump in November. Democracy is on the line." Everyone gets that! So find someone who can land a plane!

[oskar]

What worries me the most is that even the things that should be on auto-pilot, like listing his accomplishments, are a complete mess. He keeps saying stuff like "I'm the guy who put NATO together" I assume he's talking about Sweden... Who even knows about this? Or cares. He might actually think he literally put NATO together. "We beat medicare." He can't find the right words... how is he supposed to be President if he can't even recite a prepared sentence. It is absolute lunacy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The thing is, I do think Biden's done an acceptable job in the office. I think he's portrayed kindness in his demeanor and a measured approach to policy in his politics.

But when he can't lambaste an opponent like Trump to bits in a live debate, then all his supporters have as to "why" is smoke and mirrors and "don't ask questions, just follow the leader" - well, of course people with reasons to fear a 2nd Trump presidency are going to start saying, fuck all that... that's not democracy, that's the same fascist BS we are afraid of!

And his supporters, are like, yeah, but without all the other Trump baggage, right? So back Biden!

No. A thousand times no.
That's not democracy. That's the same fascist BS with slightly less baggage.
If he's all you claim he is, then he needs to show it. He needs to defend his right to be the nominee.
If he's the right person for the job, then why does he look like a fool?

Trump stood next to Biden on the stage and told lie after lie and Biden didn't call him out on any of it.
That's not OK with me.
That's not the leader I think we need.
We need someone with a brain and a spine who can articulate how fucked up the things that come out of Trump's mouth are.

[Poopadoop]

Biden phoned in to Morning Joe the other day to show how up for the job of POTUS he is. He repeatedly flubs his lines, and then at one point you can hear him rustling papers. So he's reading a script and can't even manage that. FFS Dems just get him a pension already!

[OngBonga]

These live debates are stupid. I'm not sure why anyone cares about a candidate's ability to debate. Is that the main job of a politician? To engage in arguments with rivals on TV for the benefit of the salivating electorate? Personally, this is the kind of politics I hate. Shit slinging politics.

Maybe Biden is getting too old to get worked up in a debate. Maybe his meds make him too chill for it. In the hypothetical situation where that is literally the only "flaw" he has, is it a problem? Of course it's not his only flaw, but the inability or unwillingness to engage in effective live debate is not something I really consider a flaw in a politician, but that's because I don't give a toss what they say. Politics for me is not a televised live debate. That's entertainment, and not even good entertainment. Politics is policy and action.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe Biden is getting too old to get worked up in a debate. Maybe his meds make him too chill for it.

It's not that he can't get worked up, it's that he can't string a coherent series of words together. He literally makes no sense more often than he makes sense.

Politics is policy and action.

You want someone who's mind is functioning to be doing that too.

[Poopadoop]

Seriously if the Dems actually let Biden run for President I will have to give up on them. That will mean both political parties will have lost their minds, and the USA will officially be, in my view, a failed state.

[Poopadoop]

I have to say I really have to hand it to Trump. I did not think that when shutting up is the smartest thing to do, he would be up for the job

I'm equally surprised that Trump is actually showing some self-control. He's basically understood that his best campaign worker right now is Biden, so he's letting him talk.

[MadMojoMonkey]

These live debates are stupid. I'm not sure why anyone cares about a candidate's ability to debate. Is that the main job of a politician? To engage in arguments with rivals on TV for the benefit of the salivating electorate? Personally, this is the kind of politics I hate. Shit slinging politics.

It's meant to be an opportunity for the candidates explain their different platforms and policies and make their case, issue by issue as to why they're the better candidate.
It's meant to be a chance for the voters to see what they are like when under some minimal pressure and scrutiny by the other candidate to keep them honest.
It's meant to be an opportunity for them to differentiate themselves as leaders.

Maybe Biden is getting too old to get worked up in a debate. Maybe his meds make him too chill for it. In the hypothetical situation where that is literally the only "flaw" he has, is it a problem? Of course it's not his only flaw, but the inability or unwillingness to engage in effective live debate is not something I really consider a flaw in a politician, but that's because I don't give a toss what they say. Politics for me is not a televised live debate. That's entertainment, and not even good entertainment. Politics is policy and action.

The fact that he's not meeting my expectations is my concern.
The reason he's not meeting my expectations is his business, not mine.

I'm not concerned about Biden's ability to debate.

I'm concerned that in the debate, what I saw was an inability to express coherent thoughts or sentences. I'm concerned that literally anyone with a brain who is invested in the US political scene should be able to wipe the floor against a man convicted of 34 felony charges who can't seem to open his mouth without repeating lies he's told before.

That's a fucking LOW bar, man.

I want to know there is someone in this who can win against a man who has promised to be a dictator, "but only on day 1" when he's elected.
I want to know there is someone in this who can win against a man with 34 felony charges and a new extra immunity to commit all the crimes he can imagine for the next 4 years.
I want to know there is someone in this who can win against a man who has argued it should be legal for the President to order military assets to kill his political rivals.

If Biden can prove that's him, like his supporters say it's him, then let him prove it. Let him stand on the stage at the DNC and make his case, then let another dozen people make theirs. Next day, take the top 2 - 4 from there and do it again. Final day, hold a debate between them and then have the vote for the nominee.

If it's still Biden, then awesome. I should've listened to you all along. If not, well. Now we all agree we have a better chance to win than before, right? So it's win win for everyone.

[Poopadoop]

Looks like Biden decided to try out that whole presidential immunity thing after all.





Well, now Trump will certainly shoot up in the polls. With any luck this will encourage the Ds to pull their fingers out and replace Biden with someone fully conscious.

[Poopadoop]

Apparently a copy-cat assassin just took a potshot at Biden while he was dozing on a couch in the WH.

Biden very slowly got to his feet, put his fist in the air, and said "Sight, sight, sight!...Er, I mean fight....anyways, what were we talking about again?"

Amazing.

[oskar]

Apparently a copy-cat assassin just took a potshot at Biden while he was dozing on a couch in the WH.

Biden very slowly got to his feet, put his fist in the air, and said "Sight, sight, sight!...Er, I mean fight....anyways, what were we talking about again?"

Amazing.

The funny thing is, if Biden got assassinated, it would almost certainly lead to a landslide win for his replacement. With Trump... I'm not so sure. I'm calling a slight bump in the polls for Trump after this failed attempt.

[OngBonga]

That seems somewhat more unlikely than some of the conspiracy theories I've suggested and you've mocked. That Skirpal poisoning springs to mind.

Certainly there was a security failure, and that might or might not have been deliberate. But if you're suggesting that Trump didn't get shot in the ear, and instead acted that out, with fake blood and everything, with absolutely no regard for the safety of his supporters, then he's a fine actor and an even bigger monster than anyone dared think.

On the subject of conspiracies, I find it hard to believe that any "deep state" actors have any role in this. If you're going to hire someone to put a bullet in Trump's head, then you hire someone who can actually fucking shoot. Seems to me that the kid who did this was an amateur.

[Poopadoop]

That seems somewhat more unlikely than some of the conspiracy theories I've suggested and you've mocked. That Skirpal poisoning springs to mind.

You said the UK gov't poisoned it's own people to make everyone mad at Putin iirc. Maybe there was something more to it, but you know why that makes no sense? Because people already hated Putin.

Certainly there was a security failure, and that might or might not have been deliberate. But if you're suggesting that Trump didn't get shot in the ear, and instead acted that out, with fake blood and everything, with absolutely no regard for the safety of his supporters, then he's a fine actor and an even bigger monster than anyone dared think.

I can buy it was just the SS doing a major fuckup deliberately because they don't like Trump (or because they're lazy or hungover or w/e). But let's be clear: that was a MAJOR fuckup. Even I can see that, and like I said I'm no expert on security. They are.

We'll have to see his wound. I just find it a bit convenient the bullet only grazed his ear when his head is the size of two watermelons.

On the subject of conspiracies, I find it hard to believe that any "deep state" actors have any role in this. If you're going to hire someone to put a bullet in Trump's head, then you hire someone who can actually fucking shoot. Seems to me that the kid who did this was an amateur.

They didn't hire the kid to kill Trump in my made-up version of events. He was a patsy. They lured some dumb kid up on the building under some false pretense of defending Trump or w/e then ended him. I mean the kid himself was described as a committed conservative by everyone who knew him. What's he doing shooting at Trump?

It's also weird that afaik the kid left no clues as to his motive. No manifesto, never said anything to anyone, just decided one day he'd go and take out Orange Jesus. Does not compute.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's all just tragic and sad and fucked up. I'm grateful that Trump is fine, and that his family doesn't have to lose him.
The complete fuck-heads they all are is acknowledged, and beside the point.

IDK how often the Secret Service thwarts an assassination attempt, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's many times per year.

I do not think Trump has the capacity to pull that off as a fake. He's a liar, but not a good one, just a persistent one.
I put near 0% chance that if he was acting, he could manage not to give it all away within 24 hours.
The man has a tendency to openly brag about his crimes on TV interviews, FFS.

The clear problem with unintended targets being the entire background to any missed shots is beyond fucked up.
The fact that it was a near certainty that there would be casualties not limited to the primary target, and that those casualties would be our own citizens, is beyond fucked up.

I sincerely hope there was no political conspiracy behind this. We'll never really know. Of course, there is an investigation already underway, and there will be a public statement in many weeks or months about their version of the story. Obviously it wont be 100% true nor will it be 0% true, so ... we'll see what we think of it when it comes out, I guess.

[OngBonga]

They didn't hire the kid to kill Trump in my made-up version of events.

There are a ton of conspiracy theories doing the rounds, many of which involve him being hired. Makes no sense to me, I mean at that distance I'd give myself a 50-50 chance of hitting his head after just a day of training, and I've never fired a proper gun in my life.

It seems highly likely to me he's a wannabe hero but actually a nutjob who thinks taking out Trump and a few of his supporters would leave some kind of positive legacy. The Secret Service either turned a blind eye in the hope he hit his first shot, or utterly failed in their most basic of duties of their snipers, which is to keep a lookout for other fucking snipers in obvious sniping positions like the top of the only building someone could reasonably access.

Something definitely feels fishy about this, but I don't for one minute think Trump and his goons orchestrated this to boost his popularity. That seems absurd to me, more so than any nutjob theory I've given serious thought to.

[OngBonga]

The fact people in the crowd got hit by actual bullets tells you the kid had an actual gun. So what, he aimed at the crowd but not Trump? You really think Trump is that much of a literallyHitler than he would sanction this plan?

Trump got hit by an actual bullet, on his ear, an actual inch from his big orange head. The bullet that grazed him quite possibly killed or injured someone else. I don't see how this is anything other than a genuine assassination attempt. The motives and who's behind it, that's up for debate.

[Poopadoop]

The fact people in the crowd got hit by actual bullets tells you the kid had an actual gun.

That presupposes the kid was only human being in the entire area who had a gun, and ergo the bullets fired into the crowd had to have come from him.



[/QUOTE] So what, he aimed at the crowd but not Trump? You really think Trump is that much of a literallyHitler than he would sanction this plan? [/QUOTE]

Trump could have been told "hey we're going to fake an assassination attempt to build up your support, when you hear blanks being fired grab your ear and go down, then smear this fake blood on it before we lift you up again, then do the fight fight fight thing" thought "that's a great idea, I'm totally behind that, my ratings will be so high after this." They didn't even have to tell him real bullets would be fired into the crowd to make it more believable. He could hardly have said "wait a minute I only agreed to a fake attempt to dupe the public, I didn't agree to people actually getting killed," after the fact, could he?




[/QUOTE] Trump got hit by an actual bullet, on his ear, an actual inch from his big orange head. [/QUOTE]

His ear looks 100% intact to me. Funny way for an ear to look after a bullet supposedly hit it.




Also funny there was more blood on his seemingly intact ear than there was on Evander Holyfield's ear after Tyson indisputably bit a chunk out of it. Trump, whose blood probably has the consistency of KFC gravy given his diet, bleeds more from his wound that leaves his ear intact than a world-class athlete, whose wound left him with 97% of an ear? Does not compute.




[/QUOTE] The bullet that grazed him quite possibly killed or injured someone else. I don't see how this is anything other than a genuine assassination attempt. The motives and who's behind it, that's up for debate.[/QUOTE]

Again, presupposing he was hit by an actual bullet. Some people definitely were, not clear that any of them were Trump.

Let's see his "wound," once they take the bandages off. If it's actually a big hole in his ear and you just can't see it in the photo because of the blood, I'll say fine you were right. If it's some tiny nick that couldn't have possibly bled as much as that I'm standing by my paranoid fantasy.



Seriously, anyone who thinks there aren't people high up in the US establishment who wouldn't think twice of sacrificing a few US citizens for what they believe to be the best interests of the entire country are being incredibly naive. I mean, have you ever heard of a thing called war? These types of decisions are made all the time, don't act like it's so far-fetched.

I'm not saying that happened here, I just think there's something fishy about a committed conservative, registered republican kid suddenly deciding to bump off the Orange Jesus, then no-one in the secret service noticing him crawling around on a rooftop with a gun, then him hitting Trump in just exactly a way that would cause him to bleed a lot without seriously hurting him, before being offed himself by the SS snipers. Seems like an amazing confluence of highly improbable events all happening at the same time to me.

[oskar]

I'd give this guy about a zero percent chance to be anything but your run-of-the-mill mass shooter.

[OngBonga]

I mean, how many people in America do you suppose there are that would, given the chance, take Trump's orange head off?

Someone in England wanted to take the Queen's head off with a crossbow. Someone wanted to kidnap, rape, torture and ultimately kill a breakfast show host. Someone sent a bomb to Bjork and then filmed himself committing suicide.

It's extremely easy to believe someone would want to do this. It's harder to believe someone can do this without being spotted in good time, but it only takes one out of a hundred to slip through the net for it to be a bit more credible. This could be that one in a hundred, at least that seems the most likely explanation at the moment, given the information.