Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Ed,
Trump though that his adultery was immoral and that it would keep
some people from voting for him. That's why he paid Stormy to keep
quiet about it. Then he falsified records to try and hide the hush
money payments. That was both illegal and immoral.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
How does anyone know what his motive was, and whether he committed
adultery (neither illegal nor unusual with presidential
candidates), or if do, shat his family thought about it.? As for
euphemistic journal entries, for blackmail or bribery, those
aren't unprecedented, either.? Look up "facilitation payments,"
for example.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
David,
There's nothing morally neutral about covering up adultery
to influence the outcome of a U.S. election. It is purely
morally bad. I also disagree that law and justice have
nothing in common. They have a lot in common.
On 6/8/2024 1:48 PM, David Smith wrote:
Whether a thought or an action is judged morally neutral or good or bad is up to one's understanding of morality, which, especially in these angry times, is practically up for grabs. Today, people are likely to believe whatever their information sources tell them is true. As for law, I think we'd agree that law and justice have nothing inherently in common.
Celeste wrote:
? In the case of Trump's hush money scheme he was both morally and legally guilty.
On 6/7/2024 6:50 PM, David Smith wrote:
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and beating them. The distinction between laws for protecting people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is not always clear. Both exist, which is one reason why the legal system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. Moral innocence and legal guilt are likely to be the same thing.
_._
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
How does anyone know what his motive was, and whether he committed adultery (neither illegal nor unusual with presidential candidates), or if do, shat his family thought about it.? As for euphemistic journal entries, for blackmail or bribery, those aren't unprecedented, either.? Look up "facilitation payments," for example.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
David,
There's nothing morally neutral about covering up adultery to
influence the outcome of a U.S. election. It is purely morally
bad. I also disagree that law and justice have nothing in common.
They have a lot in common.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 1:48 PM, David Smith via
wrote:
Whether a thought or an action is judged morally neutral or good or bad is up to one's understanding of morality, which, especially in these angry times, is practically up for grabs. Today, people are likely to believe whatever their information sources tell them is true. As for law, I think we'd agree that law and justice have nothing inherently in common.
Celeste wrote:
? In the case of Trump's hush money scheme he was both morally and legally guilty.
On 6/7/2024 6:50 PM, David Smith via wrote:
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and beating them. The distinction between laws for protecting people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is not always clear. Both exist, which is one reason why the legal system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. Moral innocence and legal guilt are likely to be the same thing.
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
David,
There's nothing morally neutral about covering up adultery to
influence the outcome of a U.S. election. It is purely morally
bad. I also disagree that law and justice have nothing in common.
They have a lot in common.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 1:48 PM, David Smith via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Whether a thought or an action is judged morally neutral or good or bad is up to one's understanding of morality, which, especially in these angry times, is practically up for grabs. Today, people are likely to believe whatever their information sources tell them is true. As for law, I think we'd agree that law and justice have nothing inherently in common.
Celeste wrote:
? In the case of Trump's hush money scheme he was both morally and legally guilty.
On 6/7/2024 6:50 PM, David Smith via groups.io wrote:
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and beating them. The distinction between laws for protecting people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is not always clear. Both exist, which is one reason why the legal system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. Moral innocence and legal guilt are likely to be the same thing.
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
On Jun 8, 2024, at 18:19, a1thighmaster <thighmaster@...> wrote:
? In the case of Trump's hush money scheme he was both morally and legally guilty.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/7/2024 6:50 PM, David Smith via groups.io wrote:
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and beating them. The distinction between laws for protecting people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is not always clear. Both exist, which is one reason why the legal system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. Moral innocence and legal guilt are likely to be the same thing. Whether a thought or an action is judged morally neutral or good or bad is up to one's understanding of morality, which, especially in these angry times, is practically up for grabs. Today, people are likely to believe whatever their information sources tell them is true. As for law, I think we'd agree that law and justice have nothing inherently in common. ——
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
In the case of Trump's hush money scheme he was both morally and
legally guilty.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/7/2024 6:50 PM, David Smith via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and
beating them. ?The distinction between laws for protecting
people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is
not always clear. ?Both exist, which is one reason why the legal
system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. ?Moral innocence and
legal guilt are likely to be the same thing.
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Establishing bigger juries?is the key to avoiding Armageddon. A whole new political?and economic opportunity.
Some of assumed it was a typo meant to be “12”
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster=[email protected]> wrote:
Marvin,
How do you figure it takes 112 idiots to convict someone? That
makes absolutely no sense.
On 6/8/2024 5:24 AM, mrvnchpmn wrote:
Second
it only takes 112 idiots to convict someone - just as it only
take 245 members of the House of Representatives to impeach and
only 67 senators to impeach a president for the way he/she parts
their hair.
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
Rhonda: "...Cannabis act outlawing marijuana... "
Darrell: Nice one. Totally?did not even occur to me when I tried to think up an answer.
D
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 1:16?AM FreedomRocks via <HomeOfLove69= [email protected]> wrote: 1. What is the stupidist thing??you have ever seen Google recommend?
Nothing comes to mind, but I tend to ignore Google recommendations. I guess I did get an ad for a scam magical weight loss drink that claimed it had been featured on Shark Tank (it hadn’t…..I admit I was curious and looked it up) so I guess that was a pretty stupid recommendation. But it did get my attention enough to fact check it…..
2.? What us the worst law the US congress passed in? the 20th century?
Cannibis act outlawing marijuana. The reasoning behind it was racist and incorrect, and it had led to millions of lives destroyed for simple possession.? And not just the lives destroyed of the ones imprisoned, but their families as well.
3.? Should the US allow Ukraine to use US supplied weapons to attack Russian forces in Russia who are attacking Ukrainian cities?
Yes. It seems pointless to give them weapons, and not allow them to effectively use them.
4.? What time in history does the current situation remind you of?
Psychologically, it reminds me of the 80’s. The cold war was intense, information was limited, and it seemed “the end” was eminent. I feel the same way now, that everything is lining up both from a biblical standpoint, a cultural standpoint, and a scientific standpoint. I hope I am wrong, and just like in the 80’s, when “the end” did not come about, and instead things continued to improve on average, worldwide, I hope that will be the same for this difficult period.
5.? If you could reset your age of life - what would you reset it to?
? I wouldn’t. I feel like I’ve grown up and experience the best time ever for my personality. Of course, I do realize that perhaps my personality is what it is from the experiences of the times I’ve grown up…..so which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either way, I am satisfied with the age I am, and I would not reset it. Even if it gave me some benefits for the present, it would be robbing my past self of the experiences I had being the age I was then. ? Rhonda
?
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
Agreed (except for these historical references, which I did not verify.) Yet no single event exists in a vacuum, whether eruption or tidal wave or solar flare. We are contributing. The eruption of Mt St Helens is contributing. Changes?in the ice packs, sea water flora, global currents, flying saucer?emissions and wildfire smoke are all contributing to this month's weather patterns. Trump's great grandfather, the arboreal ancestors of humanity, atomic?bomb tests from the WWI era and the halitosis of my high school chemistry teacher all have cascading impacts across the years and?the people to impact events from this morning...and my own mood this afternoon.?
I think the objections of many are less around the arguments of causation than around the way those arguments are used to leverage people. What gets my goat is that we are?so often derailed into vehement verbal battles over the distracting topic (such as "climate change") to the point where we forget we are objecting to the topic being used to further some agenda.
For instance, we argue whether climate change exists despite visible weather patterns. Yet what often seems to be the real subject is whether governments should outlaw fossil fuels or whether I am evil for driving a pickup truck rather than a miniature EV. I mean, maybe that is the essence?of politics?
Is it pretentious of me to wonder if Mensans, especially, should?be making such?trivial distinctions?
:)
Every time the weather is hot somewhere, ?it's reported as proof of human-induced "global warming" or, if it's cold it's human-induced "climate change." ? There is always bad weather somewhere.?The hottest temperature on record was set over 100 years ago, and the coldest temperature ever was set in 1983.
The next strong meteor hit or volcano explosion may send the earth into prolonged cold that would wipe out all the temperature rises of the last 100 years.
Ed
On Friday, June 7, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that various political?influences and personal?biases?are blended into the "scientific" priesthood of our culture, Ed. That is not only unsurprising, it is so very human!
All things are demonstrably temporary, including the existence?of our planet and our species.? The human mind likes to consider itself exempt--I could even make an argument that this is its main purpose or function--but "the end" is nothing special and is, in fact, a human?concept rather than a fearful absolute. It is nothing of note that I am not immortal. A situation credited with being the end of a given biosphere or planet can also be framed as simply a normal transition.?
Are humans contributing?to alterations in our biosphere? I say "Duh." How could we not? Everything affects everything else. This could be framed as a dramatic form of species suicide, but it could also be framed as a normal activity of the human ant. We are builders and destroyers, swarming the universe with our busy little objectives. I share your distaste?for the melodramatic trumpeting of those who would frame the results for the purposes of special interest?groups, yet within their posturing I suspect there are many accurate touch points. Many factors not directly created by humans are contributing to the current patterns in the weather, for instance, but common sense, independent?of any research reports, suggests to me that people are also having an influence on these.
Science is about demonstrating a hypothesis objectively. Even so, the?results are subject to interpretation?and framing when being portrayed for human consumption. The truth is still out there...
D?
Oh yeah, "Repent! The end is near!" ?Nothing original about that, except that the message is secular this time, and instead of prophets and priests preaching it, it's scientists, whose opinions are infallible (except a couple of years after covid, when we learned that they were wrong).Ed On Friday, June 7, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: That captures?my broader feeling about the situation, David. Given the media reporting of a year of record temps. The metaphor of a fireball is especially apt when considering the wildfire news.
D
4.? What time in history does the current situation remind you of?
...anyone familiar with the artist conceptualizations?of the meteor burning a huge trail over the heads of confused dinosaurs...?
Then, the heavens tossed down the fireball and the lizards couldn't have done a thing to stop it.? Now, the best and the brightest have proudly created their own fireball and they, too, can't do a thing to stop it.
——
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Some of assumed it was a typo meant to be “12”
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
Marvin,
How do you figure it takes 112 idiots to convict someone? That
makes absolutely no sense.
On 6/8/2024 5:24 AM, mrvnchpmn wrote:
Second
it only takes 112 idiots to convict someone - just as it only
take 245 members of the House of Representatives to impeach and
only 67 senators to impeach a president for the way he/she parts
their hair.
|
Marvin,
How do you figure it takes 112 idiots to convict someone? That
makes absolutely no sense.
On 6/8/2024 5:24 AM, mrvnchpmn wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Second
it only takes 112 idiots to convict someone - just as it only
take 245 members of the House of Representatives to impeach and
only 67 senators to impeach a president for the way he/she parts
their hair.
|
David,
You echo a good many of my own opinions regarding the human mind and how it works: we do indeed begin creating and pursuing illusions from earliest childhood (I often call them mental stories.) it is natural and sane and healthy...such illusions or stories are essentially the software of the human mind. (Or the mind is the software of the brain and the stories are the code?)
It is demonstrable that the human Self is an illusion, a story built over decades.
I also find it suspicious that the timing of the Biden and Trump cases coincides so well with the election.? Very bitter fight using the most superficial of ammunition. Trump may have had extramarital sex and he may have diverted funds to cover this (I will wait for the appeal process before committing further), but 34 felony counts on a first offender seems like a bit of overkill. Still, setting that aside for the moment, I have to remain wary of the timing.
// ? ? <<I've not followed the story at all closely, Celeste.? But is it a coincidence that these legal attacks occurred all at once now and in a location hostile to Trump?? Do you suspect no connection?>>No, there is no connection.? ? //
That stretches credulity, Rhonda.? I respect the reasons you give in support of your position, but the coincidence is simply too strong.
I've observed that human minds bends strongly toward belief, and when crowds of people rally around a political candidate, they see their man as guileless and a warrior for goodness and his opponent as vile, as evil incarnate.? That's happening here, I think.? It's hardly surprising.? All humans start creating illusions the day they're born and they don't stop till they die.? From my relatively distant perspective, I find it curious that so many seem oblivious to this.? It isn't shameful, it's simply what and who we are. ? <<I've not followed the story at all closely, Celeste.? But is it a coincidence that these legal attacks occurred all at once now and in a location hostile to Trump?? Do you suspect no connection?>>
No, there is no connection. These crimes were known back in 2018 when Trump’s lawyer was charged (for being an accomplish in the several of the exact same crimes Trump was charged with.) However, because Trump was a sitting president, he couldn’t be charged—even though in an equal justice system, Trump would have been charged in 2018 as well. Even as ex-president, there was great hesitancy in charging an ex-president, nobody wanted to be the first person to do it. But thankfully, Alvin Bragg eventually did the right thing and charged him. Then once he had, other felony charges occurred, as other DA’s were willing to charge Trump, now that they wouldn’t be the first.
As to why he was charged in New York….that is where the crimes occurred. That is where he and his lawyer falsified the business records in the commission of a crime. Criminals are always charged in the area of the crime, and almost always tried in that same area—barring rare circumstances to get a change of venue. If Trump didn’t want to be charged in Manhatten….well, then he should have committed the crime in the state he preferred to be charged in.
Rhonda
|
?
First the conviction is in question because of the judge's insane instructions - they didn't have to agree on what crime he committed.
Second it only takes 112 idiots to convict someone - just as it only take 245 members of the House of Representatives to impeach and only 67 senators to impeach a president for the way he/she parts their hair.
Marvn
?
<<First - ;what is the alleged felony?? Second why was the trial brought by the same person who refused to charge him before?? Third why was the charge brought immediately after he declared his candidacy?>>
The felony is not “alleged”, he has been criminally convicted. Trump is guilty of 34 felonies, “creating false business records to hide the commission of a crime.” This is public knowledge, so while you are disparaging other Mensan’s for “not being able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag with boxing gloves on”…..it’s humorous that you have to ask on a public forum for an answer which is public knowledge and has been public knowledge and talked about for well over a year.
I answered the 2nd question in my previous post. Nobody wanted to be the first person to charge an ex-president.
?
I think once it was realized that a man as traitorous as Trump was going to run for president again, Bragg (and then the other DA’s) realized it was their duty to charge Trump with the crimes for which they had overwhelming evidence of.
Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
//
<<They just could not refrain from using it? ?Gosh, poor schmucks.>> ? Sure, they could. Just like people can refrain from alcohol, or soda or heart attack café burgers. The real question is, why should they have to? There is zero reason why marijuana should be illegal, when alcohol is legal, and the US already tried making alcohol illegal and rescinded that amendment when it clearly didn’t work.
And its not just the “poor schmucks” who suffer, even if you think they deserve to suffer. Their families suffer, society suffers, healthcare system suffers (when marijuana users get tainted drugs from unregulated sources,) taxpayers suffers (paying at every level, foster care for their kids, emergency room care when they get tainted drugs, disability/nursing home care if they are disabled from tainted drugs, costs of the judicial system, probation, and prison system.) Literally everybody pays because of marijuana being illegal. (except for the corporations profiting off of prison slave labor and the politicians who get kickbacks from those corporations.)
//
Are you arguing that if X percent of people disobey a law, it's a bad law?
Or are you arguing that if the cost of enforcing a law is higher than Y, the law should be eliminated?
Or you arguing that if Z percent of people want to do something, they should be allowed to do it?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 8, 2024, at 02:19, FreedomRocks via groups.io <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? <<I didn't know Google recommended stuff. ?Do you mean the sponsored listings? ?That's just advertising, no?>> I didn’t write the question, so I’m not sure what exactly the author was referring to. But I took it to mean anything showing up on google search, or from a google sponsored ad.? Sure, it’s just advertising, but Google accepts the advertising, so they are partly responsible for it, and its Google algorithms that decide who to display what ads to, and Google is 100% responsible for their algorithms. ?
<<They just could not refrain from using it? ?Gosh, poor schmucks.>> ? Sure, they could. Just like people can refrain from alcohol, or soda or heart attack café burgers. The real question is, why should they have to? There is zero reason why marijuana should be illegal, when alcohol is legal, and the US already tried making alcohol illegal and rescinded that amendment when it clearly didn’t work.
And its not just the “poor schmucks” who suffer, even if you think they deserve to suffer. Their families suffer, society suffers, healthcare system suffers (when marijuana users get tainted drugs from unregulated sources,) taxpayers suffers (paying at every level, foster care for their kids, emergency room care when they get tainted drugs, disability/nursing home care if they are disabled from tainted drugs, costs of the judicial system, probation, and prison system.) Literally everybody pays because of marijuana being illegal. (except for the corporations profiting off of prison slave labor and the politicians who get kickbacks from those corporations.) ? <<? >>
Fair point. As I said I was speaking of the time period that struck me as personally psychologically the same, and thinking back about what an eminent point in my life that was…well that is my excuse for my malapropism. ? Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
<<I didn't know Google recommended stuff. ?Do you mean the sponsored listings? ?That's just advertising, no?>> I didn’t write the question, so I’m not sure what exactly the author was referring to. But I took it to mean anything showing up on google search, or from a google sponsored ad.? Sure, it’s just advertising, but Google accepts the advertising, so they are partly responsible for it, and its Google algorithms that decide who to display what ads to, and Google is 100% responsible for their algorithms. ?
<<They just could not refrain from using it? ?Gosh, poor schmucks.>> ? Sure, they could. Just like people can refrain from alcohol, or soda or heart attack café burgers. The real question is, why should they have to? There is zero reason why marijuana should be illegal, when alcohol is legal, and the US already tried making alcohol illegal and rescinded that amendment when it clearly didn’t work.
And its not just the “poor schmucks” who suffer, even if you think they deserve to suffer. Their families suffer, society suffers, healthcare system suffers (when marijuana users get tainted drugs from unregulated sources,) taxpayers suffers (paying at every level, foster care for their kids, emergency room care when they get tainted drugs, disability/nursing home care if they are disabled from tainted drugs, costs of the judicial system, probation, and prison system.) Literally everybody pays because of marijuana being illegal. (except for the corporations profiting off of prison slave labor and the politicians who get kickbacks from those corporations.) ? <<? >>
Fair point. As I said I was speaking of the time period that struck me as personally psychologically the same, and thinking back about what an eminent point in my life that was…well that is my excuse for my malapropism. ? Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
1.
What is the stupidist thing??you have ever seen Google
recommend?
I've never seen Google recommend anything.
2.? What
us the worst law the US congress passed in? the 20th
century?
Citizens United
3.? Should
the US allow Ukraine to use US supplied weapons to
attack Russian forces in Russia who are attacking
Ukrainian cities?
Yes. Russia is way out of line attacking Ukraine.
4.? What
time in history does the current situation remind you
of?
Germany just before Hitler came into power. Gotta stop Trump.
5.? If
you could reset your age of life - what would you
reset it to?
No reset for me, thanks.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
On Jun 8, 2024, at 01:16, FreedomRocks via groups.io <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? 1. What is the stupidist thing??you have ever seen Google recommend?
Nothing comes to mind, but I tend to ignore Google recommendations. I guess I did get an ad for a scam magical weight loss drink that claimed it had been featured on Shark Tank (it hadn’t…..I admit I was curious and looked it up) so I guess that was a pretty stupid recommendation. But it did get my attention enough to fact check it…..
I didn't know Google recommended stuff. ?Do you mean the sponsored listings? ?That's just advertising, no?
2.? What us the worst law the US congress passed in? the 20th century?
Cannibis act outlawing marijuana. The reasoning behind it was racist and incorrect, and it had led to millions of lives destroyed for simple possession. ?And not just the lives destroyed of the ones imprisoned, but their families as well.
They just could not refrain from using it? ?Gosh, poor schmucks.
3.? Should the US allow Ukraine to use US supplied weapons to attack Russian forces in Russia who are attacking Ukrainian cities?
Yes. It seems pointless to give them weapons, and not allow them to effectively use them.
4.? What time in history does the current situation remind you of?
Psychologically, it reminds me of the 80’s. The cold war was intense, information was limited, and it seemed “the end” was eminent. I feel the same way now, that everything is lining up both from a biblical standpoint, a cultural standpoint, and a scientific standpoint. I hope I am wrong, and just like in the 80’s, when “the end” did not come about, and instead things continued to improve on average, worldwide, I hope that will be the same for this difficult period.
adjective- Impending,?approaching,?forthcoming
- Looming,?threatening
- Jutting,?overhanging?(obsolete)
5.? If you could reset your age of life - what would you reset it to?
? I wouldn’t. I feel like I’ve grown up and experience the best time ever for my personality. Of course, I do realize that perhaps my personality is what it is from the experiences of the times I’ve grown up…..so which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either way, I am satisfied with the age I am, and I would not reset it. Even if it gave me some benefits for the present, it would be robbing my past self of the experiences I had being the age I was then. ? Rhonda
——
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
1. What is the stupidist thing??you have ever seen Google recommend?
Nothing comes to mind, but I tend to ignore Google recommendations. I guess I did get an ad for a scam magical weight loss drink that claimed it had been featured on Shark Tank (it hadn’t…..I admit I was curious and looked it up) so I guess that was a pretty stupid recommendation. But it did get my attention enough to fact check it…..
2.? What us the worst law the US congress passed in? the 20th century?
Cannibis act outlawing marijuana. The reasoning behind it was racist and incorrect, and it had led to millions of lives destroyed for simple possession. ?And not just the lives destroyed of the ones imprisoned, but their families as well.
3.? Should the US allow Ukraine to use US supplied weapons to attack Russian forces in Russia who are attacking Ukrainian cities?
Yes. It seems pointless to give them weapons, and not allow them to effectively use them.
4.? What time in history does the current situation remind you of?
Psychologically, it reminds me of the 80’s. The cold war was intense, information was limited, and it seemed “the end” was eminent. I feel the same way now, that everything is lining up both from a biblical standpoint, a cultural standpoint, and a scientific standpoint. I hope I am wrong, and just like in the 80’s, when “the end” did not come about, and instead things continued to improve on average, worldwide, I hope that will be the same for this difficult period.
5.? If you could reset your age of life - what would you reset it to?
? I wouldn’t. I feel like I’ve grown up and experience the best time ever for my personality. Of course, I do realize that perhaps my personality is what it is from the experiences of the times I’ve grown up…..so which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either way, I am satisfied with the age I am, and I would not reset it. Even if it gave me some benefits for the present, it would be robbing my past self of the experiences I had being the age I was then. ? Rhonda
?
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
// ? ?? ?I have heard some of his supporters I know in real life say the exact same thing, that they would continue to support Trump, even if he murdered someone on 5th?avenue.? ? ?//
That's called partisanship.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 8, 2024, at 00:11, FreedomRocks via groups.io <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? <<A multi-billion dollar corporation's individual journal entries number in the thousands each month, and are not very detailed.? I can't imagine a presidential election coming out differently over how blackmail payment journal entries are described. That notion is fanciful and unprovable.>>
1st there was no blackmail payments, blackmail was never even alledged. I do agree with you, there is no way to know if the presidential election would have been any different had the affair with Daniels been known—personally, I don’t think it would have changed a thing. As Trump himself said, he could murder someone on 5th avenue, and he wouldn’t lose any supporters. I have heard some of his supporters I know in real life say the exact same thing, that they would continue to support Trump, even if he murdered someone on 5th avenue. So its ludicrous to think these supporters would drop their support if they found out he cheated on his wife in the post-partum period.
But whether or not the Stormy Daniels payments changed the election was never part of the felony charges against Trump. It makes for interesting discussion, but has nothing to do with the 34 counts of false business records he was convicted of. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
// ? ? we do have “victimless” crimes, so the “victim” in these 34 charges against Trump is “society.”?? ?//
Laws are likely to be sticks for tripping up people and beating them. ?The distinction between laws for protecting people from murderers and laws written to dispose of enemies is not always clear. ?Both exist, which is one reason why the legal system is a nasty thing to be caught up in. ?Moral innocence and legal guilt are likely to be the same thing.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 8, 2024, at 00:06, FreedomRocks via groups.io <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? <<Up until this year it was a misdemeanor.?>>
As Celeste explained, creating false business documents can be a misdemeanor or a felony, and its always been this way. It wasn’t ever “up until this year it was a misdemeanor” for Trump, as the evidence shows that Trump was always guilty of the felony.
<<Who was the victim, and why wasn't the blackmailer sent to prison?>>
Trump was not charged with blackmail, nor was there ever any allegation of blackmail. Perhaps you are confusing this case with a different crime of Trump’s. Many crimes in the US are “victimless” (ie crimes where “society” is considered to be the victim, rather than any individual.) Whether we should have “victimless” crimes is a different discussion, but the reality is, we do have “victimless” crimes, so the “victim” in these 34 charges against Trump is “society.” Incidentally, it should be pointed out that if Trump had just out and out paid her from his personal funds, there would have been no crime committed—but Trump is greedy and well known for not paying the people he hires, so its not a surprise that he also didn’t want to pay Daniels any hush money either.
|
Calling something a crime and someone found guilty of it a criminal and therefore a bad person is mistaking law for justice. ?Laws are commonly used by societies and factions to punish people they dislike.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 7, 2024, at 23:58, FreedomRocks via groups.io <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? <<First - ;what is the alleged felony?? Second why was the trial brought by the same person who refused to charge him before?? Third why was the charge brought immediately after he declared his candidacy?>>
The felony is not “alleged”, he has been criminally convicted. Trump is guilty of 34 felonies, “creating false business records to hide the commission of a crime.” This is public knowledge, so while you are disparaging other Mensan’s for “not being able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag with boxing gloves on”…..it’s humorous that you have to ask on a public forum for an answer which is public knowledge and has been public knowledge and talked about for well over a year.
I answered the 2nd question in my previous post. Nobody wanted to be the first person to charge an ex-president. ? I think once it was realized that a man as traitorous as Trump was going to run for president again, Bragg (and then the other DA’s) realized it was their duty to charge Trump with the crimes for which they had overwhelming evidence of.
Rhonda
|
David Smith
David Smith
FreedomRocks