Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
Well, you must have missed the crack epidemic, but fentanyl is reaching more communities, and we're in for another wild ride, since the government is unwilling or unable to control this one, too.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, FreedomRocks via <HomeOfLove69= [email protected]> wrote: <<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?>>
No, my main argument is that adults should be able to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, eat high fat foods, or anything else, that should be their right as an adult. If health insurance wants to charge them higher premiums, they can (and currently do with smoking tobacco.) If they commit crimes while under the influence of marijuana or drinking alcohol, then that should not be accepted in any way as an excuse for the crimes they committed. I was not clear about this in my original posting.
But unfortunately, we live in a society where busybodies want to control other people’s decisions, even though those decisions have no bearing on their own life. That is why I offered the secondary argument for busybodies, who don’t care about people’s freedom or independence, that making marijuana illegal does directly affect their lives in the various ways I mentioned (where as marijuana being legal does not affect their lives.) ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
<<She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the accusation would destroy his marriage.>>
The evidence presented at trial (which neither Trump nor his lawyer refuted at the trial,) was that the payment was made preemptively. No accusation of Daniels blackmailing him has ever been made, rather other women who claimed affairs had sold their stories to the National Enquirer (which Pecker then buried and did not publish,) and their was concern that Daniels would sell her story as well, potentially to someone who would bury the story, so Trump wanted to buy her story before anyone else did.
Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
? <<How does anyone know what his motive was, and whether he committed adultery>>
That is a good point. As far as I know, Trump has never denied nor confirmed his affair with Daniels. And Trump’s motive in paying Daniels is irrelevant to the charges of falsifying business records (theoretically he could have been paying her because he had hired her to be an assassin, or because he Daniels to lie about having an affair with one of his opponents, because he thought an opponent was paying Daniels to lie about him so he was going to pay Daniels more, etc.)? While it seems most plausible given the evidence and testimony that Trump did have an affair with Daniels, and he paid her in order to secure her silence—you are correct that we can not know for sure what happened, and the jury did not decide publicly whether or not Trump had an affair with Daniels. ?
<<(neither illegal nor unusual with presidential candidates),>>
You are correct that it’s not illegal, and I’d agree at least probably not unusual.
Using campaign funds for a mistress or to secure a mistresses silence, is illegal.
<<or if do, shat his family thought about it.?>>
Also true. Melania has not spoken publicly about this, and sometimes couples agree to have an “open” marriage of 1 sort or another.
I do think its notable, that unlike Trump’s first campaign, where Melania actively campaigned alongside him, that Melania did not attend the trial with him, nor has she campaigned with him at all (other than 1 appearance) for the past several months that he has been campaigning. I read in to that, that she is not as supportive of him, as she once was, and I think the reason is learning about his affair with Stormy Daniels. But that is just my speculation, I agree with you, we don’t have any actual evidence of what his family thought about his affair (or at least his being accused of an affair.)
<<As for euphemistic journal entries, for blackmail or bribery, those aren't unprecedented, either.? Look up "facilitation payments," for example.>>
Agreed. And as I stated earlier, if Trump had just used his personal funds, even his personal funds funned through Cohen, there would be no crime committed. ?We likely would have never even heard of this, or if we had, it would have been a minor story. The legal issue was his using campaign funds. Which is why, he called the expense “legal” expense, rather than a “facilitation payment.” I think Trump was too greedy to just pay Daniels using his own money, but I suppose a case could be made that he was too stupid. The evidence presented to the jury though, showed that Cohen, Pecker, and Trump all realized the use of campaign money was illegal, so I think Trump’s greed was the most likely reason.
|
<<First the conviction is in question because of the judge's insane instructions - they didn't have to agree on what crime he committed.>>
There was nothing “insane” about the judge’s jury instructions. Both the prosecution *AND* the defense approved the judge’s jury instructions beforehand, and specifically the defense did not challenge the fact that the specific “other” crime committed or attempted to be committed, while committing the crime of falsifying business records did not have to agreed on by the jury, just the fact that another crime had been committed or attempted to be committed. If Trump’s lawyer thought there was anything “insane” about this, he could have challenged it—even if the judge refused his challenge, his lawyer could then later appeal on that basis. But Trump’s lawyer didn’t challenge it, because his lawyer knew there was nothing insane or legally incorrect with the judge’s instructions. (I’m assuming Trump’s lawyer was competent…..it is hard to prove legal malpractice, but certainly Trump could appeal on that basis, if indeed legal malpractice occurred.)
<<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.>>
I think you meant “12”? idiots (If you meant 112, then I don’t know what you are referring to.) Certainly juries do make mistakes at times, that is why there is an appeals process, and Trump is appealing the verdict. But legally speaking, until the verdict is overturned, Trump is a legally convicted felon. And from everything I’ve seen from following the trial, the evidence was pretty overwhelming against Trump. I believe the jury did make the right decision, and I believe the decision will be upheld by the Appellate and Supreme courts. Even if the verdict were overturned because of a technicality, there is no reason to call the jury “idiots”, based on the evidence they were given, their guilty verdict was expected.
Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
<<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?>>
No, my main argument is that adults should be able to make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If an adult wants to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, eat high fat foods, or anything else, that should be their right as an adult. If health insurance wants to charge them higher premiums, they can (and currently do with smoking tobacco.) If they commit crimes while under the influence of marijuana or drinking alcohol, then that should not be accepted in any way as an excuse for the crimes they committed. I was not clear about this in my original posting.
But unfortunately, we live in a society where busybodies want to control other people’s decisions, even though those decisions have no bearing on their own life. That is why I offered the secondary argument for busybodies, who don’t care about people’s freedom or independence, that making marijuana illegal does directly affect their lives in the various ways I mentioned (where as marijuana being legal does not affect their lives.) ? Rhonda
|
Same teaching; repeated in two gospels.? The point is that no one lives a biblical life; everyone strays from the ideal. Ed
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
Ed,
LOL! Why do you want to take a teaching out of context?
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 7:17 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
Among other lessons, Christ taught that you should turn your back
on your family and give away all your possessions and depend on
the Lord to provide, so by your definition, there are very few
real Christians.
You might find some living in tents on the sidewalks in LA.
Celeste wrote:
Ed,
What do you call people who claim to follow Christ, but
are doing the opposite of what He taught?
On 6/9/2024 2:25 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
What do you call followers of
Christ?
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
I
wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to
make sure that the U.S. is run their way. And they are
using Trump to get there. Trump is probably thinks he
is using them.
|
Ed,
LOL! Why do you want to take a teaching out of context?
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 7:17 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Among other lessons, Christ taught that you should turn your back
on your family and give away all your possessions and depend on
the Lord to provide, so by your definition, there are very few
real Christians.
You might find some living in tents on the sidewalks in LA.
Celeste wrote:
Ed,
What do you call people who claim to follow Christ, but
are doing the opposite of what He taught?
On 6/9/2024 2:25 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
What do you call followers of
Christ?
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
I
wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to
make sure that the U.S. is run their way. And they are
using Trump to get there. Trump is probably thinks he
is using them.
|
Among other lessons, Christ taught that you should turn your back on your family and give away all your possessions and depend on the Lord to provide, so by your definition, there are very few real Christians. You might find some living in tents on the sidewalks in LA.
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
Ed,
What do you call people who claim to follow Christ, but are doing
the opposite of what He taught?
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 2:25 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
What do you call followers of Christ?
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
I
wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to make sure
that the U.S. is run their way. And they are using Trump to get
there. Trump is probably thinks he is using them.
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Ed,
I was right. You don't have any evidence at all. Trump offered her
the money without her having to ask for it. It is not implausible
at all that she didn't ask for it.
This article explains why she owes Trump for legal fees.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 7:06 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Doesn't Trump paying her $130,000 over a ten year old one night
stand without her asking for it strike you as implausible?
Why do you suppose she owes Trump $600,000 in legal fees?
Ed
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, a1thighmaster via
<thighmaster= [email protected]>
wrote:
Ed,
Can you cite any evidence for Stormy Daniels asking for
the hush money? Trump offered it to her without her
asking for it.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 2:24 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
Ten years ago, a porn star
threatened to accuse him of having sex with her eight
years earlier if he didn't pay her not to make that
accusation.? He paid a bribe for her not to.? As with
many blackmailers, they don't go away and come back for
more until they are exposed.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
Ed,
I don't know why you think this happened 18
years ago. It happened before the 2016 election.
So that's less than 10 years ago. I'm talking
about when the hush money was paid. There's no
evidence that Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump.
On 6/8/2024 6:16 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
This allegedly happened
eighteen years ago.? Has Trump ever admitted
it?? How can anyone prove that someone had
private sex with another person 18 years ago, a
birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many
people would not vote for a candidate based on
a prostitute's claim that she had sex with him
once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible
that the accusation would destroy his
marriage.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
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.
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
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
Doesn't Trump paying her $130,000 over a ten year old one night stand without her asking for it strike you as implausible? Why do you suppose she owes Trump $600,000 in legal fees?
Ed
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
Ed,
Can you cite any evidence for Stormy Daniels asking for the hush
money? Trump offered it to her without her asking for it.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 2:24 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
Ten years ago, a porn star threatened to accuse him of having sex
with her eight years earlier if he didn't pay her not to make that
accusation.? He paid a bribe for her not to.? As with many
blackmailers, they don't go away and come back for more until they
are exposed.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
Ed,
I don't know why you think this happened 18 years ago. It
happened before the 2016 election. So that's less than 10
years ago. I'm talking about when the hush money was paid.
There's no evidence that Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump.
On 6/8/2024 6:16 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
This allegedly happened eighteen
years ago.? Has Trump ever admitted it?? How can anyone
prove that someone had private sex with another person 18
years ago, a birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many people
would not vote for a candidate based on a prostitute's
claim that she had sex with him once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the
accusation would destroy his marriage.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
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.
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
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.
|
Ed,
What do you call people who claim to follow Christ, but are doing
the opposite of what He taught?
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 2:25 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
What do you call followers of Christ?
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
I
wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to make sure
that the U.S. is run their way. And they are using Trump to get
there. Trump is probably thinks he is using them.
|
Darrell,
Yes, definitely not Christianity. Their claim to Christianity is
weak at best.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 3:09 AM, Darrell King
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Sounds like politics to me, Celeste...
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 1:23?AM
Celeste wrote:
I
wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to make sure
that the U.S. is run their way. And they are using Trump to
get there. Trump is probably thinks he is using them.
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Ed,
Can you cite any evidence for Stormy Daniels asking for the hush
money? Trump offered it to her without her asking for it.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 2:24 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Ten years ago, a porn star threatened to accuse him of having sex
with her eight years earlier if he didn't pay her not to make that
accusation.? He paid a bribe for her not to.? As with many
blackmailers, they don't go away and come back for more until they
are exposed.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
Ed,
I don't know why you think this happened 18 years ago. It
happened before the 2016 election. So that's less than 10
years ago. I'm talking about when the hush money was paid.
There's no evidence that Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump.
On 6/8/2024 6:16 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
This allegedly happened eighteen
years ago.? Has Trump ever admitted it?? How can anyone
prove that someone had private sex with another person 18
years ago, a birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many people
would not vote for a candidate based on a prostitute's
claim that she had sex with him once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the
accusation would destroy his marriage.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
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.
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
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.
|
Sounds like politics to me, Celeste...
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 1:23?AM a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote: I wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to make sure that the U.S. is run their way. And they are using Trump to get there. Trump is probably thinks he is using them.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
What do you call followers of Christ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote: I wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to make sure that the U.S. is run their way. And they are using Trump to get there. Trump is probably thinks he is using them.
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Hush money is a bribe. ?
In this case, the alleged single sexual act happened when Barron Trump was 4 weeks old.? Barron graduated from high school last month.
Ten years ago, a porn star threatened to accuse him of having sex with her eight years earlier if he didn't pay her not to make that accusation.? He paid a bribe for her not to.? As with many blackmailers, they don't go away and come back for more until they are exposed.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
Ed,
I don't know why you think this happened 18 years ago. It happened
before the 2016 election. So that's less than 10 years ago. I'm
talking about when the hush money was paid. There's no evidence
that Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 6:16 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
This allegedly happened eighteen years ago.? Has Trump ever
admitted it?? How can anyone prove that someone had private sex
with another person 18 years ago, a birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many people would not
vote for a candidate based on a prostitute's claim that she had
sex with him once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the accusation
would destroy his marriage.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
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.
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
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.
_._
|
I wouldn't call them real Christians, but they want to make sure that the U.S. is run their way. And they are using Trump to get there. Trump is probably thinks he is using them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ev0P92-fqs
Aloha,
Celeste Rogers
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Ed,
I don't know why you think this happened 18 years ago. It happened
before the 2016 election. So that's less than 10 years ago. I'm
talking about when the hush money was paid. There's no evidence
that Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/8/2024 6:16 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
This allegedly happened eighteen years ago.? Has Trump ever
admitted it?? How can anyone prove that someone had private sex
with another person 18 years ago, a birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many people would not
vote for a candidate based on a prostitute's claim that she had
sex with him once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the accusation
would destroy his marriage.
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, Celeste wrote:
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.
On 6/8/2024 4:33 PM, Ed Lomas wrote:
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
This allegedly happened eighteen years ago.? Has Trump ever admitted it?? How can anyone prove that someone had private sex with another person 18 years ago, a birth?
Aside from Mrs. Trump, who cares?? How many people would not vote for a candidate based on a prostitute's claim that she had sex with him once, 18 years ago?
She blackmailed him.? It's more plausible that the accusation would destroy his marriage.
Ed
On Saturday, June 8, 2024, a1thighmaster via <thighmaster= [email protected]> wrote:
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:
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
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.
_._
|
FreedomRocks