Trump is just like Jesus...
...according to Majorie Taylor Greene, in. a speech yesterday here in Nevada:
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
David,
It will never be completely harmonious, but there is usually
consensus.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 5:42 PM, David Smith via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The moral consensus in a community will never be completely
harmonious. ?Humans are not mass produced machines.
On Jun 9, 2024, at 23:02, Celeste wrote:
?
Darrell,
I agree that morality is somewhat subjective. Not entirely,
though, because we are not the only ones in our world.
Morality does involve the others around us and in our
community.
On 6/9/2024 3:32 PM, Darrell King
wrote:
I might argue that morality?is subjective,
Celeste. Personally, for instance, I feel sex lives
are the problems of those living those lives and I
do not care if they bribe people to cover their
dirty laundry. I realize there is also a question of
misuse of power, but when I hear someone tried to
cover up their sex life with that misuse, it has all
the impact on me of a jaywalking charge. I have
lived through too many real life sexcapades, I
guess.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at
10:04?PM 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 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:
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
You and Rhonda make good points, but self-destructive culture can get out of hand, and highly addictive drugs can be viewed as a public health issue, like an epidemic.? Over 100,000 people are dying each year from drug overdoses, and 80% of that is from synthetic opioids. ?(Auto deaths are about 40,000 per year.)
Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is being ignored, and yet there are no restrictions on high-fructose corn syrup or processed foods, so I don't believe that legalizing drugs is going to lead to collective common sense.
Perhaps something like the long, tedious public health campaign against smoking, and restrictions on drug use in public places and firing or ticketing people who drive, go to work, or invade public places while under the influence of drugs might work.
On Monday, June 10, 2024, Darrell King via <DarrellGKing= [email protected]> wrote: David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<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.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
David: "...If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense. "
Darrell: Majority?in numbers or in power? This touches on my recent comment about morality being subjective because it reflects the influences of the local?community on the human behavior of resident--and visiting--people. I might argue that laws of that Chicago prohibiting the interference with allowed homicidal behavior would be possible:?Murder, Inc., being a duly licensed corporation conducting the business of homicide and having paid the appropropriate fees for a permit, is hereby authorized to enact the termination of Darrell according to the guidelines set for in...
In Trump's culture, I suggest that both extramarital affairs and the use of "resolution facilitation payments" were business as usual, both morally and practically. (Probably there are a few other behaviors in that culture which are alien to my own, too!) We argue that his culture is part of our national?one and so in violation of shared laws and norms, but while that is undoubtedly true, it is also not a comprehensive analysis. Significant subcultures across the country differ in these areas from the overarching norms. Gangs, ethnic groups, militant religious organizations and various population cohorts come to mind.
What we are seeing, in my mind, is a battle by some subcultures to assert their collective wills over others through?violence or simply by trespassing?in areas another culture has been in control?of,?such as violating legal?boundaries. Not a new thing, but certainly well-publicized nowadays! My question is whether this situation is actually escalating in an unusual manner or whether it is just being spun that way in the media.
D
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct.? Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made.? If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? ? <<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.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
<<You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct. ?Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made. ?If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?>>
Well to be clear, laws are made because *lawmakers* feel there is a need for the law….and their decision for that may or may not be based on what the great majority feel.
And I disagree that laws for murder and stealing would make little sense, if the great majority of St. Louisans were murderers and thieves, there would still be laws against murder and stealing, because murderers and thieves don’t like it when other people steal from them of kill them. The laws may be poorly enforced, or more narrowly defined, but they would still exist. ?(I changed the city, since St. Louis is the #1 city for murder in the US, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10.)
Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
<<Traffic lights and stop signs and speed limits control drivers' decisions, but if you don't drive they don't affect your life, except that if there is no regulation of traffic the odds are good that your neighbors who do drive will sooner rather than later be injured or killed in traffic. Living in any community necessitates some rules that restrain the freedom of everyone.>>
I 100% agree with you, when we are talking about the public sphere. Just like farm kids don’t need to be old enough for a driver’s license to drive a tractor on private property, yet we all agree they need to be old enough and have a license to drive on public property…..similarly, I have no problem with laws against public use of drugs, but there should be no regulation of drug use on private property.
Rhonda
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
The moral consensus in a community will never be completely harmonious. ?Humans are not mass produced machines.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 9, 2024, at 23:02, a1thighmaster via groups.io <thighmaster@...> wrote:
?
Darrell,
I agree that morality is somewhat subjective. Not entirely,
though, because we are not the only ones in our world. Morality
does involve the others around us and in our community.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 3:32 PM, Darrell King
wrote:
I might argue that morality?is subjective, Celeste.
Personally, for instance, I feel sex lives are the
problems of those living those lives and I do not care if
they bribe people to cover their dirty laundry. I realize
there is also a question of misuse of power, but when I
hear someone tried to cover up their sex life with that
misuse, it has all the impact on me of a jaywalking
charge. I have lived through too many real life
sexcapades, I guess.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at
10:04?PM 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 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: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Frida y F ive J une 7
// ? Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition.??//
You could argue that two or four ways and be logically correct. ?Laws are made, ideally, not for logical reasons but because the great majority feel that they need to be made. ?If the great majority of Chicagoans were murderers and thieves, making laws there for murdering and stealing would make little sense.?
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 9, 2024, at 19:18, FreedomRocks <HomeOfLove69@...> wrote:
? ? <<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.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: Frida y F ive J une 7
// ? ?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?? ?//
Traffic lights and stop signs and speed limits control drivers' decisions, but if you don't drive they don't affect your life, except that if there is no regulation of traffic the odds are good that your neighbors who do drive will sooner rather than later be injured or killed in traffic.
Living in any community necessitates some rules that restrain the freedom of everyone.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jun 9, 2024, at 17:13, FreedomRocks via groups.io <HomeOfLove69@...> 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: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Darrell,
I agree that morality is somewhat subjective. Not entirely,
though, because we are not the only ones in our world. Morality
does involve the others around us and in our community.
Aloha,
Celeste
On 6/9/2024 3:32 PM, Darrell King
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I might argue that morality?is subjective, Celeste.
Personally, for instance, I feel sex lives are the
problems of those living those lives and I do not care if
they bribe people to cover their dirty laundry. I realize
there is also a question of misuse of power, but when I
hear someone tried to cover up their sex life with that
misuse, it has all the impact on me of a jaywalking
charge. I have lived through too many real life
sexcapades, I guess.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at
10:04?PM 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 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
I might argue that morality?is subjective, Celeste. Personally, for instance, I feel sex lives are the problems of those living those lives and I do not care if they bribe people to cover their dirty laundry. I realize there is also a question of misuse of power, but when I hear someone tried to cover up their sex life with that misuse, it has all the impact on me of a jaywalking charge. I have lived through too many real life sexcapades, I guess.
D
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 10:04?PM 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: [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.>>
Both of these epidemics happened in large part because of drug prohibition. If it were legal for people to use drugs, they would be able to buy drugs and be guaranteed that they were of a certain potency, and that the drugs were actually what the drugs claimed to be. People don’t have any worries about going blind from methanol, when they buy their liquor at a licensed liquor store with the type of alcohol and the potency of alcohol on the label (or they can get that information from the bartender at a licensed bar.) Neither do people buying cigarettes from a licensed seller, have any concerns that their might be fentanyl or who knows what else, mixed in their cigarette, cigar, or tobacco. How much better it would be, if people could also buy drugs from a licensed business, knowing exactly what they were getting, instead of buying it from an illegal seller who could be giving them anything, and they have no easy way to check. The government can’t “control” this, anymore than they could control alcohol during prohibition—far better option would to legalize drug use, license businesses, require labeling standards. ? Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
<< Legal malpractice?? How about accounting malpractice and independent auditor malpractice? Trump didn't personally make those 36 journal entries.>>
Since Trump has not sued his accountant or independent auditor, I assume that Trump does not think any accounting or auditing malpractice has occurred. ?Although, I don’t think a criminal would have much of a case in suing his accountant or independent auditor for not catching his deliberate criminal fraud? I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really know. I just see that for whatever reason, Trump has chosen not to sue his accountant or independent auditor, so I think its safe to say there was no malpractice with either of them. ?
Rhonda
|
Re: [Owner] Re: [PhilosophicalM] Friday Five May 31
Legal malpractice?? How about accounting malpractice and independent auditor malpractice? Trump didn't personally make those 36 journal entries.
On Sunday, June 9, 2024, FreedomRocks via <HomeOfLove69= [email protected]> wrote: <<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: [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.
|
FreedomRocks
David Smith