Ok, Democrats and RINOs who are not speaking out against this ought to be ASHAMED of themselves.
We were told to wait until the charges came out. Ok. We waited. Alvin Bragg released the indictment and did a press conference. Let me sum it up for you all.
- Alvin Bragg is a relatively recently elected Manhattan DA who campaigned on a "Get Trump!" platform.
- Already that's enough for me - prosecutorial misconduct. Out it goes.
- He brought a "34 count indictment".
- "Charge stacking" - correctly discouraged everywhere because it creates bias. There is actually only one thing Trump allegedly did, there were just 34 bookkeeping entries relating to the one thing.
- The purported charge is that in paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, it was filed under "legal expenses" rather than... rather than what?
- Paying hush money is not a crime. Many celebrities are forced to do it.
- Am now wondering how all those Hollywood celebrities classify their hush money payments in their accounts. Ha!
- Trump told Cohen, his lawyer, to take care of it. Does not make it a legal expense anyways?
- Did Trump even know how his accountants filed the payment? Highly unlikely. And there was no evidence that was brought forward regarding that.
- And who the hell actually cares anyways how it was filed????
- Smacks of selective prosecution. If this is a jailable offense, many
people would be in jail, including, of course, Hillary, who misclassified
a payment to fund the Steele Dossier that started Russiagate as a "legal
expenses" from campaign funds.
- The state crime is a misdemeanor that would never result in jail time,
much less the 134 years in prison the 34 stacked charges imply.
- Can you say... "selective prosecution". Sure you can!
- Can you say... "selective prosecution". Sure you can!
- It is only a crime if there was an "intent to commit fraud"
- Fraud
in this context means financial fraud. i.e. misrepresenting financial
records in order to defraud a party of their money (e.g., insurance
payment, loan, inflating stock price, ...). Where was the financial fraud?
The point was ignored in the indictment.
- Fraud
in this context means financial fraud. i.e. misrepresenting financial
records in order to defraud a party of their money (e.g., insurance
payment, loan, inflating stock price, ...). Where was the financial fraud?
The point was ignored in the indictment.
- There is a 2 year statute of limitations on the state crime.
- The payments were filed in 2016, 7 years ago.
- The payments were filed in 2016, 7 years ago.
- The only way to get around the statute of limitations is to say it was linked to some bigger issue for which the statute of limitations has not run out.
- What is this bigger issue? The indictment is silent on the matter.
- People speculate based on Bragg's press conference that it's some kind of campaign funding violation?
- The feds looked at the Stormy payment in this light and said there was no crime.
- If Cohen paid out of his own pocket without reimbursement, then it's arguably a crime by Cohen, making a campaign contribution in kind over the limit. Cohen in fact plead guilty to exactly this and went to jail for it. But this does not implicate Trump in any way
- Of course, we all know Cohen is lying, and of course Trump reimbursed him. But if Trump pays hush money, there's previous case law that says that while it may benefit the campaign, it is not a campaign contribution, as there are other pure reputational benefits.
- And even if you ignore that case law and say it is a campaign contribution, Trump can donate as much money as he wants to his own campaign!
- The venue of the case is NOT unbiased. Manhattan voted like 95% against Trump.
- The case should be tried in a more neutral district, obviously.
- The case should be tried in a more neutral district, obviously.
- The judge in the case is biased.
- His daughter is a well-known, well-publicized Trump hater who works for Kamala.
- The judge contributed $15 earmarked for the Biden campaign, and made two $10 contributions, one earmarked to the Progressive Turnout Project, a voter outreach organization, and another to Stop Republicans, a subsidiary of the Progressive Turnout Project. The size of the contributions is immaterial. It demonstrates his bias.
- The judge needs to recuse himself.
This whole thing is a ridiculous politically-motivated overreach. It's going to be open season on political figures after this. The US will descend into 3-rd world banana-republic level.
Sure, if there was an actual crime there for which any normal citizen would be prosecuted, go ahead. But this charge is pure trumped-up garbage.
Democrats who do not speak out against it brand themselves as hypocrites forevermore. I don't make the rules.
In case you're curious why I'll never read anything on this page again, it's just ridiculous nonsense you've chosen to post. I can only assume every other post you've ever shared is as much a lie as this one. Either that, or you're a card-carrying member of the Trump Cult.
ReplyDeleteTypical. No counter-arguments at all. Just pure emotional response. Shame,
DeleteFor someone who lives in Canada, you have an awful lot of concern for American politics. The majority of us know that trump is a criminal and guilty. If it was anyone else, they would be locked up.
ReplyDeleteYou "know" without evidence. What does that make you? Brainwashed?
DeleteJulie is King.
Delete🤴
DeleteI liked how Trump made fun of free market loser types like Rubio and Bush during the 2016 GOP primary. It made complete sense to me that he won with a 'drain the swamp' and 'let's rebuild the rust belt' message. Taking Hillary down was hilarious. Amazing.
ReplyDeleteAfter being elected, he worked with the swamp monsters too much. We got medicore policies, like moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem (I sincerely do not care one way or the other), or more free market trickle down crap. Not really that different from the woke capitalists once in office. Too bad--wasted opportunity.
Now I feel Trump is back. Of course he lost the election--I hope he raises hell anyway. Of course he lied and bribed a porn star. I hope he gets away with that too. Trump's speech the other day was fire--the libs hate it, and that's the magic he needs. They want to persecute him--let them try.
It will burn the system down, and this country is not worth saving. Let Trump break it in two.
Agreed. Trump was a real disappointment in the "swamp draining" department. I imagine he figured that if he played nice he'd get more done. Now he knows different. Would love to see a second term.
DeleteI hope Trump doesn't play nice and I hope the libs bust out the big guns to take him down, removing all pretence of how autocratic they really are
DeleteIt would even be OK if Trump was unjustly thrown in jail just to see the havoc and political fracturing it would take.
Popcorn ready. Burn this village down.
It does look to be headed that way.
DeleteTrump could not 'drain the swamp'. Crap, they had him under legal indictment from the minute he was in office, almost. The 'heart' of the swamp is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Guess who has to agree with most of Trump's Executive branch picks for the Intelligence agencies and Justice Department? Trump was the only President who never got a recess pick either. Know why? McConnell worked with the Never Trumper Republican in charge of the House from 2016 to 2018 and NANCY PELOSI when the Democrats took control to keep the Congress formally open for every single day of Trump's Presidency even during the pandemic when 99 percent of the congress critters were physically at home. And this only scratches the surface: I haven't even mentioned the permanent bureaucracy (where most of the 'resistance' lived) nor the fact that the President can't just willy nilly fire or appoint Federal employees. Except for Agency heads which serve at the Presidents pleasure, ALL of the middle managers and line employees are under the Federal Civil Service system, which makes them nearly impossible to fire in 'only' 4 years. And the Agency heads, many of whom are political in nature and never worked in the Fed Civil System need those MM to show them how to do things, where the bodies are buried, etc. Sorry, but Trump never had the power to drain the swamp. He didn't even have control over his own Justice Department as the Mueller Investigation (Special Consul) hung the threat of charges against all his people in the department if they 'interfered' with the investigation or didn't cooperate. Since Mueller was purely political and consisted of mostly Hillary lawyers and people from Crossfire Hurricane and other of the 'lawfare' crowd..well, you can how screwed we are. I didn't know how the government really worked until I followed what happened to Trump. Fact is the US is no longer a Democratic Republic anymore.
DeleteYes, all of that is true. He had a massive task. I think he could have got it done had half the public not been so gullible as to be duped by the incessant flow of hoaxes from the deep state psyops department in collusion with the mainstream media and big tech.
DeleteYou need to run for Parliament. I’d take you as Prime Minister any day!
ReplyDeleteI accept!
DeleteI appreciate your comments very much…as you are an objective outsider from our American northern neighbor …..I have some familiarity with Canadian politics and I believe it is fair to say that the circumstances, politically, in both of our countries are similar….to me that gives someone as observant and erudite as you, credibility in your perspectives and what you share…
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing.
Canada is becoming a real hellhole with the wokeys in power. Hopefully the conservatives can win next time, though it won't be much of an improvement. Only Max is an honest politician. Hopefully he'll win a seat soon and raise hell in parliament.
DeleteJulie is King.
Delete🤴
DeleteHere you go again. I read the charges and they aren't what you represent. Hush money is not illegal in New York. Trump was not charged for paying off his mistress. He was charged for fraud because he created false business records to hide the payoff. That is a crime in New York.
ReplyDeleteThere still may be a problem with this case. So far, we haven't seen how the charges escalated to felonies. Apparently, the grand jury saw evidence of criminal intent to defraud, but that wasn't in the charging document (it doesn't belong there). If the intent to defraud isn't proven, then Trump is guilty of misdemeanors, not felonies.
This was not charge stacking. Under NY law, each falsified document is a separate charge. That doesn't mean that if found guilty, he has to serve consecutive sentences. The court would probably make them concurrent. Each count is tied to a specific instance of fraud.
Read the charges. The NY Times published the entire document. It was very interesting to me. I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the fine points here, but a lot of the legal authorities I read seem to think that this is a most unusual case. It isn't the most serious Trump faces. The Georgia election fraud case is much more serious, as is the Federal case stemming from false electors and January 6.
Please stop attacking the DA. He isn't the villain. Attacking him is part of the Trump playbook. Let's just see how this case shakes out.
Read more carefully. I literally said hush money is not a crime and that he is being prosecuted for business records.
DeleteThe vast majority of legal commentary indicates the case is super weak.
Georgia is even weaker. Only a TDS infected individual can listen to the call and interpret it as Trump asking, with 30 people on the call, for Georgia to manufacture votes for him. He CLEARLY believed (justified or not) that there were many tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in Georgia (e.g. failed signature checks). He asked the state to investigate saying they only needed to find a thousand of the many more.
Thank you, Caged Lion, for reading so carefully and providing excellent concise points. I very much appreciate your final statement and agree we should see how things play out. The tone of this post seems to have taken the opposite tact and devolved into personal attacks on court figures, grandiose hyperbole, and a clear misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what the charges actually mean. "Innocent before proven guilty" is not the same as "innocent no matter what and there's no reason to reason to go through normal judicial process"
DeleteWhy is it that everybody who is critical never makes an actual point? Which of my statements do you disagree with and why?
DeleteThe entries were made while Trump was president. He had turned over control of his company, per US Office of Government Ethics. He didn’t make any business account entries. Plus, Cohen billed the company/Trump for legal retainer fees. The case has no merit. PS-Neither does the Georgia case, if you care to read the entire phone call log, not just a partial sentence taken out of context. I can’t stand Trump, but the left drinks the Jonestown kook aid and has zero critical thinking skills.
DeleteTruth
DeleteI’d love to hear more about your workout friends’ face between your legs
ReplyDeleteMe too! She's in London now :-(
DeleteBecause they are little children who don't want to admit they are wrong. I can easily make a long list of respected legal commentarors who think this is an abuse of power. The defenders are few and far between and mostly consist of the "Lawfare" crowd. Even Popehat (who hates Trump with a passion) won't defend this bullshit prosecution.
DeleteYes. Seems to be a such a blatant attempt it's likely to fail, but that the left has descended so far away from any shared sense of morals to pursue it and defend it is a wake up call.
DeleteJulie, once again you seem to have this concisely correct. The initial responses you are getting have to make you feel good. People that " know " something without actual facts are what the socialist have made them believe.
ReplyDeleteYup. Right on cue. I think they must be my govt assigned trolls,
DeleteStop humiliating Canada by getting involved in the Trumpster fire south of the border! It is a laughing stock!
ReplyDeleteThe charges are a laughing stock, agreed. This is not about Trump. This is about the political abuse of the legal system.
DeleteI know I shouldn't engage with this, but in an naïve attempt to have a legitimate dialog...
ReplyDeleteCan you provide any fact backing up the following statements, since you are asking commenters to provide evidence:
- "Alvin Bragg is a relatively recently elected Manhattan DA who campaigned on a "Get Trump!" platform"
- ""Charge stacking" ...discouraged everywhere because it creates bias"
- "Smacks of selective prosecution."
- "The venue of the case is NOT unbiased. Manhattan voted like 95% against Trump."
- "The feds looked at the Stormy payment in this light and said there was no crime"
- "Of course, we all know Cohen is lying..."
- "[The judge's] daughter is a well-known, well-publicized Trump hater who works for Kamala"
- "The judge contributed $15 earmarked for the Biden campaign, and made two $10 contributions, one earmarked to the Progressive Turnout Project, a voter outreach organization, and another to Stop Republicans, a subsidiary of the Progressive Turnout Project."
I believe some of these statements have a factual basis; others I find dubious at best. Regardless, I think it's important to make clear what is fact and what is fiction before having a conversation.
[Continued from a previous comment]
ReplyDelete- "The size of [the judge's] contributions is immaterial. It demonstrates his bias." Now who is saying they know something without evidence? This is pure opinion and, if we get to interject our own, it seems to me that a grand total of $35 is absolutely nothing in comparison to a $130,000 payment to benefit a campaign. But if we are going to take opinions, I'd personally lean towards someone who knows what they're talking about more than random people on a fetish blog:
"Asked if this could be grounds for a legal challenge or recusal, [New York University legal ethics professor] Gillers said, “Absolutely not. This does not come anywhere near the kind of proof required for recusal.”" (https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics/judge-merchan-trump-biden-contribution/index.html)
- "The judge needs to recuse himself." Again, that's debatable. Even if it is true, it simply means a new trial with a new judge. The judge (and prosecutor for that matter) didn't independently decide this accusation warranted a trial - a grand jury agreed there was enough evidence to hold a trial, which is why we are here
To wrap things up, I'd like to pick out something key from your diatribe: "Sure, if there was an actual crime there for which any normal citizen would be prosecuted, go ahead." This is the crux of everything and I'm glad we can agree on that! The accused has the pleasure of being presumed innocent before guilty, but if there has been evidence presented to a grand jury resulting a case, there is certainly a question to that at this time and the accused deserves to be prosecuted. And to be completely honest, this isn't the case I'd be concerned about if I were the accused. Potential charges of election tampering in Georgia seem to stem from the same motivation as this case, but is a much heavier charge and likely includes recorded evidence that most of the public has already heard.
So to your final point, I am more than happy to speak out against hyperbole, misinformation, and anything that denigrates the justice system in attempt to appease an specific, obsessive world view. Or to paraphrase your last line, thank God that "[you] don't make the rules"
You seem to have just copied my entire post. 😂
DeleteI welcomed you to challenge any of my factual statements with a counter argument. Just pick one to start, you don't need a laundry list.
DeleteSee above comment reply re. Georgia case. It's even weaker.
I copied large chunks of your post because in hopes of engaging in a discourse without trying to put words in your mouth, just repeating what was written. I challenged eight different statements and asked for some semblance of proof of their veracity (just saying "factual statements" doesn't magically make them true). Subsequently, I did provide explanations/counter-arguments to other details with sources.
DeleteI was not really expecting you to engage with all of it, but your response is disappointing. Essentially saying my response is too long with your "just copied my entire post" comment. It is long, and I did respond to a lot of your statements because they deserved to be questioned, but you couldn't even bother to respond to any of them.
The exception to the above is to put up a strawman and focus on my one-off comment about the completely separate Georgia case. Given you haven't shown a whiff of interest responding to me, I really shouldn't provide you the same courtesy, but I will say that putting "CLEARLY" all in caps doesn't make it true and even if it is true to doesn't automatically absolve the accused from potential election interference claims.
It's ironic that you tell me to "challenge any of my factual [sic] statements with a counter argument" when I very clearly did. It's a shame you couldn't take your own advice and "just pick one to start" in terms of responding to my requests for additional information or counterpoints to various thoughts. Finally, I disagree I "don't need a laundry list" to point out the flaws, misconceptions, or ask for proof of many things in this post, because the original post had more than I had time to address and there are even more popping up in the comments
As I initially stated, I knew I shouldn't have bothered engaging with this, so I will now be taking my own advice.
You just copied my points but you did not provide any text rebutting any of the points. This is the way it works: I make statements in my blog. If you believe some are inaccurate you tell me which ones, you say what you think is the more true take, and you cite your sources. Just one will do.
DeleteGiving you the benefit of the doubt, the closest you got was citing some academic reported on CNN of all places whose opinion was that the judge's political contribution is not sufficient grounds to recuse. He donated to freakin' "Stop Republicans", I mean, literally! Who does that?
I detest Trump, but agree the prosecution is wholly selective and sets a worrisome precedent.
ReplyDeleteRosco
THIS is the correct response I would expect from reasonable Democrats. Thank you Rosco, you appear to be the only one.
DeleteJulie, thanks.
DeleteI am personally engaged in an issue-based campaign of national significance on its merits, but a side motivation is to bring political factions together. The widening crevasse is scary.
Rosco
I blame the Dems. There were always right wing Christian Baptist type crazies, for time immemorial, and things were not divisive. Republicans patted them on the head and paid some lip service to them. Trump is clearly not one of those, but the left went nuts over Trump, and now, for some reason, mainstream Democrats are embracing the crazy leftist woke nonsense. That's what changed recently.
DeleteHuh? From time immemorial… you mean like post American Civil War? The “religious right” began in the late 70s / 80s and was always Republican. Jimmy Carter was a Baptist, and was a Democrat, but was not embraced by conservatives or many other Baptists back in the day.
DeleteIt’s true many Republicans paid the religious right lip service and patted them on the head. Ironically Trump on the other hand fully embraced them and it was mutual. Despite his porn star affairs he delivered - he played the Supreme Court game and got Roe v. Wade overturned. For many Republican strategists, it’s seen as the dog finally catching the mailman’s truck and not knowing what to do- and republicans have been and will continue to pay the price at the ballot box.
I was a Republican from the first time I proudly cast a vote for George H.W. Bush but grew anxious and then infuriated by Trumps antics and his stances that were not the Republican Party’s for decades.
Having said that, I agree that these charges are silly and a poor exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
On the other hand, normal citizens don’t pay porn stars six figures in hush money and then attempt to write it off as a business expense instead of paying it out of pocket, so they/ we don’t have anything to worry about, the statute of limitations is relatively easy to prove tolled, and I do not think modest contributions by the judge require recusal.
Yes. Time starts when I was born :-)
DeleteYou say Trump embraced them, but it's hard to point to any policies that were directed solely at pleasing them. Can you name any?
You refer to Roe, but an alternate explanation is that the Federalist Society, while allied with Baptists because of mutual convenience, in fact believes in an originalist and literalist interpretation of law. Only what's within the four corners. As opposed to an activist judiciary that steps far beyond.
The most egregious activists judges have tended to come from the left, so that would make anybody who opposes an activist court appear right leaning by contrast, and appear allied to special interest groups where a literalist reading furthers their aims.
Roe was horrible judicial activism. The worst example in US history. All legal scholars are with me in that, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Whatever your views on abortion (I, for the most part and within reason, support it), Roe was bad law and needed to be overturned.
I understand 6-figure hush money payments are fairly common amongst the rich and famous. People are always coming after them, and you have to pragmatically balance the court costs and reputational risk of a trial (regardless the outcome).
Trump was never an "ordinary man". He was famous, and was a billionaire, long before politics. Moreover, his name is his brand. Any tarnishing of the name is a tarnishing of the brand and costs the company. Thus a very legit business expense.
It has nothing to do with the amount, it has to do with the mindset of a judge who knows he should avoid the appearance of political bias, nevertheless not being able to resist the urge to donate to "Stop Republicans Now". Fine. If he can't resist wearing his politics on his sleeve, pass the case off to a judge who can.
Unprecedented prosecution of a front-running political opponent. The charge that is the basis for the felony indictment is not revealed-a violation of the 6th Amendment which should get the case thrown out immediately. Democrats keep setting new precedents that they don’t think will ever come back to bite them, eg. nuke the filibuster for judges. Can’t wait until the power pendulum swings back and hits the Biden family crime syndicate. - david
ReplyDeleteYup. Indictments galore no doubt incoming from Republicans. Fight fire with fire.
DeleteIt used to be that the level of corruption and absurdity in the U.S gave me a (frightened) chuckle. Shame on me for laughing at me while my neibours are suffering.
ReplyDeleteNow we have a bat shit (sorry about the language) prime minister and a bunch of fruitcakes running for mayor in the big smoke. Is it any wonder that voter turnout is less than 50% less than 25% municipally. Maybe just maybe it;s because 1/2 of us are libertarians ? believe in personal responsibility, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, even opinions I don't agree with
The left no longer seems to believe in due process, blind justice, or freedom of anything. The evidence is staggering, such as this case, but the left is too blinded and brainwashed to see it. We see this "cognitive dissonance" at play in many responses to this post. Not a single fact-based refutation of any of my bulleted points, just angry screeching.
DeleteThe right doesn't believe that anyone in their party should ever be held accountable for any of their actions, that even investigating potential crimes is an affront to their rights, and that due process means only investigating or bringing someone to court after all the fact have already been verified and due process completed (ignoring that investigation are how facts get discovered and court is due process in action)
DeleteWell that's total bullshit. The right is predominantly against unjust prosecution of anybody, left or right. But if it's a justified prosecution, and there is no political bias and trumped up shit, then let 'em fly. If only the left felt the same.
DeleteTrump should have engaged you for his defense. I have started to buy in that it's drama to motivate Trump supporters to have Trump on the ballot in 2024 as Trump is the person the Dems think can be beaten. That's too much thinking for me, but maybe so.
ReplyDeleteThey did that in 2016, very much so, and it backfired. I think the Dems would prefer Trump, but I don't give them that much credit. They are TDS infected and have ceased rational thought.
DeleteYour blog, your topics, accept and agree. My only comment I enjoy your blog, the main topics, it is a break from the real world. I too at times get focused on what is happening, at times don't know when to stop. My wife/mommy allows me so much 'rope' and then knows a spanking is more than needed, extra time facing the wall. Has David every thought of this, giving you a spanking when you get more than worked up or today's events. Jack
ReplyDeleteWe both believe it's important to speak up when important injustices with far reaching implications are being carried out.
DeleteMy wife allows this also, but when I go too far, or she has had enough and warned me and I don't. The bath brush speaks and I spend time facing the wall. Jack
DeleteYou will convince no one because you are so biased for Trump.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if you are right or wrong: the fact that you have never admitted that any of your theories was wrong shows your judgment is no good.
I acknowledge that you sometimes raise good points: like the idea that COVID might have come from a Chinese research center. That was reasonable, and still seems plausible.
But your unabashed defense of Trump makes your defense of him now meaningless. Of course you defend him: you defend him no matter what. As far as you are concerned, he won the election.
So you will convince this many people: 0
People said the same thing at the time I advocated the lab leak theory. No solid counter arguments, just contentless rants.
DeleteThis comment, like all the others, is the same. I give solid points, you have every chance to pick any one of them and refute it, but you just give a contentless rant instead.
It's called "cognitive dissonance", when your need to be right is so strong but you have no factual arguments, you descend into this sort of word-salad rant.
I think you and your fellows will do a better job of convincing people than even I could when they see exactly zero factual counterpoints from "the best" on your side of the issue.
P.S. there are several things I criticize Trump over.
Delete- hiring badly in the White House
- not firing Fauci and not supporting Scott Atlas better
- pushing through the COVID jab without adequate safety
- out of control govt spending
If there are more criticisms you wish to make, I'll look at them on a case by case basis. Overall his administration's record was great, way better than Biden's to-date, especially as regards the economy and world peace. And Biden and cronies corruption, lies, thirst for power and divisiveness are unequalled.
Bingo she loves old connie so much its insane but then the insurrection showed ud his followers are delusional lol
DeleteAre those just random words strung together?
DeleteAt any rate, anybody who uses the word "insurrection" on a Trump topic has been thoroughly brainwashed and has the IQ of a fruit fly. I feel so sorry for you.
You always say you are willing to debate, but when people debate you seriously, and show flaws in your data and reasoning, you call them names
Deletejust like here.
not gonna waste my time trying to convince you: you are a waste of my time.
you can say that this is a contentless rant, but it's really not: it's a meta-level analysis of trying to converse with you. You can misclassify this if you like. It suits your BS storyline
but, once again, you won't convince anyone of anything
(note that I never disagreed with your evaluation of the charges against Trump: you just assumed that I would. What I was arguing was that you are wasting your time with these political articles because you are so biased in your presentation.)
What flaw in my data or reasoning has ANYBODY pointed out on this post? I'm mystified.
DeleteOf course I assumed that, because you did not start with "I agree with you completely, but..." which a thoughtful human would do.
You can believe I won't convince anybody if you please. I maintain the hope that good points that the opponents do not rebut effectively are convincing, regardless of the source. But that does not fit with your hyper emotional world view.
As always, I remain willing to be challenged on any of my points and take pains to publish any and all comments (and answer them) except for the most heinously disrespectful, rude, and pointless ones. I also always respond. That is a lot more than can be said by most and is why folks like you keep posting comments.
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
ReplyDeleteYup
DeleteBless your heart tommie
ReplyDeleteWho 'dat?
DeleteFor the record the vote in Manhattan was approximately 61% for Biden and 38%- not 95% against trump.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction. I was being directional. I looked it up just now. You're referring to New York state results perhaps? Manhattan was 86% Biden. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2020/12/10/trump-biden-vote-totals-in-new-york
Deleteand the winning argument against your initial statement is……oh wait…there is not one LOL.
ReplyDeleteBut it is fun to watch the TDS cognitive dissonance.
DeleteHmm, this whole thing certainly is interesting from a neutral party perspective. What goes on in the US has practically zero to do with lil' Aussie me. On one hand you got people screaming, "WE GOT HIM", as if this is the slaying of Sauron or something, on the other hand you got people screaming, "CORRUPTION! HOW DARE YOU ARREST A PRESIDENT", with some reasonable voices dabbled in the middle.
ReplyDeleteNow, correct me if I'm wrong, but as of April 9th, 2023, Donald Trump is guilty of precisely zero, right? Accusations have been made and the state has made known its intentions but there is still an entire fucking court case to go, which could stretch well into the years, to figure out innocence or guilt...right?
I'm kinda confused why this is being made such a big deal of. People go to court and are found innocent all the time?
That said, if he, or anyone, did something illegal I'd want them to be found guilty of their crimes but no one has even begun proving anything yet? That's what the entire court case will be about.
Unless the US works completely different to over here in the Land Downunda'. I've grown tired of constantly following the nitty gritty of what goes on in the US, lol.
-Kasey
Hmmmm.... well, the Biden US will likely start a proxy war with China and you Aussies will be smack dab in the middle of it. You ought to care.
DeleteThe issue is one of using the courts to persecute political figures and interfere in the election. My point is that if you look at the charges, it is obviously a massive overreach and is clearly politically motivated.
Some OG Russian KGB guy said "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". There are so many silly laws on the books that it's estimated that all of us are breaking 2 or 3 on any given day. The system relies on prosecutors, cops, judges, and juries being fair minded about it. You take that away, as is happening here, and the entire justice system is at risk.
Lol, that's a little naïve, Julie and you know that damn well. The Australian government under either the LNP or ALP is huge on US cock sucking and the US government under the GOP or DNC is entirely pro-Taiwan. If China invades Taiwan it wont matter the President of the United States nor will it matter the Government of Australia, we're going to war. That isn't a partisan issue and you are too smart of a lady to not know that already. Don't lump me in with the rest of the idiots here shitting on you, because I'm not them and I'm not shitting on you.
DeleteAs for everything else... you've not really... answered my key question. As of right now, 10th April 2023, Donald Trump is guilty of nothing. The court case will go on well after the 2024 election and he will be free to campaign meanwhile. Heck, the man had a campaign speech at Mar'a'Lago mere hours later.
Plus like... You sit there and say "Using the Courts for Political Purposes is bad!", and I can relate to the idea of that, but it's just a tad hypocritical given the entire purpose of The Federalist Society for the past 30 years has been to explicitly do exactly that.
Anywho, Julie, I lost a bit of respect for you after this. I know we don't agree on all things politically but I thought we had mutual respect. Given your belittling comments on Aus/US/China, I can see that's no longer the case... that hurts. Especially when I know you're far too smart of a woman to actually believe what you said, which means you literally just said it to put me down. I guess I understand why, given the other hostile responses here, but I guess I had hoped that you would have remembered I was different to that trash. Guess not.
-Kasey
I'm sorry Kasey. I did not at all intend to belittle. All I meant was that what happens in the US has a distressing way of spreading past its borders. In Canada here, sleeping next to the two-ton elephant, it's worst I suppose.
DeleteBut I fear these proxy wars are designed for one purpose only. Each time they fire off a $1,000,000 cruise missile, who pays and who benefits? US taxpayers pay, and giant US armament companies and their political cronies benefit. At least Trump did not seem to be caught up in that, which is why tensions calmed and he started no new wars. Since Biden, the war machine has been on hyperdrive. I actually think Trump could have averted the Ukraine war (by not antagonizing Russia as Biden's administration did by moving forward with NATO membership, and insisting Ukraine stay neutral and adhere to the Minsk accords). I don't know if China is different, but given a proven warmonging profiteering president, versus one with a track record of peace, I'll take the latter as the best bet of averting a serious conflict over Taiwan.
I believe these continued machinations against Trump (not only this one, three years of Russiagate to start which narrative has been utterly demolished and provably built on a dossier which was entirely fictional and paid for by Democrats), is in large part the defence mechanism of the swamp to keep the gravy train rolling as far as war profiteering goes.
No doubt judge selection is partisan on both sides. However that partisanship had not reached the level of weaponizing the judicial system against a presidential candidate... until now.
I took time to contemplate this response and I do feel it to be genuine as you've never had a history of antagonising me and in previous discussions where our views varied you were not one to lash out because others have been dogpiling onto you and you needed a place to vent. So, I too apologise for misinterpreting what you said, I felt hurt in the moment and responded in kind.
DeleteSpeaking to the point on wars, proxy wars, profiteering of the Military-industrial complex and the history of America (I'll get to Trump specifically later), I wholeheartedly agree. Ever since the end of WW2 America has been geared toward either outright war or proxy war constantly; Vietnam, Korea, Desert Shield/Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Laos Civil War, Cambodia, Lebanon, Libya, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo and now the Ukraine (I'm sure I'm missing some too). All claimed to be fighting for peace and justice but it doesn't take a genius to know it was all done in the name of the mighty dollar. These span administrations of all types and beliefs, these span over the better part of 8 decades and it's all to keep that mighty Military-industrial complex profitable. War is profitable and it's going to continue to happen regardless of who occupies the White House.
As for the Trump Presidency itself? Trump sent troops to Niger to fight ISIS. He kept troops fighting ISIS in Libya. He antagonised Iran from day one of his Presidency. He betrayed our Kurdish allies and left them to their fate to be exterminated by either Erdoğan or ISIS. Overall, did he start any major conflicts? No. To say he was some sort of peace warrior is also misleading. There were simply no major events that the military/CIA pushed for him to get involved with beyond small deployments to fight ISIS. To think that if the opportunity arose for the mighty military-industrial complex to flex its weight while Trump was in office and he defied near 80 years of tradition *without it being outed as a scandal* is simply unfathomable.
As for the legal system stuff, I cannot comment on "Russiagate" as I've not done the research there, but if I simply focus on the case in New York and the current charges, can we both agree that Trump is innocent until proven guilty? And if we can do that, can we also agree that given Trump can afford the best lawyers on the planet that even if all the odds are stacked against him, this case will drag on for years. And if we can do that, we can therefore say that Trump will be innocent into 2024 and beyond. He can freely campaign, and if we're honest here, this give him something major to campaign on that say, De Santis, doesn't: He's a martyr to his voters.
Finally, once all is said and done, if Trump, or anyone really, is guilty of a crime, I want them to pay the penalty for it... be it a fine, be it jail time, be it what it is. Democrat or Republican, progressive or conservative, big government or small government. That's my view. I don't think anyone should be above the law.
Last but not least, to imply that both sides are doing the same thing in regards to how the Federalist Society works and operates is actually a massive disservice to them. Like, I may not agree with them, but credit where credit is due. What they're doing is unparalleled and insanely impressive. It's what I wish the progressive side of politics worldwide would be: cutthroat. They saw an opportunity to make the Judicial branch into a third branch of governance and they exploited that opportunity in ways I WISH my side would. The SCOTUS will be solidly conservative for the next 30+ years thanks to them, which I'm pissed about, but hey, they saw an opportunity no one else did and they succeeded. Insanely impressive work on their behalf.
-Kasey
Thanks Kasey, I appreciate your forgiving spirit!
DeleteCall me naive, but I think the big, bumbling bafoon that is Trump is legit out to shine up his monstrously oversized ego by genuinely helping the US without hurting anybody else. He's a complete political outsider who has no use for more money. He calls 'em like he sees 'em. He is easily manipulated by those who know how to stroke his ego. He does not hesitate to use overwhelming force to end a war or to move towards peace (peace through strength), but as a businessman his instinct is to negotiate, not war. Psychologically, IMO he's an "altruistic grandiose narcissist". He's addicted like a heroin addict to ego boosts and tries to get them by doing good, and is butt-hurt like a toddler when people don't acknowledge his accomplishments. All in all, I prefer that over a dumb, malignant, amoral troll for the military industrial complex like Biden & co and the neocons.
I responded elsewhere in the comments re my views of the Federalist Society. In short, I see them as literalists and originalist, which perforce makes them conservative. They serve a useful function of just upholding the law as written, which IMO beats the anarchy of making up laws on the fly to suit their political tastes as is done by the left. One must not confuse the overturning of Roe (which was heinously bad law to begin with), with being against abortion (which those conservative judges also happen to be). We can fairly criticize them as activist if and when they seek to outlaw abortion (and not just move it back to being a States issue, which in many states made it even more legal).
Blrss your heart Tommie is probably Tommie Lahren. You hit the nailon the head and as usual it seems like most responses are just from the I Hate Trump crowd. No reason except they don't like the way he talks. Poor Babies!!!!!!! Keep up the good work and give us more femdom. Firefighter Steve
ReplyDeleteIf I'm being compared to her, I'm very flattered. Young and gorgeous, and an absolute beast! I'll take a spanking from her any day (though my butt may regret it!)
DeleteRepublicans love to argue about anything. They want to lock Hillary up for absolutely nothing an she won the popular vote by 4 million votes. We have the only country in the world where a republican can get fewer votes and still win. That's right, the electoral collage only works for Republicans. But forget about all that. Let's talk about Hunter Bidens laptop and the colors on Bud Light cans. LMFAO. Republicans losing their minds. You should stick to spanking stories with David fucking your asshole raw.
ReplyDelete"Absolutely nothing" == destroying subpoenaed evidence (bleach bit + hammers to blackberries) and serious mishandling of classified materials and running her own email server to circumvent federal record keeping. Nonetheless, Trump decided to let it go for the sake of harmony. See the difference?
DeleteThe US is not a democracy, it's a federation of states. Do I really need to explain that to you?
Hunter Biden laptop contains evidence of Joe Biden directly engaging in influence peddling.
Strictly speaking Julie, I believe that the US is more accurately described as a democratic republic with a constitution. Going by this place https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic (haven't checked the link recently), the main difference between a straight democracy and a republic is that in the republic the majority's power of decision is limited by a constitution, which typically includes some form of protection of a minority. A republic also isn't a monarchy, but is typically headed by a president rather than a monarch, as is the case with most countries today.
DeleteThere's strictly speaking not all that great a practical difference between the typical representative democracies with some form of constitution, you have in various places in the world, and a democratic republic. In both cases people vote for parties and individuals to represent their views in some form of governing body, which gets to make the laws of the country. I don't think I can think of a single outright "Democracy". Every democracy I can think of is in reality a "representative democracy" in some form.
While the US electoral vote system does have some merit in it's supposed goal of insuring that states with fewer people don't get to be outvoted by a minority of states with higher populations, it is somewhat...interesting that you can, in fact, have the situation where the majority of the population wants one candidate to win an election, but due to the election laws, the winning candidate becomes the one with fewer actual votes for them.
Having an presidential election system running on the popular vote, regardless of State would not rule out the possibility of having local elections and laws in various States, nor would it change how the Congress and Senate would be "populated".
You can argue that about half the population would likely become unhappy with a situation where one side of the political spectrum came to almost have a "monopoly" on the presidential seat, and there is merit to that. But I'll still argue that the US election system is curious in its design, in that it effectively does allow someone to win the presidential post, without having the popular vote too.
I think the notion of the States having very different characters from one another still holds up today. And people are free to relocate (as massive numbers have been doing, exiting from NY and CA toward TX and FL). I don't think it's that unusual that the president is a compromise mix of population and states. It's what the framers hammered out as a compromise and it still works to this day to balance out the "big city" vote with the rural vote. At any rate, it can't be changed without chucking out the constitution and splitting the country.
DeleteHello Julie, It's been awhile.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I noticed is that the Trump's next court date is in December, just around the Primaries. If this D.A. thought he had a chance he would have pushed for a closer court date, plus even some Democrats are saying this reeks of politically motivated prosecution.
As for "Hush Money" and as for the :Tax Evasion" just do a search on "American federal politicians convicted of crimes" the list is long and distinguished.
My personal call is that the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot. They didn't think or plan this media nightmare and it will come back to bite them.
Stay Well
Steath
It's true the prosecution wanted it pushed out, but I understand so did Trump's team as there are a tremendous number of grounds for early dismissal that will take time to pursue.
DeleteYes, never ascribe to scheming what can be explained by simple incompetence.
I always appreciate your commentary on both political and domestic (discipline) matters. Thanks for the succinct breakdown of the political insanity that's currently in vogue!
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure. I think I got all my facts right!
DeleteLurker48 here. I rarely comment on your sexual posts, as there is no spanking in my 32-year-old marriage. Even though we are both in our 70's we still have an active and pleasurable, though vanilla, sex life. I rarely comment on your political entries because I find your comments cogent and logical. Let's talk about a subject that on which. you and I might disagree, gun control. I am a gun collector, shooter, and occasional hunter. Your comments, please.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat mixed feelings.
DeleteI am more a libertarian at heart, and hence incline towards gun ownership, including for self-defense.
But there are so many handguns manufactured and sold in the US that it appears easy for criminals to obtain them. There was some recent story of a shooting where the kids stole the guns from people's cars. I think it's likely, and somewhat obviously true, that if citizen ownership of guns were banned entirely there would be far, far fewer gun deaths. And increased knife and baseball bat deaths would not nearly make up for it.
Long guns are rarely used for crime, so I think banning ownership of those would not do a lot, and they are absolutely required by farmers and hunters.
All in all, though, I more fear govt encroachment and overreach over an unarmed population, which I think is what 2A is really all about, so I would, in the end, vote to keep gun ownership legal, despite the excess gun deaths that would result. A smaller evil now to keep at bay a much larger evil.
A lot of the regretted crime-related gun deaths could also be addressed by being tougher in enforcing existing laws and having a half-decent system to forcibly treat the mentally ill.
Moreover, I'm worried about gun control laws being abused, and being effectively a way around 2A, so am even wary about that. I don't think the left can be trusted to administer these gun control laws in good faith.
If you ever feel like moving to the US, Julie (if things ever calm down, or, if, heaven forbid, Canada gets even worse than it is now and the US) I would vouch for you. You know our political culture better than most Americans do and you pay attention to t hings.
DeleteThan you, Clarence, I appreciate the vote of confidence!
DeleteCame here as usual for jackoff material, got Fox news instead. will try that next, maybe this works in reverse too.
ReplyDeleteThe heading and pic didn't clue you in? 😊
DeleteHopefully Bragg hangs that cock eater from the god damn Empire State Building, with his entire cult right by his side.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if I should hit publish in this one... but it's good for those defending these persecutions to see the company they are hanging out with.
DeleteHmm, he wants me dead. Wanna bet he thinks my guns should be banned too? - david.
Delete😂
DeleteOn another subject, can you tell how your readers have responded to your book. What they have suggested? Jack
ReplyDeleteGood response! Sales are tracking higher than "Julie's Spankings" in the first 4 months. Some people have commented it lacks "the spark", but others have really loved the setup, the creative action scenes, and the overall arc. I certainly felt "the spark" as I was writing it, which is my main criterion.
DeleteI'm well along my next book, which is a collection of stories. So very little setup and character development, and all action, so we'll see how that genre fares by comparison.
I don't particularly like political discussions so this will likely be my only comment.
ReplyDeleteI can already hear the collective YAY'S.
Trump will easily beat these dumb charges and the Democrats know it. This has nothing to do with punishing the Trumpster in any way and has in every way to do with turning him into a martyr. The Democrats know that if anyone other than Trump is the Republican's candidate then sleepy joe would most likely lose. However with Trump as the Republican's candidate the Democrats believe Biden will have a far more likely chance of winning a second term.
I don't believe Trump would have won the Republican nomination over other candidates like DeSantis. However the Democrats, by martyring Trump, are putting in place a republican candidate they feel they can easily beat.
Full disclosure I don't particularly like either Trump or Biden and would prefer to see two other less sleepy and less colorful candidates run in the next election, IMO.
Oh, and one last thing to all you commenters. Don't forget this is julie's blog and she is entitled to say what she believes, no matter how wrong she is! 😉
That's a decent theory, but Occam's razor says Bragg ran on "getting Trump", so he now has to deliver "getting Trump", but found no real crimes so he has to make them up. I'm sure Bragg was as TDS infected as any Dem and that he was positive there were massive crimes to be found and he was just the White Knight to find them. He's probably now deeply in cognitive dissonance and cannot himself see how nonexistant his case is.
DeleteIt was pretty clear Trump was going to win the primaries regardless. He has a massive base that cannot be overcome, which is why he remains a player.
And yes I am, and at least on this one, we seem to agree.
Julie, your sex life adventures used to put most of your readers' to shame. How the tables have turned! You can't let this DA have that power over you. I'd send Trump to prison just to free you up to focus on what we all know REALLY matters.
ReplyDeleteSend Bragg to prison and we have a deal!
DeleteAnything, to get our Julie back!!
DeleteJulie, thank you, you are correct in your assessment of this ridiculous Trump prosecutorial persecution. I just heard that he raised 7 million in fund raising in the last 3 days, so the people responding on hear that "everyone agrees with getting Trump" are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI understand from the polling that even a vast swath of Democrats consider the prosecution to be politically motivated. Tellingly, though, a huge number of even those approve of the prosecution! I.e., Dems are all in favour of warping the judiciary to "get Trump". Bless their tiny little emotional black hearts.
DeleteOk, so a few things from this post
ReplyDelete“The purported charge is that in paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, it was filed under "legal expenses" rather than... rather than what? Paying hush money is not a crime. Many celebrities are forced to do it.”
I’m sorry but here you are starting from a factually incorrect level. The laws that were broken was not that he paid Stormy Daniels hush money but falsifying business records. He and his lawyers used campaign donations and money held in his trust filtered through shell companies to launder the money for the purpose of a bribe. In all of your section you completely skip over the shell accounts and shell companies being used to launder the money in the process. THOSE are the crimes he is being charged with.
The multiple counts are also not uncommon at all. Each instance of the fraud gets its own entry to be examined and refuted individually. That way if 1 of the counts was found to be incorrect but the other 33 were found to be correct the 33 counts would be resolved and a sentence defined and the 1 would not rather than 1 of the 33 being incorrect causing the entire pile to get thrown out as a unit. That is a normal legal process and not charge stacking.
There is a real good break down on the charges and why they exist the way they do here https://youtu.be/Ltw-SN9QiII
Apologies for the sentence structure. I was attempting to convey
Delete1) the crime was falsifying business records - this is what I state in the main bullet. Every sub-bullet is some other point.
2) the first sub-bullet clarifies that paying hush money is not what he was charged with as paying hush money is not a crime. This ponit was meant to counter the common narrative out there that Trump is in trouble for paying hush money.
It's not a "bribe" in any legal sense. It's hush money. Not illegal, I point out again.
It doesn't matter how many "shell companies" it flows through. It's not "money laundering" in any legal sense.
Your use of those two terms display your bias and your willingness to exaggerate to make a point.
Yes, he was trying to conceal paying hush money. Not a crime. The video you cite says he repaid Cohen from his own funds. Can you give me the time stamp where it claims it was paid from campaign funds? That has never been my understanding.
You know as well as I do that the press breathlessly proclaims "34 counts" at every possible opportunity without giving the context that it's all the same thing. That's what I take exception to, not the legal details.
But even legally, here is a Harvard Law Review article criticizing charge stacking: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/stacked-where-criminal-charge-stacking-happens-and-where-it-doesnt/
I GUESSED before I even clicked that link that this dude would use "Legal Eagle" one of the most dishonest "Youtube Lawyers" out there. You should have seen Legals mangling and downright misleading to the point of nearly being defamation (and that's hard to prove in the US) of the facts of the Rittenhouse case. Not to mention his mangling of the law of self defense (Hint: You want the foremost expert in the US on Firearm Self Defence, you want Andrew Branca). And this isn't the only case of Legals incompetence or dishonesty or possibly both. Of COURSE Legal would be kissing the ass of the Prosecution in this case. There hasn't been a single legal investigation of Trump he's ever been against, not even "Crossfire Hurricane" (which some believe was a COVERUP to cover up the crime of spying on Trump and other domestic political opponents in 2015 via abuse of the FISA 702 process and then extracting the domestic political info via Federal Contractors including yes, the info firm that employed Christopher Steele. ) which should give you an idea of his 'fairness' and 'judgement'. Anyway, here's our Favorite Wannabe Lex Luthor Lawyer along with the Canadian Mad Scientist to explain, like the vast majority of legal commentors, why this case is perhaps even more bullshit and dangerous (to the rule of law, not necessarily Trump) than you know, Julie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKk_pXiJ1Tg&t=2s
DeleteI didn't realize that guy had such a crummy track record. Certainly as I was listening it seemed to make little sense and was completely out of step with almost all other legal commentators, including traditionally Dem-leaning ones.
DeleteWhat really gets me is Dems don't seem at all concerned that there was a 3 year attempt to have a coup against the President using FBI and Justice Department and blatant lying to the public about it from politicians in positions of responsibility (Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, ...), and the mainstream media (even awarding Pulitzer to itself for an entirely fictitious story), and Big Tech. And all of it started by the Steele Dossier which was a complete fabrication planned and paid for by Hillary and the DNC using campaign funds illegally recorded as legal expenses.
The hypocrisy from Democrat supporters is absolutely staggering. Takes one's breath away. As many are otherwise intelligent people, one can only explain this massive blindspot by a successful brainwashing campaign. Wish they would wake up from their trance.
I am also completely un-surprised that there would be an Ad hominem attack on legal eagle rather than the topic he covered. But man is it funny that it then uses Viva Frei as your counter point to unbiased sources. Someone who literally does truck cab angry rant videos.
DeleteYou are right on the point that I misspoke it was not campaign money that she was paid with but it was campaign finance violation to pay her such an amount for the sake of political gain. Trump has purposefully attempted to delay the payment until after the election so he could end up stiffing her on it because he wasn’t afraid of the news coming out, but was afraid of it coming out during the campaign. It was a campaign expense from personal funds making it a political contribution.
None of this information is new though. It is all old news from when the story was going around in 2018 (Though because this is an old article it doesn’t have the additional information like the proof that trump did know about and engage with this process willingly and that the payments were being delayed until after the election at his orders) https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/qa-on-stormy-daniels-payment/. I know that source is also going to be dismissed as biased because if it isn’t coming from the likes of the Epoch Times, Alex Jones, or some guy ranting from the cab of his truck.
You have your facts wrong again. It's been ruled repeatedly that if there's any other reason for what would otherwise be considered an "in kind" donation, that it then is NOT considered a campaign donation. Else all manner of things would come under scrutiny.
DeleteAnd then besides, even if you mistakenly believe it to be a campaign donation, then by your own argument it comes from Trump, and Trump can donate as much as he wishes to his own campaign. That's been ruled on as well and is considered a 1A issue.
Viva and Barnes actually covers all of this (correctly). Suggest you give them a listen as well.
I know Democrats love "projecting", but it's your bias on display, not ours.
When ever I read one of your reactionary Republican posts, Julie, I think that you should leave that frozen socialist country (Canada) and move to the Land of the Free, the Republic of Texas. Why live with the hell of government supplied health care, liberal immigration policy and a generous social safety net when you can live where self reliance and guns are supreme.
ReplyDeleteThe US is too volatile now, and Canada is no better.
DeleteThe US has the best health care in the world, by far. It's why Canadians with the means travel down there to get treated. Your medicare and medicaid is roughly on par with what we Canadians get, except you have excess hospital capacity whereas we underpsend on health care and suffer long wait times, sometimes for critical care. I'd rather work hard and be able to pay for my freedoms, thank you very much. If something unfortunate happens, I'll be glad I have paid up insurance.
Our "generous social safety net" amounts to about $1000 a month in old age, and there's no way to even sustain that with an aging population and declining birthrates. I guess you can buy cat food with that and live in a trailer park, though not for long with rampant inflation.
You American Democrats have a mixed up view of how "great" it is here in "socialist" Canada. Guess what, buttercup, the money has to come from somewhere.
Somebody way up in comments mentioned someone’s face between your legs, and now I can’t remember what this thread was about. Time for a post featuring your beautiful behind again!
ReplyDeleteOk!
DeleteGods I'd wish that Trump would just bloody retire to Florida and spend the rest of his life playing golf with all the other old people, so the rest of the world could stop having to both hear and worry about what he might do! I'm SICK of having to hear about this buffoon and worry that he'll be let anywhere near the reins of the US presidency again!
ReplyDeleteThe man is an utterly disrespectful, obnoxious, self-centered, vindictive narcisist and a complete and utter liar, who will say whatever the hell he thinks he needs to say, in order to make the world conform to his desires. Why anyone in the world can seriously get themselves to vote for an individual like that is, and will forever remain beyond me to comprehend!
Was everything he did as president a horrible mistake? Probably not, but as someone living in Europe, I just don't know enough about what he actually politically got done to have an informed opinion on it. And at this point I simply don't care to waste my time trying to dig into it, because his public character simply rubs me so wrong in every way, that I just want him out and away from any degree of further political influence!
Maybe it's just me, but I've always wanted publicly elected leaders to be someone that parents could point to and tell their kids "this is what we inspire to be like". There simply isn't ANY way for me to do that with Trump. Granted, a SHITLOAD of other politicians worldwide don't conform to my desire either, but I honestly have a hard time thinking of any leader on the planet I'd be less likely to want to point out to my son as someone to aspire to be like.
You don't need to research far. Here is there own list : https://strictjuliespanks.blogspot.com/p/trump-administration-accomplishments.html
DeleteIn a nutshell, he lowered taxes, eliminated redundant regulations, encouraged free and fair trade, got out of bad trade deals. This resulted in an unprecedented economic boom that "lifted all boats", reducing minority unemployment and poverty.
At the same time he started no new wars, ended a couple, achieved a historic peace treaty in the Middle East, and lowered world tensions.
If you are a Branch Covidian, he brought you the jab that you worship in record time.
He made America energy independent and lowered the price of oil/gas. He secured the border against ILLEGAL immigration.
On the social front he guaranteed funding for historically black colleges and universities, did criminal reform, and improved child support.
If you actually look at his accomplishments objectively, and resist the mainstream media/ big tech, Dem lead brainwashing campaign, you can see a lot of good was done.
Contrast that to the state the US sees itself now, dependent on foreign oil, high inflation, soaring interest rates, increased poverty, massive national debt, rising crime, foreign warmongering to an unprecedented level, and ridiculous "social Justice" excesses.
That's the issue with supporting someone as wholeheartedly as you do Trump Julie; you are not exactly likely to be an unbiased source of information with regards to Trump and his possible accomplishments.
DeleteAs for Trump creating a economic boom, I'll take that statement with a fair bit of salt, because the entire world have seen a boom in the economy over the past several years.
Lowering world tensions? Not so much in my book. He tried to get friendly with Russia and North Korea, all the while he acted as a bull in a china shop with regards to most of America's traditional allies, and initiated a trade war with China, which led to more strained relations and greater tension between the US and the world's second biggest economy. He also managed to sow doubt about NATO. Not sure I'll call that reducing tension in the world.
As for the Covid vaccine, I think the primary responsibility for that product lies squarely with the private sector, and I don't exactly recall Trump being overly enthusiastic about endorsing people getting vaccinated. Many of his supporters certainly didn't want to be.
I'd need to dig quite a bit more to find a more nuanced picture of the rest of the stuff you mention, and as I wrote earlier, I really can't be bothered anymore. I just want this jackass to retire and play golf, or go back to making game shows, reality TV or whatever the hell else that means I don't have to hear any more about him, or be concerned that he finds a way to make the world more unstable than it currently already is.
Julie, Julie, Julie, you just don’t get it! Orange Man Bad! I’m not going to allow you to waste my time with facts and data. Having my opinion assigned to me is much more efficient. If you continue to insist on being a real person instead of a drone churning out fuel for my masturbation, I shall have to publicly anonymously announce I’m leaving! -david
DeleteKyrel - there is much to criticize about Trump, however he is also the subject of a massive amount of negative propaganda, unheard of in modern times, plus illegal and unconstitutional attacks on a continuing basis (such as this one). These are the things I am most concerned about.
DeleteI dont suggest anybody "just believes" me. I make my best argument, and welcome others to counter my argument, and I let the readers decide. Now, based on the points I put forward, versus the counters of my opponents, how would you judge this issue?
david - the public announcement of someone "leaving my blog" always makes me giggle. Nobody asked for anybody to be here in the first place. People are very free to wander in and wander away and wander back. Freedom.
DeleteJulie - We agree that Trump has been subjected to a pretty massive amount of negative press. Pretty much every US president is, to be honest, but Trump is a divisive figure, so it's been quite prevalent in his case.
DeleteI'm perfectly aware that all media sources are biased. I doubt you can find a single source that can be said to be truly objective. Which also makes it a pain in the ass to get a really nuanced picture of all aspects of the man. And when you live on the other side of the planet, and only hear about 5-10% (max) of what goes on, it becomes even harder. For the same reason I tend to try and limit my critique of Trump to stuff that's a fair bit easier to form an objective picture of. In this case primarily his public personality, and things you can outright hear the man say himself, or where various sources across the political spectrum seem to agree on what was said, when they quote him. And in this case, the picture I have of Trump, based on these metrics alone, leave me concluding that this simply isn't an individual that I want to have anywhere near the US presidential office, or globally affecting politics in general.
On top of that you then have various subjective statements from various people that have worked with, or had similar levels of interactions with him over the years, and while I acknowledge that such opinions are inherently biased, there are various comments on the man's character and typical behaviour and "modus operandi" that I find concerning, if they are in fact true. I also find it somewhat concerning when my wife, who is a trained psychiatrist, and three of her friends, who are likewise psychiatrists, all agree that in their perception, Trump is a textbook narcissist. Granted, this is based on observations made through the media, and so it must be taken with some salt. But I still find the statement concerning, given that we are talking about a person that could potentially come back in charge of one of the most influential countries in the world. Had we talked about a small, and irrelevant country, I'd be less concerned. But we are talking about the US.
If we could completely disassociate the man himself from his politics, and provided I could get a proper, objective understanding of what he's said, what he's actually done, and what effect these policies have actually had in the real world, then I'm willing to entertain the notion that Trump's politics isn't all that bad. For the same reason you rarely find me criticizing his politics, because I don't have enough knowledge of them. Yes, you've provided some info on what he's done, but as I wrote earlier, I'd need to seek out further sources to get a nuanced and complete picture of it. And it's time I don't care to spend on the issue. So I prefer not to try and discuss Trump's politics, outside of a few issues that are more easily understood for a casual outside observer. And at the end of the day, it's not possible to disassociate the man from the politics, and that ultimately leaves me wanting Trump completely out and away from politics.
Comment continued from above due to length...
DeleteAs for the various legal allegations that are and have been leveled against Trump over the span of his presidential term, and afterwords, I prefer not to get into a debate about the finer points of them, because it's all legal issues, and there are so many little details that are important, and I'm no lawyer, and while I do have a fair understanding of some aspects of Danish business related laws, I don't delude myself by believing that I have any level of a proper understanding of the finer nuances of the US laws pertaining to the various Trump cases and charges. Hence I tend to reserve judgement until the courts have finished their deliberations on such issues. At the end of the day, the US i famous for how common it is for people to sue each other over anything and everything, so a lot of cases are either dismissed or settled, and such cases tend to be of less importance IMO. The important stuff is the stuff where the state elects to press charges on account of something that can send someone to jail for a long time. And again, in such cases I reserve judgement until the courts are done deliberating. If the verdict ends up "not guilty", then the charge was likely irrelevant, faulty, or not possible to prove. And if it's guilty, then an illegal act took place, and the individual got sentenced for it. At this point in time Trump has been formally accused of a variety of things in various courts, as I understand it. Some of it sounds important. Some of it sounds like it is something that just got thrown into the charges, along with something more serious. When the courts are finished with these cases, then we'll see what, if anything, warranted the accusations. But until the cases have been tried, Trump remains innocent, unless he's ultimately proven guilty.
Yes, it is likely he is a grandiose narcissist. Many actors/public figures are to a greater or lesser extent (him to a greater one). However, his "thing" seems to be earning praise for getting things done, which is the best kind of narcissist to be.
DeleteYou state he is "divisive". Is he the divisive one, or is it his opponents who are more divisive by relentlessly pursuing him by illegal and unethical means? Biden campaigned on being less divisive, but seems to be more so, using rhetoric about "Extreme MAGA Republicans" and talking about designating his political opponents as domestic terrorists and throwing them in jail (some arrested for non-violent crimes on Jan 6 were kept in jail without bail for years.)
People who meet him say Trump is affable, interested, bright, engaging, and that it was a hilight to have met him. I wonder to what extent your negative views have been programmed into you by the sea of negative media coverage about him that you (we all) swim in.
It's really hard for me to understand your love for Trump. He is an egotistical, narcissistic person who has no morals and thinks that life should resolve around him. He may have some good ideas. However, those are overshadowed by the terrible person he is. I don't want him to represent the US. He does stand for what we are (look at the polls). However, I guess it's a bit easier for you to step aside and ignore the awful person he is. And, you'll come back with a snarky reply that indicates that you are smarter than anyone who just doesn't agree with what Trump represents in life.
DeletePS ... I love your blog and the sexual life you and David share. I hope it's real. However, I'm going to respectfully disagree with your political viewpoints. And, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about them. I'll leave you with a final thought: Would you like Donald Trump to grab your pussy because he feels entitled to do so? I wouldn't want him to do that to my wonderful, beautiful wife ... but he feels entitled to do so. I expect so much more from the leaders of my country.
Hi Lee. I don't love him though it may appear that way. I just see all the endless waterfall of lies, propaganda, and psy-ops from the other side and feel an urge toward truth and defending the underdog.
DeleteWith due respect, your opinion of him has largely been programmed into you by the above. You have never met the man. If you look at his administration's record objectively, it is quite good. Yes he "hits back", but not unless they hit him first.
As for pussy grabbing, well, you came to the wrong blog to ask that! But in fairness, his private conversation re "grab them by the pussy" was illegally and unethically recorded, and was surfaced years later when he was threatening to win the presidency as an opposition attack. The full context was him commenting on how shameless women were around celebrities. He was commenting incredulously on what they would let celebs do to them. Operative word being "let". He was not advocating physically groping unwilling women, OF COURSE. If you have a different impression of that conversation, that's the programming I speak about.
You'll be pleased to know I just posted another blog entry, and if there remains any doubt in your mind, the super embarrassing photos of me should help convince!
Trump is definitively divisive himself. He's the kind of person that a great deal of people will either love or hate. But that being said, the media, politicians, internet fora and social media, as well as the general divided state of the US public on all sorts of issues, aren't helping things either.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Trump is like behind the scenes, I obviously can't comment. But we can all comment on how he presents himself to the public, and that's the version of him that rubbs me the wrong way.
At least you're honest about it rather than making up lies about him. I'm fine with that!
DeleteHello Julie,
ReplyDeleteI really loved the story with your dad. Did you plan to get spanked by him again? You never told us if there was a follow up with him, at least little conversations with him about that.
Best
It was really my Mom who orchestrated that. No discussion or repeat afterwards, but no awkwardness either. Dad still teases me about my spankings from David.
DeleteYou're Canadian. Stay out of American politics. Worry about that faggot trudeau
ReplyDeleteNo
Delete