The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[FlashDangerpants]

As I said, if there is a first amendment defence against the charges laid in any of the felonies that Trump is facing, he will, being a billionaire who can afford amazing lawyers, surely secure a relatively simple acquital before the courts?

More interesting is the question of how he ever got charged in the first place, when presidents who have done the same, and far worse (in cases like Clinton, particularly) wholly escaped charges? Something quite new is going on here: the mobilization of the justice mechanisms of the state in an effort to cripple opposition.

Soviet Russia did that sort of thing. One would have hoped the Americans would not.

Whataboutism is all you have in response?

[Immanuel Can]

As I said, if there is a first amendment defence against the charges laid in any of the felonies that Trump is facing, he will, being a billionaire who can afford amazing lawyers, surely secure a relatively simple acquital before the courts?

More interesting is the question of how he ever got charged in the first place, when presidents who have done the same, and far worse (in cases like Clinton, particularly) wholly escaped charges? Something quite new is going on here: the mobilization of the justice mechanisms of the state in an effort to cripple opposition.

Soviet Russia did that sort of thing. One would have hoped the Americans would not.

Whataboutism is all you have in response?

It's not "whataboutism." We're just pointing out what the Dems have done. Trump's not even an important issue: he's not in office, so talking about him is merely distraction. If there's any "whataboutism," therefore, it's on your side, not mine.

[FlashDangerpants]

More interesting is the question of how he ever got charged in the first place, when presidents who have done the same, and far worse (in cases like Clinton, particularly) wholly escaped charges? Something quite new is going on here: the mobilization of the justice mechanisms of the state in an effort to cripple opposition.

Soviet Russia did that sort of thing. One would have hoped the Americans would not.

Whataboutism is all you have in response?

It's not "whataboutism." We're just pointing out what the Dems have done. Trump's not even an important issue: he's not in office, so talking about him is merely distraction. If there's any "whataboutism," therefore, it's on your side, not mine.

That is exactly what whataboutism is.

As I said, if there is a first amendment defence against the charges laid in any of the felonies that Trump is facing, he will, being a billionaire who can afford amazing lawyers, surely secure a relatively simple acquital before the courts?

[Immanuel Can]

As I said,...

Well, I honestly can't remember I read a comment from you and said to myself, "There's a perceptive thought." That's what makes discussion with you so futile, and so unbelievably dull.

Now, if spite and bile are what a person wants, aimles spittings and wowlings, then you've got them covered, for sure.

But I'm happy to let you amble away aimlessly. I know that's what you'll do anyway.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I said,...

Well, I honestly can't remember I read a comment from you and said to myself, "There's a perceptive thought." That's what makes discussion with you so futile, and so unbelievably dull.

Now, if spite and bile are what a person wants, aimles spittings and wowlings, then you've got them covered, for sure.

But I'm happy to let you amble away aimlessly. I know that's what you'll do anyway.

To quote ... well you ....
AAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaDDDD Hominem

[FlashDangerpants]

Mannie seems to be unable, so do any of you other alt-right people have any reason why Trump should be afraid given he is super rich and supposedly is being targetted in spite of his first amendment rights?

He should win that case easily shouldn't he? Or did he finally get tired of all that winning he is always doing?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are missing the point — deliberately. The State is engaging in election interference in an attempt to stop his re-election. They began this process years back (as all know) and it continues. He may win on appeal (said to be likely) but the damage is being done.

To understand this is not complex. Why is it seemingly so hard for you?

[mickthinks]

Do you believe "The State" coerced Trump and his associates into committing all these acts that they've been charged with?

I don't.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are missing the point — deliberately. The State is engaging in election interference in an attempt to stop his re-election. They began this process years back (as all know) and it continues. He may win on appeal (said to be likely) but the damage is being done.

To understand this is not complex. Why is it seemingly so hard for you?

Which conspiracy theories are you relying on for that analysis?

Are the judges all bought so as to allow the state to advance inadmissable evidence? Are the jury all bought? Is he not able to afford lawyers or something?

Have all the appeals courts been bought? Trump has already had appeals to restore attorney-client priviliges he lost under the crime-fraud exception, but he lost those as well because the courts determined that he had used his own lawyers to further some crimes, which is why so many of his lawyers are under indictment with him. If he had a stronger case, the Supreme Court would already have reasserted his attorney-client privilege, and he might even have got somewhere with his assertions of Excutive Privilege as well (all denied).

He's lost a lot of cases already before he even gets to trial. He's tried to remove prosecutors, judges and grand juries, and lost all the way because there are mountains of pretty good evidence against him. His own staff have already turned on him and are sources of evidence in the mar-a-lago case, in the Georgia case his co-defendants are about to turn on him. Especially now Meadows has put himself into a perjury trap.

But that's all by the by... 1st amendment is an easy win. For the crimes where he has a 1st a way out, he should be demanding speedy trials so he can end the case and go victorious & vindicated into the election.

[Immanuel Can]

To quote ... well you ....
AAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaDDDD Hominem

I'm not rejecting your argument because of who you are. I'm not bothering with you because you have nothing interesting or substantive to say, and I find spite boring.

[FlashDangerpants]

To quote ... well you ....
AAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaDDDD Hominem

I'm not rejecting your argument because of who you are. I'm not bothering with you because you have nothing interesting or substantive to say, and I find spite boring.

Let's retain this one for searchability. When you accuse other people of ad hominem you just say that any old mild insult counts. But here you know what the actual fallacy is, so you're a proven hypocrite.

[Immanuel Can]

To quote ... well you ....
AAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaDDDD Hominem

I'm not rejecting your argument because of who you are. I'm not bothering with you because you have nothing interesting or substantive to say, and I find spite boring.

Let's retain this one for searchability. When you accuse other people of ad hominem you just say that any old mild insult counts. But here you know what the actual fallacy is, so you're a proven hypocrite.

You don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is, obviously. But then, we can just add it to the pile of things you evidently don't know.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not rejecting your argument because of who you are. I'm not bothering with you because you have nothing interesting or substantive to say, and I find spite boring.

Let's retain this one for searchability. When you accuse other people of ad hominem you just say that any old mild insult counts. But here you know what the actual fallacy is, so you're a proven hypocrite.

You don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is, obviously. But then, we can just add it to the pile of things you evidently don't know.

The unfortunate truth is that you do kwo what it is and you have outed yourself for that.

Pretty much everyone has been accused of ad hominem by you, and now everyone has the ammo to call you out for a fraud.

[promethean75]

Karl and I just want u to know IC that if u ever seduced your housemaid, we wouldn't think u were wrong philosophically becuz of doing that. We would find the merits of your arguments to be lacking irrespective of your sexual encounters with the housemaid or the terms under which they transpired.

Why? Becuz as critical thinkers we are careful not to commit the ad hom, homes. Btw what we need to do is ad homes, not homs. There are more homeless people than bad arguers becuz of having questionable character.

[Lacewing]

Are you just baiting people with your extremist nonsense, or do you actually believe it?

My answer is that you need to do a lot more research. Then you would have enough of a platform to understand that many of IC’s references, and ideas, are valid and reasonable.

A better grasp of The Culture Wars would help you understand the perspective of ‘your enemies’.

No one here has any background at all in a counter-critical theory perspective. It shows!

Why would I waste time researching the reasons WHY someone is an unbalanced extremist? That's not going to bring about change... just as you have not accomplished with him. I don't need to use your approach in order to recognize such a thing and point it out. There are truths and blindness from all points of view. It is idiotic to suggest that it's all 'one way' for one side, and all 'another way' for the other side. You've (also) been resistant to this obvious nature of balance, so perhaps you should go do some more research beyond your skewed views.