1232
It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
1232 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19118 readers
2730 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Innocent until proven guilty. It's important to remember that.
However, I'd argue the President of the United States should be held to a higher standard than merely "not convicted."
Hasn't he now said things in open court multiple times that would be taken as direct admissions coming from anyone else?
I'm civil court. I don't think he's testified in any criminal cases yet. Maybe I'm wrong.
Nice to meet you
...
...
...
Guys, what else do you say to anthropomorphic personifications?
Not today.
WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW, COME BINKY.
Statements in civil court are admissible. He is allowed to take the 5th if it concerns criminal activity, it's just a bad thing because in civil court the worst is assumed of what was asked.
Wouldn't matter, as long as it's entered in open court it's admissable as evidence.
"Not convicted" is actually not a requirement. Being a natural born US citizen and at least 35 of age are the only ones, although specific convictions could bar him from holding specific offices.
If all of his lawsuits remain undecided until the elections there is nothing stopping him (and presumably finding a way to pardon himself ex post facto somehow).
He will appeal any and everything. He's litigious and has enough funds to run this for a while.
He's also a former president so he'll count on special standing.
Convictions may - or should - move votes, but I fully expect him to be on ballots throughout the nation next year. A few states may use the 14th Amendment, but if any states prevail in that, I don't expect they were likely to go for him anyhow.
Someone will tell me I'm wrong, but states that want Trump enough do shady things. Also, anyone coming here with a sirens song about how Trump will be convicted and the DOJ really knows this matters... Let's see how this goes. I'm sure they're serious. I'm also sure the justice system will give him every chance to prove himself not guilty.
We must beat him at the ballot box. And we should prepare that way.
That's actually a big question especially if his businesses are seized.
He can get a million idiots to sign over their social security checks just by posting a video. He’s never running out of money.
Can't. That would be another crime.
People can help other people pay court costs. It's done every day across the US.
Where are you getting your information?
His business assets are under audit and he's not allowed to create any new accounts.
He can't accept money, his legal team could buy they haven't been paid by him or anyone else at this point.
His business accounts in New York, which is his main state of operation, sure.
He can accept money. He can use specific funds to pay lawyers.
I need to see a citation for what your are saying. I asked a question and all you did was say it less wrong, but still no reference.
It would be naive to assume there isn't a federal investigation at this point.
Sure, but he's partially in trouble for soliciting money and not using it for that purpose. Similarly his legal team repeatedly complain about not getting paid.
It's fraud, his accounts are being investigated, this is public knowledge I need not prove to you because it is in fact common sense as well given the charges directly related to it.
Still no citation?
It's not all fraud and it's not all illegal. That's effectively what you're asserting not simply to me, but to everyone who reads.
That means a quick Google of things to find the common sense article that says he has no means of support. Not less... You're not asserting less. You're saying or strongly implying none.
I don't need to, it's common knowledge he's being investigated for fraud both campaign and business.
It's fraud, he's being charged for it what even are you talking about.
Economists have been questioning his ability to pay since the order came down, again public knowledge.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-donations-legal-bills.html#:~:text=To%20pay%20lawyers%2C%20he%20has,controls%20called%20Save%20America%20PAC
You're still wrong.
Rhetorical topic to research: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-bandwagon/#:~:text=The%20bandwagon%20fallacy%20is%20also,it%20comes%20out%20this%20weekend.
Paywall
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy
Saying "everyone knows this" while actaul facts are presented and then you double down?
That is not logical. Or reasonable. Or good faith.
You are doing the Trump, "everyone's saying it..." and defending it while being factually wrong.
Got an article that says I'm wrong? You don't, do you. That's why you're resisting.
Why are you so all-in on spouting falsehoods in this thread?
Sure, burden of proof lays with the accuser. An editorial, evidence it is not.
I'm glad the arbiter has spoken, have you any more decrees I should grovel for?
No I'm saying use Google, you won't trust me anyway clearly so read it or don't, it's not going to bother me.
I have used Google both ways. It doesn't say what you assert and the link works. I get that you've used up All your free clicks on every news source on the internet and now the internet is pay walled and you like that as a shutdown technique.
Just stop spreading falsehoods that matter.
Parse this extremely complicated set of circumstances if you will.
Trump has a legal fund.
His legal team including Rudy Giuliani keep saying they haven't been paid yet.
Trump has a legal fund.....
That sounds like something he got in trouble for with campaign funds iirc it was something with an f... Fued, no. feudal, nah. fan, don't think so.... Fra... Frau.... Fraud... Fraud! It's fraud!
He's greedy and he's used up Giuliani. That doesn't mean he has no funds.
It heavily implies he's using the funds for things other than legal defense, and notably it isn't just Giuliani it's the vast majority of his legal team and former lawyers.
Even at the peak of his fortune, he stiffed people if he could expect they wouldn't sue,or sue successfully.
His Leadership PAC has money. Not as much as it did, but it's got enough for a while. He's been paying legal fees for certain other people too. This does not look like lack of funds. It's just cold hard greed. And maybe spite.
Remember those are the losers who misadvised him (in his perspective).
Very true.
Sure, he can't use it for legal defense though. That's what he's in trouble for now. It can be all of the above and fraud, if it has a specific purpose and he's not using it for that then he's committing fraud.
Sure, that's not a legal defense though.
That's the thing. There's sloppy reporting going on and people have grown accustomed to thinking that Trump only does illegal things. He can spend from the Leadership PAC for his (or others') legal fees. This was ruled on by the government, so this isn't "editorial" stuff.
He's in the clear as long as he's using Leadership PAC funds. His New York business accounts are in dispute. That's worth $250 million... but if he has access to more than that sum, he can afford lawyers - and likely his lifestyle.
No he can't unless it's campaign related, I'm not quite sure where you're actually getting your info.
The pac is being investigated as well.
All that doesn't matter because he won't pay his lawyers and yet he is collecting money specifically for legal fees. That's fraud.
Whether he should or shouldnt be allowed to spend the Leadership PAC funds this way comes down to:
The FEC says it's fine. If he took money from a Leadership PAC and used it to have a tremendous week at Disney World, it would be fine. Should it be? No. But The regulatory apparatus says it's fine.
If you think I have this all wrong, Google things and post proof. I've provided a link, used the key words a curious person could use to see how this is playing out... I've googled your perspective. I do not find what you say.
I believe topics are being conflated. I'm clear that NY isn't about PACs, he can use specific PAC funds for lawyers, and he does not have to pay every legal bill put forward.
NY trial is about a specific amount of money and related to his ability to do business in that state. The ruling will result in him losing money. He hopes to appeal.
He has other funding sources and the NY trial is (edit: NOT) locking up all of his money or money streams.
Negates your own argument with your own words which I find fun.
That was a typo, which is now fixed. My default means of engaging on lemmy doesn't like the depth of responses we have.
You can have the last word.
If you get around to investing half the time you poured into this, can you Google the topics and see where things actually are? Lemmy will leave you with impressions that are skewed.
It's not even remotely half the time, we're not exactly writing thesis here. I do research and it's not on lemmy, but sure anyone who disagrees with you is of course unread and biased.... Sure keep on truckin buddy.
Not literally, mate. But if you can scam a grandmother out of her money by asking for itunes gift cards, you can bet she'll send an actual check.
He's been pulling millions in donations for his legal defense. He won't have a problem there.
Claimed and he's under investigation for the use of those funds. Similarly he hasn't paid his legal team, it's a big issue for them.
This encapsulates what I've been seeing here.
He will appeal that ruling. They have been trying to set multiple reasons why if should be allowed - and he'll try them all and then some.
The court where this ends (before 2025), is the court of public opinion. Or we get lucky that every layer rejects his claims that an appeal is warranted because x.