The Real timschochet

Not just them, you too. You and every other American will benefit far more from a Biden re-election. You will suffer if Trump is elected. Yes I know what’s good for you and everyone.

Do you want a medal? A Trump Presidency will be a disaster, even worse than before, a threat to our democracy and a calamity for our future. But hey good for you for proving me wrong.

The answer depresses me so I try not to think about it. Either they’re not paying attention or they’re simply willing to let it go because they’re more concerned about inflation. Either way it’s not cheering news for me.

I like Squistion. That would be very disappointing if it’s true.

This time around he’s got evidence to back him up. That’s the only thing that makes him credible.

Sure they did. Challenge you to name one person besides Avenatti himself who wanted Avenatti to be President.

Can we all agree that Michael Cohen is pretty much the epitome of the sleazy lawyer that everybody detests?

So good. Keith Emerson playing 4 keyboards at once. Carl Palmer with a drum solo for the ages. We may never see their like again. ETA but I don’t love your lyric changes.

The polls continue to be terrible for Biden: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4661153-joe-biden-donald-trump-polls-wisconsin-pennsylvania-nevada-arizona-georgia-michigan/amp/ The biggest concerns inside the numbers: 1. He leads by 1 point among voters 18-30. In 2020 Biden won this group by 24 points. 2. Biden and Trump are tied among Hispanic voters. In 2020 Biden won this group by 11 points. 2. Biden leads by 40 points among Black voters. In 2020 Biden won this group by 60 points. There is no way to pretend this isn’t a disaster. There is still time but unless these numbers change significantly Donald Trump will be our next President:

It would be except this Rick Chromey guy is completely wrong. I read that post and marveled: how can you get every bit of history so badly wrong? Then I googled the dude. He’s a right wing religious nut. Besides being wrong about this, he’s wrong about Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, and a host of other issues. Talk about revisionism. The Dixiecrats left in ‘48 because Truman desegregated the military. After Truman won they came crawling back. Then they left again after Robert Kennedy started desegregating the southern schools. This time they never looked back. They’ve been Republican ever since. That’s the actual history and it’s generally true. You can read about it in the books by our best historical scholars of the era like Taylor Branch or William Manchester or David Halberstam. But please don’t pay attention to some nutty guy writing on the internet; he’s totally off.

In this response I believe you yourself express far more moral relativism than those you criticize. For example you rip “the left” for supposedly ignoring the way LGBTQ and women are treated within strict Muslim societies. But they don’t ignore that; they simply don’t allow that fact to put aside what they perceive to be a greater moral wrong: the killing of innocent children as a result of the current warfare. Whether you agree with their position, these people have moral clarity- you on the other hand, somehow believing that Muslim mistreatment of women and gays make them more eligible for harsh treatment from others, show a lack of it. As an aside, there are many groups fighting for woman’s and gay rights in the Muslim world, and all of them are liberal or leftist. Both Amnesty International and the ACLU have led the charge on this issue along with other organizations none of which are on the right. So it’s completely incorrect to claim there is any hypocrisy from the left on this issue (there is hypocrisy from the left on plenty of other issues, however.)

I think you know exactly what I mean because we have had this discussion/argument in this forum for months now. Obviously we disagree. My larger point is that this issue, whatever your views on it, is simply not large enough to merit being an example of encroaching moral relativism, much less Marxism.

The key to Cohen’s testimony is twofold: 1. Donald Trump directed the payment and was aware of it. 2. Donald Trump had Stormy Daniels paid not for personal reasons, but because of the election. This eliminates Trump’s two stated defenses, that this payment was made without his knowledge and that it wasn’t done for electoral purposes. (In this thread @Jon_mx has offered a third defense: that there is no underlying crime here worthy of a felony conviction, but to the best of my knowledge Trump’s attorneys have not made this argument in court). As I wrote earlier Michael Cohen doesn’t have great personal credibility but his testimony on these two points is backed up by the evidence, particularly the records, additional witness testimony and most of all the tape.

Look it appears to me that originally when Stormy told the story she implied that she wasn’t pressured into having sex. Then when she told the story under oath she implied that she was pressured into having sex. But she didn’t change her story either time; she just interpreted how Trump behaved in a different manner. That’s not lying IMO.

Your two examples of moral relativism don’t really hold up IMO: Regarding your first example, all we’re doing is giving trans women recognition as women. There is no oppressed, and no oppressing force, there is no Marxism involved, sexual or otherwise. I regard this as a matter of individual liberty. But even if you take the opposing view, this isn’t large enough an issue to reflect on society as a whole, IMO. Regarding your second example: that is not an either or situation. One can support Palestinian rights and at the same time support the State of Israel. This is in fact my position. I don’t see any contradiction at all; in fact, I think that securing Palestinian rights (and an eventual state) is vital to Israel’s security and long term interests. Once again I don’t think moral relativism, or Marxism, are involved.

Of course they were discriminated against. But not because they were white.

I figured this is where you were going with this. I don’t think she lied. I think that, since the start of the Me Too movement; society has changed its view about what defines a consensual relationship and that more and more women come to realize, like Daniels, that they were the victims of powerful men. Bill Maher is a chauvinist who has pointedly been very resistant to this change in public attitude (along with most other woke changes) so his position has to be questioned on this.

Just want to point out that personally I don’t use that word anymore to describe Trump. I think Trump is an authoritarian along the lines of Orban- a “strong man” type. Fascist is more specific and doesn’t really fit.

OK so in my first post this morning I wrote that most conservatives don’t take the Trump as dictator threat seriously. That has been demonstrated here over the last few hours. I DO take it seriously. Maybe like @RaiderHaters Revenge says, I’m crazy. I hope I am. I hope we don’t get to find out. (though at this point in time Trump appears to be a favorite to win so I think we probably will.) If Trump wins and he doesn’t try to end our current system of government I will gladly show up here and tell Raider and all the others they were right: I will happily eat crow on that day.

How did Stormy show she was lying?

I don’t think Cohen is a credible guy. He’s already shown himself to lie under oath. But in this case there is a lot of evidence to back up his testimony.

If that happens I will be very happy. It will mean that I was totally wrong, or that Trump tried and failed. Either way that will be a good day.

I think Trump would have set up an autocratic dictatorship last time around except that he was surrounded by human guardrails: John Kelly, General Mattis, even to some extent Bill Barr, even to some extent Mike Pence, etc. This time they’re all gone. He’ll be surrounded by yes men.

I think it’s on the ballot yes. I take Trump’s words seriously.

Even if that were true (and I disagree strongly particularly if you include 2020) that’s not what you wrote originally. There is a huge difference between saying that a President is good or bad and our lives during that President’s term of office were good or bad. If I were to accept your theory that it’s the same, the two worst Presidents in American history would be Lincoln and FDR because that’s when things were generally the worst for the most Americans. My own working theory is that it usually takes about 3-4 years for a President’s actions to take effect with the public. Thus if things were good under Trump, it may partly be due to actions that Obama took. If things are bad right now, it may partly be due to actions that Trump took. But in both cases it’s due far more to events that the President is powerless to have any affect on.