GUILTY

[Bradskii]

But really we should be able to stand on a platform of Christ teachings...

But I know that you wouldn't accept someone like Trump to represent a platform on which you could stand. Who are you trying to kid saying otherwise?

 

[stevevw]

But I know that you wouldn't accept someone like Trump to represent a platform on which you could stand. Who are you trying to kid saying otherwise?

Of course not, I see all polititians that way and would prefer not to vote for either. Then when you l;ook at all the alternatives it just gets worse. Minor parties and independents attached to radical ideas and policies. Maybe it is best that the whole system just fails and we are forced to go back to basics.

But I am afraid that things are headed for a showdown of some sort the way things are going. Thats when we really need a saviour of some sort because we are showing that we don't seem to be capable of sorting things out.

 

[BCP1928]

Of course not, I see all polititians that way and would prefer not to vote for either. Then when you l;ook at all the alternatives it just gets worse. Minor parties and independents attached to radical ideas and policies. Maybe it is best that the whole system just fails and we are forced to go back to basics.

But I am afraid that things are headed for a showdown of some sort the way things are going. Thats when we really need a saviour of some sort because we are showing that we don't seem to be capable of sorting things out.

What that boils down to is "If you won't play the game according to my rules I'm going to take my ball and go home."

 

[stevevw]

No, it is pushing Right Wing policies in Christ's name--whether they fulfill the Gospel of Christ or not.

Well even if its in Christs name and it is Christs teachings its still wrong to force it. But then taking religion out isn't politics like that now. All parties and opposing polititians are pushing some idea that they believe in which is opposed by other parties and voters.

People and parties are split along ideological lines on immigration, law and order, Rights, education, health. They have dinamically opposing views about how to order society.

In that sense one side is always going to have to put up with ideas they disagree with, what they believe will make society worse. So whats the difference as to whether its religious backed or ideologically backed by some other metaphysical basis such as political ideology or philosophy.

Look at Hong Kong. They experience democracy and then have Communist China imposing their politics on them for which tghey have to accept and live under.

I am sure that just like Democrates think Trump is satan incarnate and lets not forget 'felon' lol and defenitely don't wan't the Repulican parties policies forced on them. Just like the Trump supporters will think that the Lefts Woke progressive ideology will cause all sorts of problems and threaten the truths they believe in.

It use to be that there was much more middle ground between parties and now its much more polarised. But this is a reflection of the times and how identity politics has taken hold. Now people see opposing views and beliefs as a threat, a threat to their existence. Its become much more personalised like its a matter of life and death. That is what stands out forme compared to the past.

I'm certainly not judging Christianity by the actions of any particular sect..

It doesn't help Christianity when so many representatives do the wrong thing. Misrepresent the Gospel and use it as a way to control others. They say you should not mix politics and religion. Christ said give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is Gods and thats how it should be. Let people decide. It has to be that way because people have to be able to freely choose or not choose for it to work.

But I think at least some of the time and even Trump taps into this to a degree but also uses it politically that is there is truth to the principles and values that most polititians appeal to that Christianity happens to align with.

It would be better to stand on those truths on their own rather than use Christianity or any political ideology as the basis as these truths should be strong enough to stand alone. But inevitably it seems that these truths are used as a Trojan horse for sneaking political and religious ideology in.

Are we ever completey neutral and free of all ideological beliefs. In some ways in a modern relativistic society we will never be neutral and will always have one ideology competing against another for top dog status lol. It just seems that politics has become more personal, ideological and people believe theres more at stake that ever before.

 

[stevevw]

What that boils down to is "If you won't play the game according to my rules I'm going to take my ball and go home."

Yes thats another way of saying 'Cancel Culture'. Thats a symptom of politics now becoming so personal that different opinions and beliefs are percieved as a threat to the very livlihood of people. So yes there's this growing polarisation that opposing views are so threatening they should be shut down and everyone has to go home.

But it never use to be that way. We could mention just about anything and it was welcomed. Different views was seen as a way to discover the truth even if they seemed uncomfortable to hear. They were not taken personally.

In some ways in order for people to even think and work out the truth we have to risk offending some. Thats exactly what happens on this thread. People express different views and I know that people feel offended on both sides.

But we can talk that out as well. We have to allow that to be able to progress and get beyond our differences to sort them out. I don't mind that people have a go at Christianity or my views. I say fair enough. But the same should be allowed for everyone so we can sort out what is truth, facts and real and not shut things down.

It seems the idea of progressing towards an inclusive and tolerant society is an illusion as we seem to be divided and intolerant of different views more than ever.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes thats another way of say 'Cancel Culture'. Thats a symptom of politics now becoming so personal that different opinions and beliefs are percieved as a threat to the very livlihood of people. So yes there's this growing polarisation that opposing views are so threatening they should be shut down and everyone has to go home.

But it never use to be that way. We could mention just about anything and it was welcomed. Different views was seen as a way to discover the truth even if they seemed uncomfortable to hear. They were not taken personally.

In some ways in order for people to even think and work out the truth we have to risk offending some. Thats exactly what happens on this thread. People express different views and I know that people feel offended on both sides.

But we can talk that out as well. We have to allow that to be able to progress and get beyond our differences to sort them out. I don't mind that people have a go at Christianity or my views. I say fair enough. But the same should be allowed for everyone so we can sort out what is truth, facts and real and not shut things down.

And we find out what is truth, facts and real by comparing them to your Bible. Then it's OK with you to shut everything else down.

It seems the idea of progressing towards an inclusive and tolerant society is an illusion as we seem to be divided and intolerant of different views more than ever.

Mostly about how to do sex right.

 

[stevevw]

And we find out what is truth, facts and real by comparing them to your Bible. Then it's OK with you to shut everything else down.

I never said that. Youkeep creating strawmen. Reading things into my mind. They say when people do that they are actually reflecting their own thinking. Whats that saying "Funny how we see ourselves in others".

I clarified this before, maybe it was to someone else. But as I said the truth needs to converge across all areas before its the truth. Thats by belief, objective reality and lived reality. So its not belief and the Bible, objective reality or lived experience on their own but when all these aspect converge into the truth.

So if the Bible says "thou shall not commit adultery" for example we can measure that objectively and find that adultery has measurable negative effects on health and wellbeing. We can also see the devastation it causes in real lived experience. So we can be pretty confident thats the truth of the matter. We can determine the truth this way for many issuse.

So if a Christian advocates for valuing committed marriages and relationships they are not just saying that because of belief. But because in reality they are good for humans, its a good state to be in and for minimizing problems that result from not respecting that truth.

Mostly about how to do sex right.

Its funny because I have never specifically made it about sex and I think it must be the 5th or 6th time you have turned something where sex was not mentioned into it being about sex. Who is really making it about sex lol.

Its not just about sex. Its about anything that causes harm or undermines society as a whole. You know the saying, 'people can do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others'.

I honestly don't care, well I do, but I don't care enough to want to force people to conform to my beliefs in a secular society. I'm smart enough to know it is impossible to happen and does not work.In fact will antagonise people today.

But I also believe when people believe something ain't right truthfully on all accounts, we should be able to speak that truth even if people disagree. Thats a truth in itself 'freedom of speech'. But speaking those truths is not hate in itself.

I think most Christians feel this way today. Its been years since Christians had any sway. Well in my country anyway. We actually have never had a strong Christian politics. So don't judge me by US politics.

 

[BCP1928]

I never said that. Youkeep creating strawmen. Reading things into my mind. They say when people do that they are actually reflecting their own thinking. Whats that saying "Funny how we see ourselves in others".

I clarified this before, maybe it was to someone else. But as I said the truth needs to converge across all areas before its the truth. Thats by belief, objective reality and lived reality. So its not belief and the Bible, objective reality or lived experience on their own but when all these aspect converge into the truth.

That which converges is not necessarily the truth, the convergence may be a coincidence, or converging on something other than the truth. And indeed, adultery is generally frowned upon, but the many details of what constitutes adultery don't show much convergence even within the Church.

So if the Bible says "thou shall not commit adultery" for example we can measure that objectively and find that adultery has measurable negative effects on health and wellbeing. We can also see the devastation it causes in real lived experience. So we can be pretty confident thats the truth of the matter. We can determine the truth this way for many issuse.

You would have to agree on what adultery was first.

So if a Christian advocates for valuing committed marriages and relationships they are not just saying that because of belief. But because in reality they are good for humans, its a good state to be in and for minimizing problems that result from not respecting that truth.

Not for gays, of course, because they don't do sex the way you like.

Its funny because I have never specifically made it about sex and I think it must be the 5th or 6th time you have turned something where sex was not mentioned into it being about sex. Who is really making it about sex lol.

The two examples you gave in your post were about sex.

Its not just about sex. Its about anything that causes harm or undermines society as a whole. You know the saying, 'people can do whatever they want so long as they don't harm others'.

I honestly don't care, well I do, but I don't care enough to want to force people to conform to my beliefs in a secular society. I'm smart enough to know it is impossible to happen and does not work.In fact will antagonise people today.

But I also believe when people believe something ain't right truthfully on all accounts, we should be able to speak that truth even if people disagree. Thats a truth in itself 'freedom of speech'. But speaking those truths is not hate in itself.

I hope you don't mean taunting trans people in public with pronouns.

I think most Christians feel this way today. Its been years since Christians had any sway. Well in my country anyway. We actually have never had a strong Christian politics. So don't judge me by US politics.

Why not? You make many of your points using right-wing US Christian polemicists.

 

[Pommer]

Of course not, I see all polititians that way and would prefer not to vote for either. Then when you l;ook at all the alternatives it just gets worse. Minor parties and independents attached to radical ideas and policies. Maybe it is best that the whole system just fails and we are forced to go back to basics.

Like…an absolute monarchy?

 

[stevevw]

That which converges is not necessarily the truth, the convergence may be a coincidence, or converging on something other than the truth. And indeed, adultery is generally frowned upon, but the many details of what constitutes adultery don't show much convergence even within the Church.

I disagree. I think its the convergence of different independent lines of evidence that makes a strong case. The more independent lines the better. We are rational and moral beings and very astute in this sense. We can reason out why something is the case.

I think lived reality is a big part of what is really going on. We have a long history of making mistakes and treating people badly. We see the pattern over and over again that doing certain things always results in the same negative outcome. We don't need to keep repeating that before we can say we need to make some sort of social or political rule, or law where certain behaviour is wrong regardless of subjective determinations.

Like Human Rights. The 2nd WW made us face ourselves as a world because of the horrors, the extent to which we realised humans will do evil against each other. So we made truth like laws, inalienable Rights that no one, no nation can take away even if they disagree. This is a good example of how lived reality reveals some truths about who we are and how we can better live together.

You would have to agree on what adultery was first.

Lets just take the classic meaning of a married couple where one has an affair. Breaks the marriage through having sex with someone outside the marriage. But we could make a case for De Facto relations as well especially if kids are involved. But certainly adultery within marriage has many negative effects on the kids, the couple and society as a whole.

We could even make a case that the casual attitudes of sex and relationships for young people partly contributes to the high levels of psychological problems and suicide. As they are developing and unable to understand the full implications of a relationship and that ending one is no easy feat it screws young people up and the effects are magnified due adolescence also being a turbulent time emotionally.

This is not based on religious belief though beliefs can align with these truths. They are facts, evidence from Psychology and especially lived reality.

Not for gays, of course, because they don't do sex the way you like.

That is another complete thread if we want to get into this and probably not appropriate for this thread. But I am not stopping Gays from living how they want and simply pointing out some of the issues they face for that lifestyle factually, in reality is not being a bigot.

That is where I think much of the confusion and conflict comes from. That now anyone who may want to point out some of the facts, truth as per lived reality or science are somehow being hateful. Yet we are quite willing or at least the Woke are quick to point out every flaw in whites and heterosexual males and females.

If we can express the facts and truth about issues with heterosexual relationships we should be able to to the same with gay relationships, all relationships without people thinking its targeting or having a go at those groups. Sometimes the identity cartd can be used to stop the truth.

For example we should be able to say that gay marriages and relationship have a very high breakdown rate which is also no good for anyone. Or that there is a high rate of extra marriatl and relationship affairs. JUst like its no good for heterosexuals its no good for gays.

The two examples you gave in your post were about sex.

You got me there lol. But I have also mentioned a range of issues whereas you keep bringing it back to sex and only sex. We also have to remember that much of the conflicts we are seeing is about sex, gender and race and its not just Christians or the Right who are making this all the focus.

I hope you don't mean taunting trans people in public with pronouns.

No I mean all truths. Freedom of speech, belief and conscience. A Consititutional and Human Right. Just expressing those truths is not taunting people.

As you brought up pronouns, a person has a right to their pronouns. The question is do they have the right to force others to use those subjective pronouns. I think this is the crux of the matter for all conflicts along race, gender, sex, religious, any identity lines. How different identities subjective truth clashes with other identities subjective truth and how this all fits with the objective and lived reality.

Its not simple I agree. But if for example some want to force others to use their pronuouns because this fits with how they feel, how they see themselves, their self truth. Then what about if the other person feels uncomfortable with that, goes against their own conscience and identity. What happens then. Thats why identity politics doesn't work. It just divides and antagonises people against each other.

Why not? You make many of your points using right-wing US Christian polemicists.

Really, if that is Right Wing as in a radical ideology then God help us because that is just plain common sense and reality. It can be supported other than any political ideology. The same values, determinations can be backed up by the science and lived reality.

Besides I would have thought being a polemicist is a good thing as its about critical determinations, critical thinking which considers all the facts and conditions to make an informed determination.

Perhaps your talking about delivery, how its politicized and used as a weapon to push those truths.

 

[stevevw]

Like…an absolute monarchy?

No I was thinking of a more collective and back to basics type communities. Local people determining local issues. Collectives, co-ops ect. Even Communes lol aren't so bad as they tap into the common good and are usually community and environmentally more aware.

But there's a fine line between genuine collective movements and nut case cults where it all becomes a Charlie Mason kind of thing. Knowing how people feel at present being so tribal that might not be a good idea.

That sort of happened in the last GFC where nations like Greece went bankrupt and then collectives and co-ops started growing. People were forced to find more community orientated ways to survive.

I think more people are thinking about escaping the rat race, the chaos, high costs of living especially real estate. Many are buying land and getting back to nature. Either that or the ways things are going there will be some sort of revolution, uprising where people just can't take anymore.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am sure that just like Democrates think Trump is satan incarnate and lets not forget 'felon' lol and defenitely don't wan't the Repulican parties policies forced on them.

Trump is a felon. That's what this thread is about. FYI.

 

[stevevw]

Trump is a felon. That's what this thread is about. FYI.

OK but surely theres more to it than just talking about Trump as a felon. It brings up other issues like Rule of law, using the system to take opponents out. That then follows talking about the system, how each party explots things and how the voters react.

Most importantly how each side is so opposed to each other to the point they are so desperate to stop the opposition. Why are people so divided. Why do they see opposing views as threatening to the point it almost becomes a matter of life and death.

 

[Bradskii]

OK but surely theres more to it than just talking about Trump as a felon.

At what point do you think to yourself 'This is not a guy I want to represent me and my country'. When is that likely to happen?

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK but surely theres more to it than just talking about Trump as a felon.

Of course, but none of the things in your last few posts have anything to do with this case.

It brings up other issues like Rule of law, using the system to take opponents out.

Which is not what happened here. Did DA Bragg include bringing Trump to justice in his campaign? Yes, that's part of what candidates do when running for elected prosecutors -- they make promises about bringing local criminals to justice. If there is a specific local criminal who is notorious and unprosecuted a name may be mentioned. Even if a prosecutor's decision to charge is politically motivated the grand jury must find evidence sufficient to indict, the judge must find the evidence and the law sufficient to maintain the charges, and the jury must find the evidence sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That Trump was found guilty by a jury indicates that the evidence was pretty strong against him. There maybe issues of law to be resolved by an appellate court, but the case is clearly sufficient to warrant the efforts of candidate and then DA Bragg.

If we want to talk about using the law to take out opponents, Trump is only vulnerable because he has apparently committed so many crimes. If the GOP had only been more selective on the moral character of its candidates 9 years ago and then clung to him afterward. Then we should also talk about Trump's allies *immediately* calling for rule by law (not of law) and the prosecution of basically any Democrat an elected or appointed Republican prosecutor can find to charge. Frequently these calls offered no potential crimes or even specific individuals. That *is* disturbing and not consistent with the rule of law or democracy.

That then follows talking about the system, how each party explots things and how the voters react.

That's just how politics works. Attack their weaknesses. It would be great if we could have actual discussions about policy and plans, but there is little appetite for that.

Most importantly how each side is so opposed to each other to the point they are so desperate to stop the opposition. Why are people so divided. Why do they see opposing views as threatening to the point it almost becomes a matter of life and death.

The literal opponents of democracy have decided to back Trump and are not being silent about either.

 

[stevevw]

At what point do you think to yourself 'This is not a guy I want to represent me and my country'. When is that likely to happen?

Um I guess when people are presented with two choices they disagree with. They have to pick the least worst candidate. On the one side we have a candidate who has done what many believe is a minor infringement trumped (pun intended) into a felony.

A candidate perhaps not the ideal person to take home to mother. But one nonetheless who has a mind for business and getting the job done. Some perhaps even relating to getting into trouble with the system but not really hiding that he is not perfect. People seem to know what Trump is, a bit streetwise and sometimes bends the rules to get things done. They sort of don't mind that.

On the other hand a mentally weak minded person in both cognition and policy. Has wrecked the economy, created chaos with immigration policy and identity politics and for whom we know the party has also resided over felonies behind closed doors but is now using that same system to take out their political opponent.

So really its not that straight forward as the Left makes out. People are sick of all polititians and the 'System'. Trump seems to at least be willing to even call that very system out despite all his faults. Whereas the Left are using that system to keep power and that is the very reason people were getting sick of polititians and the system.

I really think that the more the Left make a big iussue of "would you vote for a felon the more it speaks of hypocracy and the more it feeds into Trumps hands.

But I think all this has created a bigger monster, its damaged the US and the truth principles it stood on. That has divided and polarized the nation. A nation divided will fall in some way.

 

[Bradskii]

Um I guess when people are presented with two choices...

That's why I didn't give you two (so I skipped the rest of the post). I want to know at what point do you think 'There is no way I can vote for this guy'. You obviously haven't reached it yet. I just want to know what it looks like.

 

[stevevw]

Of course, but none of the things in your last few posts have anything to do with this case.

But is it really irrelevant. I think Trump represents the Rights ideology verses the Lefts despite character assassinations or reputations. So what I am talking about, the truth principles like Rule oif Law, Freedom of Speech and Belief all play a big role behind all the identity politics.

I think thats the basis for all this and not the personalities and politics. People get more upset about breaching or denying those truth principles than someone cooking the books.

Which is not what happened here. Did DA Bragg include bringing Trump to justice in his campaign? Yes, that's part of what candidates do when running for elected prosecutors -- they make promises about bringing local criminals to justice. If there is a specific local criminal who is notorious and unprosecuted a name may be mentioned. Even if a prosecutor's decision to charge is politically motivated the grand jury must find evidence sufficient to indict, the judge must find the evidence and the law sufficient to maintain the charges, and the jury must find the evidence sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That Trump was found guilty by a jury indicates that the evidence was pretty strong against him. There maybe issues of law to be resolved by an appellate court, but the case is clearly sufficient to warrant the efforts of candidate and then DA Bragg.

Ok well I am not up on US and specifically New York law. It just seemed that the Left had been trying to get Trump on something for a long time and failing and then kept going until they got him.

Thats the perception that all this has been left in peoples minds and I think rightly so as this sort of scrutiny and effort would not be given to anyone else. It reeks of using the system to bring an opponent down even if some of the accusations are true and deserve prosecuting.

As far as I understand there were a number of reasons why Trump can appeal including how the judge instructed the jury.
Donald Trump Trial's Four 'Compelling Problems' Outlined by Legal Analyst

Donald Trump trial's four "compelling problems" outlined by legal analyst

Jonathan Turley wrote an opinion article on Saturday about the judge, charges, evidence and instructions amid the former president's criminal hush money trial.

www.newsweek.com

If we want to talk about using the law to take out opponents, Trump is only vulnerable because he has apparently committed so many crimes.

Well there was a lot of noise and effort about that over a long period of time and it seems they could not find anything. They then had to revive some lasped ruling to finally get him. I mean as far as I understand its not criminal to pay off an x lover to keep quiet about the sordid affair coming out and destroying their reputation. Its not exactly class A criminal.

Do you honestly believe that people don't believe that the sordid affairs of the Left have not been paid off. How long did the upper echelons know about Clintons secret escapades. What was done to hush that up. What about Hunter, there seems some rigging of the system to hide that.

Its the hypocracy of making something much bigger than it is against a political opponent while hiding even bigger crimes and immoral behaviour and then pretending its all about justice. That is what most Trump supporters seem to think and a growing number of neutral and even Democrates as well.

If the GOP had only been more selective on the moral character of its candidates 9 years ago and then clung to him afterward.

Thats a laugh. I think people see through the false presentation that the Left is a party of morals.

Then we should also talk about Trump's allies *immediately* calling for rule by law (not of law) and the prosecution of basically any Democrat an elected or appointed Republican prosecutor can find to charge. Frequently these calls offered no potential crimes or even specific individuals. That *is* disturbing and not consistent with the rule of law or democracy.

Yes this is what is happening now. The whole thing has created a monster bigger than either side. The US is tearing itself apaprt just like Europe and the Brits have been doing. Modern progressive ideology and reactionary Right policies have undermined the long standing truth principles.

Its called Identity politics and it divides people and makes them antagonistic towards each other. The exact opposite of the Lefts claim that their ideology creates a DEI Utopia. More like a DIE nightmare lol.

That's just how politics works. Attack their weaknesses.

I have never liked identity politics. Attacking weaknesses has becopme attacking the person, the character, the identity. Itsmorally motivated, a new form of character assassintaion and religious persecution. It shows how much politics has entered the personal, the private sphere which I think is not a good sign of a healthy society.

It would be great if we could have actual discussions about policy and plans, but there is little appetite for that.

At the end of the day I think that is what people really worry about. The economy, migration, health and wellbeing. On that count I don't think the Democrates are doing well. Most people see Trump as a better economic manager. Immigration is a mess thanks to progressive DEI policies. So's education and law. So is the climate within society which has become more divisive thanks to the Lefts policies.

The Democrates are also not innocents when it comes to providing military aid to our enermies and fostering radicalism. I think Trump is willing to put a stop to much of that.

So I agree the more we talk about the policies and results each party supports will show which party is better able to sort this mess out. Usually when things go bad people vote out the sitting party and bring in the opposition. We seen this with the rise of Leftist ideology and nations bringing in Left learning governments and policies.

Now we have had a decade or more of their ideology things are becoming a mess so we should begin to see a change towards the Right again. But unfortunatle as with modern politics this may require the help of some radical minor parties will hold the nations to ransom just as the Left and Greens have done.

We end up with a lot of noise and division and living standards becoming worse, more expensive and people are sacrificed on the alter of Climate change ideology thanks to Wokist like Greta and her followers. How dare the Baby Boomers deny Greta. Shame on them for they have sinned.

The literal opponents of democracy have decided to back Trump and are not being silent about either.

How do you mean.

 

[Bradskii]

Most people see Trump as a better economic manager.

Yeah, his idea for replacing taxes with tariffs is brilliant. For completely ruining the economy. I'm a klutz with money but I'm a Rhodes Scholar with a Masters in Economics compared to anyone who thinks that's a good idea.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But is it really irrelevant.

Yes!

I think Trump represents the Rights ideology verses the Lefts despite character assassinations or reputations. So what I am talking about, the truth principles like Rule oif Law, Freedom of Speech and Belief all play a big role behind all the identity politics.

I think thats the basis for all this and not the personalities and politics. People get more upset about breaching or denying those truth principles than someone cooking the books.

Definitely, definitely, definitely not relevant,

Ok well I am not up on US and specifically New York law.

Perhaps your commentary isn't worth much then.

It just seemed that the Left had been trying to get Trump on something for a long time and failing and then kept going until they got him.

Did you even care what I replied? Because you just ignored it and repeated your "out to get him" claim.

Thats the perception that all this has been left in peoples minds and I think rightly so as this sort of scrutiny and effort would not be given to anyone else. It reeks of using the system to bring an opponent down even if some of the accusations are true and deserve prosecuting.

As far as I understand there were a number of reasons why Trump can appeal including how the judge instructed the jury.
Donald Trump Trial's Four 'Compelling Problems' Outlined by Legal Analyst

Donald Trump trial's four "compelling problems" outlined by legal analyst

Jonathan Turley wrote an opinion article on Saturday about the judge, charges, evidence and instructions amid the former president's criminal hush money trial.

www.newsweek.com

Well there was a lot of noise and effort about that over a long period of time and it seems they could not find anything. They then had to revive some lasped ruling to finally get him. I mean as far as I understand its not criminal to pay off an x lover to keep quiet about the sordid affair coming out and destroying their reputation. Its not exactly class A criminal.

Yep, just more and more of these claims...

Do you honestly believe that people don't believe that the sordid affairs of the Left have not been paid off. How long did the upper echelons know about Clintons secret escapades. What was done to hush that up. What about Hunter, there seems some rigging of the system to hide that.

Its the hypocracy of making something much bigger than it is against a political opponent while hiding even bigger crimes and immoral behaviour and then pretending its all about justice. That is what most Trump supporters seem to think and a growing number of neutral and even Democrates as well.

Thats a laugh. I think people see through the false presentation that the Left is a party of morals.

Yes this is what is happening n

The left is not the topic of the thread.

ow. The whole thing has created a monster bigger than either side. The US is tearing itself apaprt just like Europe and the Brits have been doing. Modern progressive ideology and reactionary Right policies have undermined the long standing truth principles.

Its called Identity politics and it divides people and makes them antagonistic towards each other. The exact opposite of the Lefts claim that their ideology creates a DEI Utopia. More like a DIE nightmare lol.

Not relevant.

I have never liked identity politics. Attacking weaknesses has becopme attacking the person, the character, the identity. Itsmorally motivated, a new form of character assassintaion and religious persecution. It shows how much politics has entered the personal, the private sphere which I think is not a good sign of a healthy society.

At the end of the day I think that is what people really worry about. The economy, migration, health and wellbeing. On that count I don't think the Democrates are doing well. Most people see Trump as a better economic manager. Immigration is a mess thanks to progressive DEI policies. So's education and law. So is the climate within society which has become more divisive thanks to the Lefts policies.

Not relevant.

The Democrates are also not innocents when it comes to providing military aid to our enermies and fostering radicalism. I think Trump is willing to put a stop to much of that.

So I agree the more we talk about the policies and results each party supports will show which party is better able to sort this mess out. Usually when things go bad people vote out the sitting party and bring in the opposition. We seen this with the rise of Leftist ideology and nations bringing in Left learning governments and policies.

Not relevant.

Now we have had a decade or more of their ideology things are becoming a mess so we should begin to see a change towards the Right again. But unfortunatle as with modern politics this may require the help of some radical minor parties will hold the nations to ransom just as the Left and Greens have done.

We end up with a lot of noise and division and living standards becoming worse, more expensive and people are sacrificed on the alter of Climate change ideology thanks to Wokist like Greta and her followers. How dare the Baby Boomers deny Greta. Shame on them for they have sinned.

Not relevant.

How do you mean.

What's the point in explaining it to you? You'll just ignore it any way and write 2000 words about woke or some nonsense.