Trump. The convicted felon

posted by CenterBHSFan

You'd be surprised, if not quite shocked, at how many on the left hate what the Dems are doing. They are well aware that there is a high probability that they are next since they are anti establishment, too. 

What people on this site have the habit of doing is conflating anything people say against the Dems as being for Trump. There is a clear absence of any critical or comparative thought with all this mess. 

Seems to be business as usual everywhere I look.   Including this site.

posted by Heretic

If a big part of my poli-argument was based on inflation and everything costing more and there I was throwing money at opposing politicians to "support" them, that kind of ties into the "fool and money are soon parted" deal.

Its been so long ago I think in my late twenties I gave some money to the Republicans.  Short lived and not a red cent to anyone politically affiliated since.  If this surge in donations is accurate post guilty verdict it would indicate a motive outside of inflation and cost of living concerns.  Perhaps still fools parting with their money but with a different motivation.

posted by iclfan2

Supposedly 30% were new donors. I get you hate Trump, but not sure why you’re discounting the anger people have at this sham. (And no, I would never donate to a political campaign. I’d rather light bills on fire than donate to any of those fucks). 

I’m sure some of of it was protesting the trial.  But I’m also of the opinion that most of it was given to a personality that just got more impressive in the donor’s eyes.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I’m sure some of of it was protesting the trial.  But I’m also of the opinion that most of it was given to a personality that just got more impressive in the donor’s eyes.

A sudden surge for a personality we have known in politics for nearly a decade.  More impressive now as a convicted felon.  I do not believe this is the case.

posted by majorspark

A sudden surge for a personality we have known in politics for nearly a decade.  More impressive now as a convicted felon.  I do not believe this is the case.

We disagree on this.  In my opinion, Trump - to a lot of his followers - does represent the right, conservatism, libertarianism, nor the Republican Party.  He represents Trump the personality and that’s what people follow.  He’s certainly not the first character that’s thrown in with the “government is evil”, “immigrants are taking over”, “they’re coming for your guns”, etc.  But he’s been by far the most successful in our lifetime.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

We disagree on this.  In my opinion, Trump - to a lot of his followers - does represent the right, conservatism, libertarianism, nor the Republican Party.  He represents Trump the personality and that’s what people follow.  He’s certainly not the first character that’s thrown in with the “government is evil”, “immigrants are taking over”, “they’re coming for your guns”, etc.  But he’s been by far the most successful in our lifetime.  

All this has been known since 2016.  How does this trigger a sudden surge in donations following a specific event?

It would actually be deviously brilliant if Gov. Hochul pardoned him.

Then Democrats will claim the high road - "justice was served but we don't want this to be political".  But, more importantly, it eliminates the fairly significant chance (but maybe still less than 50%, at least at the lower appelate courts) this is overturned.  Then they get to keep calling him a convicted felon...plus it would not be good for Democrats if it's overturned.

I do have a feeling the SCOTUS could decide, correctly in my view, that states don't get to prosecute federal charges, at least when the feds themselves have not charged or convicted the person.

This case is especially ridiculous when you realize they needed the federal charge to revive the misdemeanor that was otherwise past the statute of limitations, and then required proving the same federal charge in order to elevate that same misdemeanor to a felony.  And that's not even addressing the novel and unique way these charges were woven together.

posted by majorspark

All this has been known since 2016.  How does this trigger a sudden surge in donations following a specific event?

Maybe a lot of followers never gave before.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Maybe a lot of followers you never gave before.  

I'm not sure I understand this. Your phone (if that's what you used) probably corrected something that wasn't wrong. I know it happens to me sometimes; it happened to me earlier in this thread and I'm just too lazy to fix it lol! 

But yeah, the sentence as it is doesn't make sense.

posted by CenterBHSFan

But yeah, the sentence as it is doesn't make sense.

I think it’s supposed to be “Maybe a lot of followers WHO never gave before”. 

posted by BRF

I think it’s supposed to be “Maybe a lot of followers WHO never gave before”. 

Yes.  Spell check

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Yes.  Spell check

See, this is what pisses me off about cell phones. Let me make my own errors, I don't need help making them hahaha

Right now, isn't this just the word of the Trump campaign of how much was given?

Also, 30% new donors could be small donations, maybe as low as $5.  Which could be a very small overall percentage of the total $53M or whatever claimed to have come in.

posted by gut

Right now, isn't this just the word of the Trump campaign of how much was given?

Also, 30% new donors could be small donations, maybe as low as $5.  Which could be a very small overall percentage of the total $53M or whatever claimed to have come in.

I think the days of fundraising by holding lavish dinners for rich people might be on the way out the door. Maybe the new way is to be politically persecuted

posted by QuakerOats

Look for this kangaroo court ruling to be overturned on appeal, fairly quickly. 

It wasn’t a “kangaroo court ruling”.  It was a vote by a jury.  Due process was followed.  You may not like the DA bringing the case to trial, but “kangaroo court” is not an accurate description of the trial and the vote ( as opposed to a “ruling”).  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It wasn’t a “kangaroo court ruling”.  It was a vote by a jury.  Due process was followed.  You may not like the DA bringing the case to trial, but “kangaroo court” is not an accurate description of the trial and the vote ( as opposed to a “ruling”).  

A prejudiced judge, prejudiced prosecutor, and a jury (from a lib cesspool area) that has no idea what was even being charged. Something that has never been charged before in the same way. You’re gonna try and tell me some random joes off of the street are able to understand it? We’re just pretending now that juries are infallible? 

Rough week for the lock her up crowd lol  

posted by geeblock

Rough week for the lock her up crowd lol  

If Hillary was Donald Trump, I'm pretty sure she would be locked up.

LOL, they let her destroy evidence and then said "we can't prosecute because we can't prove intent".

Also, Hillary did the EXACT same thing as Trump was convicted of - a campaign finance violation that they tried to conceal as legal payments.

posted by iclfan2

A prejudiced judge, prejudiced prosecutor, and a jury (from a lib cesspool area) that has no idea what was even being charged. Something that has never been charged before in the same way. You’re gonna try and tell me some random joes off of the street are able to understand it? We’re just pretending now that juries are infallible? 

The law involved was/is not at all complex.

posted by iclfan2

A prejudiced judge, prejudiced prosecutor, and a jury (from a lib cesspool area) that has no idea what was even being charged. Something that has never been charged before in the same way. You’re gonna try and tell me some random joes off of the street are able to understand it? We’re just pretending now that juries are infallible? 

Those are regurgitated talking points and generalizations.