Captain_PatchyNov 13, 2023

It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk

https://lemmy.world/post/8181951

It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk - Lemmy.World

It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk He’s telling us what he will do to his political enemies if he’s president again. Is anyone listening? ---- I feel pretty safe in saying that we can now stop giving him the benefit of that particular doubt. His use—twice; once on social media, and then repeated in a speech—of the word “vermin” to describe his political enemies cannot be an accident. That’s an unusual word choice. It’s not a smear that one just grabs out of the air. And it appears in history chiefly in one context, and one context only.

Show threadGreenMNov 13, 2023
The guy is facing like dozens of criminal charges. How can someone like that run for presidency in the first place?
Show threadRGB3x3

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.”

Nov 13, 2023 at 9:34amWeb
Show threadCheeseNoodleNov 13, 2023
Hasn’t he now said things in open court multiple times that would be taken as direct admissions coming from anyone else?
Show threadA Phlaming PhoenixNov 13, 2023
I’m civil court. I don’t think he’s testified in any criminal cases yet. Maybe I’m wrong.
Show threadThis is fine🔥🐶☕🔥Nov 13, 2023

I’m civil court

Nice to meet you

…

…

…

Guys, what else do you say to anthropomorphic personifications?

Show threadWhiskyTangoFoxtrotNov 13, 2023
Not today.
Show threadEnkrodNov 13, 2023
BINKY AND I WILL BE BACK TOMORROW.
Show threadMadison420Nov 13, 2023
Wouldn’t matter, as long as it’s entered in open court it’s admissable as evidence.
Show threadSheDiceTodayNov 13, 2023
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.
Show threadEx NummisNov 13, 2023

“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).

Show threadAPassengerNov 13, 2023

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 3xoect 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 kkow 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.

Show threadMadison420Nov 13, 2023

He’s litigious and has enough funds to run this for a while.

That’s actually a big question especially if his businesses are seized.

Show threadSemi-Hemi-DemigodNov 13, 2023
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.
Show threadMadison420Nov 13, 2023
Can’t. That would be another crime.
Show threadAPassengerNov 13, 2023

People can help other people pay court costs. It’s done every day across the US.

Where are you getting your information?

Show threadMadison420Nov 13, 2023

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.

Show threadAPassengerNov 13, 2023

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.

Show threadMadison420Nov 13, 2023

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.

Show threadAPassengerNov 14, 2023

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.

Show threadMadison420Nov 14, 2023

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.

Show threadAPassengerNov 14, 2023

nytimes.com/…/trump-donations-legal-bills.html#:~…

You’re still wrong.

How Trump Uses Supporters’ Donations to Pay His Legal Bills

Facing a wide array of criminal charges, the former president is using money from small donors to defend himself legally — a practice that raises ethical questions.

The New York Times
Show threadMadison420Nov 14, 2023

Paywall

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

Fallacy fallacy

The fallacy fallacy, which could also be called the "metafallacy", is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the conclusion it was used to support is wrong. A true statement can be defended using false logic, so using false logic to defend an opinion is not proof of the opinion being wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between "sound", "valid" (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity), and "true", instead of taking all of them as synonymous.

RationalWiki
Show threadAPassengerNov 14, 2023

Saying “everyone knows this” and facts are presented and you double down?

That is not logical. Or reasonable.

You are doing the Trump, “everyone’s saying it…” and defending it while being factually wrong.

Show threadMadison420Nov 14, 2023

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.

Show threadAPassengerNov 14, 2023

Trolling.

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.

Show threadMadison420Nov 14, 2023

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!

Show threadAPassengerNov 14, 2023
He’s greedy and he’s used up Giuliani. That doesn’t mean he has no funds.
Show threadMadison420Nov 14, 2023
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.
Show threadAPassengerNov 14, 2023

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).

Show threadSheDiceTodayNov 13, 2023
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.
Show threadAPassengerNov 13, 2023

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.

Show threadspaceghotiNov 13, 2023
He’s been pulling millions in donations for his legal defense. He won’t have a problem there.
Show threadMadison420Nov 13, 2023
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.