Everyone ITT: “unreasonable and excessive punishment is great as long as it happens to someone I hate”

What’s unreasonable and excessive about any of this?

Because it was literally a victimless crime.

• He overstated is net worth in a loan application to obtain a lower interest rate
• The bank approved, gave him the money, and he paid it all back, with interest
• The bank, upon finding out, declined to sue him and even said they’d be happy to work with him again in the future
• The NYC AG decided to sue anyways because it’s technically not allowed to misrepresent your income on a bank form
• The judge decides on an excessive amount of fines simply because they hate him and want to ruin his campaign

I don’t care how much you hate Trump, this is just plain dirty, like kicking your opponent in the nuts in a fist fight.

So your legal defence on behalf of Trump is, “your honour, who did my law-breaking hurt?”

You’re myopically fixated on a single case, too. Do the other 90 open cases against him somehow bolster your confidence in his innocence here? He’s being “attacked” because he’s a fucking crook. They will win some and lose others, but where he legally fucked up, he’ll face consequences. Period.

“Who’d he hurt?” Ri-goddamned-diculous.

No, that’s literally his own defense, I just happen to agree with it.

Imagine you lie on your resume and inflate your experience in order to get a certain job. They hire you and pay you 20% over what you would have qualified for based on your actual experience, but you do a good job and your manager just happy with your performance, and when you leave, they give you a good recommendation for you next job. Five or ten years later, you’re just about to make a downpayment for your first house, and suddenly, not your employer, but the government shows up and sues you because lying on your resume is illegal, and they demand you pay all the extra money you earned PLUS interest and fines.

That’s sorta how petty this case is. And if you cheer for this kinda stuff, you deserve for it to happen to you.

but you do a good job and your manager just happy with your performance

Here is where the comparison falls apart

How so? The banks declined to sue and said they’d be happy to work with him again.

Who gives a toss what the banks say? They aren’t the real victim, rules based society is.

Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain’t bailing you out.

Fortunately if I break a rule it doesn’t cost taxpayers millions of dollars or threaten the security of the country I’m trying to take over. But yeah, it’s totally the same.

Okay, let’s do a little thought exercise here, shall we?

Smoking and selling marijuana was illegal for much of the last century or so. Now both is legal in many states. While it was still illegal, many people all over the country were convicted under that law. Do you agree, then, that because what they did was illegal at the time, them being punished was justice being served AT THE TIME, regardless of whether it is now legal?

Should people who were convicted unter the old law be forced to sit out their sentences in full because at the time, their conviction was fully in accordance with rules-based society, or is it possible that rules can be wrong, regardless of how technically legal they are?

Your thought exercise is about something legal that used to be illegal. Has fraud suddenly become legal? No? So what’s your point? Your ‘lying on a resume’ example made more sense, even if it was ridiculous.

They made voting without an ID legal in some states. Isn’t that basically legalizing fraud, or at least inviting or enabling it?

Sorry, but I’m afraid “this would never happen” a bad excuse. This change would have been unthinkable ten years ago.

They key phrase is “they made it… legal.”

Right. You rejected my thorough experiment on the basis that fraud would never be made legal, so I gave you an example where this has literally happened, and your response is “then it’s no longer fraud”?

My God, are you literally this stupid or are you being paid to pretend you are?

No I rejected it on the basis that fraud is currently illegal.

It doesn’t matter if it remains illegal. You get tried for things that are currently illegal. If they decide to repeal those laws about investor fraud, then your comparison to pot users makes sense. AFTER they repeal those laws Donald might be able to seek some recourse. And right after that you can kiss the economy goodbye, since it’s all built on investor confidence.

And saying that some states have ‘legalized fraud’ basically shows that you don’t understand or accept the legal definition of fraud.

My God, are you literally this stupid or are you being paid to pretend you are?

No and no

How would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?

How would YOU feel?

I would feel like you’re either smart enough to have recognized the implication of answering that question truthfully, in which case you’re also smart enough to have understood the previous analogy and you were just pretending to be too dumb, or you’re just habitually manipulative because it tends to get you what you want most of the time, but you don’t really understand why.

In either case, this conversation is over because you’re clearly a liar and unwilling to admit when you’ve been caught. Have a good day.

I would feel like you answered my substantive response with a question about breakfast, and given your track record on analogies I thought I’d just skip the part where I try to figure out if it makes sense and ask you the answer directly.

You’re one of these people who seems to think the world works how they think it should work.

And you’re one of those people who’s happy to use “the world doesn’t work the way you think it should work” as an excuse to lie, manipulate, and abuse others.

Is that what I’m doing? Why do you keep responding?

What you’re doing lacks the coherence to even be called ‘projection.’

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.