ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
I see a lot of "this guarantees Trump wins" takes but it seems unlikely this is a net positive for Trump. Neutral at best.
I would have to imagine that a lot of people on the fence aren't the type to be excited about criminal convictions. Those types of people were already voting for Trump.
I see a lot of "this guarantees Trump wins" takes but it seems unlikely this is a net positive for Trump. Neutral at best.
I would have to imagine that a lot of people on the fence aren't the type to be excited about criminal convictions. Those types of people were already voting for Trump.
yeah. this. the people upset about this were already pulling that lever. this moves virtually no one towards him that wasn't already flirting with it.
he was going to have a record donation day on the day of the verdict no matter which way it went. it was either going to be scream corruption and witch hunt, or scream i prevailed and the maga base was going to hand over their utility payments to him.
Just last night, two wsop entrants told me the opposite. Mike Matusow and James Woods. In any case your widely stated opinion is obviously at least partially incorrect. Because there are mega millions of people who don't bother to vote and at least some of them would vote for Trump if they did vote. And at least some of those people will change their mind not about voting.
The above statement does not imply that the guilty verdict will help Trump. Because some non voters will now decide to vote for the Biden they originally preferred. And some Trump voters will now stay home because of the verdict. Those things may overwhelm the effect of some non voters deciding to vote for Trump. All I'm saying is that the number of people who vote for the Trump they always preferred but not previously to the point of bothering themselves, is at least in the hundreds of thousands.
Just last night, two wsop entrants told me the opposite. Mike Matusow and James Woods. In any case your widely stated opinion is obviously at least partially incorrect. Because there are mega millions of people who don't bother to vote and at least some of them would vote for Trump if they did vote. And at least some of those people will change their mind not about voting.
The above statement does not imply that the guilty verdict will help
Are you a real human being?
Just last night, two wsop entrants told me the opposite. Mike Matusow and James Woods. In any case your widely stated opinion is obviously at least partially incorrect. Because there are mega millions of people who don't bother to vote and at least some of them would vote for Trump if they did vote. And at least some of those people will change their mind not about voting.
The above statement does not imply that the guilty verdict will help
Are you saying that those two were not going to vote for Trump before, but they are now due to his conviction?
trump = scum of the earth.
Lock him up.
James Woods? The actor? The noted braindead Trumper? Yeah, he was voting for Trump already.
And LOL at Mike Matusow. There's one that was obviously dumb enough to vote for Trump.
Even bigger LOL at "hundreds of thousands." 2 people lied to David about not voting for Trump unless he was convicted and suddently hundreds of thousands are also going to.
JFC
David Sklansky: I was able to get 2 incredibly notorious Trump supporters to tell me they might have to vote for trump now because he was convicted
Also David Sklansky: buy my poker book so you can learn how to read people like me!
There seems to be a technical aspect to the jury instructions that is problematical. I might be wrong about my facts and if so this post can be deleted.
If I am not mistaken it is a felony to commit a misdemeanor that helps you commit another misdemeanor So if I steal a bicycle to drive to the zoo to abuse a zebra it is a felony. If a juror is convinced I did those two things he should vote to convict me of a felony. But suppose I am accused of bike stealing to abuse either a zebra, a giraffe, or a hippo. And though all 12 jurors agree on the bike stealing only four think beyond a reasonable doubt that I abused the zebra but would vote to acquit regarding the other two animals, four more think I hurt the giraffe but not the others, and four more only have me hurting the hippo. And suppose that all the jurors know that eight of them DISAGREE with them about the exact nature of the misdemeanor parlay (and that it would be expected that I would be acquitted of each individual animal abuse). Would that not mean that the felony argument is flawed?
idk but i'm pretty sure that the supreme court will agree with whatever that says
There seems to be a technical aspect to the jury instructions that is problematical. I might be wrong about my facts and if so this post can be deleted.
If I am not mistaken it is a felony to commit a misdemeanor that helps you commit another misdemeanor So if I steal a bicycle to drive to the zoo to abuse a zebra it is a felony. If a juror is convinced I did those two things he should vote to convict me of a felony. But suppose I am accuse
No. There is no reason for analogies here. Just state the actual charges.
The charge is First Degree Falsification of Business Records. In order to convict, the prosecution must demonstrate that the fraud was used to further or commit another crime. As long as all 12 jurors agree that that happened, then the verdict is unanimous. It doesn't matter if the jurors agree on what the predicate crime is, just that there was a predicate crime.
You can read the very explicit terms of the statute here:
https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalL...
You will find there is absolutely nothing saying the jurors must agree on the predicate crime, only that the fraud "includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal
the commission thereof."
In fact, it's very explicit that as long as those two conditions (the fraud itself and the intent to commit or aid) are met, the jurors MUST find the defendant guilty.
"If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable
doubt both of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty
of this crime."
Again, all of this is readily available and easy to understand. The jury's instructions were very faithful to the statute in question.
Sklansky posts are way more fun if instead of reading the entire thing you pick one sentence at total random and read that and only that
Example: I got
But suppose I am accused of bike stealing to abuse either a zebra, a giraffe, or a hippo.
Ironically this is posted by a man who flosses with a parrot so….ya plausible
Just going on the colossal sucker factor, and the bizarreness of politics, and on the lostness of the country, and on the founding fathers idea that the republic needs to be protected from the electorate ... I will get on the side that this will help The Donald in the election. And it doesn't even look like he needs any help. Somewhere south of 5% will balk at backing a convicted felon, but it will ratchet up his machine, minions, sycophants, and shock jock types to messianic levels. I almost wish I don't have to see this election.
For what?
Can you seriously and very intelligently actually explain what he did wrong?
Seriously, grab hold of yourself you're acting like he killed someone.
It's perfectly legal to pay someone off to not speak about an affair she claims she had. It's called a Non Disclosure Agreement. And when you do pay someone not to talk after President Trump's lawyers drew up legal docs and sent her the money, it's called a "legal expense".
Those are his alleged "crimes", which are all perfectly legal.
What President Trump DID do is prove how corrupt the system is and if you can't see it then just keep your head buried deep in the sand.
For what?
Can you seriously and very intelligently actually explain what he did wrong?
Seriously, grab hold of yourself you're acting like he killed someone.
It's perfectly legal to pay someone off to not speak about an affair she claims she had. It's called a Non Disclosure Agreement. And when you do pay someone not to talk after President Trump's lawyers drew up legal docs and sent her the money, it's called a "legal expense".
Those are hi
Violated NY 175.10. First Degree Falsification of Business Records. This has been covered extensively.
For what?
Can you seriously and very intelligently actually explain what he did wrong?
Seriously, grab hold of yourself you're acting like he killed someone.
It's perfectly legal to pay someone off to not speak about an affair she claims she had. It's called a Non Disclosure Agreement. And when you do pay someone not to talk after President Trump's lawyers drew up legal docs and sent her the money, it's called a "legal expense".
Those are hi
Thats just, like, your opinion, man
And your opinion is objectively wrong
Are you saying that those two were not going to vote for Trump before, but they are now due to his conviction?
Surprisingly that is exactly what they were saying to a group of about ten people outside of the tournament area. They said that they had planned not to vote for anybody but that the prosecutions changed their mind. They didn't say why their original plans were not to vote. But their statement was not said to me alone in confidence or anything like that.
PB wasn’t gonna vote for trump. But now he’s going to have to. Reluctantly
-Sklansky
Surprisingly that is exactly what they were saying to a group of about ten people outside of the tournament area. They said that they had planned not to vote for anybody but that the prosecutions changed their mind. They didn't say why their original plans were not to vote. But their statement was not said to me alone in confidence or anything like that.
You seriously might not know this, but this is the sort of crap Trumpers make up to make it seem like there's some sort of big movement happening. There is ZERO chance James Woods wasn't going to vote for Trump. Like he would've done it and made a speech about it.
It's like the anti-vaxers that read made up stories on facebook and suddenly they "know" 6 people that died from the vaccine.
You're saying this guy:
“I’ve never witnessed such hatred for a man who is willing to work for free to make his beloved country a better place.” “It is pathological,” Woods concluded in the message shared by the president. Woods is an outspoken conservative who has supported Trump and mocked Democrats on a regular basis. He recently tweeted that reversing the election with the “dirty tricks” of liberals would result in a “civil war” and predicted this “is not going to end.
Was just not going to bother voting after threatening civil war. He lied. (which is just shocking for a Trump supporter)
There seems to be a technical aspect to the jury instructions that is problematical. I might be wrong about my facts and if so this post can be deleted.
If I am not mistaken it is a felony to commit a misdemeanor that helps you commit another misdemeanor So if I steal a bicycle to drive to the zoo to abuse a zebra it is a felony. If a juror is convinced I did those two things he should vote to convict me of a felony. But suppose I am accuse
Answer: 7, because ice cream has no bones.
Or, there are two intent elements that need to be proven to aggravate it to a felony: 1. Falsify records 2. To further the commission on another crime.
I'd imagine that the conspiracy theories will be brewing up and trumpers will become further convinced that the system is trying to take him down. I also think that a portion of folks will come to the conclusion that he really did do some ****ed up **** and maybe he shouldn't be prez.
But everyone is going to move on from this by next thursday and it really won't matter all that much.
I wasn't gonna vote for either of the two. Hoped Kennedy would be something.. He isn't. But a convicted felon? I must vote for Trump, it's the most American thing I could ever do. I grew up in NJ just outside of NYC. 80s/90s kid. Trump was on tv all the time being a douche heh. Never liked him. Do not like him with nuke codes at all. But how could I look at myself in the mirror 20 years from now and not have voted for him. Govt cronies made some guy a felon over a hooker? lol. Must vote for the gangster. Gonna enjoy it.
Surprisingly that is exactly what they were saying to a group of about ten people outside of the tournament area. They said that they had planned not to vote for anybody but that the prosecutions changed their mind. They didn't say why their original plans were not to vote. But their statement was not said to me alone in confidence or anything like that.
I honestly don’t understand why you’re held in any kind of reverence. At best you’re comically naive at worst you know you’re engaging in false pretenses
