[Action80]

Tom, they won't publish your flat Earth dinosaur stuff because it's insane, not because it goes against the view of their newspaper.

And yes, newspapers publish opinion pieces that go against their views all the time. Please stop pretending this is such an unusual concept. I hate to accuse someone of trolling, of course, but when you're being so obviously disingenuous it's difficult to see it as anything but.

By all means, feel free to call the Attorney General, Jack Smith, a troll. We all know just how sharp a dart player you are, Roundy.

[AATW]

The bulk of the article discusses, like I said, the creation of of an "elite" professional culture that left enough people feeling isolated and left behind to rally behind someone like Trump, who positioned himself as standing in opposition to that culture.

That's a plausible explanation for Trump's "origin story". How he became so popular. And one thing he has done quite skilfully is discredit the mainstream media - in the eyes of his cult-like supporters at least. He's managed to convince them that they're being lied to by the mainstream and he is the source of truth. Which is quite smart, because it means all the times the mainstream media expose his lies...well, in his followers' eyes they're the liars, that just proves what Trump is saying. (Although weirdly they were fine with MSM sources like Fox News sucking Trump's cock endlessly, I guess that mainstream source is OK because it agrees with and defends Trump. Or used to).
And this also means that every indictment, well that's just the mainstream trying to "get" him. That's just further proof that he's right.

I saw a funny/depressing video where a Trump supporter was asked about the indictment - not the recent one, the previous one about the classified documents. The supporter said it was probably a pile of garbage. He was then asked if he'd read it and said no. Same question about the recording of Trump admitting he shouldn't be showing classified documents to people. Same answers. Probably a pile of garbage, hadn't listened to it. Sigh.

And there's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on here. People are so invested in Trump that all the evidence showing that maybe he's not the messiah and is in fact a very naughty boy just makes the core support more entrenched in their views.

But surely he wouldn't actually win another election...would he? I mean, the one he did win was because of a big "anyone but Hillary" vote. His core support, while big, isn't enough to win an election. The Democrats would have to put up someone truly awful to lose to Trump again. If they let Biden stand again they could be toast though.

[markjo]

In this case, however, the author of the article is affiliated to the publication. The author in question has had his own column in the New York Times for the last 20 years since 2003, so it can hardly be said that he is not affiliated with with the paper:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/BROOKS-BIO.html?pagewanted=all

Tom, where in that (or any other) bio does it say that David Brooks is on the NYT editorial staff?  Being a columnist is not the same as being an editor, even if your long running opinion piece runs on the op-ed page.

[honk]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-election-investigation-grand-jury-willis-d39562cedfc60d64948708de1b011ed3

Haha, yet another indictment.

[Lord Dave]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-election-investigation-grand-jury-willis-d39562cedfc60d64948708de1b011ed3

Haha, yet another indictment.

Its just another Liberal plot!  The deplorable democrats will do anything, even convince republicans that he's evil.

[Action80]

Could someone bring an actual crime to the table, please?

[beardo]

Could someone bring an actual crime to the table, please?

They cant.
Also, every arrest and indictment makes Trump more powerful. Democrats are digging their own grave.

[honk]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are. And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

[Roundy]

I mean his own AG says he's fucked but yeah, ok, no crimes here lol

[Action80]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

[Lord Dave]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

[Action80]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

[Lord Dave]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

[Action80]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

[juner]

they definitely got trump this time

[Lord Dave]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

[Action80]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

[Lord Dave]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

[Roundy]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Which, while true, is beside the point that showing classified documents to unauthorized people is a crime, and he was charged with it, and extra lovely, muppet80 has implicitly admitted that he acknowledges it as a crime just by asking if there's evidence that it happened. So there's your answer, muppet.

[Lord Dave]

Huh.  I didn't realize that.

Thanks Roundy.