Like maybe his own version of kompromat. I would put nothing past that man.How is this not a huge national security threat if he did run for president? There have to be people who fully are aware of whatever secret he thinks he is hiding.
I think he finally realizes, he can't talk his way out of this shit anymore.There's only one thing that absolutely shocked me about Trump's visit with the NY AG and although his pleading the 5th hundreds of times were (technically speaking) admissions of guilt, his holding back the rage he likes to attack his accusers with was absent, that instinctual rage of which he incriminates himself with as he's shown time and again in the past.
It must have been his most supreme act of self control to have been pointedly questioned for hours by his tormentor, a smart, very well educated and qualified black woman who ticked off hundreds of accusatory questions to his face. In my eyes, that experience he went through is in and by itself righteous punishment being delivered on his ass, with many more days, weeks and months of it to follow. Small wonder that his supporters are feeling the agonizing sympathy pains of having their idol being humiliated that way. I'm thinking the only thing on their minds at the moment and into the future is how they're going to get revenge for what the "rigged establishment" is doing to their superstar, never mind that Trump put himself in the legal mess he's in and the system of justice is working the way it's supposed to.
I think he finally realizes, he can't talk his way out of this shit anymore.
So to be clear there is no amount of evidence that could ever convince you of Trump's criminality outside of a criminal conviction?Your link is behind a pay wall, which doesn't really matter as the NYT can't file criminal charges.
Exactly, #bothsides is a cop out because it makes it so you don't have to actually look at who is right and who is wrong, you just say #bothsides.The "both sides" thing is a copout. It's based on the idea that your side is the correct one. It's an attempt to negate an argument or opinion based on a condition that can only exist after the matter is settled. Both sides spin information, both sides omit facts that don't align with their chosen narrative, and both sides use statements taken out of context. Both sides use hate to sway opinion. Vilification is the bedrock of politics.
Your link is behind a pay wall, which doesn't really matter as the NYT can't file criminal charges.
When I said the criminal investigation was petering out I meant the the one in NY.
The "both sides" thing is a copout. It's based on the idea that your side is the correct one. It's an attempt to negate an argument or opinion based on a condition that can only exist after the matter is settled. Both sides spin information, both sides omit facts that don't align with their chosen narrative, and both sides use statements taken out of context. Both sides use hate to sway opinion. Vilification is the bedrock of politics.
As with everything else, we are all equal but we differ in the advantages we've had in life that make us more or less able to put aside bias in our thinking. If your moral position is to affirm innocence before a real conviction takes place and that is deeply morally important to you, it won't be so easy to reach a guilty verdict as someone who finds guilt based on what many would call the obvious. It is a very liberal idea that people should not be burnt at the stake without conviction of some grievous crime. Liberals and conservatives have different moral priorities. A truly moral conservative will have a greater understanding of morality than a liberal out of a deeper appreciation for a greater range of moral values.So to be clear there is no amount of evidence that could ever convince you of Trump's criminality outside of a criminal conviction?
If that's the case and you are immune to reason and facts please just let us know - otherwise the filing of criminal charges shouldn't matter to you as you can make your own judgments based on the available evidence.
As far as the article goes just open it in incognito mode, that should work. That being said the contents of the reporting is widely available all over the internet and contains a large volume of evidence for criminal activity directly participated in by Trump.
Exactly, #bothsides is a cop out because it makes it so you don't have to actually look at who is right and who is wrong, you just say #bothsides.
What you should add to the end of every one of those statements is a question - but do they both do so to the same extent? You know as well as I do that they don't. If you stop #bothsides-ing this though then you will have to admit conservatives have gone insane and are defending a criminal and you don't want to do that.
Speaking of evolution, conservative values are based on the fact that holding them increased our chances of species survival so while a creationist will lose an argument over creation, it's conservatives that helped you survive to argue that point.You don't understand (or are sidestepping) the criticism of "both-sidesing," I'm afraid.
Is it true that different sides of an issue are frequently biased or otherwise flawed? Yes. But here's the thing: in matters where there is an objective answer to be found, one side is more likely to be correct than the other. We don't know for sure that Trump is guilty of violations, but the evidence and historical data (past frauds, stiffing contractors, tax manipulation, Trump's general dishonesty and secrecy, etc.) primarily suggests he is.
Both-sidesing is equivocation. It suggests that merely feeling something is true is as valid as providing evidence; that you can't have the generally correct view unless your behavior is squeaky clean. Some of the people blasting Trump make logical leaps and similar mistakes, but that doesn't mean they're just as bad as a Trump supporter who simply ignores evidence and assumes Dear Leader is always innocent.
Think of it like evolution versus creationism. An evolution proponent may be overly passionate or otherwise make a poor argument, but at the end of the day the evidence still supports their view alone; barring surprises, the creationist will always lose.
Speaking of evolution, conservative values are based on the fact that holding them increased our chances of species survival so while a creationist will lose an argument over creation, it's conservatives that helped you survive to argue that point.
Increased. Past tense. By at least 500 years, if not a few thousand.Speaking of evolution, conservative values are based on the fact that holding them increased our chances of species survival so while a creationist will lose an argument over creation, it's conservatives that helped you survive to argue that point.
Any actual evidence to back up your theory on conservative values and species survival or did conservative civilizations tend to rule because conservative minds are more authoritarian and more likely to subjugate others and therefore write the history that you are reading? Where I live the Haida are a matriarchal society which has been papered over with "western" rule. The Haida had thousands of years of history before the colonials came. Perhaps if their history had been written down and not an oral history that has been mostly lost due to smallpox etc. the lens you are looking through would tell a different story.Speaking of evolution, conservative values are based on the fact that holding them increased our chances of species survival so while a creationist will lose an argument over creation, it's conservatives that helped you survive to argue that point.