[Drlee]

So here is the deal.

I just returned from a trip to the Southern US. In Georgia I attended a meeting. Naturally, on breaks, the discussion turned to Trump and the mid-term elections. On the day following Cohen pleading guilty to felonies and directly implicating President Trump I mentioned it on the break. One of the men there was a graduate of The Citadel. This is the highest ranked college in the South. He holds an MBA. When I mentioned Cohen's pleading guilty to (among other things) campaign finance violations at the president's request, the man said, "I see Hillary behind this".

I was stunned. So stunned that it took me a second to call him on it. I asked him how in the name of all that is holy he could conclude that a republican attorney, being investigated by a republican US attorney, committing crimes for a republican presidential candidate and then deciding to plead guilty could have anything in the world to do with Hillary Clinton. He stuttered for a moment and then, looking sullen and dogged, moved down the table.

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid? It it possible that these folks are so indoctrinated that they simply cannot imagine thinking for themselves?

I get the trolls here. Trolls I can deal with. This guy was not trolling. He was serious. I am near to concluding that there are some people who are really that stupid. Failing that who are so committed to an ideology that they simply do not even acknowledge the existence of truth.

Folks like that are dangerous. Ask any Jew.

[Zagadka]

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid?

Given that the Internet exists, yes.

The obsession with Hillary Clinton is actually quite fascinating, but it strongly relies on bizarre conspiracy theories. Once you get that break from reasonable reality, anything is possible. It is quite easy to believe that everything is stacked against you, though.

[Beren]

"I see Hillary behind this"

He sees Hillary behind everything, I guess.

[B0ycey]

When is it both you mean. And you have it.

But to admit the truth is to admit to the hypocrisy of Trump and to diminish his character and their politics ambitions. People are too invested in him to ever admit that he is wrong and it is getting to the point of absurdness. But it is human nature. Same thing applies to users on this very site btw. I have lost count the amount of times l have had to read verbal gymnastics by users when they cannot get out of the hole they have dug for themselves. There are plenty of delusionists out there. You are bound to meet them from time to time.

[Rich]

Hillary (and Bill) were behind Trump's candidacy. Part of the reason that they chose Trump to play spoiler, chose Trump to troll the Republican party was that there was so much dirt on him. They thought they could control him.

Trump won the electoral college. No one who voted for Trump could be in any doubt that Trump was corrupt and had engaged in criminal behaviour. Trump openly asked Putin to hack Hilary and the Democratic Party. Trump would contradict himself in the same sentence. Trump never sought to hide that he was a pathological liar. We have learn nothing new of any substance about Trump since the election.

Hence I see no justification for removing him from office, what so ever. If any thing Trump has out performed my expectations. He's certainly out performed the expectations of ideological Conservatives.

[Beren]

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid?

Maybe he just wanted to join the conversation or test you and others. If there's anyone behind this, it's Congressional Republicans like McConnell and Sessions. If Hillary were president there'd be a "witch hunt" too most likely. I wonder if someone with an MBA from The Citadel doesn't know that.

[Albert]

"There are some things so stupid only intellectuals believe them."

For example feminism, who on earth would ever think that a woman can ever be the same as a man?

[Nonsense]

So here is the deal.

I just returned from a trip to the Southern US. In Georgia I attended a meeting. Naturally, on breaks, the discussion turned to Trump and the mid-term elections. On the day following Cohen pleading guilty to felonies and directly implicating President Trump I mentioned it on the break. One of the men there was a graduate of The Citadel. This is the highest ranked college in the South. He holds an MBA. When I mentioned Cohen's pleading guilty to (among other things) campaign finance violations at the president's request, the man said, "I see Hillary behind this".

I was stunned. So stunned that it took me a second to call him on it. I asked him how in the name of all that is holy he could conclude that a republican attorney, being investigated by a republican US attorney, committing crimes for a republican presidential candidate and then deciding to plead guilty could have anything in the world to do with Hillary Clinton. He stuttered for a moment and then, looking sullen and dogged, moved down the table.

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid? It it possible that these folks are so indoctrinated that they simply cannot imagine thinking for themselves?

I get the trolls here. Trolls I can deal with. This guy was not trolling. He was serious. I am near to concluding that there are some people who are really that stupid. Failing that who are so committed to an ideology that they simply do not even acknowledge the existence of truth.

Folks like that are dangerous. Ask any Jew.

Nonsense- Did you not think to ask that chap as to what he gained his MBA in- it might have been, STUPIDITY, in which case, he was well qualified?

In my experience, we don't hesitate to question self-styled 'experts' on particular subjects, yet, when some rich man's son with a degree comes along, some folks accept their statement's on anything, without questioning it's validity.

In my experience, I think that a well versed amateur is preferable to an 'expert' for their opinion, we too easily give 'experts' credit to which they don't deserve & not enough credit to a well experienced amateur.

[Beren]

"There are some things so stupid only intellectuals believe them."

For example feminism, who on earth would ever think that a woman can ever be the same as a man?

It must be one of your Alice-in-Wonderland moments, right? Because nobody else than you understands how that post happened.

[Nonsense]

"There are some things so stupid only intellectuals believe them."

For example feminism, who on earth would ever think that a woman can ever be the same as a man?

Why on earth would any woman want to be the same as a man, EVOLUTION sorted that one out billions of years ago, so I guess that you have some catching up to do.

In todays world, the opposite proposition is probably true, too many 'men', want to be the same as a woman.

I guess that accounts for the 'gay' plague & reductions in indigenous birth-rates.

Which may also account for the European 'Liberal' elite, wanting so much migration, because European men are too feminine, they think other men's anus's are vaginas & some women think dildo's are penis's.

Somehow, I think that 'education' has become a 'problem' in society & being agog that an MBA is possessed by an ignoramus, is just about par for the course were it not evidently true.

[Zagadka]

We've got some manly men on hand. Very possibly alpha dogs.

[Stormsmith]

I saw this phenomena during the Bush administration. The war, Cheney's fibs, the collapsing economy....so it doesn't surprise me to see it tacked on to Trump, esp when you see interviewers speaking to people on the streets of Small-town America

What I have found heartening is the two jurers on the Manafort trials who have done tv interviews. Two women thought Manafort was guilty if the whole bloody issue. At least one has acknowledged being a born again Trump supporter who said she followed the documents and concluded Manafort was guilty. She also said that the one person who had caused a hung court on ten counts did agree on the same 8, but couldn't be convinced to find him clearly guilty on the remaining 10. It's something.


Albert

Find a feminist thread for your rubbish.

[Suntzu]

So here is the deal.

I just returned from a trip to the Southern US. In Georgia I attended a meeting. Naturally, on breaks, the discussion turned to Trump and the mid-term elections. On the day following Cohen pleading guilty to felonies and directly implicating President Trump I mentioned it on the break. One of the men there was a graduate of The Citadel. This is the highest ranked college in the South. He holds an MBA. When I mentioned Cohen's pleading guilty to (among other things) campaign finance violations at the president's request, the man said, "I see Hillary behind this".

I was stunned. So stunned that it took me a second to call him on it. I asked him how in the name of all that is holy he could conclude that a republican attorney, being investigated by a republican US attorney, committing crimes for a republican presidential candidate and then deciding to plead guilty could have anything in the world to do with Hillary Clinton. He stuttered for a moment and then, looking sullen and dogged, moved down the table.

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid? It it possible that these folks are so indoctrinated that they simply cannot imagine thinking for themselves?

I get the trolls here. Trolls I can deal with. This guy was not trolling. He was serious. I am near to concluding that there are some people who are really that stupid. Failing that who are so committed to an ideology that they simply do not even acknowledge the existence of truth.

Folks like that are dangerous. Ask any Jew.

You are way smarter than that guy!. According to some very knowledgeable folks, paying a hooker not to talk with personal funds is not a violation of any law, campaign or otherwise. Now, mishandling classified information is a felony. Care to talk about that?

[Albert]

It must be one of your Alice-in-Wonderland moments, right? Because nobody else than you understands how that post happened.

[Drlee]

Albert wrote:
"There are some things so stupid only intellectuals believe them."

For example feminism, who on earth would ever think that a woman can ever be the same as a man?

Wow! What an appropriate post for this thread. It is an answer in and of itself.

You know Albert. When you finally start having sex your whole world view will change.

According to some very knowledgeable folks, paying a hooker not to talk with personal funds is not a violation of any law, campaign or otherwise. Now, mishandling classified information is a felony. Care to talk about that?

Start a thread about that and we can talk. Nor is this thread about Trump's troubles. That said, I will point out that you are completely correct. If Trump had paid with personal funds his lawyer would not have plead guilty to campaign finance issues. I'll bet Trump wishes he had just written her a check.

Or, and I only mention this in passing, chosen to be faithful to his wife rather than chasing porn stars. What a concept.

[Zagadka]

paying a hooker not to talk with personal funds is not a violation of any law, campaign or otherwise

Is an incorrect statement. Just because you think something doesn't make it true.

"NOBLE: We're talking about campaign finance laws and the contribution limits and disclosure provisions. If Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, and it was done for the purpose of stopping her to talk about this during the election, then it was an excessive contribution by Michael Cohen. And the campaign should have reported it as a contribution by Cohen and as an expenditure by the campaign. The question here is, was this related to the election? And I think there's strong evidence it was."

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So let me understand this. What you're saying is that Michael Cohen, as a private citizen, basically contributed this money to aid Donald Trump, and so it could be viewed as a campaign contribution. And because it was a huge amount of money and the campaign did not disclose it, that could have violated some laws?

NOBLE: Right. His limit would have been $2,700. Now, a couple of things have had to have happened. One is the campaign either had to know about it or he had to be an agent of the campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/59680536 ... inance-law

"Giuliani emphasized that Cohen was repaid from a personal Trump family account. But Jerry Goldfeder, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and special counsel at Stroock and Stroock and Lavan, said the repayment process remains murky.

"Trump supposedly ‘funneled’ hush money through a law firm — so whose money was really being used?" Goldfeder asked.

Hasen raised the possibility that some facets of the Trump Organization might have been part of the repayment process. That could trigger rules about corporate resources being used for the campaign.

A fundamental question for Hasen is whether Trump was unaware of the payment to Daniels in the first place, as Giuliani said, or if he did know. That would raise questions of a willful act to circumvent campaign reporting rules.

"Those can lead to criminal liability," Hasen wrote."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 064933002/

To the layperson this likely sounds as a slightly more noxious example of business as usual in politics. It's not. Cohen made that very clear when he stood up to accept guilt for his actions, in two phrases.

The payment to McDougal was made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office," he said, adding that it was made "for the principal purpose of influencing the election." The Daniels payment was similarly made "in coordination with and at the direction of the same candidate" and for the same reason.

Those points are important. Making a payment of $130,000 to bury a story is of dubious legality in the abstract. How and if it violates the law depends on the relationship of the person making the payment to the campaign and whether or not such payments were in the standard course of practice of his business.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

Based on Trump's interview on Fox, he seems to think that a campaign-finance violation would have occurred if campaign funds were used to pay off Daniels and McDougal, rather than his personal cash, which was used to reimburse Cohen for the initial Daniels payment. The reverse of this is true, as The Huffington Post first reported.

If Trump had routed money through his campaign to pay off women, it would be legal. Campaigns can spend unlimited amounts of money. The problem would have been that if Trump did use his campaign to pay off any women, it would have defeated the purpose of making the payment, which was to ensure silence. Such an expenditure would have had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission and publicly disclosed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-m ... iew-2018-8

[Suntzu]

Wow! What an appropriate post for this thread. It is an answer in and of itself.

You know Albert. When you finally start having sex your whole world view will change.



Start a thread about that and we can talk. Nor is this thread about Trump's troubles. That said, I will point out that you are completely correct. If Trump had paid with personal funds his lawyer would not have plead guilty to campaign finance issues. I'll bet Trump wishes he had just written her a check.

Or, and I only mention this in passing, chosen to be faithful to his wife rather than chasing porn stars. What a concept.

I agree. Bill Clinton had the morals of a tomcat. I'm sure there is a tape somewhere of Trump directing Cohen to pay the hooker with campaign funds.

[Rancid]

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid? It it possible that these folks are so indoctrinated that they simply cannot imagine thinking for themselves?

Yes and yes.

I'll bet Trump wishes he had just written her a check.

He's either dumb or doesn't have as much money as he say's he has.

[Beren]

He's either dumb or doesn't have as much money as he say's he has.

The campaign funds were treated the same as the assets of the Trump Organization, like Trump's own, and it was campaign expenditures anyway.

[Sivad]

I asked him how in the name of all that is holy he could conclude that a republican attorney, being investigated by a republican US attorney, committing crimes for a republican presidential candidate and then deciding to plead guilty could have anything in the world to do with Hillary Clinton.

Well probably not with Hillary Clinton specifically, that's a bit simplistic, but definitely with that political class network she's connected to. Your reasoning is also laughably simplistic, it assumes the political class self-segregates along party lines. The reality is the establishment clique contains members of both parties and that many of the swamp creatures don't join their party of choice out of any real genuine conviction but simply out of political convenience. The political center is really its own informal party(the establishment party) and it's made up of both Republicans and Democrats. Mueller is nominally a Republican but really he's just representing the establishment within the Republican party.

So the honest question is how a shady two-bit fixer, being investigated by an establishment flexian, committing crimes for a crooked real estate developer running for president and then deciding to plead guilty could have anything in the world to do with the establishment's soft coup against the executive? The answer is pretty simple, he was targeted by the investigation due close ties to Trump, the investigation turned up dirt, and they flipped him.