John Edwards verdict the last straw for campaign finance?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The support of trump is purely a middle fimger to the political establishment. He isnt worshipped or loved. Hes a hammer his voters are using to swat federal flies

Yes, I see that furry. One reply here ages ago stated they saw him as a ''wrecking ball'', and I get that as well. I have stuck my finger in the are thoughout my life and found that it serves little other than to vent and show my own immaturity.

And I understand as well the hope of draining the swamp, of clearing house as it were, but your metaphor of swatting flies with a hammer again using a hammer to swat flies is a fruitless act, they just keep jumping out of the way and landing in another place. Both actions, the finger and the hammer are reactionary.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I never liked Clinton. I once spoke out against her to my mother and two sisters, and was turned on like a rabid dog.
And when she made that deplorable statement, I choked and thought that if by no other means, she had just lost the election. Sure enough, our conservative posters here immediately picked it up and wore it like a cloak of honor.

I see it in a way like a circus. Likening the political scene as a ''dark circus'' Trump supporters seem happy with the clown that runs around the middle ring with his finger in the air making all the liberal audience gasp in shock.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The support of trump is purely a middle fimger to the political establishment. He isnt worshipped or loved. Hes a hammer his voters are using to swat federal flies

Yes, I see that furry. One reply here ages ago stated they saw him as a ''wrecking ball'', and I get that as well. I have stuck my finger in the are thoughout my life and found that it serves little other than to vent and show my own immaturity.

And I understand as well the hope of draining the swamp, of clearing house as it were, but your metaphor of swatting flies with a hammer again using a hammer to swat flies is a fruitless act, they just keep jumping out of the way and landing in another place. Both actions, the finger and the hammer are reactionary.

Actually its not when the flies are swarming around the head of a corrupt broken 2 party political system and a biased media , cause yea Trump misses some flies but he is still beating the head of the bloated system that is fed by self interested PAC's and for the media isnt based on the true story anymore and instead of the slant. The immaturity was started shortly after the election with the tide of the self important Democrats swearing not to work with a duly elected president. They instead have spent every hour trying to manufacture a way to get him out of office. Trump makes waves,stirs the pot, puts sand in the shorts its how he operates and the more you squirm the more it shows the politicians that were fat and content with the status quo on both sides of the aisle. Thing is if the democrats had a low key approach Trump would have probably hurts himself more but instead they have done nothing but solidify and energize the right. November will be interesting can only imagine what its going to be like if the Democrats get another beatdown, you can smell their desperation, and desperation is an extremely poor party platform.

a reply to: putnam6

I don't disagree with any of what you say there. Yes, the Dems did as you say and all that has done was to ''harden the hearts'' of conservatives. Their approach to dealing with Trump was very ''unliberal'' as I understand liberalism. Their reactions to him were just that '' reactionary'' not unlike the refusal of the conservative congress to work with Obama. For that I find the democrat party very very wanting.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: putnam6

I don't disagree with any of what you say there. Yes, the Dems did as you say and all that has done was to ''harden the hearts'' of conservatives. Their approach to dealing with Trump was very ''unliberal'' as I understand liberalism. Their reactions to him were just that '' reactionary'' not unlike the refusal of the conservative congress to work with Obama. For that I find the democrat party very very wanting.

Remember 2 wrongs don't make a right. That said the left's reaction seems way over the top not to mention backed by the media both news and entertainment. They could have taken the high road and been better for it



I'm really not a fan of either party, I agree with some social issues on the left but agree with some financial issues on the right. The left threw so many things that were going to happen once he was President, that hasn't happened, they look very over reactionary. They continue to lose credibility, and amazingly they have no one to challenge in 2020. Id imagine the will recapture some seats in congress and the senate in November, and it will be hailed as a great victory by the media however.

a reply to: putnam6

Remember 2 wrongs don't make a right. That said the left's reaction seems way over the top not to mention backed by the media both news and entertainment. They could have taken the high road and been better for it

Yes.

However, I disagree on the notion that the media is part of the ''left''. It is only leftist because of the sever shift to the right that has happened. The media supports the status quo, the balance that maintains the continued money machine that feeds to wealthy. The big media is already owned by the very wealthy and the smaller media want to BECOME wealthy. When those smaller players stretch the status quo to far, the bigger players push back. That is what i see as happening with the press.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DanDanDat

All I can say is, that if Edwards did what he was accused of, then whether he was found guilty or not is immaterial. Whether legally liable, he is still factually responsible for his actions and their every effect, and should be shunned. There is no question that he cannot be trusted to perform the roles that public office would necessitate he become accustomed to, if he cannot follow campaign finance law.

If a person shoots another person dead in cold blood, but a jury find him innocent, he is guilty of the crime regardless.

The law needs to be more perfect, if it cannot find people who have erred guilty as it should. In this case, Mr Edwards has made either a serious error in judgement or a deliberate effort to bend the rules, and stepping outside the lines should be as deadly dangerous for those in positions of power and high status, as for anyone else. I am certain that anyone else misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars, no matter how noble they might be in other respects, would be in shackles for a considerable time to come. So it must be for the powerful, no matter what banner they stand beneath.

So now people who are found not guilty of a crime are "guilty of the crime regardless"? .... I dont think I want to live in a world where that's true.

a reply to: DanDanDat

If I take a knife and cut a mans throat, but do not get convicted, did I kill the man or not?

If I killed the man, am I guilty of the commission of a murder only if I am convicted? How controlled do you have to be, to believe such a thing?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The reason i use the hammer metaphor is something you understand.

Problem is....im not Sure there is another way.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DanDanDat

If I take a knife and cut a mans throat, but do not get convicted, did I kill the man or not?

If I killed the man, am I guilty of the commission of a murder only if I am convicted? How controlled do you have to be, to believe such a thing?

It would all depend on the motivation and the amount of evidence.

If in your highly hypothetical (and ridiculous) example you had a motive that was 100% illegal (ie not self defense) and the prosecution had 0% evidence of your involvement (ie why they lost the case against you) than sure in this bazro senerio (why was their even a trial at all if they had 0% evidence of your involvement) you would have been found not guilty even though you where guilty.

In the real world however if you where involved in the death of someone else and there was ample evidence of your involvement to warrant a case and the jury found you not guilty of murder than I'd go with you are not guilty of murder.

In the Edwards' case their was no missing information; all the events were known by the jury; their job (like it often is) was to judge those events against the law which was also explained to them in detail. They found he was not guilty of breaking those laws. On top of that the FEC was not convinced Edwards broke the law before the trial against him even started and they are the experts.

But sure sure I'm the "controlled" one for thinking a not-guilty verdict in such a clear cut case really means hes not guilt.... what a free thinker you are for finding an argument (no mater how bazro it is) to find the man still guilty despite the not-guilty verdict in a clear cut case because otherwise it doesnt fit the narrative you want to believe.

a reply to: DanDanDat

The question is, did he physically and factually perform the prohibited action, not whether there was a breakage of the law. The law is mainly concerned with establishing technicality, not concerned with correctly and fully taking account of raw fact.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DanDanDat

The question is, did he physically and factually perform the prohibited action, not whether there was a breakage of the law. The law is mainly concerned with establishing technicality, not concerned with correctly and fully taking account of raw fact.

The jury found that he did not perform a prohibited action. That is why they found him not guilty. The artical I linked to gave several reasons why his actions where not considered prohibited and the jury must have agreed.

Apparently it is not prohibited to pay hush money to an individual in an attempt to save your reputation during an election ... I do understand how that might seem counter intuitive; but it is what it is. The Edwards case was a trial of those campaign finance laws and they did not sand up against his actions.

Listen I'd be the first to say we need more punitive laws that keep politicians in check, I have no love for most of them. But the law is the law and until it changes I cant pretend a man broke the law when it was found that he didn't.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Problem is....im not Sure there is another way.

THAT I do get. For that matter I did hold to the notion of the ''hammer'' when I was younger, a child of the radical sixties.
But I came to terms with the incrementalists, who in those days were the Republicans for the most part with the Dems pulling up the progressive rear kicking and screaming as the youth pushed for change.

The change that was needed back then did not really come about. Sure a lot of the youthful goals came about like men growing beards and long hair, marijuana becoming more normalized, government out of the bedroom and more equally balanced racial opportunities within the social structure, but the major changes that many in those days just never came about, The more structural things that needed to be changed that now adays so many conservatives rail against. The ''establishment'' it's self, the banking industry, wall street, the ever encroaching presence of ''the Man''. Wow, there is a euphanism for the deep state I haven't used in a while.

Anyway, yeah, I get it, The ''hammer''. Thing is though, now that I have let this corrupt system seep far enough into my bones , not my brain so much, but my bones, creaking from decades of toil and arthritis and joints saying ''# off and leave me alone Terry, I don't want the ''hammer'' any more, especially when it is yielded by a moron sleazebag like Trump.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
I think there are numerous questions this case brings up. The rest of the Edwards story, even though he was found innocent was that he lost his standing as a viable liberal candidate. He was finished, the liberals left him in droves. If Trump manages
to avoid legal charges and come out of this unscathed legally, how will be be treated by his base, conservatives? Will they recognize Trump for what he is and give him the same treatment liberals gave to Edwards or will they continue to rally around him.

Is the conservative community so insecure in it's self, so fearful that their principles will not stand on their own merit that they will continue to support this guy or will they drop him and stand on their own.

The truth is, once the candidate is no longer useful or viable to them in any way, the media and other Democrats will abandon them. If that candidate is needed or useful, they will defend literally anything.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Partially I think. The Dems still rely upon that image of being ''the good guy''. When one of their own clearly gets in the way of that yes, they will move on with out that person. The recent sex harassment bits demonstrate this.

That image of being ''the good guy'' is now put forward by the Republicans, casting the Dems as the ''bad guys''.

And while I understand that about the Democrats, it seems clear to me that your final sentence '' If that candidate is needed or useful, they will defend literally anything'' holds true to at least the same degree when considering the rights continuing support of Trump.

My contention is that much of what has been passed with Trump in the cat bird seat was really the Republican agenda that they have been after for a long while. I wonder just how long, now that some of those things are in place, they will continue to think of him as an asset instead of a liability. That I think is the see-saw we are witnessing now.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The reason i use the hammer metaphor is something you understand.

Problem is....im not Sure there is another way.

Yes trump may be sleazy. I think 99.9% of the population knew he was lying when about his escapades and only 50% of the population pretends to care. Hell, if I had the money I’d buy him a beautiful escort every night. He’s got the most stressful job in the world guarding the nuclear button. And a hammer may heavy and slow and not the best way to kill a fly, but when it does get one, man oh man is it scary for the rest of the flies and they get the f out of the area. But enough metaphors. You clearly get what we are saying and because you sound like you have a decade or two on me(I’m 37) I will respectfully agree to disagree and hope experience is wrong this time



PS. I was responding to Terry, not Texan