2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Berzerker]

It sounds like an act of complete hypocrisy. She campaigns against mandatory sentencing and she supports Donald Trump who believes in segregation, trigger-happy police and the death penalty.


Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Marie_Johnson

wow, a victim of Joe Biden's drug war was put in a cage for life and Trump freed her 2+ decades later and she wont vote for Joe? What an ingrate, definitely a genuinely unpleasant person. I guess that explains why Nicholas Sandmann is genuinely unpleasant, his sin was wearing a MAGA hat while being white.

Your link doesn't mention her politics. If you were in prison for life and Trump freed you, what would you do if you had a chance to publicly thank him and promote the cause of criminal justice reform? No no no, she cant do that because that means she supports Trump. Maybe, I sure cant see her voting for Joe. Why didn't Biden invite her to speak at the Dems convention?

 

[amadeus]

I don’t see why news networks should be showing high schoolers in the first place. A teenage Republican (or Democrat) isn’t really news, is it?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, he's a victim of our shake-and-bake outrage machine. I think of him like Lewinsky, where he could have a lot of very useful things to say as he matures

 

[amadeus]

I don’t see the Lewinsky comparison, but I agree he’s a victim.

 

[Berzerker]

I wish the country had his maturity

 

[Kyriakos]

At least Nicholas Sandmann got a few million dollars out of the political climate in the US.
I wonder when he will morph into Coppelius.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Day 3 looks especially uninteresting besides Kellyanne

I wonder if she will still be speaking after now resigning...

Apparently her being a very vocal supporter of Trump, her husband being a leading conservative critic of Trump, and having a 15 year old daughter who was a vocal liberal online was starting (among other things presumably) to take its toll on their family life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53885239

 

[Zardnaar]

I wonder if she will still be speaking after now resigning...

Apparently her being a very vocal supporter of Trump, her husband being a leading conservative critic of Trump, and having a 15 year old daughter who was a vocal liberal online was starting (among other things presumably) to take its toll on their family life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53885239

Apparently she wasn't a true believer, but yeah best she steps away if she gives a crap about her family.

Husband is a lawyer????

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I wonder if she will still be speaking after now resigning...

Apparently her being a very vocal supporter of Trump, her husband being a leading conservative critic of Trump, and having a 15 year old daughter who was a vocal liberal online was starting (among other things presumably) to take its toll on their family life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53885239

The only way to ever get it through to conservatives that their political beliefs are toxic is by their friends and family abandoning them, until then they're more than happy to continue with the status quo

 

[Gorbles]

Well, he's a victim of our shake-and-bake outrage machine. I think of him like Lewinsky, where he could have a lot of very useful things to say as he matures

Ah yes, the poor victim, the boy whose parents hired a PR firm to handle his public statements. Whose family-instigated lawsuit against the Washington Post was dismissed because WaPo didn't actually say he was racist. They had to amend the complaint for it to get anywhere.

Meanwhile, the other man in the situation was demeaned from here (in OT) to kingdom come, with everybody seemingly desperate to dig up dirt on his life. Personally, I wouldn't trust the boy that had a PR firm crafting his statements for him either. Doesn't speak of the useful things he might have to say

I get it, it's easy to react against what you call the outrage machine. But here it seems kneejerk, rather than because of the validity of the events themselves, which are also significantly ideologically-biased to be enough of a tangent in of itself. If Sandmann is a worthy speaker, so is whoever represents the Washington Post, or perhaps Phillips himself. But that isn't the case, the perspective here is purely because of the "outrage machine", and how the "media targets conservatives". I can guarantee that much. If Sandmann does mature into a person whose accounts are worth hearing, being embedded in this kind of function isn't going to help that, in my opinion.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not holding anything against anyone for whom the system completely failed and then they were rescued at random. Both she and Sandmann were rescued by powerful external and powerful forces. That's going to form an impression. They'll have insights, but if you want to say that they've been massaged and managed into giving the speeches they'll give, you're not going to be wrong. The amount that they've, effectively, been compensated by is so overwhelming that I cannot judge them. If I view them as pawns, I do it without prejudice. If I'd been in their place, there's nearly certain odds that I'd be loyal to my rescuers as well.

Gor, you'll falling for a classic case of dehumanization. He's a kid and he needed to be extremely lucky to get protection (if you think it was just his parents funding the PR firm ... I totally doubt it).

Excoriation of the occasional person in order to cow the rest of the populace into behaving correctly is one of the few tools we have for social change. But "make an example of them" is a completely illiberal viewpoint of ends justifying the means. It has to be done regretfully, not callously. If you don't see these individuals as victims of the process, then you're just wrong. The fact that he needed external help to land on his feet (probably) doesn't really change anything. Hiroshima got rebuilt as well, after all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wonder if she will still be speaking after now resigning...

Apparently her being a very vocal supporter of Trump, her husband being a leading conservative critic of Trump, and having a 15 year old daughter who was a vocal liberal online was starting (among other things presumably) to take its toll on their family life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53885239

She always struck me as somewhat of a mercenary. A lot of the time when she was making her trademark preposterous defenses of Trump, she would make a mischievous smile or you could detect a sly little smirk... as if she was fully aware that she was full of it, but was enjoying the challenge of defending the indefensible. And she was quite masterful at it, truly an artist she was.

 

[El_Machinae]

I always liked her. I dunno, I just viewed her as a paid actress playing a roll. You know how some drug dealers say "If I didn't do it, someone just would"? And then the idea kinda resonates but also repulses? That's the slot I put her into. Someone else would do it if she didn't.

During the height of #metoo, she intimated that a huge number of politicians had made too aggressive moves on her and that she wasn't weaponizing it for her own reasons. I believed her.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, the media needs to be taken as at least half poop in the ham sandwich. Anyone remember that guy that did the video where he selective edited a lady walking around New York to show a bunch of black guys catcalling her? Apparently he picked up on his target audience not being amenable to his previous target stooges, so now he's done a video of himself standing with a BLM sign near the headquarters of the KKK. Bear in mind, he had to edit out all the people that brought him water and encouraged him to make his narrative pay the piper(I guess he left one in, right at the end). But yeah, the kid was just being a kid. Bunch of professional lifewreckers-for-profit got a hold of him. More news at 11.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not holding anything against anyone for whom the system completely failed and then they were rescued at random. Both she and Sandmann were rescued by powerful external and powerful forces. That's going to form an impression. They'll have insights, but if you want to say that they've been massaged and managed into giving the speeches they'll give, you're not going to be wrong. The amount that they've, effectively, been compensated by is so overwhelming that I cannot judge them. If I view them as pawns, I do it without prejudice. If I'd been in their place, there's nearly certain odds that I'd be loyal to my rescuers as well.

Gor, you'll falling for a classic case of dehumanization. He's a kid and he needed to be extremely lucky to get protection (if you think it was just his parents funding the PR firm ... I totally doubt it).

Excoriation of the occasional person in order to cow the rest of the populace into behaving correctly is one of the few tools we have for social change. But "make an example of them" is a completely illiberal viewpoint of ends justifying the means. It has to be done regretfully, not callously. If you don't see these individuals as victims of the process, then you're just wrong. The fact that he needed external help to land on his feet (probably) doesn't really change anything. Hiroshima got rebuilt as well, after all.

I'm not dehumanising anybody. Do you see me defending the Black Hebrew Israelites? Or the death threats received? I'm pointing out that if there is a victim in this situation, he is not a singular example of it.

As for the PR firm, well, that's all I can get on public record - that his parents hired one. They helped craft his statements. That's not just "protection", that's damage control. I'd have loved to have seen other individuals enjoy that kind of benefit during that incident. That's the problem here. You're painting someone who a) had their family lawsuit dismissed and b) had more personal protection than most others involved in the incident as nothing but a victim.

The system did not fail him. If you make the case that he did, I would contend that at the very least, the system did not just fail him, which is why I pointed out that him and him alone being a speaker at this event does not present a balanced view on the subject. What about his classmates? What about Phillips?

If I'm falling for a classic case of dehumanisation, you're falling for a constructed narrative. The truth is often not at one of either of those extremes Regardless of my agreement with the teenager, or the incident, a lot of public behaviour was uncalled for. But comparing his case to the bombing of Hiroshima is perhaps not the nuanced comparison you're looking for, here. That denies his agency and involvement in the incident, nevermind anything else (really, it's just a distasteful comparison in general). That denies the fact that the law found little in the way of victimisation by the lawsuits that people love to hold up as evidence. You can call him a victim if you want, but please do not enforce that people share your opinion, by framing it as they're falling for something nefarious simply because they have a different interpretation of the situation.

I picked on this because you attributed it to the "outrage machine". It's a way of delegitimising actual criticism, and I dislike it. The boy decided to get up close and personal with a protestor, and a Native American at that. He wore a MAGA hat. Which there was a huge, generally-circular thread about. In hindsight, an effective counterargument would've been "are people judged for wearing a BLM shirt", and hey, yes, they are. People will draw political conclusions from the wearing of specific slogans. From this comes legitimate - not manufactured - criticism. The fact that manufactured outrage for the sake of media clicks also happened should not invalidate the existence of actual criticism, nor holding the boy to it in the first place. And yet we have the conflation of this kid, this speaker at a political convention, and victimhood based on the outsized attention received due to the virality of social media. One is not the other. And if being harassed on social media is a qualifier to hear someone's opinions on the state of the world, I have a long list of progressives that I'm sure would be welcomed into said convention

I don't do this to play down the scale and manner of the harassment. I do this because that seems to apparently be the driving force in his role as a victim in this situation, and thus your approval of his inclusion. That, and I know of enough people who have been through a similar or even greater level of harassment, for a longer period of time.

 

[El_Machinae]

Some people think of CNN et al. as allies instead of faceless corporations designed to milk money from the system. So, the fact that someone wins a lawsuit against them (especially if they're aided by deep pockets) won't make me think of those people as victims of those corporate policies any more than I think of McDonalds Coffee Lady as anything other than a victim of corporate greed.

When we were shuttling money to AT&T by gleefully giving them clicks while excoriating a kid, we couldn't have known that they'd massaged the image AND that he'd have eventual benefactors sticking up from him. We wanted to excoriate in order to teach everyone else a lesson.

I don't think he has much of value to say yet, all of his speech will be trained and massaged. I don't hold it against him that he's up there (the magnitude of the assistance he was given is overwhelming). I said up thread that I think that later on he could have valuable insights, like Lewinsky did after she survived her decades of humiliation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I always liked her. I dunno, I just viewed her as a paid actress playing a roll. You know how some drug dealers say "If I didn't do it, someone just would"? And then the idea kinda resonates but also repulses? That's the slot I put her into. Someone else would do it if she didn't.

During the height of #metoo, she intimated that a huge number of politicians had made too aggressive moves on her and that she wasn't weaponizing it for her own reasons. I believed her.

I share that view of her, she seemed to be genuinely invested in doing her job absolutely the best that she could, enjoy being the best at what she did, and able to compartmentalize the morality of it all. Despite the fact that her whole M/O was lying non-stop, so her credibility is essentially zero, I also believe that politicians were probably hitting on her, especially given the role she had. It seems like the job she was doing would have provided a ready excuse to view her as a person who would do anything to get ahead, so it would have been easier to objectify her and/or tell themselves that she would be open to affairs and such.

Oh, the media needs to be taken as at least half poop in the ham sandwich. Anyone remember that guy that did the video where he selective edited a lady walking around New York to show a bunch of black guys catcalling her? Apparently he picked up on his target audience not being amenable to his previous target stooges, so now he's done a video of himself standing with a BLM sign near the headquarters of the KKK. Bear in mind, he had to edit out all the people that brought him water and encouraged him to make his narrative pay the piper(I guess he left one in, right at the end). But yeah, the kid was just being a kid. Bunch of professional lifewreckers-for-profit got a hold of him. More news at 11.

I like the video of the lady who actually responds to the cat-callers instead of ignoring them.

Catcaller: Yo baby you wanna get married?
Lady: *turns and steps toward the cat-caller* Yes! *stares at him*
Catcaller: *tucks tail between legs and scurries away*


Catcaller: Hey mami, smile!
Lady: Say something funny
Catcaller: Oh... well, uh, umm, uhhh
Lady: Bzzzzzzzt! Too late!

 

[Farm Boy]

That would be way more fun.

You have a link to that one?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And this story was just posted by the Washington Post:

New York attorney general sues Trump Organization, revealing state investigation into the company’s financial dealings

President Trump attends a news conference in the White House Aug. 23. (Erin Scott/Reuters)
By
David A. Fahrenthold
August 24, 2020 at 11:32 a.m. MDT

The New York Attorney General is investigating President Trump’s private business for a allegedly misleading lenders by inflating the value of its assets, the attorney general’s office said Monday in a legal filing. In the filing, signed by a deputy to Attorney General Letitia James, the attorney general’s office said it is investigating Trump’s use of “Statements of Financial Condition” — documents Trump sent to lenders, summarizing his assets and debts. The filing asks a New York state judge to compel the Trump Organization to provide information it has been withholding from investigators — including a subpoena seeking an interview with the president’s son Eric.

The attorney general’s office said began investigating after Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, told Congress in February 2019 that Trump had used these statements to inflate his net worth to lenders. The filing said that Eric Trump had been scheduled to be interviewed in the investigation in late July, but abruptly canceled that interview. The filing says that Eric Trump is now refusing to be interviewed, with Eric Trump’s lawyers saying “we cannot allow the requested interview to go forward … pursuant to those rights afforded to every individual under the Constitution.” Many of the details of the investigation were redacted or left out of the filing. But it mentioned valuations of three Trump properties: a Los Angeles golf course, an office building at 40 Wall Street and a country estate called “Seven Springs” in Westchester County, N.Y.

Last year, The Washington Post reported that Trump had inflated the potential sale value of the Seven Springs property in a “Statement of Financial Condition” — a type of document he sent to potential lenders to demonstrate his wealth.

In 2011, Trump’s statement claimed that the property had been “zoned for nine luxurious homes,” and that the value of those home lots raised the value of the overall property to $261 million — far more than the $20 million assessed by local authorities. Local officials said Trump had received preliminary conceptual approval for those homes, but never completed the process or obtained final zoning permission. The homes were never built.

The court filing also mentions a question about a loan on Trump’s Chicago Hotel, which one of Trump’s lenders forgave in 2010. The filing does not say why that forgiven loan is of interest to investigators. The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment on Monday morning. Trump still owns his businesses, though he says he has given day-to-day control over to his sons. This is not Trump’s first fight with the New York Attorney General. A previous attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, sued Trump for defrauding students at his “Trump University,” in a case that led Trump’s school to pay $25 million to settle in 2016.

Later, the Attorney General’s office sued Trump for misusing donations in his nonprofit, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, to buy art for his clubs, pay off legal obligations for his businesses and to help his own political campaign. That suit ended last November, with a state judge ordering Trump to pay $2 million in damages.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance (D) is also leading an investigation into the Trump Organization. Vance has subpoenaed the Trump Organization’s longtime accountants, Mazars USA, for eight years of the president’s tax returns and other tax preparation documents. Trump sought to block that subpoena, on the grounds that he was immune to criminal investigation as president. He lost at the Supreme Court, and now his lawyers are fighting an effort to block the subpoena on other grounds.

The scope of Vance’s investigation remains unclear. It began with an inquiry into payoffs made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels — who said she had an affair with Trump — before the 2016 election. But in recent court filings, Vance has suggested that he may be looking into financial practices at the Trump Organization as well.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That would be way more fun.

You have a link to that one?

Enjoy:

Spoiler :

And this story was just posted by the Washington Post:

New York attorney general sues Trump Organization, revealing state investigation into the company’s financial dealings

President Trump attends a news conference in the White House Aug. 23. (Erin Scott/Reuters)
By
David A. Fahrenthold
August 24, 2020 at 11:32 a.m. MDT

The New York Attorney General is investigating President Trump’s private business for a allegedly misleading lenders by inflating the value of its assets, the attorney general’s office said Monday in a legal filing. In the filing, signed by a deputy to Attorney General Letitia James, the attorney general’s office said it is investigating Trump’s use of “Statements of Financial Condition” — documents Trump sent to lenders, summarizing his assets and debts. The filing asks a New York state judge to compel the Trump Organization to provide information it has been withholding from investigators — including a subpoena seeking an interview with the president’s son Eric.

The attorney general’s office said began investigating after Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, told Congress in February 2019 that Trump had used these statements to inflate his net worth to lenders. The filing said that Eric Trump had been scheduled to be interviewed in the investigation in late July, but abruptly canceled that interview. The filing says that Eric Trump is now refusing to be interviewed, with Eric Trump’s lawyers saying “we cannot allow the requested interview to go forward … pursuant to those rights afforded to every individual under the Constitution.” Many of the details of the investigation were redacted or left out of the filing. But it mentioned valuations of three Trump properties: a Los Angeles golf course, an office building at 40 Wall Street and a country estate called “Seven Springs” in Westchester County, N.Y.

Last year, The Washington Post reported that Trump had inflated the potential sale value of the Seven Springs property in a “Statement of Financial Condition” — a type of document he sent to potential lenders to demonstrate his wealth.

In 2011, Trump’s statement claimed that the property had been “zoned for nine luxurious homes,” and that the value of those home lots raised the value of the overall property to $261 million — far more than the $20 million assessed by local authorities. Local officials said Trump had received preliminary conceptual approval for those homes, but never completed the process or obtained final zoning permission. The homes were never built.

The court filing also mentions a question about a loan on Trump’s Chicago Hotel, which one of Trump’s lenders forgave in 2010. The filing does not say why that forgiven loan is of interest to investigators. The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment on Monday morning. Trump still owns his businesses, though he says he has given day-to-day control over to his sons. This is not Trump’s first fight with the New York Attorney General. A previous attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, sued Trump for defrauding students at his “Trump University,” in a case that led Trump’s school to pay $25 million to settle in 2016.

Later, the Attorney General’s office sued Trump for misusing donations in his nonprofit, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, to buy art for his clubs, pay off legal obligations for his businesses and to help his own political campaign. That suit ended last November, with a state judge ordering Trump to pay $2 million in damages.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance (D) is also leading an investigation into the Trump Organization. Vance has subpoenaed the Trump Organization’s longtime accountants, Mazars USA, for eight years of the president’s tax returns and other tax preparation documents. Trump sought to block that subpoena, on the grounds that he was immune to criminal investigation as president. He lost at the Supreme Court, and now his lawyers are fighting an effort to block the subpoena on other grounds.

The scope of Vance’s investigation remains unclear. It began with an inquiry into payoffs made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels — who said she had an affair with Trump — before the 2016 election. But in recent court filings, Vance has suggested that he may be looking into financial practices at the Trump Organization as well.

At this point, Trump is in the same mess as Julius Caesar... he has to try to stay in office indefinitely to protect himself from criminal prosecution.