MennoNet.com

Robert wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:25 am

barnhart wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 am

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:09 pm Might you be isolating that use of “bloodbath” from the larger context? I think he was talking about the car industry…which is a pretty normal way to speak about the economy.

Possibly, but he did say it would be a bloodbath "for the whole country". At minimum this is careless and dangerous rhetoric from a president whose followers have "misinterpreted" his speech as a call to violence before.

I freely admit I have never cared for him going back to his lifestyle in the 90's. He would have to work very hard to gain my sympathy, so it's possible I receive his messaging in a negative light. On the other hand he has a track record of giving motivational speeches to people who understand it as a call to violence. If he were a decent, moral person he would correct that mistake and make extra effort to encourage democratic norms like peaceful transfer of power.

Will you hold the rest of the leaders accountable for using that same term? It is quite a common term used by many in speeches and ad hoc statements.

I'm not ready to commit to holding anyone to account, but if any other candidate has the track record I outlined above, I will certainly notice and I might mention it if their rhetoric begins to show up in the speech of people around me.

In terms of disliking President Trump since the 90's, I might add that I have disliked President Biden even longer, since the 80's. And if he takes up the causes and habits that troubled me then (opposing school desegregation, plagiarizing without credit, silencing reports of sexual assault of powerful people) I will certainly notice and likely mention it.

Robert wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:25 am
Will you hold the rest of the leaders accountable for using that same term? It is quite a common term used by many in speeches and ad hoc statements.

"Joe Biden threatened Bernie Sanders with a “bloodbath” in the 2020 Primary.

Add to that, the media uses the term “bloodbath” readily.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/1 ... e-00146368
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... urge-staff
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-election

barnhart wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 am

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:09 pm Might you be isolating that use of “bloodbath” from the larger context? I think he was talking about the car industry…which is a pretty normal way to speak about the economy.

Possibly, but he did say it would be a bloodbath "for the whole country". At minimum this is careless and dangerous rhetoric from a president whose followers have "misinterpreted" his speech as a call to violence before.

I freely admit I have never cared for him going back to his lifestyle in the 90's. He would have to work very hard to gain my sympathy, so it's possible I receive his messaging in a negative light. On the other hand he has a track record of giving motivational speeches to people who understand it as a call to violence. If he were a decent, moral person he would correct that mistake and make extra effort to encourage democratic norms like peaceful transfer of power.

So do you think that a reasonable way of reading his statement, quoted here in full, is that he suggested there would be a civil war-like event because of Biden's car industry policy vis-à-vis China?

China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us? No. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.

I agree with you in your dislike of him and there's much to dislike. I think though we only enable him and his supporters that see him as unfairly attacked, when we don't hold his statements and actions to the same standards that we would other public figures. Using the term "bloodbath" even a nationwide one, in reference to the economy or an economic policy is a normal, quotidian use of the word. Is this 2009 book or Nouriel Roubini from left-leaning and Soros-funded Project Syndicate calling for a violent civil war? Of course not. Seeing the devil behind every bush disconnects one from reality and lessens ones credibility with others.

The NY fraud case I think is another example of that. In my humble, jurisprudential opinion; he's being held to the letter of the law in a singular way that no one else in a similar position has been held because the D.A. and A.G. Letitia James, want to get him on something. I understand the desire to get him. I'd love to see him taken out of the presidential race by some sort of legal mechanism. The NY fraud case or the 14th amendment/state ballot idea are not the way to do it though because they play into his accusations that his opponents are using lawfare to deny him and his voters their voice.

HK, I see your point but I'll stick with what I said. I think your critique of the NY indictments is stronger for the first case than for the Leticia James case. Its possible both are strengthening P. Trump rather than weakening him as they might prefer. New York does occasionally prosecute rich and powerful people for financial crimes, ie. Martha Stewart, so there is precedent.

I never met Ms. James personally but I did for several years sing in a gospel choir of which she was a founding member. The older choir members all knew her quite well. Her reputation among those who know her looms large. If I were a criminal, I wouldn't want to face her in court.

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:27 amThe NY fraud case I think is another example of that. In my humble, jurisprudential opinion; he's being held to the letter of the law in a singular way that no one else in a similar position has been held because the D.A. and A.G. Letitia James, want to get him on something. I understand the desire to get him. I'd love to see him taken out of the presidential race by some sort of legal mechanism. The NY fraud case or the 14th amendment/state ballot idea are not the way to do it though because they play into his accusations that his opponents are using lawfare to deny him and his voters their voice.

You don't need to rely on your opinion. We can look at how many similar fraud cases have been tried in New York. There have, in fact, been hundreds of fraud cases tried under New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12) which is the law that the Trump Corp was tried under. In addition, there are many cases of civil fines in fraud cases that exceed the Trump fine many times over. For example, in 2022 Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. Fines in these cases are usually scaled to the magnitude of the fraud. and Trump's frauds were in the hundreds of millions.

Trump is, in fact, quite ordinary. The only thing extraordinary about Trump is how long he has managed to skate through life avoiding accountability for his actions. Normal people aren't given so many endless second chances.

Grace wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:23 am

Robert wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:25 am Will you hold the rest of the leaders accountable for using that same term? It is quite a common term used by many in speeches and ad hoc statements.

"Joe Biden threatened Bernie Sanders with a “bloodbath” in the 2020 Primary.

Add to that, the media uses the term “bloodbath” readily.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/1 ... e-00146368
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... urge-staff
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-election

This is a bit late in this discussion, but Ben S’s response to “bloodbath” is worth adding.

“BLOODBATH!” The Fake News Strikes Again / first 7min (-49min total)

Description:
After Donald Trump says another Biden term will bring an economic bloodbath,
the media claim he’s provoking civil war;
we play a game of Good Trump/Bad Trump;
and the Biden administration keeps playing for pro-Hamas votes in Michigan.
Ep.1927

00:00 - The Fake News Strikes Again
7:55 - Jen Psaki: This Is His Message
9:35 - Trump Calls MS-13 ‘Animals’
11:23 - New Yorker Writer Whines About Trump Remark
13:45 - Politico’s Michael Kruse: Humor Is Bad
21:53 - Good Trump, Bad Trump
29:13 - Trump On Israel: Finish It Up And Do It Quickly
30:32 - They’ve Tried Everything On Trump
31:29 - Biden Confused At Michigan Campaign Stop
32:19 - “Report” On Biden’s Hoka Support Shoes
33:36 - Niger Terminates U.S. Military Ties
36:56 - Putin Extends Regime
37:44 - Kirby: We Won’t Support An Operation In Rafah
40:15 - Bash To Bibi: Will You Commit To A New Election Next Year?
43:30 - TikTok
45:44 - Gallagher: Forced Sale Could Happen Before November
46:56 - Swisher: TikTok Isn’t Going Away
48:09 - Outro

- - - - - - -

Kamala (ever-calling) feminists to fight: (regardless of inane word salads, “fight” comes through every time)

Kamala's Intelligence Surpasses Me / 8min


- - - - - - -

Babylon Bee / “Media Reports Trump Threatened Nuclear War After He Says, 'This Guacamole Is The Bomb!' “
https://babylonbee.com/news/media-repor ... s-the-bomb

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:27 pm You don't need to rely on your opinion. We can look at how many similar fraud cases have been tried in New York. There have, in fact, been hundreds of fraud cases tried under New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12) which is the law that the Trump Corp was tried under. In addition, there are many cases of civil fines in fraud cases that exceed the Trump fine many times over. For example, in 2022 Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. Fines in these cases are usually scaled to the magnitude of the fraud. and Trump's frauds were in the hundreds of millions.

Trump is, in fact, quite ordinary. The only thing extraordinary about Trump is how long he has managed to skate through life avoiding accountability for his actions. Normal people aren't given so many endless second chances.

It seems like that is just your opinion.

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.

What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds.

- Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

^^(Add to my above bloodbath post)

Thing is, unlike 2016, both POTUS candidates have served 1 term in the White House.
Which did you prefer? Military involvement? Sanctity of life? Economics?

This is biden’s 3rd term in the White House. A 4th? i pray not.
biden has spent DECADES in elected office, it’s fair to say he has directly contributed to the current state of U.S. politics.

“Fool me once” .. fool me for DECADES??

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:41 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:27 pm You don't need to rely on your opinion. We can look at how many similar fraud cases have been tried in New York. There have, in fact, been hundreds of fraud cases tried under New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12) which is the law that the Trump Corp was tried under. In addition, there are many cases of civil fines in fraud cases that exceed the Trump fine many times over. For example, in 2022 Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. Fines in these cases are usually scaled to the magnitude of the fraud. and Trump's frauds were in the hundreds of millions.

Trump is, in fact, quite ordinary. The only thing extraordinary about Trump is how long he has managed to skate through life avoiding accountability for his actions. Normal people aren't given so many endless second chances.

It seems like that is just your opinion.

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.

What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds.

- Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

No one is taking Trump's businesses away. He is facing a fine that is calibrated to the scale of the fraud, nothing more. Something that he is currently appealing as is his right. If it turns out he doesn't have the money then that is more fraud on his part because not long ago he claimed that he had a something like a half billion in cash alone. If he chooses not to pay his fines then he may have assets seized. That is the way that fines work. Basically the chickens are coming home to roost.

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 2:37 pm

HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 1:41 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:27 pm You don't need to rely on your opinion. We can look at how many similar fraud cases have been tried in New York. There have, in fact, been hundreds of fraud cases tried under New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12) which is the law that the Trump Corp was tried under. In addition, there are many cases of civil fines in fraud cases that exceed the Trump fine many times over. For example, in 2022 Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for fraudulent marketing. Fines in these cases are usually scaled to the magnitude of the fraud. and Trump's frauds were in the hundreds of millions.

Trump is, in fact, quite ordinary. The only thing extraordinary about Trump is how long he has managed to skate through life avoiding accountability for his actions. Normal people aren't given so many endless second chances.

It seems like that is just your opinion.

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.

What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds.

- Dissolving Trump’s business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

No one is taking Trump's businesses away. He is facing a fine that is calibrated to the scale of the fraud, nothing more. Something that he is currently appealing as is his right. If it turns out he doesn't have the money then that is more fraud on his part because not long ago he claimed that he had a something like a half billion in cash alone. If he chooses not to pay his fines then he may have assets seized. That is the way that fines work. Basically the chickens are coming home to roost.

Again, this is your opinion, which you're entitled to. I could care less if Trump loses his businesses...I have no love for the man nor would I ever vote for him (If I voted). Nevertheless, this fraud case was one without a victim to show harm - and the fines were in fact exorbitant. If he hadn't managed to secure a lowered bond amount he would have in fact begun losing his businesses. A quite chirpy Letitia James was clear about that: "We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers, and yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," .

As it is, The New Republic agrees with me that he's being treated differently and they prove my thesis that they think they ought to because: "he needs to be gotten".

Is New York State treating Donald Trump differently from other real estate scofflaws in requiring him to disgorge $454 million by Monday? Yes. Would another such person who lied to banks and insurance companies about the value of his real estate holdings become the target of a major investigation by the state attorney general? Probably not. Was Judge Arthur F. Engeron, in handing down last month his $454 million judgment against Trump, trying to banish Trump from New York’s real estate industry? Possibly so.

- Trump’s $454M Penalty Is Exceptional Because Trump Is an Exception