Former president trump indicted.

[tstorm823]

Generally speaking, liberals got slightly more liberal and conservatives got a *lot* more conservative.

The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades

On average, Democrats and Republicans are farther apart ideologically today than at any time in the past 50 years.

www.pewresearch.org

Which makes sense: the '08 election saw conservatives go absolutely *berserk*. Birtherism, the Tea Party, etc. John McCain when from firebrand conservative to moderate without changing any actual opinion.

That is interesting data, but I think it's important to qualify what it is actually measuring. The data isn't about the scale of the ideology left or right, it's about the consistency in the voting. It's not "liberals got more liberal and conservatives got a lot more conservative", it's "Democrats started voting more consistently liberal" and "Republicans started voting a lot more consistently conservative".

The New York Times had an interesting piece in 2016 about the polarization of US politics:

Opinion | What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity? (Published 2019)

The Republican Party is farther right than U.K.I.P. and France’s National Rally, according to an analysis of their platforms.

www.nytimes.com

The data for this one attempted to put a scale on how left or right certain ideas were, analyze the rhetoric of party manifestos, and plot those parties on a left-right axis. Obviously theres assumptions and biases and limitations to this analysis as well, but the most interesting part was mapping the two parties over time ideologically:


The stated ideology of the Republican Party has pretty much stayed still. The Manifesto Project has analyses back to 1948, the Republican Party fluctuated between 0 and +20 on their scaleup until 1980, and has been firmly planted in the 20-30 zone since. The Democratic Party was consistently -20 on their scale until the 90s and 2000s where wars in the Middle East pushed them just right of the center line, before crashing back left hard from 2008 onward. (Side note, the New York Times being themselves chose a misleading center line. They plotted the median party, which pulls the center left because the world has many, many small left wing parties and not many small right wing parties. The zero axis from the source data, using a mean by scaling parties by how many people they represent, would go pretty much straight through the Democrats in 2004.)

It's not that Republicans went ultra-conservative, the party basically stood still ideologically. It's that they consistently stopped voting for the Democrats' bills.

 

[Worgen]

BLM had about a dozen killed over 9ish months. Some others were killed at nearby pro-Trump rallies

This is compared to LA in 92 where 63 died... in a week. There was around 20 mil across the country for BLM and we have no data for LA protests but highly likely way less.

So yes, it was very different

I mean... yeah? The national guard were called in, this is what you would expect, they can only be sent in after the request of the state governor, the president cant just sent them in without that request, unless its in DC cause DC is weird.

 

[tippy2k2]

There is the possibility that it will motivate trumps base. Like if the right can make the charges look like bunk or even just silly politically motivated. I can totally see his idiots loving a "tough" looking mug shot. And you know that republicans will be running on this being a witch hunt etc etc.

But again, that's not adding to his base or changing minds from Not Trump to Trump. I suppose maybe the current supporters would pour more energy into getting him reelected with this but he's not adding people to his army, his current army might go from 9.5 on the crazy meter to 10 on the crazy meter.

There may be a contingent of Republicans who were looking to support DeSantis because of Trump's foul-ups, but see the indictment as some sort of attack on the Republican party as a whole. How large would that contingent be? I have no idea.

There's bound to be a couple thousand people who would have said No to Trump but Yes to DeSantis who would now switch but I'm very confident it would be a negligible amount. If there's one thing Republican's are good at, it's throwing away their own beliefs and opinions to vote in line with the party. It's half super admirable and half incredibly pathetic.

 

[MrCalavera]

Not a defense of Trump, he deserved to be in jail before he even started running, but it's funny to just admit that former presidents are safe from prosecution, as long as they atleast try to keep a kayfabe.
And even then it's for something politically embarassing, but petty, like paying a pornstar from public funds, instead, oh i dunno, encouraging a lynch mob.

I'm not a great political mind but I'm not understanding all of the "THIS WILL GET TRUMP ELECTED NOW!" rhetoric.

Is there a single soul out there who was not on Team Trump but now this is what flipped them? I kind of feel like you're either Team Trump or you're not at this point...

There was some theorizing that Trump could serve as a spoilsport for GOP nominee, as his most devouted fanatics would write him in regardless, and take away votes from DeSantis.
Now, AFAIK, if Trump gets convicted, that would prohibit him from running? Which would pretty much only leave Florida Man on the ballot.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

OK. Fact remains that in doing so, Clinton was not engaged in anything corrupt or uncommon.



I'm sorry, but this narrative simply doesn't make sense.

The investigation was already over. How on earth could there be a quid pro quo in order to stop an investigation... when that investigation was already over? There was no investigation that could've even hypothetically impacted Hunter.

You've twisted this into knots because you want to find corruption. But it simply doesn't add up.

Of course there's been no investigation into Biden or Clinton and there's no evidence.
I mean I can't see why people would be reluctant to investigate such stuff when people who claim to have evidence keep being found mysteriously dead in fields.

Seth Rich: How a young man's murder attracted conspiracy theories

One question remains unanswered: Who killed Seth Rich?

www.bbc.co.uk

Suicide of Vince Foster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Police investigating death of TV anchor who uncovered Clinton tarmac meeting as suicide

Police in Alabama said this weekend they are investigating the death of the television news reporter who broke a story in 2016 about a secret tarmac meeting between former President Clinton and for…

thehill.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

But again, that's not adding to his base or changing minds from Not Trump to Trump. I suppose maybe the current supporters would pour more energy into getting him reelected with this but he's not adding people to his army, his current army might go from 9.5 on the crazy meter to 10 on the crazy meter.



There's bound to be a couple thousand people who would have said No to Trump but Yes to DeSantis who would now switch but I'm very confident it would be a negligible amount. If there's one thing Republican's are good at, it's throwing away their own beliefs and opinions to vote in line with the party. It's half super admirable and half incredibly pathetic.

I mean on a political message level

"The deep state are fighting back"

Kind of has a lot more weight to it if you're facing a litany of charges and it has a ton more weight in Trump is seen to be beating them or if he does actually very quickly beat them.

For better or worse Hillary had a base.
Biden had a base but a lot of it was "Well I'm not Trump" and seems like a number of people are regretting the choice because of the unintended impact it's been having on them.

 

[Silvanus]

That is the dog that didn't bark. Heh, Sherlock again!

So now you're considering the absence of an investigation as... evidence that they were corrupt? Am i reading this right? So if there was an investigation that got halted = Biden is guilty. And if there wasn't an investigation that got halted = Biden is guilty. So... there's no set of circumstances you won't consider to indicate guilt.

Can you not see how you've put yourself into a headspace in which any evidence, or any lack thereof, will always lead you to the same conclusion, because you want it to be true?

 

[Silvanus]

Of course there's been no investigation into Biden or Clinton and there's no evidence.
I mean I can't see why people would be reluctant to investigate such stuff when people who claim to have evidence keep being found mysteriously dead in fields.

Ah, this old trash conspiracy theory.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So now you're considering the absence of an investigation as... evidence that they were corrupt? Am i reading this right? So if there was an investigation that got halted = Biden is guilty. And if there wasn't an investigation that got halted = Biden is guilty. So... there's no set of circumstances you won't consider to indicate guilt.

Can you not see how you've put yourself into a headspace in which any evidence, or any lack thereof, will always lead you to the same conclusion, because you want it to be true?

You're just saying that because you haven't been publicly investigated for corruption, so therefore are corrupt yourself, aren't you?

 

[Silvanus]

You're just saying that because you haven't been publicly investigated for corruption, so therefore are corrupt yourself, aren't you?

That money was just resting in my account!

 

[Hades]

Its very funny. The right is always in favor of stricter punishment for criminals. ''If you can't do the time then don't do the crime''

But the moment one of their own breaks the law then suddenly the right suddenly gets very invested in ensuring the crimes don't get punished. Even openly take the stance of ''yeah he did it but we just don't want to impeach him for it''. Twice even!

 

[Ag3ma]

Its very funny. The right is always in favor of stricter punishment for criminals. ''If you can't do the time then don't do the crime''

But the moment one of their own breaks the law then suddenly the right suddenly gets very invested in ensuring the crimes don't get punished. Even openly take the stance of ''yeah he did it but we just don't want to impeach him for it''. Twice even!

Ah, but you're missing a trick here. The point is that Trump hasn't yet been found guilty of committing these crimes. The argument is that it's an abuse of power to investigate the ex-president for committing any crimes, in which case he's innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Its very funny. The right is always in favor of stricter punishment for criminals. ''If you can't do the time then don't do the crime''

But the moment one of their own breaks the law then suddenly the right suddenly gets very invested in ensuring the crimes don't get punished. Even openly take the stance of ''yeah he did it but we just don't want to impeach him for it''. Twice even!

And small governments that don't impose on people's freedoms, unless it's other people's freedoms.

And the free market until it's their company failing that needs a bailout.

And free speech until someone says something they don't like.

And

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ah, this old trash conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory or not, would you want to be the one to test it?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Its very funny. The right is always in favor of stricter punishment for criminals. ''If you can't do the time then don't do the crime''

But the moment one of their own breaks the law then suddenly the right suddenly gets very invested in ensuring the crimes don't get punished. Even openly take the stance of ''yeah he did it but we just don't want to impeach him for it''. Twice even!

Ok the level of this being "criminal" is comical so far to be clear.

30 charges.

The strongest of which (or at least the one the media are running with as the massive gotcha for Trump) is he knowingly directed some-one working for him to use campaign funds to pay off an adult entertainer.

If we're going down this line I can't wait for all the politicians who have paid professional "scrubbers" to wipe stuff about them from the internet. Or is that fine but Trump's case is a special case or something?

I think most politicians who aren't thinking purely partisan will look at Trump being indicted and shudder because if one side does this the other will too and like it or not I'm sure some-one could argue I don't know Hillary Clinton paying for an army of trolls to attack people online was a misuse of campaign funds.

At this stage it's all about which hand did Trump pay with almost.

That's the specifics of this because it's totally fine for Trump to pay her off as long as he used the right proverbial hand to do it and that's the ultimate comical thing.

This will be far more red tape law than actual law. Its fining some-one because on every 7th Tuesday except 1 a year people have to move their cars across the street but on that 1 Tuesday moving them gets you fined on the other side of the street or something.

Of all the things to go after Trump for this is the most petty bureaucratic thing of them all.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Its very funny. The right is always in favor of stricter punishment for criminals. ''If you can't do the time then don't do the crime''

But the moment one of their own breaks the law then suddenly the right suddenly gets very invested in ensuring the crimes don't get punished. Even openly take the stance of ''yeah he did it but we just don't want to impeach him for it''. Twice even!

"You can't investigate us because you're just as guilty! And that's why you should be in jail!"

 

[Ag3ma]

Ok the level of this being "criminal" is comical so far to be clear.

30 charges.

This is standard for the US justice system, though: throw every charge that looks even vaguely plausible and see what sticks. It is comical, but it's not unusual and no-one can pretend it's specific to Trump.

I think most politicians who aren't thinking purely partisan will look at Trump being indicted and shudder because if one side does this the other will too and like it or not I'm sure some-one could argue I don't know Hillary Clinton paying for an army of trolls to attack people online was a misuse of campaign funds.

Good.

I can't think of anything better to clean house than both political parties dedicating themselves to exposing corruption in each others' ranks, in a lava jato style mass of trials. When the dust finally settles, maybe everyone left free to hold office will be more honest.

I'm all for transparency and accountability. When the FBI raided the homes of Biden and Pence to see if they had any classified materials left around - good. We want more of this. Drain the swamp. I mean actually drain it, not have the nation's swampiest muck monster squat in the White House for four years and then complain when someone checks out the dirt he smeared over the place.

 

[Worgen]

But again, that's not adding to his base or changing minds from Not Trump to Trump. I suppose maybe the current supporters would pour more energy into getting him reelected with this but he's not adding people to his army, his current army might go from 9.5 on the crazy meter to 10 on the crazy meter.

Well, never underestimate how important getting people out to vote is. But really it all comes down to where we are next year, no amount of imponent fury matters if people don't care when the time of the election comes up. Conservatives will milk this for all its worth and if they can convince people that hes convicted or maybe even recklessly prosecuted for something silly then it could help him with those that aren't politically informed. The story I will bet they will run with is that this is just about Stormy Daniels, that its only about a payout to a porn star for an affair. They will try and ignore any other criminal charges involved in this one. But, if trump walks then it makes him look good, look at how many people thought the Mueller investigation had exonerated him when really that investigation could only find him innocent or not not guilty.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This is standard for the US justice system, though: throw every charge that looks even vaguely plausible and see what sticks. It is comical, but it's not unusual and no-one can pretend it's specific to Trump.



Good.

I can't think of anything better to clean house than both political parties dedicating themselves to exposing corruption in each others' ranks, in a lava jato style mass of trials. When the dust finally settles, maybe everyone left free to hold office will be more honest.

I'm all for transparency and accountability. When the FBI raided the homes of Biden and Pence to see if they had any classified materials left around - good. We want more of this. Drain the swamp. I mean actually drain it, not have the nation's swampiest muck monster squat in the White House for four years and then complain when someone checks out the dirt he smeared over the place.

Yeh but in Trumps case the point is I doubt he'd deny the idea of paying her hush money. The issue is basically the source of the money and if Trump filed it correctly, it's kind of not even in the spirit of honesty or not here it's in the spirit of bureaucracy.

In terms of the 30 charges thing that's the strongest of them seemingly that they're leading with. That Trump filed his money wrong. Being honest this seems like a huge waste of resources if that's the strongest of them and the evidence for that is the testimony of a lawyer presently going down for other charges. Hell if it turns out Trump paid using another account not his campaign fund account the case collapses and it becomes "Wait Trump didn't even use campaign funds to pay for the legal stuff linked to his campaign?".

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, never underestimate how important getting people out to vote is. But really it all comes down to where we are next year, no amount of imponent fury matters if people don't care when the time of the election comes up. Conservatives will milk this for all its worth and if they can convince people that hes convicted or maybe even recklessly prosecuted for something silly then it could help him with those that aren't politically informed. The story I will bet they will run with is that this is just about Stormy Daniels, that its only about a payout to a porn star for an affair. They will try and ignore any other criminal charges involved in this one. But, if trump walks then it makes him look good, look at how many people thought the Mueller investigation had exonerated him when really that investigation could only find him innocent or not not guilty.

Thing is, no-one talking about the other charges. The Stormy Daniels one is the one even opponents are leading with which means it's worryingly the strongest they so you are entirely right in your claim about how it will be used most likely.

Hell for all we know it could be 25 counts of littering and 4 of J walking they're trying to get Trump on lol