Those weren't the two words I was expecting, to be sure.
In Australia, we can cut that down to one word, Robodebt, though admittedly that's a combination of two separate words mashed together.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
In Australia, we can cut that down to one word, Robodebt, though admittedly that's a combination of two separate words mashed together.
Adams is up for what, $100,000? Maybe you earn vastly more than me, because to me that's a LOT of money. That's orders of magnitude beyond the point where I'd be inclined to wave it away as relatively unimportant. You know when I say you don't understand me? Maybe you are beginning to half get it. You are right that I oppose corruption. Now think about that in terms of politicians I particularly dislike.
* * *
This "weaponisation of the justice system" re. Adams only makes superficial sense because the argument has been so embedded by repetition.
In practice, almost everyone disagrees with the government in at least some way. If the DoJ brought a case against almost anyone at all, therefore, someone could just point at a way that person had disagreed with or inconvenienced the government. Thus "revenge" by the government becomes an accusation that can always have a superficially plausible justification. Secondly, I think the DoJ has been, and will probably always be, politically influenced to some degree. Just like law agencies, IRS, etc. can harass personas non gratas. This is another thing that makes the "weaponisation" line credible, because of that kernel of truth that a much more grandiose confection can be built around.
That's why we need to be incredibly skeptical towards it.
So, firstly, we're expected to believe that because Adams did something immigration-y that wasn't loved by Biden, they fitted him up. The same administration that could have aggressively tried to take out any number of Republicans - because I can bet you there are plenty of skeletons - but didn't? We're supposed to believe an administration and wider party that had let Synema and Manchin shit all over their agenda, and all the other ways Democrats have been relaxed, permissive of major disagreement (from the right!), or aggressively tried to occupy centre or Republican ground, suddenly found Adams' thing so offensive that they decided to take him out legally? Plus as he's also a major Democratic Party figure it brings their own party into disrepute? Yeah, when you think about it with this wider context, the idea that it was some Biden administration revenge tactic makes no sense whatsoever.
Secondly, we're supposed to believe in a "weaponised justice system" from an administration that failed to effectively weaponise the justice system against the single most important person they were expected to weaponise it against? I mean, the least you'd expect is that they'd have Trump up in court in good time. And don't tell me for a minute that no-one could have predicted the extensive delaying tactics Trump would employ, given a) that's been one of his staple legal tactics for decades, and b) that he'd made no secret of the arguments he would make and his intention to take it to SCOTUS each and every time.
So, in short, I remain very happy believing that Adams was probably in a very great deal of trouble until the Trump administration played its corruption card. And that irrespective of whether Adams did it or not, it absolutely should have been tested properly in a court of law.
Anyone who thinks this deal with Adams isn't quid pro quo is welcome to explain to me why the agreement was to dismiss the charges without prejudice- i.e. they can be reinstated at any time in the future.
Ah, but even the open admission on Fox News that it's to hold the charges over Adams's head if he doesn't come through for Trump isn't enough for Trump supporters.
Ah, but even the open admission on Fox News that it's to hold the charges over Adams's head if he doesn't come through for Trump isn't enough for Trump supporters.
So apparently Trump/Musk want to return taxpayer money saved by DOGE.
This is sorta interesting because there's two way to do it, either:
Give everybody back money based on how much tax they payed, this would mean people would get peanuts, and maybe then they'd realize that most of the stuff they think the government waste money on is rounding error to the budget.
or
They give everyone the same amount. Because rich people pay far more tax than poor do (with many people essentially paying no tax) this would quite literally be a direct transfer of money from rich to poor, something the GOP supposedly hate.
Anyway, its probably a good move on their part, bribe people with their own money to distract them from the crumbling country.
This is sorta interesting because there's two way to do it, either:
Give everybody back money based on how much tax they payed, this would mean people would get peanuts, and maybe then they'd realize that most of the stuff they think the government waste money on is rounding error to the budget.
or
They give everyone the same amount. Because rich people pay far more tax than poor do (with many people essentially paying no tax) this would quite literally be a direct transfer of money from rich to poor, something the GOP supposedly hate.
Anyway, its probably a good move on their part, bribe people with their own money to distract them from the crumbling country.
I'll wait patiently for you to actually act out this claimed opinion. I won't hold my breath though, I prefer to not die.
A hint towards future development: if you trust in every word that someone says, you don't despise them.
Adam's is up for 0 fungible dollars. He's gotten plane upgrades and hotel stays that can't be converted to his own personal wealth, just temporary hospitality. He's had campaign donations, most of which were returned already, which in theory can't be converted to his personal wealth. If it did, which would be its own problem, it would still be just a fraction of a percent of his campaign funds that is related to Turkey. All the "bribes" were either literally or legally nontransferable to his pocketbook.
No, it was more personal than that.
Eric Adams was a Biden advisor, he was going to be a campaign advisor in Biden's re-election, he was meeting with the president regularly. Then Texas started bussing migrants to New York City, the city's services were overwhelmed, and Adams went to Biden for help. Adams ended up criticizing the lack of help he was getting in the White House to Biden's aides. So the Biden Administration began cutting him out of their private spaces (and started investigating him). So he took his criticisms public, and shortly after that article was written the investigation went public and Adams' associates were getting raided by the feds.
It is plausible that there are things we can't know, that serious corruption happened to be discovered around the time he was criticizing Biden in the White House, and they reasonably began to distance themselves knowing he was going to be indicted for corruption. But that interpretation requires a lot of information that doesn't exist for public consumption. And like, it isn't as though his interactions with other nations were hidden until they investigated. This was published almost 2 years before they opened the investigation:
Adams’ World Travels Paid Off
Donations flowed after trips backed by repressive regimes.
www.nycitynewsservice.com
Consider, for a moment, the criticism that this is being dismissed without prejudice. People see leaving open the possibility of charging him again as holding a gun to his head so that he will do what Trump wants. But that's just as true with the prior administration. According to Adams, one of the answers he received when he bumped heads with the Biden Administration was "be a good Democrat". Cause he's in their party, they have power over him. "Be a good Democrat" doesn't work against Republicans, the politics is obvious. Like, they can't reopen the investigation (barring new accusations) now for at least as long as Republicans hold power, no matter what Adams does to spite Trump, as it really will be dismissed as political lawfare, and nobody will dispute it. Democrats can go after Adams because with a member of their party, they really can say get in line or get lost. It's plausible because he's a Democrat.
This just shows how little you pay attention. After a quick keyword + user search for myself, older than your comment about me (this is just the cream, there's a lot more);
"the Democrats' approach on this [Gaza] is repugnant and unacceptable". - Jan 17
"warmongers masquerading as peacemakers (an apt description for both Democrats and Republicans)" - Jan 17
"It [the election loss] absolutely is the Democrats' fault for running a last-minute, uninspiring & Republican-lite campaign." - Nov 8
"the main responsibility for this [the death toll in Gaza] does indeed rest with the Democrats and their refusal to stop supplying Israel with lethal assistance." - Oct 31
"Firstly: I think the rich getting richer has a dozen causes, one of which is lax taxation by both Republicans and Democrats." - Oct '23
"I dislike the Democrats and would drop them like a sack of shit if a better, credible alternative came along." Oct '23
"Democrats do indeed also have a history of acquiescence to corporate predatory behaviour." - June '23
"They're playing to a domestic audience, that's all-- both the Republicans making hay about Biden being soft on China, and the Democrats wasting a missile shooting it down [the Chinese weather balloon]" - Feb '23
"[the DNC's] shady shit concerning Sanders in the primaries." - Jan '23
"Misrepresentations and lies are extremely common to both the Republicans and the Democrats" - Nov '22
"I don't think any leftists here are expecting much in the way of genuine progressivism [from Biden]. They're simply expecting less regressivism than the only alternative." - Nov '22
"Democrats didn't make any realistic push for healthcare." - Sept '22
"The Democratic Party did funnel some money into fringe Republican candidates in a moronic and self-defeating electoral effort" - Sept '22
"The Democrats are a coalition of corporatist drones and limpdick political centrists." - Aug '22
"The Democrats have a good deal of blood on their hands." - '21
"the Democrats being untrustworthy? Yeah, I've been on the same page about that for quite a few years." - '21
It does not matter. A $1000 plane journey has a value of $1000 and a $1000 hotel stay has a value of $1000. The art of bribery has long involved non-cash gifts precisely because they are easier to explain away if anyone comes looking, or indirectly paying bribes e.g. putting cash into projects associated with the intended beneficiary.
I hear what you're saying but it doesn't change any of my criticisms from the last post. Anyone who disagrees with the government and faces legal action from the government you can make a plausible case the government was trying to fit them up. It is nothing but a recipe for conspiracy theory, where any kook can endless make up any excuse for DoJ injustice. It demands something really meaningful should be brought to the table to back it up, otherwise we shouldn't waste cognitive bandwidth on it.
However, if the DoJ has a solid case against someone and declines to pursue it, that's much more difficult to explain, because the job of the DoJ is to prosecute crime. When the government goes onto TV and says "We have a solid case but we're not pursuing it as long as the mayor does what we say", that seems as openly admitting corruption as it gets.
So the argument is that they bribed him is ways that wouldn't impact his personal wealth so that it would be easier to explain away in case he was elected mayor 5 years later? I get what you're saying in general, but in this specific instance, it doesn't combine well with the other factors. It's very hard to assemble an argument that Turkey was very carefully bribing him in ways that could be explained away while also making the bribes extremely public so that down the line, they could get him to bend the rules for them in a situation they could not have specifically predicted would happen.
He and foreign actors were advertising New York to other nations and vice versa. It was public, they wanted everyone to know about it. The idea that it was all a cover to violate fire codes down the line seems kind of silly to me.
You may benefit from rereading that post given new information. Either there is plenty you were unaware of, or you were being highly misleading.
If that individual can be solidly shown to have been treated differently by the government, that case can be made. It's not something just anyone can claim. There's no question that Eric Adams got special treatment from the Biden Administration, initially all positive. That special connection makes this different than just anyone facing legal action. And the action against him is equally special. Hillary Clinton was paid over $200,000 directly to speak before the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce before running for president, and the FBI doesn't even blink. Someone who shows antipathy to the regime got free hotel rooms abroad before being elected a city mayor, and the FBI starts a public investigation into their corruption. I'm sure you'll say "well they're all corrupt, take them all down", but they don't take them all down, and that leaves us with a reasonable question of "why him?" And if the answer really is just that he pissed off one president, it's perfectly reasonable for the next president to drop it.
That's not suspicious, that's prosecutorial discretion. The legal system is not obligated to pursue every case even if they would be easy to win, they have the discretion to not pursue cases that they feel aren't worthwhile. To say "we are declining to prosecute him because we feel it isn't in the interest of the public good to do so" is within reason and their authority to do so. Can that sort of thing be abused? Sure. But basically any system is subject to abuse and corruption. So long as this one is going in the direction of offering people undo mercy rather than hitting people with undeserved sentences, I'm comfortable with that compromise.
You have there a large list of instances in which I don't believe them. Distrust their motives, condemn their aims, and literally call them liars. You don't really have a leg to stand on.
If this were the only conversation you've ever had on here, and this were the only part of your comments I'd ever seen, you'd have a point. But it isn't.
And maybe you genuinely don't realize it, but your world view is always substantiated by authorities aligned with the Democratic Party. When you argue with Phoenix, any time he uses a source that isn't part of that sphere of influence, you mock the source. But if he uses a source that is from within, you instead rationalize how his interpretation is wrong. In the Gaza thread, you can criticize the Democrats... but the Democrats also criticize the Democrats, you aren't breaking away from their worldview, and you pick a fight with the people who do. There are many major narratives about America that are driven by Democratic propaganda. I pretty certain you believe in the party flip over Civil Rights, even though almost nobody changed parties and the regions only really flipped decades later as race laws fell out of relevance and abortion became the big cause of the Bible Belt. I know you think America is right-wing compared to Europe while you live in nation with a monarchy, more conservative media outlets, largely more conservative social laws, etc. You can apply what you think are your own independent opinions to things and it really doesn't matter if you apply them in a paradigm of truth dictated by one political force.
I will believe you aren't led by the nose by Democrats when you show you can see through the lies about how the world is. Not lies like "they said they would do X, but then they did Y", but lies like "we want to do X because that is what the science tells us is right." Because so long as you believe them about how the world is, your criticism of them will only ever be for not sufficiently fulfilling their stated ideology, which is the same as supporting them and their goals.
Phoenix tends to post absolute dregs of sources, and cannot evaluate the quality of sources posted by others. He does this with medical discussions as well, not just political. Feel free to provide an actual example of a source you think I've treated unfairly.
I'm sorry, what moon logic is this? Criticism of the Democratic Party doesn't count if other people within the Democratic Party also do it? So it only counts if the Party itself is totally monolithic?
OK, so this has just turned into a vague rant about various other issues you disagree with me about. You've abstracted to the point of uselessness. We're not talking about various specific "narratives" that you've chosen to equate with the Democratic Party, like the positioning of the UK or whatever.
You said I don't question or condemn the Democratic Party, and I've shown that I do all the fucking time. You talked bollocks, sorry.
Because quid pro quo normally describes a situation in which the two parties engage in a mutually beneficial but improper transaction. You do for me, and I'll do for you. This is extortion and conceptually closer to something like blackmail if you need an analogy because the structure is that you do for me, and continue to do for me or I use what I know to bring down consequences upon you.
This is why most politicians write a book - they can buy their own books with campaign funds and receive a cut of that without having to do anything technically illegal.
I did not say either of those things. I said you don't critically assess them, and you believe them.
Let me offer this comparison: a Catholic that criticizes church leaders for their behavior isn't any less Catholic. One can truly believe in Catholic doctrine, and follow the derived guidance for how to live their life, and still criticize priests and bishops for their actions without any change in beliefs.
You being critical of the behaviors of Democrats does not mean you aren't totally bought into their world view. You judge them for not meeting the same standards they claim to believe in. You criticize the people, sure, but you defend their projection of reality tooth and claw.
If it comes out that he used his campaign funds to buy his book on plant based diets in bulk, I would consider that addition evidence of misconduct, even if it is legal.
...yet there are also heaps of quotes there in which I condemn their aims. Not just that they fall short of them.
You're already twisting yourself in knots to exclude the numerous instances of me approaching them critically. Doesn't count if other Democrats also criticise them; doesn't count if its on their behaviour... now we're down to the vaguest, most meaningless standard of all, which is that I agree with their "worldview" and "projection of reality".
Which... seems to mean that if I broadly have the same opinion as them on a few very broad subjects (or have some opinions that aren't even anything to do with Democratic policy at all, like how the UK compares?!), I'm therefore completely uncritical. Regardless of the fact I demonstrably criticise them all the time.
Be honest for once, man. This lazy little snipe fell apart instantly. I treat the Democrats with a hell of a lot more disdain than you treat the Republicans.
Last edited: