I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
In your view the word of E Jean Carroll is questionable while you wonder about whether Reade should get the same benefit of the doubt.
Wrong. I gave no opinion on Reade. I asked and you avoided answering if you gave her the "benefit of the doubt", as you tend to do for all women who accused men of such things.
toomuchbaloney said:
And her words weren't the only evidence that convinced the jury that Trump sexually abused her, as you know since you read up on the case.
And the word of two of her friends. I stand corrected.
toomuchbaloney said:
Yes, I tend to give women the benefit of the doubt while considering all of the available and related information.
Now that you know more information about her, do you still find her to be credible? Should she still get the benefit of the doubt?
toomuchbaloney said:
It's impeachment if you are actually pointing out real inconsistencies or issues with credibility.
Which I did, in a post above with information that's all been reported in the media.
What's important is that Trump's team was restrained from doing the same.
toomuchbaloney said:
Calling her an "attention seeker" is simply impugning her character.
Imo, she is. So what?
toomuchbaloney said:
Speaking of impeachment, during the trials, it was Trump's character that was impeached by testimony, his own deposition and his public conduct. Interesting, eh?
Maybe so. He often doesn't do himself any favors.
That is also irrelevant. What is relevant is her credibility.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Wrong. I gave no opinion on Reade. I asked and you avoided answering if you gave her the "benefit of the doubt", as you tend to do for all women who accused men of such things.
And the word of two of her friends. I stand corrected.
Now that you know more information about her, do you still find her to be credible? Should she still get the benefit of the doubt?
Which I did, in a post above with information that's all been reported in the media.
What's important is that Trump's team was restrained from doing the same.
Imo, she is. So what?
Maybe so. He often doesn't do himself any favors.
That is also irrelevant. What is relevant is her credibility.
Oh, pardon me. I mistook your mention of Reade as meaningful. It was just noise.
Yes, the important part is that you believe that Trump has been single out and treated badly. This sense of persecution and victimhood is central to Trump's defense with his devoted followers. It's clear that you believe Trump over judges and juries.
Yes, you called Carroll an attention seeker and then tried to pretend that is the same as impeaching her character. No big deal other than it's important to point out that name calling isn't the same as impeaching someone's character. It is pretty Trumpish, though, for a regular republican who isn't really a Trump supporter. Or,maybe that's just normal republican behavior now, to just insult women who win court cases against Trump...just for giggles.
You're funny. First you tell me that impeachment is the word I needed relative to the Carroll case/ trial, but when I talk about the impeachment that actually occurred during the trial you say that it's irrelevant. You seem to think that somehow E Jean Carroll's credibility wasn't examined by that first jury, just like Trump's was. That's kind of interesting. I wonder why you think that Trump's credibility wasn't relevant to the jury that found him culpable for sexual abuse and defamation.
No strike that. I really don't wonder why people believe Trump and insult the woman who beat him in court.
Yes, the important part is that you believe that Trump has been single out and treated badly.
Has nothing to do with believing Trump. Nice try.
In the two New York cases, he has been singled out and treated bad by our legal system.
toomuchbaloney said:
It's clear that you believe Trump over judges and juries.
Correct again. As for the jury, they didn't hear most of the things about the plaintiff I mentioned in my post about her.
Even if they did, we all can have opinions. You've never disagreed with a judge? Judges and juries have never been wrong?
In his fraud case, it starts before the judge with the AG who ran on the "I'll get Trump campaign".
toomuchbaloney said:
Yes, you called Carroll an attention seeker and then tried to pretend that is the same as impeaching her character.
Wrong. I believe you are now, if weren't already, are being disingenuous. But I'll indulge you one last time. We all here realize my seperate posts were about seperate issues. It is my opinion she is a attention-seeker.
Impeachment is what Trump's team should have been allowed to attempt to do in both trials.
toomuchbaloney said:
No big deal other than it's important to point out that name calling isn't the same as impeaching someone's character. It is pretty Trumpish, though, for a regular republican who isn't really a Trump supporter. Or,maybe that's just normal republican behavior now, to just insult women who win court cases against Trump...just for giggles
Saying someone is an attention-seeker is insulting them and calling them names? OK, then...
toomuchbaloney said:
I wonder why you think that Trump's credibility wasn't relevant to the jury that found him culpable for sexual abuse and defamation.
Wrong. Didn't say it wasn't.
toomuchbaloney said:
No strike that. I really don't wonder why people believe Trump and insult the woman who beat him in court.
My opinion on either case has nothing to do with whether I believe Trump or not. Anyone who has been paying attention to my comments on either case realizes that.
I insulted the plaintiff? Saying she is an attention-seeker?....LOL, no, you're the funny one. Not me.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Has nothing to do with believing Trump. Nice try.
In the two New York cases, he has been singled out and treated bad by our legal system.
Correct again. As for the jury, they didn't hear most of the things about the plaintiff I mentioned in my post about her.
Even if they did, we all can have opinions. You've never disagreed with a judge? Judges and juries have never been wrong?
In his fraud case, it starts before the judge with the AG who ran on the "I'll get Trump campaign".
Wrong. I believe you are now, if weren't already, are being disingenuous. But I'll indulge you one last time. We all here realize my seperate posts were about seperate issues. It is my opinion she is a attention-seeker.
Impeachment is what Trump's team should have been allowed to attempt to do in both trials.
Saying someone is an attention-seeker is insulting them and calling them names? OK, then...
Wrong. Didn't say it wasn't.
My opinion on either case has nothing to do with whether I believe Trump or not. Anyone who has been paying attention to my comments on either case realizes that.
I insulted the plaintiff? Saying she is an attention-seeker?....LOL, no, you're the funny one. Not me.
Sure it "has to do with believing Trump". You have to believe Trump, or, like the juries, you have to believe the testimony and evidence presented at trial. You choose to believe Trump and the right wing rhetoric that defends him. That's OK, people can believe what they want. For instance, they can believe that when people like Trump are found liable or guilty or culpable by judges and juries that they are just being treated unfairly. Court decisions matter, like election results matter. We understand that Trump and his fan club don't accept election results or trial results. That's one of the big differences between populists and fascists.
Yeah, regardless of what the right wing tells you, the jury heard Trump's full fledged defense in the trial to determine if Trump sexually attacked Carroll and then defamed her. Maybe he should have hired better legal representation. Keep repeating that claim, though, that's how Trump voters are convinced that the victimhood claims are somehow true; repetition.
Yes, elected attorneys General typically run on fighting crime, sometimes regional crime has a name and a face. Trump once ran on lockng up his political opponent and he wasn't even running for an AG office or law enforcement position.
Yes, you were very clear that you believe that she is an attention seeker and then you tried to pass that off as an example of impeaching someone's character. Of course, that probably impeached your character more than hers. That was also one of the lessons that Trump should have learned in his defamation trial. Maybe that's why he's not saying these things and instead it's his voters trash talking the woman in his defense now.
Trump's attorneys certainly tried to impeach Carroll's credibility in that trial. They failed. Don't worry, Trump will blame his attorneys for messing up his defense so badly and causing the jury increase his penalty from $5 million to $83 million. He can't have his fan base exposed to the idea that he lost the case because he was unbelievable, his defense was not credible, and his own public words and actions impeached him. You even said that impeachment of Trump at trial was irrelevant, although you're claiming otherwise. I wish that was unusual.
Keep trying to pretend that you weren't intending to impugn Carroll by calling her an "attention seeker". While that may be a term of endearment or an attempt at flattery in your mind, in the real world its simply an attempted insult of the woman who beat Trump in court.
Anyone paying attention to your comments recognizes that you believe that Trump is a victim in our justice system regardless of the available evidence.
Cobb was asked Wednesday to respond to earlier remarks Habba made on a podcast about her experience working with Trump.
"Winning always helps. He doesn't want anybody on his team representing him that's, you know, going to keep failing, of course,” Habba said in the clip. "Loyalty. It's something he talks about all the time, but loyalty in not a cryptic mafia way.”
When asked how he thinks Habba handled the case, Cobb said: "I think she's handled it in the mafia way.”
"She's done his bidding. She's articulated his political narrative of victimization and unfairness in the judicial system and made some outlandish claims, including the conflict claims,” he said.
"She handled it the mafia way"
Habba forwarded Trump's mafia defense to these court cases... he's a victim and it's all unfair and rigged against him... that didn't work well in the courtroom but lots of Trump voters believe Trump's narrative regardless of the evidence. I bet Trump wishes that Ty Cobb would shut up.
Sure it "has to do with believing Trump". You have to believe Trump, or, like the juries, you have to believe the testimony and evidence presented at trial. You choose to believe Trump and the right wing rhetoric that defends him. That's OK, people can believe what they want. For instance, they can believe that when people like Trump are found liable or guilty or culpable by judges and juries that they are just being treated unfairly.
Sounds like you must have been a OJ Simpson believer.
toomuchbaloney said:
We understand that Trump and his fan club don't accept election results or trial results. That's one of the big differences between populists and fascists.
Deflection. Not accepting election results has nothing to do with this discussion and isn't something I've defended. Good effort in trying to lump it all together.
toomuchbaloney said:
Yes, elected attorneys General typically run on fighting crime, sometimes regional crime has a name and a face. Trump once ran on lockng up his political opponent and he wasn't even running for an AG office or law enforcement position.
She was in no position to collect or examine evidence of any specific crime until after she was elected. I've never heard of anyone promising to "get" a specific individual in the way she meant as part of a political campaign.
You're too intelligent to think this was OK. Not sure why the need to defend her behavior.
And, still, Trump hasn't been charged with a crime. Apparently, prosecutors know they would never get a conviction.
She now is simply fulfilling her unethical and corrupt campaign promise the best way she can.
Some Trump supporters chanted things about locking up Clinton. That's quite an exaggeration to say he ran on that. No attempt to lock her up was made. You bringing that up is just more deflection, anyway.
toomuchbaloney said:
Anyone paying attention to your comments recognizes that you believe that Trump is a victim in our justice system regardless of the available evidence.
Yes. In certain cases I do think he is being persecuted. I'm quite comfortable standing by what I've said to back up my opinions.
I've asked you your opinion on certain things, such as the credibility of the plaintiff in his defamation cases. You continue to avoid giving answers and instead hide behind the decisions of judges and juries. That's your prerogative, of course. It is telling, though, imo.
I haven't covered everything in your post. Because, as a whole it comes across a bit unhinged, frankly.
And, not sure if it's purposeful or not, but my words are often misrepresented.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Sounds like you must have been a OJ Simpson believer.
Deflection. Not accepting election results has nothing to do with this discussion and isn't something I've defended. Good effort in trying to lump it all together.
She was in no position to collect or examine evidence of any specific crime until after she was elected. I've never heard of anyone promising to "get" a specific individual in the way she meant as part of a political campaign.
You're too intelligent to think this was OK. Not sure why the need to defend her behavior.
And, still, Trump hasn't been charged with a crime. Apparently, prosecutors know they would never get a conviction.
She now is simply fulfilling her unethical and corrupt campaign promise the best way she can.
Some Trump supporters chanted things about locking up Clinton. That's quite an exaggeration to say he ran on that. No attempt to lock her up was made. You bringing that up is just more deflection, anyway.
Yes. In certain cases I do think he is being persecuted. I'm quite comfortable standing by what I've said to back up my opinions.
I've asked you your opinion on certain things, such as the credibility of the plaintiff in his defamation cases. You continue to avoid giving answers and instead hide behind the decisions of judges and juries. That's your prerogative, of course. It is telling, though, imo.
I haven't covered everything in your post. Because, as a whole it comes across a bit unhinged, frankly.
And, not sure if it's purposeful or not, but my words are often misrepresented.
Have a good day.
Sure, it sounds like I must be an OJ believer just like it sounds like Trump is a victim inhis many legal troubles.
Nah, not deflection, just pointing out the consistency in Trump's un-American attacks on our election processes and judicial system. I understand that you just can't see it , that's clearly evident. Trump needs his voting base to be unable to see the danger in his refusal to accept election or trial outcomes.
Ah yes, the well known contention that if someone don't know about something it must not be a thing. Meanwhile, NY isn't new to prosecutors vowing to bring criminals and the mob to justice. Oddly, Trump's behavior lent itself to the kind of charges that the mafia enjoy.
It bothers you that a prosecutor or AG candidate might campaign on bringing a criminal to justice but you were unbothered by a politician campaigning on locking up his political opponent. It's a good thing that Trump didn't make good on that campaign chant. That would have been a pretty clear weaponization of the DOJ by a politician, although I'm pretty confident Trump voters would find a way to justify it.
Yes you keep asking me about my opinion of Carroll's claims against Trump. I've already told you that I gave her the benefit of the doubt, and then the jury found in her favor. That means that she deserved any benefit of the doubt she received. It's kind of amusing that you call that "hiding" while calling Carroll an attention seeker and disparaging her character because she won against Trump. You seem to want to engage in some revisit of the trial with me. I think that's weird. I don't care if you think EJean Carroll is credible. I assume that you wouldn't believe her because you are a Trump supporter.
If you're words are misrepresented you have always been well equipped to challenge what you believe to be incorrect in the moment.
We're told Trump plans to attend his trials in person most days, as has been his recent practice for recent court proceedings. That by itself would mean a massive change in the rhythms of a presidential campaign: Nominees typically spend their days trying to sway voters, not jurors.
He'll rail against the judge, the charges and the timing. Part of this would be true anger, according to people who talk to him. But a big part of the courtroom theatrics would be political.
Trump feels certain the more voters think this is a political pile-on, the better he'll do. So look for Trump to continue to groan, moan and bemoan — then hit the TV cameras parked outside.
One ally explained that by spending so much time in court, Trump is making a virtue of necessity. "You can't be defensive or never talk about it, because that just makes you look guilty," the ally said. "Your only option is to play it up."
What we're hearing: Trump's team feels certain that the indictments helped him own the GOP primary field. Each new set of charges brought a surge in donations, and a bump in polls.
Trump advisers say he was energized by the fight: When he first launched his campaign, he didn't have a battle cry like "build that wall" in 2016. Now, he has a theory of the case: Defeat the corrupt establishment — the "deep state," as he puts it.
Reality check: Despite Trump's bluster, there's real trepidation among his advisers about what a conviction would mean. The Trump team comforts itself that independent-minded voters won't like the idea of a Democratic administration prosecuting the Republican nominee.
Trump's team is busy crafting and building the narrative that Trump voters must accept to continue to support him. It really seems to be the same old strategy of just considering Trump a big victim.
"I just think that Donald Trump, in spite of all the craziness he may have in his head, reading some of the things that he talks about what business I can kind of agree with," fellow voter Thomas Murray told MSNBC. "Because I'm trying to grow my business."
"As far as Biden, I haven't seen Biden really care about business like that. And my concern is having my business so that I can build generational wealth so my kids can see and have something to take upon when I'm not here," he added"
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
"I just think that Donald Trump, in spite of all the craziness he may have in his head, reading some of the things that he talks about what business I can kind of agree with," fellow voter Thomas Murray told MSNBC. "Because I'm trying to grow my business."
"As far as Biden, I haven't seen Biden really care about business like that. And my concern is having my business so that I can build generational wealth so my kids can see and have something to take upon when I'm not here," he added"
Juston Brown, another voter in the focus group, said that people "admire the persona" and "want to be him."
"They want to enjoy the perks that he has. He seems to always be able to circumvent the rules," Brown explained.
They admire the persona and want the "perks" that Trump has. "He seems to be able to circumvent the rules".
Then there's the part where they acknowledge the people who won't vote for Trump because they can't morally defend that vote even though they feel like they had more money during Trump's presidency.
Quote
"A lot of my friends are obviously my age, so we're a little younger. We've only voted once, you know, for president, and Trump is kinda all we know," Givens said. "They're like, 'Well, we're broke with Biden. We weren't with Trump.' And that's kind of the only thing that I'm hearing over, and over again... With Trump, we had money.' Well, okay, I hear you guys. But personally, morally I couldn't see myself."
Bold and italic mine. That small group of men didn't really provide a stellar look at Trump support in the black community.
It is interesting that small business owners have seemingly forgotten that the Trump tax relief was largely directed at large wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals. Maybe they believe his rhetoric now.
Donald Trump's campaign team says the former president would prioritize cutting taxes for working-class families and small businesses if he returns to the White House. But privately, Trump has told allies that he is keenly interested in cutting corporate tax rates again, according to two people who have spoken with Trump in recent months.
Quote
The difference between Trump's private comments on corporate taxes and his campaign's position underscores how the former president frequently governed as a traditional pro-business Republican despite campaigning as a populist outsider.
Some people will believe Trump because they want to and some people won't believe Trump because Trump has proven himself to be dishonest, untrustworthy, ethically challenged and willing to break the constitution to serve his own interests.
Beerman, BSN
4,428 Posts
Wrong. I gave no opinion on Reade. I asked and you avoided answering if you gave her the "benefit of the doubt", as you tend to do for all women who accused men of such things.
And the word of two of her friends. I stand corrected.
Now that you know more information about her, do you still find her to be credible? Should she still get the benefit of the doubt?
Which I did, in a post above with information that's all been reported in the media.
What's important is that Trump's team was restrained from doing the same.
Imo, she is. So what?
Maybe so. He often doesn't do himself any favors.
That is also irrelevant. What is relevant is her credibility.