Cohen to Prison

[Michchamp]

I had to actually Google the guy, had no clue who he was. Found this little bit:

Trump turns to Dershowitz as Mueller probe escalates.

Some have speculated his recent turn to shamelessly shilling for Trump is due to his involvement in that whole episode involving that West Palm beach Hedge fund billioniare that was molesting, grooming and pimping out girls. Remember that story? I forget the hedge fund guy's name right now. Bill clinton was also involved. big surprise!

he (Dershowitz) got destroyed on "Legal Twitter" the other day for claiming (in the Flynn matter) that lying to the FBI isn't a crime unless it's a "material" lie.

anyways, guys like Clinton and Dershowitz are "liberal" in the sense that they play for one side of the "two parties that agree on everything but abortion" game. I think it's becoming more and more apparent that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from mainstream GOP on everything else.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If you meant that to be your opinion, then that post was pretty meaningless.

OK sure.

 

[Spartanmack]

OK sure.

care to explain how it's not? does your opinion have any impact on the investigation? because it's the opinion of those people re: trump's unique lack of qualification I've been talking about. Or is it just a means to get into another pedantic argument over some irrelevant point?

 

[Spartanmack]

Some have speculated his recent turn to shamelessly shilling for Trump is due to his involvement in that whole episode involving that West Palm beach Hedge fund billioniare that was molesting, grooming and pimping out girls. Remember that story? I forget the hedge fund guy's name right now. Bill clinton was also involved. big surprise!

he (Dershowitz) got destroyed on "Legal Twitter" the other day for claiming (in the Flynn matter) that lying to the FBI isn't a crime unless it's a "material" lie.

anyways, guys like Clinton and Dershowitz are "liberal" in the sense that they play for one side of the "two parties that agree on everything but abortion" game. I think it's becoming more and more apparent that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from mainstream GOP on everything else.

He's a liberal in the classic sense of what a liberal is, not in the sense of the so-called "progressive" movement. This cabal of bigoted morons have attempted to co-opt the liberal label and they conveniently use their moronic hierarchy of virtue to discredit classical liberals like Dershowitz as pro-abortion Republicans any time they don't toe the progressive line, often by pointing out that they're old white guys from a bygone era.

These "progressives" aren't liberals by any stretch of the imagination. They're mostly science denying, bigoted fascists who rank virtue based on immutable characteristics like race and gender. They're also idiots.

 

[Gulo Blue]

care to explain how it's not? does your opinion have any impact on the investigation? because it's the opinion of those people re: trump's unique lack of qualification I've been talking about. Or is it just a means to get into another pedantic argument over some irrelevant point?

Does my opinion have any impact on the investigation?


Is that a serious question?


What do you think this message board is? As far as I know, nobody here works for one of Trump's lawyers or for Mueller.



It's not pedantic, it's really simple. I commented on your statement about Trump being uniquely unqualified, dropping the unique qualifier. All this BS doesn't have to be unique to make him unqualified. Regardless of who else might be unqualified, he isn't qualified, and it doesn't make it any better that others may also be unqualified. You moved the goalpost to be about prison. Since then you've been bending over backwards trying to say that's not moving the goalposts. If you think my point's irrelevant, that's fine. But that doesn't mean my point is about about whatever you've got going on in your head that you heard from 'those people' (whoever they are).

 

[Spartanmack]

Does my opinion have any impact on the investigation?


Is that a serious question?


What do you think this message board is? As far as I know, nobody here works for one of Trump's lawyers or for Mueller.



It's not pedantic, it's really simple. I commented on your statement about Trump being uniquely unqualified, dropping the unique qualifier. All this BS doesn't have to be unique to make him unqualified. Regardless of who else might be unqualified, he isn't qualified, and it doesn't make it any better that others may also be unqualified. You moved the goalpost to be about prison. Since then you've been bending over backwards trying to say that's not moving the goalposts. If you think my point's irrelevant, that's fine. But that doesn't mean my point is about about whatever you've got going on in your head that you heard from 'those people' (whoever they are).

Of course it's not a serious question, that should be obvious. I'm not saying it makes it better or more palatable because others are or were also unqualified - that's not even close to the point I'm making. Again, I didn't move the goal post to be about prison or anything else - I've said time and again, it's about Trump being viewed as uniquely unqualified and therefore, he and those associated with him are receiving far more scrutiny and much harsher punishments than others for the same or similar crimes and misdeeds (and in some cases, far more significant crimes). It's never been about whether any of these people deserve to go to prison or not. If anyone is bending over backwards, it's you trying to say I'm moving the goalposts to be about prison. I don't know how many times or how much clearer I need to say that, but either you don't get it or you refuse to back of your "moving the goalpost" nonsense.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's never been about whether any of these people deserve to go to prison or not. If anyone is bending over backwards, it's you trying to say I'm moving the goalposts to be about prison.

Post 25, you quote me, where I said:

Not uniquely unqualified. Just unqualified.

and you replied:

I think you know that's not true. To my knowledge, there have been 2 high profile cases involving people going to prison for campaign finance laws, one was an anti-Obama conservative and the other a Trump confidant. The very liberal Alan Dershowitz called what Cohen did the equivalent of jaywalking, those weren't my words.

If you can find other folks with similar violations who went to prison for any amount of time, let me know but I don't think you will. And I could go on and on about all the sham investigations into other politicians that resulted in not a single convictions and barely ever any charges. You're being na?ve if you think Trump isn't unique in the eyes of the powers that be.

 

[Spartanmack]

Post 25, you quote me, where I said:



and you replied:

and?

 

[Michchamp]

and?

And is a word. It's called a "conjunction." It links two or more words or phrases together.

You need to read the parts he quoted to understand the point he's making.

 

[Spartanmack]

And is a word. It's called a "conjunction." It links two or more words or phrases together.

You need to read the parts he quoted to understand the point he's making.

I read them. And?

the best part about this is you have no idea what point he is making, you just agree with him because he disagrees with me. run along dummy, the grownups are talking.

 

[Gulo Blue]

and?

and what? You flipped from uniquely unqualified to uniquely prison worthy and then claimed that's not what happened.

 

[Spartanmack]

and what? You flipped from uniquely unqualified to uniquely prison worthy and then claimed that's not what happened.

and since then about 30 times (before you go and count the posts, that's an exaggeration) I've said it's about how they're being treated differently and receiving harsher penalties than others who committed similar or more serious crimes, using the prison sentence for Cohen as an example. But you're hung up on another little nit and won't give up on it so you can claim I've moved the goal post. Even if it was strictly about prison, my point still stands and yours is still a nit.

also, since we're being pedantic and words have meaning, I never once used the words "uniquely prison worthy" if you're claiming that's what happened.

 

[Gulo Blue]

and since then about 30 times (before you go and count the posts, that's an exaggeration) I've said it's about how they're being treated differently and receiving harsher penalties than others who committed similar or more serious crimes, using the prison sentence for Cohen as an example. But you're hung up on another little nit and won't give up on it so you can claim I've moved the goal post. Even if it was strictly about prison, my point still stands and yours is still a nit.

also, since we're being pedantic and words have meaning, I never once used the words "uniquely prison worthy" if you're claiming that's what happened.

I'm not nit picking. There are no fine shades of gray or technicalities here. I'm not hung up on similar, but different meanings or anything like that.



And you're still doing it. Whether you're talking about prison or "how they're being treated differently" or "receiving harsher penalties than others". I made a point about Trump being unqualified regardless of whether others are or aren't unqualified (dropping the word 'unique'), and you keep responding or questioning me about things that are 1) based on comparisons to others, and 2) about repercussions rather than whether or not he's qualified. I made a 5 word post and you found two ways to shift your disagreement away from what I said.

 

[TheVictors]

I had to actually Google the guy, had no clue who he was. Found this little bit:

Trump turns to Dershowitz as Mueller probe escalates.

We used to cite him in Debate in the late-80s and back then he might have been liberal but now he?s completely off his rocker.

And what Champ said ..

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm not nit picking. There are no fine shades of gray or technicalities here. I'm not hung up on similar, but different meanings or anything like that.



And you're still doing it. Whether you're talking about prison or "how they're being treated differently" or "receiving harsher penalties than others". I made a point about Trump being unqualified regardless of whether others are or aren't unqualified (dropping the word 'unique'), and you keep responding or questioning me about things that are 1) based on comparisons to others, and 2) about repercussions rather than whether or not he's qualified. I made a 5 word post and you found two ways to shift your disagreement away from what I said.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jcYoMNgOfbE

 

[Gulo Blue]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jcYoMNgOfbE

What a great communicator.

 

[tinselwolverine]

What a great communicator.

I replaced the clip you copied with a shorter clip that gets right to the point.

 

[Michchamp]

We used to cite him in Debate in the late-80s and back then he might have been liberal but now he?s completely off his rocker.

And what Champ said ..

He was part of OJ Simpson's defense team, I think I remember.

he was more a celebrity than an actual lawyer, and yeah, his personal life is awful. He also was allegedly pretty rotten to his ex-wife, who later committed suicide.

and he's incredibly thin-skinned & threatens to sue anyone and their mother who publicly criticises him.

Oh, and the guy involved in teh recent sex scandal was named Epstein... TONS of awful headlines coming out about that... do a search for "Dershowitz Epstein" and get ready to freak out.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not nit picking. There are no fine shades of gray or technicalities here. I'm not hung up on similar, but different meanings or anything like that.

yes, you are and you're still doing it.

And you're still doing it. Whether you're talking about prison or "how they're being treated differently" or "receiving harsher penalties than others". I made a point about Trump being unqualified regardless of whether others are or aren't unqualified (dropping the word 'unique'), and you keep responding or questioning me about things that are 1) based on comparisons to others, and 2) about repercussions rather than whether or not he's qualified. I made a 5 word post and you found two ways to shift your disagreement away from what I said.

I'm not still doing it, you're still not getting it. I'm not talking about your opinion of Trump's qualifications. I don't think yours is a particularly unique view vs most others on this board - I also don't really disagree with it but that doesn't matter. What matters for my point and what I've consistently been talking about is the hypocrisy in the way he and people around him are being scrutinized and punished for the same or even less egregious crimes committed by establishment politicians.

 

[Spartanmack]

We used to cite him in Debate in the late-80s and back then he might have been liberal but now he?s completely off his rocker.

And what Champ said ..

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal, mc is a leftist. There is a massive difference.