Alternate Reality
I find this period of time, i.e. the Trump era, to be very interesting, intellectually, in that it can be so barren, intellectually.
I collect a lot of scraps, some of which I've participated in, to chronicle what a weird time this is to be alive, but I don't really write about it enough. I write a lot, as like reddit comments, but that's conversational, rather than blog posts or essays. I think I may have written almost this exact intro to a post before.
Anyway, one of the really striking things about this time is that I think things like Facebook, with its feed algorithm, have allowed people to silo into like pocket realities. Rather than just having a pure chronological feed of your friends' activity, it tries to show you things that you'll like, and in doing so, reinforces people splintering off into what are basically circle jerks, where a group of people say whatever dumb shit, and pat each other on the back over it. That's pretty normal, to an extent, but if you circle jerk hard enough, you basically rip through the fabric of reality, like so much foreskin. Like, normally, you'll circle jerk around an opinion.
"Barack Obama is a shitty President."
"Yeah. Obama sucks."
"The economy's bad, and it's Obama's fault."
"Obama isn't patriotic, because he didn't wear a flag lapel pin once."
"Obama isn't patriotic, because he saluted with a cup of coffee."
"Obama's not a real American. He was born in Kenya."
...
You jerked too hard. Now you're jerking each other off over invented facts. You've entered an alternate reality, which Facebook is happy to encourage, because it keeps users engaged. Plenty of other people are happy to encourage it, too, because it lets them manipulate you into being angry, and when you're angry, they can sell you crap, and trick you into voting against your own interests. I hate Facebook, but YouTube does this crap, too. People have absolutely been self-radicalized because of the watch next queue.
It's been stunning to see people try to hold up Donald Trump as some kind of hero, or role model. Someone to aspire to be like. Growing up in New York, he was always that bragging dipshit in the tabloids, who was always going bankrupt. Just a caricature of a bad person, like you'd write into shitty moral absolutist children's stories. A character you'd invent to teach kids that money can't buy love.
Anyway, I had this exchange, in which I try to talk a Trump supporter into being honest, and it went poorly.
The context is an article about Obama sharing an op-ed criticizing Trump for "poisoning our democracy", written by a bunch of former Obama admin people, shortly following Trump saying some racist crap, telling Congresswomen, who were born in America, to go back to the countries they came from.
Darkstar07063:
By tradition, former presidents generally refrain from criticizing their successors, even if they are from opposite political parties
There is no way Trump will do this once he leaves
FastRedPonyCar:
Maybe he won't have access to Twitter in jail.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Except that you have no proof he did anything jailworthy.
Me:
He directed the crime that Michael Cohen is currently in prison for, for which Trump was the sole beneficiary.
I get it if you think he's doing something that you like, and we can debate how good of a job he's doing as President, but why pretend that he's not a crook, and that the only thing keeping him out of prison isn't his title?
It's like, "Hey everybody, look how detached from reality I am!" If he's so great, defend him on his actual merits, instead of lying about basic reality.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
He directed the crime. Can you prove that?
jerryondrums:
Absolutely. The SDNY has already named him an un-indicted co-conspirator (“Individual 1”) for said campaign finance violations. No offense but, are you even paying attention?
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Un-indicted, un-charged, un-convicted.
Wow that makes him.... a regular citizen, wow
Me:
The fact that he's unindictable while in office makes the rest of those descriptors irrelevant.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Impeachable tho. Which is how it’s supposed to be done.
So to recap- trump is NOT INDICTED by a judge that doesn’t actually have the authority to not indict him
Prove he did this crime
Me:
Impeachment isn't a substitute for the criminal justice system. They don't operate under the same rules. One system is inherently political, and I doubt you believe for one second that the Congress that won't override his vetoes, even when he's explicitly using executive orders to bypass the Congress' expressed will and power of the purse, would give him a fair trial. He constantly throws red meat to his base, and it's enough to keep a third of Senators in line no matter what he does.
Again, why lie (to yourself?) about this stuff? Make an argument for how his presidency is worth it or something, but it's pure fantasy land stuff to pretend he's not guilty there. He was signing the checks while he was in the White House.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Wait so your argument is that because going through the proper channels won’t give you the result you want t must be broken?
Me:
It's so telling that I write that something wouldn't be fair, and you hear "won't give the result I want". That's how Trump uses "fair". That's not what the word means.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
That’s exactly how YOU are using the word.
Why is going through the proper channels unfair? What makes it unfair?
Me:
Here's how I used it:
One system is inherently political, and I doubt you believe for one second that the Congress that won't override his vetoes, even when he's explicitly using executive orders to bypass the Congress' expressed will and power of the purse, would give him a fair trial. He constantly throws red meat to his base, and it's enough to keep a third of Senators in line no matter what he does.
i.e. A certain outcome, regardless of the merits of the case. The definition of unfair.
Nowhere in this thread do I even mention what I want the outcome of impeachment to be.
Again, this stuff is obvious. He's obviously a criminal. I'm glad to see Trump supporters have largely given up on defending him as not a liar, but come on. You get yourself stuck making such bad faith arguments, everyone just sees you guys as not smart.
Just be real. Say you're terrified of immigrants, and all you care about is the border, so you don't care that he cheated to get elected, or you think Clinton would have been worse, so you don't care that he cheated. Just be honest. Why waste everyone's time bullshitting about semantics?
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
“He cheated to get elected” he didn’t tho. Like please go ahead and prove that.
Me:
It's already been adjudicated in court. When Cohen was indicted, Trump was on the indictment, as an unindicted coconspirator. This is part of the factual basis for the court. There are lots of reasons you may not be indicted that don't mean that you haven't committed a crime. Reasons like, you're the sitting President. In other cases, you may get a non-prosecution agreement or something.
You also don't get to just plead guilty and just make up a story. The prosecution brings the indictment, and it's backed by evidence that they believe proves a theory of a case beyond a reasonable doubt. When Cohen pleaded guilty, that was the prosecution, and the defense stipulating to the same statement of facts about the crime, and when the court accepted his plea (they don't have to), that's the court expressing that they believe those are the facts.
Standard 14- 1.6. Determining factual basis of plea
(a) In accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court should make such inquiry as may be necessary to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea.
It's proven to the satisfaction of the court.
Do you need him to not be a crook to support him or something?
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Ok what’s the proof tho? Why’d the court decide that. How do you know Truno told Cohen to do what he did? Where the phone conversation? The texts?
Me:
Go read the court documents if you want.
You started out by acting like him not being charged meant something. Now that you can't argue that the courts didn't decide on this, the court's decision isn't good enough, even though any fair minded person sees that he was writing checks to Cohen to pay him back for this, and the reason why is obvious, and you're going to go down this rabbit hole, and you're going to find some way to convince yourself that the evidence wasn't good enough, painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner, needing to make more and more crazy sounding assumptions, because you're starting with your preferred conclusion and trying to justify it, like flat earthers and conspiracy theorists do.
Come back to reality, man. You can stop pretending he's not a liar, you can stop pretending he's not a crook. Our culture is full of stories celebrating people who cheated to get their foot in the door, and then proved all the doubters wrong (this is the plot of like every other Disney movie). They win the public over with the good they do, not by lying about how they didn't cheat to get their foot in the door. Make the positive case for him.
We could be having sane discussions about policy. What's sensible gun control look like? What's a good immigration policy? What's the right approach to trade? What can really be done about the climate? But this crap, trying to defend Trump as some flawless paragon of virtue is ridiculous. His family fortune was built on bilking the government, and he's lived the kind of lawless life that's really common for really wealthy people to live. You have to get so far removed from reality to pretend he's a model citizen, and it's dangerous. We can't agree on basic reality, that's how the country destroys itself.
I love this country. I really do. I could overlook a consensual sex scandal like what happened with Stormy Daniels and McDougal. A person's personal flaws don't necessarily have to bleed over into their professional conduct. I think it should have been out in the open, so voters could have decided on the facts, but chances are it wouldn't have changed anything. Trump's well known for cheating on his wives, and has been for decades. Some of his wives were people he cheated on his previous wives with.
I really don't care that much if he's not what I think of as a good person, but what I really take issue with is that he's not a good administrator, either. Like half his cabinet appointments are getting busted for corruption. He's flooding the immigration courts with people who aren't causing trouble, instead of prioritizing the violent criminals, so the really problematic ones stay in the country for years longer. When everyone's a priority, no one's a priority. We're paying $775, per day, per person, to hold asylum seekers in detention centers, in conditions that we'd shut down animal shelters for, funneling money into private detention companies, instead of using programs we've had in the past that cost like $36, per day, per family. He cut off funding to programs that were helping to stabilize conditions in Central American countries, so the asylum seekers are going to keep coming. There are good reasons to expand the deficit, to really invest in the country's infrastructure, or education, or health, but these aren't those.
Again, I invite you to make the positive case for him, in good faith. I'd love to be convinced that he's actually better than I think, and the media is unfair, and I don't have to worry so much for our country.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
I still don’t think an “un-indictment” means anything, but what’s the proof? HOW DO YOU KNOW
PROVE that trump directed Cohen to do this. Seriously go ahead. Send me some links I’d love it. You can’t tho. And you treat people who ask for proof crazy and then go on multi paragraph tangents about trump policies and how you feel about him. It’s a very simple requests
Proved proof that trump directed Cohen to do this. We’re not talking about all that other shit right now.
Me:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779697-Michael-Cohen-Charging-Documents.html
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.1_1.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.2_1.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.3_1.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.5.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.6.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.7.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.48.8.pdf
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Which one gives explicit video or audio evidence of trump telling Cohen to do this?
Me:
Are you now prepared to vacate every conviction that didn't have explicit audio or video evidence just to keep pretending Trump is innocent? You end up in such a crazy world if you keep going down this path, man. Turn back while you can.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
Beyond a reasonable doubt my guy.
It’s entirely possible Cohen did this if his own free will
Me:
Called this before.
You started out by acting like him not being charged meant something. Now that you can't argue that the courts didn't decide on this, the court's decision isn't good enough, even though any fair minded person sees that he was writing checks to Cohen to pay him back for this, and the reason why is obvious, and you're going to go down this rabbit hole, and you're going to find some way to convince yourself that the evidence wasn't good enough, painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner, needing to make more and more crazy sounding assumptions, because you're starting with your preferred conclusion and trying to justify it, like flat earthers and conspiracy theorists do.
Reasonable doubts were before they had all the checks Trump signed to Cohen for exactly the amount paid as hush money, and Cohen making a new bank account for Essential Consultants immediately after getting off the phone with Trump, and Cohen being convicted for lying to Congress about doing this stuff for Trump.
You're in unreasonable doubt territory, and it's sad. You present as a crazy person. I don't know why it's so important for you to debase yourself like this. For Trump? Have some dignity.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
It really is unreasonable doubt. Do you know how many checks a businessman like trump has to sign a day?
Me:
It really is unreasonable doubt.
Thanks. I'll take it. Great. I'm glad we agree. It is super unreasonable to think that Trump, who frequently doesn't pay people for work even after he's agreed to, would somehow pay Michael Cohen back after Cohen took it upon himself to pay off a porn star Trump slept with, setting up the account he paid her from right after getting off the phone with Trump.
I'm done here. I can't watch you debase yourself anymore. This is too depressing to watch. I could maybe get it if it were someone else, but I'm from New York, where Trump is a well known fraud, where he couldn't even win his home district.
ALeaf_OnThe_Wind:
I meant to say reasonable.