A story making the rounds that hits at the challenge of defining guilt in a porous justice system, almost as if I planned it -- https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud

Note: While this is timely for our purposes, I don't consider it an example of a Trump Sr. illegality (I think it would be unfair to hold him responsible for decisions made by offspring/subordinates/associates that don't represent his station).



I know I've often made light of the (many) instances where you've demonstrated that you don't understand the subject(s) discussed here, but I really do think it's worth pausing and appreciating just how totally and completely incorrect this is. This isn't even remotely how the private sector works in this country. This is howler territory.

sure it is - if you don't make your clients or customers happy they'll fire you in no time. you wouldn't understand such a concept as you're a telemarketing employee in 'politics' who pretended to be a girl on a diablo 2 forum for FG donations. you got the entire 2014 house/senate/governors race massively wrong, and you miserably flopped on your 2016 general election 'prediction' (hillary in an electoral landslide). but keep banging the gong here as comic relief.

just don't ask me again if I speak English, you racist satanic scumstain loser of a bully.

obligatory: thanks for yet another fucking laugh!!!

If I could set aside the hilarity that is your usual unintelligible babbling and just focus on this new source of temporary amusement: you really do seem to legitimately not understand the mechanics of the contract-based relationship. As a service provider and consumer we enter into our contract as equals. If any portion of our relationship becomes unsatisfactory to them, they have exactly one method of recourse (the same that we have on our side) -- trying to void or break our contract. They have zero autonomy or influence over the materials and methods used to fulfill the terms of our contract.

The rationale you're employing is tantamount to suggesting that the people who are dining at a restauranteur's establishment and that are buying his food are his "boss," which is obviously not the proper dynamic. They're choosing to exchange their money for his product, a product they have no role in producing.

you wrote another long-winded rage paragraph and still admitted they can fire you. guess what! if all clients sever their contracts with the chop-shop you toil at, you've been effectively sacked. complexities like this tend to get lost on linear-only thinkers such as yourself (ones who claim hillary in an electoral landslide), but nice try nonetheless

obligatory: thanks for yet another fucking laugh!!!

lol

Oh bullshit. I called out Obama for crimes (like violating the War Powers Resolution, prosecuting whistleblowers and journalists, upending standing bankruptcy law and using the IRS as a political weapon) for which you essentially poo-poo'd the whole line of thought as baseless or some such malarkey, along with claiming "Obama hasn't been convicted of anything so he's not a criminal." My entire participation in this thread is under the premise that you're a hypocrite. You're acting like I've condoned Trump's criminality - something you would be hard pressed to find an actual quote of mine to substantiate. I'm not here to debate on your terms. I'm here to poke the bear with a stick.

Not so much, because "trying" is a critical part of that sentence that you clipped in half. You really have to have it for accurate characterization.

Again: this one avenue of recourse is also available to us as providers. Our same ability to attempt (an important caveat, since it further underscores that you don't understand how such relationships work) to void a contract is a measure of autonomy afforded to equals obviously not enjoyed by a typical employee in a standard employee-employer relationship: that employer/supervisor might choose to fire an employee for insufficient performance, whereas the employee is unable to do the same to the employer/supervisor.



You fortuitously including the IRS nontroversy here helps demonstrate how completely ridiculous your position is, this shit couldn't even pass the damn laugh test. Not only were your IRS-based accusations stupid (and easily refuted) back in 2013 but they're damn stupid now, given we have even further confirmation that this "scandal" never even actually existed, let alone constituted an actual illegality: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/debunked-irs-scandal-shows-theres-no-sane-wing-of-the-gop.html

Do you actually think it'd be difficult to demonstrate your never-ending adherence to IOIYAR? It doesn't even require referencing countless posts you've debased yourself in -- you gave the game away in the original thread (that or you displayed a shocking level of ignorance re: the existence of civil and criminal violations). A damn bear would eat you, I only enjoy laughing at you and sharing that joy with others.

This post was edited by Pollster on Oct 11 2017 05:11pm

You're still a hypocrite. Nothing you wrote takes away that fact.

Yes, it would be difficult for you to find a quote by me supporting Trump criminality. If it were so easy, your research team would have pointed you to it already like you asked them to look for.

Pollster is the "research team"
same one that came up with these:













https://mobile.twitter.com/pollsterpolls?lang=en
https://mobile.twitter.com/huffpost/status/795663593689808896?lang=en
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president







Obligatory: thanks for the fuckin laugh!!!

Now that indictments are starting to fly, probably a good time to nail down a uniform accountability standard since a lot of these people are (finally) going to have to face the music.

Raised this issue a little before: when do the crimes committed by associates acting as agents of Trump with his consent/benefit in mind stop being their crimes ("Flynn crimes," "Manafort crimes," "Kushner crimes" etc) and start Trump crimes? Unfortunately there's a real Constitutional question hanging over this.



This level of obliviousness really cried out for a callback to a classic. I gave you your chosen words, so you're either pleading gross ignorance on understanding how the American legal system works (among other things) or you're acknowledging that you practice IOIYAR in your little bubble, a belief you've repeatedly demonstrated here for years. Either option is totally believable (as is "both").