Yet another case of somebody thinking they understand something when they clearly don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Did liberals burn the whitehouse down when Trump got elected?

Nope.

I'm not really sure what comparison you're trying to make here.

Liberals in the US aren't communists or socialists, the vast majority of them are capitalists, that believe in societal innovation, which is all that the word liberalism means in the context of society.

You obviously can do anything liberally, the most common example is the instructions on a shampoo bottle.

It's probably been printed on a shampoo bottle 50+ billion times now.

So you can apply shampoo to your hair liberally, meaning as much or as little, as long as you're interested in that amount. It kind of depends on you and your hair obviously. Some people are going to want more than others. This is a different concept than applying a very specific amount of shampoo to all people with all different hair types. But, if you wanted a measured amount for all people, ignoring whether that made any sense or not in that situation, that would be the conservative, or "traditional" approach to measuring things.

Obviously depending on the specific situation, both concepts could make some sense, no sense, or complete sense. It just depends on what it is.

To be clear, the United States was founded on the concept of classical liberalism, which means that even conservatives in the US (which is a political identity group that self identifies as "conservative"), are still a type of a liberal in the broad concept of societies in general.

When the US shifted away from financial policies that were considered to be classical liberalism during the 1970s, those new policies were called neoliberalism. Neo meaning, "new."

Which in the financial world basically means "we are just doing what ever the heck we want to do with zero consideration to basically anything or anyone."

Looking at the US stock market during the covid-19 crisis is an excellent example of that.

Markets in the US and around the world were basically crashing and burning, but hey, "the STONK MARKET WAS DOING GOOD!"

It should be totally unsurprising that republicans love neoliberalism.



This post was edited by mki on Mar 18 2023 10:53pm

mki just doenst have a clue: "uuuu wat you mean building on fire huhh wattt wat wut that mean ?????? duhhhh dont get it huhhh wuttt huhhhhh (starts talking bout shampoo like some one going to keep reading)

is this a blm/antifa riot or is it a nazi uprising



This post was edited by TiStuff on Mar 18 2023 11:22pm

So one legal analysis I read about this looked at the fullest extent of how Bragg could torture the law to try to build a case here
The obvious issue is that the underlying transaction which they rely upon as the underlying crime in the felony conspiracy statute, the michael cohen payments, are obviously legal under FEC guidelines. Even though cohen plead guilty to them as a crime in that sweetheart deal with the feds to conjure a crime out of thin air just so they could use it against Trump here, its still a house of cards- since federal regulations are so abundantly clear its not a campaign expense, any attempt to argue in court to build that as the underlying crime will inevitably fall apart. And they can't just go with misdemeanor falsification of business records and drop the underlying crime angle, because even if they wanted to take a petty shot at Trump, they can't, it has a statute of limitations of 2 years as a misdemeanor. Even the felony version has a 5 year statute, which means they have to somehow argue for a continuing conspiracy that extends past the last date Trump signed a check because that's already expired

But here's the crazy angle. Bragg could try to argue that Trump violated NY state election law in the same case they've already set precedent for in the federal version. Besides running around double jeopardy, since he was never tried on that anyway, the real trick here is that New York election law is infamously corrupt and far far far more permissible than federal law. And its nearly impossible to prosecute a candidate for misusing campaign funds. But that's the thing. The precedents in New York law have been exploits of how it uses the same general concept as FEC law but with a slightly different wording, to try to parse that instead of the FEC's 'irrespective test', the New York board of elections has a sort of 'any nexus' test. And in the past, corrupt NY politicians have been able to blatantly misuse campaign funds for personal uses by just claiming that they had any relation to their campaigns. Even if its something as tenuous as "I paid a mortgage on a property for a house I was staying at while campaigning"

ex
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=public_integrity

New york's laws are so permissible that the cases they could prosecute are when a politician directly sent campaign funds to his personal bank account. In fact they're so easy to circumvent they give an example of;


But here's the absurdity: they could try to invert this standard and try to use the overly permissive view of campaign expenses in order to criminalize conduct which is obviously personal use under FEC guidelines by calling it a campaign expense. That's the crazy legal theory they may actually be going with. If New York can claim that anything related to a campaign in any way is a campaign expense, then anything you spend personal funds on is an illegal campaign expense using unreported personal funds, and any business report detailing those transactions is a felony conspiracy to falsify business reports to hide an underlying crime.


Its hard to understate how absolutely mindbogglingly astoundingly ass backwards moronic this is. Take the simple reductio ad absurdum. If Chuck Schumer uses his personal credit card to pay for a lox bagel at a kosher deli during a campaign stop, Alvin Bragg could send in storm troopers to carry the jew away on trumped up charges of felony falsifying a business report to hide an underlying crime. I mean, he wanted to win that jewish vote after all, that's an unreported campaign expense of an overpriced deli bagel, that's a credit card bill he later signed. The classical FEC example of a haircut being a personal, not campaign expense, something that exists irrespective of a campaign? AOC better pay her barber off the campaign dole if she doesn't want to get black bagged.

Every president America has ever had, yeah even Jimmy Carter, JFK and Lincoln, committed crimes so awful they should have been at the end of a rope.

Can you point to which of William Henry Harrison's 32 days you find the most repugnant?

He gave a speech that God hated so much He cast Pneumonia on the man, lol

He sucked before being inaugurated, though, so fuck 'im.

This post was edited by kusotarre1 on Mar 19 2023 12:16am

sorry tecumseh but your magic spells didn't work at tippecanoe
dressing like you went to hogwarts isn't the same thing

Donald Trump Says He'll Be Arrested On Tuesday By Criminals Running NYC

Here we go another one! I give 1fg if leftoids win and Trump gets indicated and goes to prison. If you lose then you give me 1000fg.

Anyone here to take me up on the bet?

This post was edited by addone on Mar 19 2023 04:37am