Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

Then what is illegal about Stormy?

The payoff, and Trump's reimbursement of it, probably violated campaign finance law, and the threats made regarding her child were definitely illegal.

[Shazbot]

Nothing illegal about entering an NDA or paying your lawyer a retainer out of your own pocket. The only threats I am aware of her alleging were made by a man who perfectly matched her ex-husband's appearance by a police composite sketch artist.

Whereas beating four women is definitely illegal.

[hector13]

The NDA being legal isn't the question though. Was the money paid in order to stop her from hindering his political ambitions?  If yes, then it's a violation of the campaign finance rules because it was essentially a loan from Cohen that wasn't declared.

That is illegal.

[nenjin]

You keep making this in to a “who is worse” comparison.

Stop. Both sets of behaviors are reprehensible, whether that’s choking bitches out for kicks or being a serial adulterist while claiming you’re not. They both hypocritical douche bags.

If you want a real comparison, ask which one has more power and should be a better role model/ be held to a higher standard of conduct.

But that’s not really your goal, is it.

[Kagus]

If you want a real comparison, ask which one has more power and should be a better role model/ be held to a higher standard of conduct.

You know, my eyes are tired right now and I just read that as "which one has more power armor and should be a better role model".

My brain skimmed over it with the usual "yeah that makes sense in this sentence" checkmark before hitting a logic snag just after.

[smjjames]

Speaking of hypocritical douchebags, Trump is playing the woman card pretty hard with Gina Haspel, saying that a vote against her is sexist.

[hector13]

Well if she doesn't get voted in she'll probably crush his balls in a vice or something. /phone it in guys

[Shazbot]

You keep making this in to a “who is worse” comparison.

Stop. Both sets of behaviors are reprehensible, whether that’s choking bitches out for kicks or being a serial adulterist while claiming you’re not. They both hypocritical douche bags.

If you want a real comparison, ask which one has more power and should be a better role model/ be held to a higher standard of conduct.

But that’s not really your goal, is it.

You just said not to make moral equivalency arguments to let both off the hook, and that both should be judged for their actions. Now you appear to be saying they are both some degree of evil and we should compare them based on who has more power and therefore more moral responsibility. I refuse the premise. Power is not what creates moral responsibility, being a human being creates moral responsibility. Being weaker doesn't make you less evil for doing evil. The Nazi in a guard tower isn't less evil than the camp commandant. Both put the uniform on in the morning and go to their job killing people. The question is who does more evil, not who is the scumbag with more power.

My goal is to make the point that Schneiderman's physical violence against women cannot be dismissed so blithely simply because someone more powerful broke campaign finance law, nor should it be presumed these women are paid slanderers.

[Trekkin]

My goal is to make the point that Schneiderman's physical violence against women cannot be dismissed so blithely simply because someone more powerful broke campaign finance law, nor should it be presumed these women are paid slanderers.

I'd say you've done it, except nobody's actually said otherwise; nobody's saying that what he's accused of doing is in any way acceptable, and the closest any of us have come to presuming the women are being anything other than truthful is to note that, in light of certain inconsistencies they admit to in their accounts, there remains a level of uncertainty as to what actually happened that I at least would like to see better accounted for simply so that we're condemning him for the right things. That these accusations may be literally Trumped up is, together with the possibility of a misunderstanding on someone's part regarding consent, a possibility we owe it to everyone involved to rule out to a reasonable degree of certainty. That said, I think him being guilty of exactly what he's been accused of is the most likely possibility by far. It's just that there's no ongoing threat to anyone so I don't mind letting the process play out in the most thorough way available.

None of that is in any way relevant to Trump's conduct, which is also despicable; if you want to draw a comparison between them, it would be fair to say that the very probably illegal payment to Stormy Daniels and the NDA being matters of record makes her account of her relationship with Trump somewhat more straightforward to credit given only what we know now. If you want another comparsion, the possible existence of GRU kompromat on Trump suggests that there may be an immediate threat of our government being unduly influenced by a foreign power, while establishing the truth of Schneiderman's conduct is urgent only in the sense that everyone involved deserves a speedy trial.

See, Shazbot, the law is not a game; you don't have to decide which team committed more fouls. You can, should, and must take each case on its merits separately. That's what the rule of law is.

[nenjin]

Power is not what creates moral responsibility, being a human being creates moral responsibility.

Except when they take no responsibility, and then the rational question to then consider is "how much damage can they do with their power and should I be concerned about it." This would make a more compelling argument if the guy you wish would have attention taken away from him didn't make it look ridiculous.

My goal is to make the point that Schneiderman's physical violence against women cannot be dismissed so blithely simply because someone more powerful broke campaign finance law, nor should it be presumed these women are paid slanderers.

Trekkin already made the point. But this is essentially a straw man. No one is standing here saying he shouldn't get what's coming to him. Because that would also be ridiculous.

[Max™]

[...]they voted for him anyway over Clinton.

Well, no, more people voted for her, despite her being a horrible candidate, they just voted in the wrong places.

Also feel like pointing out I had no idea Schneidermann was a democrat, didn't matter either way, only difference between how I feel about most republicans and most democrats is what order they get to line up in for being fed to a volcano or hungry pigs.

I do admit that hearing something about the "serial choker changed choking laws" made me assume he was a republican because they've devolved into villainous caricatures at this point.

[smjjames]

Did Schneider literally change choking laws? Last I heard, he was Attorney General, not a lawmaker.

[Frumple]

Far as I recall he helped write the current NY ones, some point before the actions he's being accused of. Haven't really checked the specific details, though.

One of those little-ish oddities, where he should have known better than just about anyone what he was doing so far as legal concern goes.

[smjjames]

One of those little-ish oddities, where he should have known better than just about anyone what he was doing so far as legal concern goes.

So did Roy Moore....

[Frumple]

Not... really a good comparison. Moore was not nearly as competent as Schneider. Not terribly sure he had anything to do with actually writing the laws regarding age of consent and whatnot where he was at, either... plus, uh. "Don't mack on teenagers when you're in your thirties" is a hell of a lot more straightforward than the legal specifics of (at least conceptually) erotic asphyxiation.

... not entirely sure where to go with that but basically you could draw a sort of parallel if you squint but it's not what I'd call a particularly strong similarity.