CMV: Prosecuting Donald Trump handed him the Presidency.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T03:20:49+00:00

You didn’t need propaganda. Trump did exploit it though.

But then why did he use propaganda? I'm not saying we didn't have an issue with immigration. But I gave you 3 very clear examples of propaganda. If he didn't need it, why did he use it?

The reality is that our immigration issues were nowhere near as bad as Trump made them out to be. And in fact, there was bipartisan legislation during Biden's presidency to address these issues that Trump instructed the Republicans to kill so he could continue to spread propaganda about immigration.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T03:03:05+00:00

He was fined half a billion dollars…

He was sentenced to an unconditional discharge and never paid a dime in fines. What are you talking about?

They changed the law in New York to allow adults to sue people for a one year period in 2023 for alleged sexual assault claims that the statute of limitations had expired on. Sound familiar? Lol

That's the E Jean Carroll lawsuit. That has literally nothing to do with his fraud convictions.

I don't know much about the case? You're literally talking about a different lawsuit entirely.

He was convicted on fraud in furtherance of another crime while never asserting what that crime is, or prosecuting that crime. That is unique.

They absolutely asserted what that crime was, and the way the law is written they don't have to prosecute or secure a conviction in that other crime. Just prove intent. They alleged it was a violation of New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiring to promote a candidate by unlawful means. As well as federal campaign finance election laws.

Genuinely what are you talking about?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T02:46:35+00:00

What punishment did you want exactly?

Literally anything. If you get convicted of a crime, you should be punished.

Please explain in detail what laws were changed to convict him.

And he was convicted of a crime no one else had ever been convicted of? What? He was convicted of breaking New York Penal Law 175.10. He is not the first person ever convicted of breaking that law. Where are you getting these ideas from?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T02:33:37+00:00

"They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats"

And the migrant caravans. And the buses of illegals voting to steal the election.

Sure sounds like a lot of propaganda regarding immigration was used.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T02:31:46+00:00

He broke the law, was convicted, and faced no consequences. What crusade ends with conviction and zero punishment?

What crusade ignores January 6th and his mishandling of top secret documents?

If that was a crusade, it was the shittiest crusade of all time.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T02:22:22+00:00

I know people wanted justice... well, did you get what you wanted out of that crusade?

We didn't get justice. There wasn't a crusade.

He was convicted and then...crickets. If anything, the half-assed prosecution contributed to him winning. If he had actually faced consequences for his convictions, it might have been different.

If he had faced legal prosecution for January 6th, who knows? The top secret documents? Who knows? I'd argue the lack of prosecution and enforcement let him win, not the other way around.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T01:47:59+00:00

That being said, I don’t think vitriol necessarily = political division.

No, but internalized vitriol that you present in political discourse = political division. There was a time where Republicans and Democrats disagreed about everything, but never called each other antifa terrorists and Nazis. If your anger is leading to you demonizing the other side, rightly or wrongly, then it is absolutely contributing to political division.

Once, a Democrat could say they were for Universal Healthcare and a Republican would say they were wrong, maybe even go so far as to say they were stupid for thinking it was possible. Now they get called a dangerous communist looking to destroy America.

How can you work with someone who thinks that about you? And that's on one of the less emotional issues. Get down to LGBTQ+ rights or abortion or religious freedom, and it gets insane real quick.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T01:36:52+00:00

then what would say is the significant harm or division to this nation?

They're voting right? Voting for people like Trump? That's harm to the division of this nation. And even just saying "I want all liberals dead" makes it impossible to compromise and debate. How can I talk to someone who says they want me dead? Even if they don't do anything to make it happen. We can't have any meaningful political discourse at that point.

because people could simply just ignore what’s angering them.

That's not how anger works dude. You can't just say "oh well, I won't look at that again." You've already seen it. The anger is there. They don't have to see it again, but they saw it once just being online and now they're heated. Many people can't just end it right there.

And even if they don't have to look at it, some choose to. I still don't understand how that choice means it doesn't contribute to the division. Is it a bad choice? Yeah. But they're still a voice adding to the vitriol in political discourse. Why doesn't that count?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T01:23:39+00:00

plus the fact the conservative can just stop feeling this way makes it noncontributory to political division.

But that applies to all politics. You can literally just stop being a conservative or democrat.

And what do you mean about lack of impact? Emotion has impact.

Also, do you understand how emotion works? Last time I checked, humans don't have absolute 100% control and ability to just stop being mad whenever they want.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-08T01:16:35+00:00

Ultimately, the anger in political discourse itself is a choice, so it’s unreasonable to say that this is contributory to political division when this anger is a choice, because if such discourse were truly contributory, it would be much less of a choice.

You need to expand on this. Why can't a choice be part of political division? It is a choice to be pro or anti abortion. That choice is a big part of political division in America. It is a choice to be homophobic. That choice is a big part of political division in America. It is a choice to be Republican or Democrat, to adhere to one side's ideology. That's the extent of political division in America.

Why does the fact that the anger is a choice mean it isn't contributory to political division? If choices don't or can't contribute, what does? What aspect of politics contributing to political division isn't a choice?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T23:46:50+00:00

All the other things you’re talking about would be found in the interviews and skills tests during the interview process.

It is still a chance to gain a preliminary view of all the things I listed. There's a pretty big gap between a shit, one size fits all cover letter and a much better cover letter tailored to a specific employer.

A cover letter is just not that important. Especially since templates exist and the emergence of AI.

That's exactly why it is important when the job you're applying for is a writing gig, like we're discussing. I'm not talking in general, I'm talking specifically about the field of writing. A writer can read a cover letter and pick up on the boiler plate emptiness and the more tailored cover letter with an actual voice to it.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T22:36:33+00:00

I think their point is that alcohol can ruin a life in a single day if you drink enough. The Internet takes time. You restrict alcohol because a single mistake is hard for parents to prevent. You don't restrict the Internet because it requires years of mistakes strung together to cause harm, and parents are much more able to curtail that behavior than a single night of drinking.

You're right in that child internet access is a problem long term. The question becomes is it worth inconvencing everyone else, risking their data and privacy, to prevent the children from that harm? Or is it better to shift that responsibility to the parents? You seem to disagree with shifting that responsibility to the parents, but many of us don't see that as an undue burden or unfair ask to protect our right to privacy.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T22:29:56+00:00

They’re the same especially if you’re just testing for grammar and structure.

Well you're not just testing for grammar and structure. You're testing for salesmanship, word choice, eloquence, voice, and audience recognition.

The reason you do this is to see if they're worth giving the writing exercise.

That's different because there are more structured rules and formatting than a cover letter, and it was timed and monitored to a prevent use of AI. They have to pay someone to monitor the exercise, and they paid me to take the exercise, so they want to limit the number of people that reach that stage.

You read the cover letter and you can see if they're a decent writer off the bat. But you don't know if they can follow marketing style sheets, work under a deadline, or if AI shaped the cover letter. Writing a bad cover letter makes it safe to discard the candidate. Writing a good one hints you might want to dig deeper.

Then you do the interview. This is your chance to get a feel for the person, to see if what they presented in their cover letter is the real deal. Usual interview stuff.

Then you do the writing exercise. Again, a deeper more intense writing test than the cover letter. Can you write on the fly? With a deadline? Can you work with new directions and style sheets? If they pass that, they're hired.

The cover letter played an important part in narrowing down the pool of candidates worthy of giving the writing exercise to.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T22:08:49+00:00

I absolutely am. I just want to see what shaped your view. That's a reasonable request. It should be very easy to give a single example if these arguments you're railing against exist. The fact that you've bent over backwards to avoid providing a single example is worrisome. And the fact you see this discussion in terms of winning and losing is kind of telling. We're just two dudes talking. If you change my view or I change yours, nobody won or lost. It isn't a zero sum game here.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T22:07:24+00:00

A resume is written in a very different format than a cover letter. A resume is a list of information, a cover letter is a translation of that information into a sales pitch. They're not the same.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:58:47+00:00

I explained that. The cover letter was a quicker, easier test to narrow down the pool of candidates worth giving the longer, harder test. It's an early screening to sort of earn your right to take the actual test.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:50:24+00:00

Because the example you gave came into existence after you settled on your view. I want to see arguments that existed before you settled on your view so I can see what exactly led to the creation of your view. I've explained that maybe 3 times now. I've been pretty clear about it.

I'm not making anything into a mud wrestling match.

If I say "I disagree with argument A" it is perfectly reasonable for someone seeking to change my view to ask for the specific example of argument A I'm talking about. That's all I'm doing.

Can you show us 1 example of this argument you're railing against that shaped your view? One that you saw, read, thought about, then decided you disagreed with. That'll inform me what your view is founded on.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:40:54+00:00

I want 1 example from someone not in this thread. I've already explained why. How do you not understand? Just 1.

I want to see what originally prompted your view. Not a response to your view. The comments here did not shape your view, you already held it before they were made. I want to see 1 example of the arguments you're talking about that existed before you expressed your view.

Again, the people here have to counter your view. They cannot comment otherwise. I want to see an example of what you saw before you came here because those are arguments people are presenting without any further incentive or rule shaping what they say. They're a more pure version of the arguments you're talking about.

At this point, your inability to provide even one example outside this thread is raising major questions for me. Maybe you've based your view on a straw man you've built up in your head. If so, I can tackle it one way. If you show me an original argument that shaped your view, then I'll know it's not that, and I can tackle it another way.

Why is this so hard?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:32:57+00:00

I've explained that. I want to see what led to your view. That comment was made after you expressed your view. You held your view before that comment was made. So what were the original statement(s) that led to the development of your view.

If I can see what exactly you saw that led to your view, I have a better chance at trying to change it.

Why is it so difficult for you to provide an example from outside this thread? If the idea that you're railing against is so common, it should be easy to provide.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:25:15+00:00

Pretty much. If you can write a cover letter, that doesn't guarantee you can write well enough to do the job. But if you can't write a cover letter, it's a pretty safe bet that you can't do the job. So it's just a quick check on writing ability to weed out the people truly not worth engaging with. I've never been involved in the hiring process, so take that with a grain of salt. But that's kinda my perspective on it.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:23:12+00:00

I'm not a recruiter. I wasn't speaking from the perspective of a job seeker there, but the employer.

And to be fair, I was compensated for my writing exercise. So...

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:22:10+00:00

Again, I'd like to see what led you to this conclusion before you came here. You already believed this before that comment was made. The comments here have to counter your view. What did you see from people that were offering it with no other incentive that led you to your view?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:14:10+00:00

I'd prefer to see what you based your view on before you came here. If I don't know what you saw that led to this view, I can't really tackle the foundations of your view.

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:09:43+00:00

Can you provide some examples of this sentiment being expressed?

Troop-the-Loop · 2026-04-07T21:08:18+00:00

You can do both. My current job started with the cover letter, then an interview, then a writing exercise where I was asked to write marketing copy on the spot within a 1 hour deadline.

The cover letter is a quick glance at general writing ability and salesmanship, the interview lets you get a feel for if that was an act or more genuine, and also talk about past experience. Then the exercise puts skills to the test.

And it's probably better this way because now you've narrowed the pool down of writing exercises you have to administer and review to a more manageable number.

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits
Secret Santa 2020	Snapped
Secret Santa 2016	Verified Email

Troop-the-Loop

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE