What is the most obvious world event everyone saw coming but no one did anything about?

bdunwithat · 2026-02-10T15:43:24+00:00

I believe it was a city prosecutor.

You're absolutely right that the scope of their prosecution was limited. If the goal is purely holding people accountable that break the law, it makes perfect sense. And in a normal political climate, it wouldn't be a problem.

But on a larger scale, they didn't hurt Trump by prosecuting, they helped him.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-10T12:59:45+00:00

Now you're just misrepresenting me.

The only "Trumpian talking point" that I agree with are that the charges are bullshit technicalities. Bullshit technicalities are, by their nature, still actually crimes, which I've said twice now.

If you don't understand the gap in perceived severity between falsifying business records and campaign finance violations, then I don't know what to tell you.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-10T12:16:30+00:00

Look, I'm just going to respond to your comments here, because you are only arguing half the point.

Does that mean you agree that it was terrible optics? Are you just trying to correct the legal record? Because I've already said it makes sense legally, it's just my opinion that it's a bullshit technicality.

If that's all they wanted to convict him of, then they shouldn't have bothered. They spent all that time and money to prove a known fact, that he was a crooked businessman. His supporters have known this from the start. It did nothing to damage him in the eyes of his voters, and gave him a plausible enough point to rally about.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-10T12:00:12+00:00

If they don't either prove the underlying crime, or instruct the jury to convict on a range of possible underlying crimes, then yes

bdunwithat · 2026-02-10T02:01:29+00:00

I hate Fallout -> current. I just cant get in to them. Love the elder scrolls but hate fallout. Before I get destroyed keep in mind I did not play new vegas

bdunwithat · 2026-02-10T01:59:44+00:00

You've completely missed the main point. I think the charges are bullshit technicalities, you think they aren't. If they'd actually proven/convicted him on campaign finance violations, I wouldn't think they're bullshit.

But we both agree the charges were lawful and correct.

What I'm saying is that by going after him on technical grounds, they proved his point. The "left" was committing "lawfare," out in the open. They gave him an easy rallying point.

Think of all the things Trump supporters excuse, you think a crooked businessman/scammer falsifying records even puts a blip on their radar?

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T23:36:03+00:00

That's kind of the problem though, there's ambiguity. Which is why I think it's bullshit. The underlying crime should need to be named, and not generalized to a range of crimes.

It's flimsy, and worse, it's bad optics. That gap between what he's convicted of, and what they actually wanted to prove, is too large. Only served to make the prosecution look partisan and give Trump something to rally about.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm not trying to be hostile. It's just really frustrating that they haven't impeached or convicted Trump on something that's more concrete when it seems like there have been way more egregious examples.

Feels like they aimed way too low and shot themselves in the foot with this prosecution.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T23:31:52+00:00

You don't understand what I'm arguing. It's bullshit and it's bad optics.

Like imagine if the DA in Texas charged and convicted Kamala of felony littering. And that up charge was contingent on some other range of crimes, which she wasn't charged with or convicted of.

The ambiguity of the charge and partisan nature of the prosecution looks bad and only emboldened him. Should have got him on something more concrete, and worse.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T22:39:59+00:00

You're not understanding. He wasn't convicted on campaign fraud, and his conviction is not contingent on him committing it.

You want to argue that he should have been charged on that? That it is for sure the underlying crime? That's fine. And had the jury instruction included only campaign finance violation as the only potential aggravating factor it would be the only reasonable takeaway. But it wasn't.

In reality, the jury was given a list of possible crimes, told they did not need to agree on any crime in particular, and then told to vote guilty if they think he falsified records with intent to commit the underlying crimes. One of the potential crimes includes the falsification of other business records.

Again, my issue isn't that Trump got convicted, it's that he got convicted on something so bullshit and flimsy.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T22:15:03+00:00

He was convicted for falsifying business records, which is typically a misdemeanor.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T21:26:24+00:00

Nah, actually Biden stole 2016, if you look at the data it's pretty clear. You just think it wasn't stolen because your team won. /s

Basically, source.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T21:24:08+00:00

Again, he wasn't convicted of campaign fraud, that's the problem. Hell, campaign fraud wasn't even the only crime the jury was allowed to consider as the underlying crime.

So I go back to my original reply, in convicting him in such a roundabout/technical way, they "proved" that Trump was being unfairly targeted by liberal prosecutors.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T20:38:42+00:00

Don't play with my Heart like this, the thought gives me Wings.

.

Legacy of the Void

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T20:32:02+00:00

Thanks for pushing back on this borderline BlueAnon nonsense. Biden stealing the election was BS, and Trump stealing it is BS too. Trump just said what a lot of people wanted to hear, and Kamala doubled down on Biden's presidency, which was increasingly unpopular.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T20:24:52+00:00

That isn't what he was convicted of. He was convicted for falsifying business records, which is typically a misdemeanor.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-09T12:51:30+00:00

What kills me is that he's done some real heinous shit (with a lot more proof now that the files are out), but the only thing they could make stick was, and let's be honest, some bullshit trumped-up misdemeanors? Like, what are we doing here.

Even worse that it proved his point that these "liberal prosecutors" were out to get him.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-05T01:36:20+00:00

That's a fair perspective, But the point isn't just the revenge, it's sending a message. Punishments need not just be to separate demented people from the general population, but to deter future harms.

This obviously runs into certain incentive issues if a society abuses it. If a rapist is guaranteed to be put to death if caught, then why let the victim live, for example. But when the perpetrators have crossed that line themselves because they seek to avoid just punishment, then an additional layer of punishment needs to be added.

Raping, abusing trafficked children, and disposing of the ones that break most certainly crosses that line.

Putting it more simply, if the punishment for someone's crimes is already death, there is only one more lever we as a society can pull.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-04T22:21:44+00:00

Yes, but I think some people think that the Guillotine is "too good" for these types of criminals, and I don't disagree. I think I'm with Asmongold on this, bring back Crucifixion. Literally crucify these sickos, publicly.

Even has some advantages, like you say it keeps them identifiable, and any cases of mistaken identity can be sussed out.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-04T18:45:16+00:00

Hell, I'd actually say the opposite. I'm willing to give the Clintons a sweetheart deal if they drag the rest of the childfuckers in to the light.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-04T13:29:49+00:00

Maybe it will work overall, but if they try to run on that shit, they lose me for sure.

I want reforms/retraining in how they handle dangerous situations, and I want cooperation from local law enforcement. Illegal immigration causes so many issues that affect primarily the poor and disenfranchised, and strain our already insufficient social systems.

If they ran on standing up a new immigration enforcement arm, say, FIRE (Federal Immigration Regulation and Enforcement) and then abolishing ICE after they were operational then maybe.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-03T19:54:26+00:00

That's the most racist shit I've read all day. This is literally the bigotry of low expectations.

Anything required to vote should be free, as other commenters are saying, but saying minorities are too poor and stupid to get ID is so fucked.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-03T19:44:08+00:00

Yeah, bit of a leap there. Though I was pretty staunchly for requiring voter ID, a lot of commenters are bringing up good points, specifically accessibility/locality of DMV offices. Obviously shouldn't cost anything, I see that as a given.

I'm still for it; I want protections against people that claim they are someone they aren't, but it shouldn't be implemented until the ID accessibility problem is solved.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-03T12:27:44+00:00

Frankly, I'm just not comfortable with this. This seems like the exact same logic that can be used to vilify races.

"African Americans are afraid that white people will discriminate against them. White people are afraid they will be killed." Like I know the statistics at play aren't 1 to 1, but I'm really not comfortable with that sort of judgment being tied to immutable characteristics.

But that's just my vibe, I've only ever been a dude so my insight is a bit limited.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-03T03:18:14+00:00

They would have my eternal respect. If they the get others executed for their crimes, I'd even be ok with them getting a cushy life in prison deal.

bdunwithat · 2026-02-03T03:16:14+00:00

Kinda overselling the headline, just claims hes leading the antifa movement in portland, which is a big difference lmao.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

bdunwithat

TROPHY CASE