1238

It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk He’s telling us what he will do to his political enemies if he’s president again. Is anyone listening?

I feel pretty safe in saying that we can now stop giving him the benefit of that particular doubt. His use—twice; once on social media, and then repeated in a speech—of the word “vermin” to describe his political enemies cannot be an accident. That’s an unusual word choice. It’s not a smear that one just grabs out of the air. And it appears in history chiefly in one context, and one context only.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago
[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Saying "everyone knows this" while actaul facts are presented and then you double down?

That is not logical. Or reasonable. Or good faith.

You are doing the Trump, "everyone's saying it..." and defending it while being factually wrong.

Got an article that says I'm wrong? You don't, do you. That's why you're resisting.

Why are you so all-in on spouting falsehoods in this thread?

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Sure, burden of proof lays with the accuser. An editorial, evidence it is not.

I'm glad the arbiter has spoken, have you any more decrees I should grovel for?

No I'm saying use Google, you won't trust me anyway clearly so read it or don't, it's not going to bother me.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have used Google both ways. It doesn't say what you assert and the link works. I get that you've used up All your free clicks on every news source on the internet and now the internet is pay walled and you like that as a shutdown technique.

Just stop spreading falsehoods that matter.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Parse this extremely complicated set of circumstances if you will.

Trump has a legal fund.

His legal team including Rudy Giuliani keep saying they haven't been paid yet.

Trump has a legal fund.....

That sounds like something he got in trouble for with campaign funds iirc it was something with an f... Fued, no. feudal, nah. fan, don't think so.... Fra... Frau.... Fraud... Fraud! It's fraud!

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

He's greedy and he's used up Giuliani. That doesn't mean he has no funds.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It heavily implies he's using the funds for things other than legal defense, and notably it isn't just Giuliani it's the vast majority of his legal team and former lawyers.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Even at the peak of his fortune, he stiffed people if he could expect they wouldn't sue,or sue successfully.

His Leadership PAC has money. Not as much as it did, but it's got enough for a while. He's been paying legal fees for certain other people too. This does not look like lack of funds. It's just cold hard greed. And maybe spite.

Remember those are the losers who misadvised him (in his perspective).

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Very true.

Sure, he can't use it for legal defense though. That's what he's in trouble for now. It can be all of the above and fraud, if it has a specific purpose and he's not using it for that then he's committing fraud.

Sure, that's not a legal defense though.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's the thing. There's sloppy reporting going on and people have grown accustomed to thinking that Trump only does illegal things. He can spend from the Leadership PAC for his (or others') legal fees. This was ruled on by the government, so this isn't "editorial" stuff.

He's in the clear as long as he's using Leadership PAC funds. His New York business accounts are in dispute. That's worth $250 million... but if he has access to more than that sum, he can afford lawyers - and likely his lifestyle.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No he can't unless it's campaign related, I'm not quite sure where you're actually getting your info.

The pac is being investigated as well.

All that doesn't matter because he won't pay his lawyers and yet he is collecting money specifically for legal fees. That's fraud.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Whether he should or shouldnt be allowed to spend the Leadership PAC funds this way comes down to:

  • the law (Congress)
  • the FEC (enforcement/interpretation)

The FEC says it's fine. If he took money from a Leadership PAC and used it to have a tremendous week at Disney World, it would be fine. Should it be? No. But The regulatory apparatus says it's fine.

If you think I have this all wrong, Google things and post proof. I've provided a link, used the key words a curious person could use to see how this is playing out... I've googled your perspective. I do not find what you say.

I believe topics are being conflated. I'm clear that NY isn't about PACs, he can use specific PAC funds for lawyers, and he does not have to pay every legal bill put forward.

NY trial is about a specific amount of money and related to his ability to do business in that state. The ruling will result in him losing money. He hopes to appeal.

He has other funding sources and the NY trial is (edit: NOT) locking up all of his money or money streams.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

He has other funding sources and the NY trial is locking up all of his money or money streams.

Negates your own argument with your own words which I find fun.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That was a typo, which is now fixed. My default means of engaging on lemmy doesn't like the depth of responses we have.

You can have the last word.

If you get around to investing half the time you poured into this, can you Google the topics and see where things actually are? Lemmy will leave you with impressions that are skewed.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's not even remotely half the time, we're not exactly writing thesis here. I do research and it's not on lemmy, but sure anyone who disagrees with you is of course unread and biased.... Sure keep on truckin buddy.

this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
1238 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19088 readers
1674 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS