Yup. It was a very deliberate preemptive strategy and arguably the only 4D chess move Trump really made.

He could foresee what would be coming down the pipe once he became more scrutinized by the Media after taking the Presidency and he got to work preemptively trying to diminish their credibility and trust with the public.



President Donald Trump told the veteran journalist Lesley Stahl of the CBS program “60 Minutes” that he bashes the press to “demean” and “discredit” reporters so that the public will not believe “negative stories” about him,... cite

I don't know what else to say. You seem intent on painting Trump as a victim. That seems absurd to me.

You are the world's leading expert on the state of your own mind. I won't claim to know why you believe what you believe. It feels like a contrary idea burrowed its way into your brain somehow and you fell in love with it precisely because it was contrary. But that's just a guess. I could be completely wrong.

Bryce does not believe much should be prosecuted. He and i delved into that prior and he said he does not think Theft should be a crime or prosecuted.

I cited him the statute and he said he did not agree with the statute.

So it is important to understand that what he thinks should not be prosecuted may be so at odds with what most normal people do that we may be talking past one another.

Not quoting this from upthread but rather as I think it is important to understand the mindset of the person you are debating in case you think you can debate to reasonable meeting of the minds.

Sometimes starting points are so divergent that you cannot.

Trump knew or should have known when he decided to run for President that it would open him up to much more legal scrutiny than he faced as a TV celebrity. Avoiding this scrutiny is a major reason why many people do not go into politics, not just celebrities. This seems like a good thing to me - we should hold politicians to a higher standard than other private citizens.

It just seems to me like you are being too quick to frame this potential prosecution of Trump as a part of ongoing trends you dislike in celebrity culture rather than as a more ordinary result of him becoming a politician.

One thing I would add is that I am not saying people should steal or that larceny(in a later post I point out my definition of theft is similar to what most countries would call larceny) should be legal. there is a movement to stop arresting people for minor theft(larceny) charges. Some mayors have said ok, with great results for their communities and citizens.
I liked this idea initially because I come from a background where once upon a time the Kansas legal system was very tough on the lgbt community. I know what it feels like to be considered an outcast over something that shouldn't even be illegal/prosecuted so I support their movement.

https://www.westernjournal.com/texas...es-valued-750/

Here's an example of this being done with great success in practice. My guess is that in 15-20 years this would become the norm.

Yes, in theory. In practice, he was in way over his head from the start and possibly started his campaign as a publicity stunt. Obama has talked about how no matter what you know about how difficult the office of the presidency will be, its a great challenge to actually "feel it in your bones". I think whatever plans you make in advance for your presidency, its more difficult than you realize. I think Trump planned. I think he had a "good" legal team in place. But the benefit of living inside the system your whole adult life is much greater than any planning you can do. I don't think serious people would be talking criminal charges here if Trump had had the benefit of the insulation that Clintons and Bushes had.

I think you are misremembering how much liberals wanted to prosecute Bush towards the end of his presidency (especially for torture and civil rights violations). Trump seems more likely to actually be indicted because of crimes he committed before he became President, but I don't see a greater desire for prosecution now than I did in 2007-08 for Bush.

Well yeah. You're not a federal prosecutor or on the grand jury. You will not be the one to decide whether he will be charged or taken to trial. The people making those decisions will have info we don't have.

Yes, government agencies have been doing this a long time over thousands of cases. Trump shouldn't get special treatment if he did something criminal just because he was president.

It would have been trivially easy for Trump to surround himself with competent, experienced people.

He wasn't able to do so because (i) he himself has bad judgment; (ii) he values loyalty and bootlicking over competence; and (iii) when he stumbles into hiring competent people, they tend to quit because Trump is notoriously difficult to work for.

Again, this isn't a celebrity problem.

I probably am misremembering. When George W Bush first ran for president, I was 13, and very uninterested in politics. 13 year old me had heard of Bill Clinton but not George Bush or Al Gore. By the end of his administration I had heard stuff but was still quite young.

I personally disagree with this. I think it is very hard to find good people. One of the biggest mistakes people make in criminal cases is getting a good lawyer. Most people are only going to be arrested once or twice, when that happens you need to dig deep in savings and get a killer lawyer who specializes in the relevant field and ranked at the top , not a good lawyer.

But being president is so much more complicated than that. There's no way picking a great team and the people you actually need is trivially easy. It's a very difficult job that most people could not do, although typically the campaign process weeds out people who aren't tough enough and smart enough to work through these problems. Its not something most people can do.

But second off, the things you listed:

So I agree these are traits Trump possesses, but in my mind I see these qualities as part of being a celebrity, and indeed a celebrity problem. I know you wont see things that way; that's fine. I do.

Celebrities are like Bright burning stars. That's why they are called stars in the first place; they shine and stand out. They are often fussy and demanding and poorly behaved and hire unqualified people. You can tell when they walk into a room that they have a certain aura and natural charisma. If they did not have very outstanding qualities that made up for their weak points they would not be a-listers in the first place. Same thing with powerful models; they have a charisma about them.

This is why they are often over prosecuted.

bryce has a long-standing history of "just asking questions" that is (imo) not very genuine

total bs and not true. you don't know the whole story at all. I'm being genuine.

grando, Ive been posting here since I was 18 years old. You of all people should know better.

Trump has zero outstanding qualities IYAM
Was he really an a-lister?

I knew almost nothing about him before he ran for pres., never saw his tv show.

He's nothing but a con man/grifter.

Trump was definitely an A Lister by any standard.

That is amazing.

welcome Comrade?

It's very hard for Trump, yes. It's not a skill set he's ever needed, because hiring for his businesses is completely different than hiring government leaders. I'm sure he didn't think it was, as he probably figured that "good people" (for business) are good people in any line of work. They're not.

I know a little about this from first-hand experience. Just a little. I'm involved in hiring educational leaders. Nothing near the level we're talking about here, but I think some of the qualities we look for are pretty universal for leadership. Of course they need the specific skillset and knowledge of the actual position and sector they're involved in. And they'll need the things I'm sure Trump looks for like drive and initiative, and even loyalty. But beyond that, you want people with humility and compassion, people who understand they don't know everything and are willing to listen and learn from those around them, and consult experts when they don't know the answers. People that lead by bringing others along with them, that seek to unite rather than divide. Smart (in some areas), driven, tough, loyal - those are the easy things to find.

I hope this doesn't come across as insulting or condescending, because it's not how it's intended, but you seem more than a little star-struck. Celebrities are simply people with a certain degree of talent and a certain degree of luck. Some are extremely talented, others more average but had some good fortune smile on them as well. Aura and natural charisma? Well, sure, some have that, others learn it. But most of them likely have less than it appears - the fact that they are "stars" makes us see a little more there than there is sometimes. And there are plenty of people who never get anywhere near that level (some because they have no interest) with every bit as much charisma or more.

Being "fussy and demanding and poorly behaved and hir[ing] unqualified people" aren't a natural by-product of being, or necessary to becoming, stars. And they aren't unique to stars, either. But the thing is, celebrities don't suffer the negative consequences to those actions that regular people do, so they continue with them. And yes, it's possible some of those traits are more common in "creative geniuses", IDK. But they don't need to be part of being a celebrity. There are plenty of celebrities around that are very down-to-earth people.

To dismiss Trump's terrible qualities and horrific hiring as part of the package you get with him being a celebrity is letting him off the hook. And that's probably not exactly what you were saying, but it's the general impression I took out of your post.

Not voting as not American.

That's an example of it being introduced somewhere. Also it's very limited, i.e. it has to be for own use (e.g. to eat or wear) not to sell or otherwise for financial gain.

Examples from practice of the actual system you want to introduce would be parts of Eastern Europe where this system has been running for a long time and some families just live exclusively from benefits and stealing things valued at under 165.97 euros and their kids are basically trapped into this lifestyle. They're mostly from racial minorities too - the guy you link to thinks that's relevant, not sure if you do too.

------

As to whether Trump was an A-lister - he was fairly well known even in Europe - for example in 2011 the local license for Apprentice in Slovakia was sold/explained in advance as "Donald Trump's show", and the boss from it - Nora Mojsejova - was going to be the "Slovak Donald Trump."

She went into politics, lost the election, and her VAT (sales tax) fraud case is currently going though the court system. Obviously only because she's a celebrity smh.

It is easier than you think. There is a very limited universe of GOP stalwarts with the credentials to be AG, or Secretary of State, or whatever. If you collected 10 GOP power brokers, and you asked them for a list of 20 potential candidates for AG, there would a ton of overlap on the lists. And almost any person on the lists would have been a better AG than Jeff Sessions.

haven't read this thread but I think Trump should be prosecuted.
not only for USA optics but to kinda recover from the damage to allies countries, show them at least this kind of bs won't fly unpunished in the futur.
Right now USA have 0 credibility and trust on the internationnal scene, letting this one go is basically saying FU to rest of the world.

I feel very differently.

As much as I cannot stand Trump I would not see him prosecuted just for 'punishment'

For me the reason they need to prosecute is because Trump laid out such an abusive display of abuse of power and defiance of laws and norms that these things cannot be ignored without putting them back.

If these abuses are allowed to simply sit uncontested they act as blueprint (new norm) for the next authoritarian wanna be. And those in Congress, his AG, and all other officials who support the fascist in waiting will feel it is worth the try since the upside is success and holding power and the downside is simply walking away with a loss. The same downside you have if you do not do those terrible things.

So without litigating all these abuses and getting a conclusion they were wrong, and there indeed being a cost (jail time or sanctions of some other form) this does become the new norm just waiting for the next authoritarian to test them again and take them further.


Heck I would not even be against Biden allowing the process to happen and if Trump is found guilty and faces jail time, commuting the sentence as I do think there may be more tumult from many seeing a POTUS put in jail and the division it would continue after.

I cannot address any of these posts right now, unless you want to hear something REALLY off topic and gross. Thanks for the replies I’ll answer soon unless I’m not allowed.