Trump NY Hush Money Trial: Guilty on all 34 charges

[Justafan]

The first two sentences of the article mention five people who were familiar with the meeting but don't name sources. It does name Kevin McCarthy as well as Mike Johnson. It also cites other non-named sources later in the article. WSJ doesn't usually do "Political Hit Jobs," but obviously, some of the sources have bias, and in this partisan environment, it's fair to question the legitimacy or robustness of some of the claims. Take it for what it's worth. I do think claiming that it was just a political hit job is an unfair characterization of Annie Linskey and the WSJ. 

[OILERMAN]

41 minutes ago, Justafan said:

The first two sentences of the article mention five people who were familiar with the meeting but don't name sources. It does name Kevin McCarthy as well as Mike Johnson. It also cites other non-named sources later in the article. WSJ doesn't usually do "Political Hit Jobs," but obviously, some of the sources have bias, and in this partisan environment, it's fair to question the legitimacy or robustness of some of the claims. Take it for what it's worth. I do think claiming that it was just a political hit job is an unfair characterization of Annie Linskey and the WSJ. 

 

Several Dems have came forward and said they were interviewed and only Republicans were quoted, who admitted they lied

[Justafan]

2 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Several Dems have came forward and said they were interviewed and only Republicans were quoted, who admitted they lied

I'm aware of Democrats claiming that they were ignored, but I haven't seen any Republicans admitting they lied. The sources are unnamed, as far as I'm aware, outside of the ones I listed. Do you have a link to where some of the Republicans admitted they lied or where it was confirmed that it was only republican sources outside of the claims of Democrats who have clear political motivation to refute the story?

[Jamalisms]

1 hour ago, HurrayTitans!!! said:

how dare those guys point out what we all see EVERY single time Biden is in public

 

Derp from an unserious person.

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

WSJ doesn't usually do "Political Hit Jobs," 

That was before Rupert Murdoch bought them…

[Justafan]

I don't think it's fair to say Biden has dementia. We've all seen him be lucid, and we've all seen him struggle to put a sentence together, but EVERY president has gaffes when they are being watched all the time, so the Twitter videos taken out of context are just people seeing what they want to see.

 

However, I think it's telling that the Biden administration has purposefully avoided long-form engagements and limited the president's public appearances. I also think it's fair to say that he's not as mentally sharp as maybe he was in the past, and that shouldn't surprise or upset anyone, given his age. People don't want to admit it, because of the implications, the stakes, and the partisan nature of media these days, but if we're being honest, really honest, Biden does look like an old man when he speaks. Having said that, I haven't seen ANY public evidence that he has dementia, as many Republicans have alleged. We have seen credible reports, however, from multiple sources now, that Biden may have moments where he's not lucid. You can choose to do with that what you will, and I know someone on here will probably lash out at me and accuse me of both sides for simply having an opinion, but I don't care; it's the truth. 

 

I also think it's fair to question Trump's mental state as he doesn't sound anything like the guy who was interviewed back in the 2000s and with the ridiculous things that have come out of his mouth, for which there is no defense. Of which the best defense would be that he has some form of dementia. He also could have some sort of other psychological condition, given the radical things he says and does, his clear disconnect with reality, and his adversarial relationship with the truth. 

 

I'm also going to say that the WSJ is not fox news or some uncredentialed organization known for carrying water for either party, and the journalist who wrote the article has a solid reputation, including covering democrats for the Boston Globe and the Obama Whitehouse and to my knowledge has never put out another article or source that would be considered as hackery or a political hit job. Is it possible that she got taken? Anything's possible, but it's hard to imagine with a story like this, she would just take McCarthy's word for it and run with it without confirming from independent sources or being pretty darn sure that it was credible.

 

Yes, some Democrats denied the story. What else were they going to say?

 

 

[Justafan]

23 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

That was before Rupert Murdoch bought them…

Sure, and George Soros is the boogey man...

[Starkiller]

14 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Sure, and George Soros is the boogey man...

“Both sides” strikes again!

[Justafan]

7 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

“Both sides” strikes again!

I didn't both sides anything. I pointed out your hypocritical line of reasoning. 

[Justafan]

5 minutes ago, HurrayTitans!!! said:

First, cheers.  I think is pretty well stated.

 

I agree with your statement on Trump too.  The guy has said more dumb s**t than probably any 2 people (not limited to politicians).  He has been very consistent with that and it hasn’t changed.  To be honest, I believe some of that “quality” is what made him famous before he was talking politics (2015 version, not the 1980’s version).

 

I will add, it is very tough to deny the signs that Biden has.  It may be Alzheimer’s or it might be dementia, but he meets much of these criteria.

https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/10_signs
 

I also agree on the premise of what else are they going to say?  
there currently isn’t a real fallback for Biden.  If he isn’t the guy for them to push, who is going to pick it up?

real concern exists that literally any day, something can happen and Harris takes over.

 

I still don’t believe he will be the DNC candidate.  I don’t know who they will build up, likely a candidate that hasnt had a lot of the limelight so they can build up the candidate and the GOP won’t have a lot of time to tear down or build a narrative for voters to follow.

I'll push back on dementia, Alzheimer's, and the criteria listed. I haven't seen any of those signs exhibited publicly by Biden. I've seen him struggle to get through a sentence or get his words jumbled up, but as I said before, every public figure has those sorts of Gaffes, and Biden was known for tripping on his own words well before he got old. I don't think you can take that as any sort of evidence that he has dementia, I think people just see what they want to see. 

 

If Biden truly had dimensia, why in the world would he agree to debate Trump?

[Starkiller]

9 minutes ago, Justafan said:

I didn't both sides anything. I pointed out your hypocritical line of reasoning. 

Bullshit, you compared a guy famous for right wing propaganda and yellow journalism on an international scale to a guy demonized by the right for the audacity of donating lots of money to liberal causes while being Jewish.
 

The fact that you honestly can’t see your constant need to “both sides” every issue is wild…

[Strunk'sDessert]

Multiple people here need to get away from the news and social media as they try to know anything & everything in real time and pick up a history book to understand the past times. 

 

This story is far from new and it usually has the same outcome even if it isn't immediate. 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Strunk'sDessert

[OILERMAN]

The right attacks Biden for being too old, senile, "slipping" ect.....

 

Then makes claims he's on something when he does a State of the Union speech and appears fine.

 

They are already laying the ground work for the debates by claiming he'll be juiced up. 

 

Meanwhile, Trump. Is he slipping? Who cares. He's a complete moronic imbecile with no knowledge of basic governing. He's the biggest criminal in political history who surrounds himself with equally unqualified people who are also criminals. 

 

Would it even matter what Biden's mental capabilities are if the other choice is Trump? Absolutely not. 

[Justafan]

9 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Bullshit, you compared a guy famous for right wing propaganda and yellow journalism on an international scale to a guy demonized by the right for the audacity of donating lots of money to liberal causes while being Jewish.
 

The fact that you honestly can’t see your constant need to “both sides” every issue is wild…

It's quite simple. You sound just like the conspiracy nutters who attack Soros. WSJ was bought out in 2007, so give me a rundown of their right-wing propaganda, yellow journalism, and all the political hit pieces they've been running. 

 

Or just go away because you're full of shit. 

[Justafan]

2 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

The right attacks Biden for being too old, senile, "slipping" ect.....

 

Then makes claims he's on something when he does a State of the Union speech and appears fine.

 

They are already laying the ground work for the debates by claiming he'll be juiced up. 

 

Meanwhile, Trump. Is he slipping? Who cares. He's a complete moronic imbecile with no knowledge of basic governing. He's the biggest criminal in political history who surrounds himself with equally unqualified people who are also criminals. 

 

Would it even matter what Biden's mental capabilities are if the other choice is Trump? Absolutely not. 

I agree 100% with this. There's no comparison. Even if Trump was completely fine, and I'm not convinced he's anything close to fine, Biden would be the better choice.