This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The judge establishes "motions in limine" to set up the contours of how the trial would proceed and what topics can be addressed. The judge dealt with these disputes ahead of trial (see the case docket), including determining whether the Access Hollywood tape would be admissible. Is there anything within the docket that leads you to believe that the opposing attorney would have been allowed to go on a (presumably irrelevant) fishing expedition?
It’s New York. They are literally charging him already with novel legal theories. And this isn’t even the first time he’s faced novel legal theories. The first time was his associate Flynn who faced novel legal theories on a Logan Act Violation. Anything he said under oath would be liable to anything a hungry DA could come up with.
Between this and your response to me, I think you're moving the goalposts.
No, it wasn't.
Yeah, he did, but chose not to. And chose not to bring any witnesses.
@ymeskhout gives a reason why that shouldn't be the case, since the rules were laid out ahead of time. I'll add that if a guy can't say anything without lying, maybe he's got a bigger problem.
Regardless of how I feel about Mr. Bragg, I don't have any reason to believe he controls the rules of this civil suit. One that's been in the making since before he was elected.
More importantly, it didn't take any new legal theories! You had to construct this hypothetical lest you admit Trump might have made an error. Can't have that. Anything that looks like a blunder on his part was just 5D chess, preempting some new and exciting abuse of power by his haters.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.
I’m not sure where talking to you I mentioned statute of limitations. But yea changing the statute of limitations after they expired is problematic (though not just applied to Trump).
“Chose not to”. Ya sure a guy who’s already had issues with improper investigations over choosing to talk (Flynn - Logan Act) should just want to have a thousand people investigate him for anything be possible said wrong for perjury.
“Fishing expeditions”
How many investigations has Trump and/or Trump associates had investigations into them?
I can summarize your entire response too. Yes us conservatives have faced a lot of bullshit so yes we have trust issues in the “process”
More options
Context Copy link
If a guy declines to testify on his own behalf because he can't say anything under oath without being accused of lying, and if he can then be forced by law to spend his own money to defend himself whilst again unable to take the stand himself, the problem he has is known as a witch hunt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link