ex-President Trump

Yes i am not religious and i am in favor of open relationships, and i thought this described a lot of people these days especially on the left.

The whole concept of coniugal fidelity completly loses its meaning since we have working contraceptuals (and very easy first trimester abortion). It was a moral rule that had a logic before that, it ceases to have any justification now.

What that means is that i am allowed to criticize judicial processes i find very sketchy same as you and anyone else is.

I think it should be the other way around, you seem to be the one who needs to be educated.

According the the law he was charged with, he can only be charged with falsifying business records if it was done to hide a crime.

What was the crime he was trying to hide by listing hush money payments as a legal expense? Are you aware it's totally legal to pay someone to shut up about having an affair with them, whether it was true or not? It's called a non disclosure agreement, it's totally legal.

What if he listed it as a business expense, would that still be a crime? Isn't that the cost of doing business? It happens every day in the business world.

No crime was ever proven to be committed that they were trying to hide (don't you think if there was, they would of charged him with it too?).

Now I get it. It all makes complete sense.

Have you really managed to get 7 years into this and not know what it's about, yet still speak as if you're an expert on it? Or is this just a game where you think the crime is no big deal but instead pretend you don't know what it is?

No one is claiming he's not allowed to do that with his own money. The issue here is around campaign finance laws (and some tax laws, I believe). If you think that's not a big deal, or don't believe he used campaign funds, that's fine, you should make that argument. But a 'durr, it's totally fine to pay hush money guys, haven't you heard of NDAs??' argument is just nonsense.

With only two big tents some hypocrisy is necessary on both sides, same as the left has to claim they care public schools while almost all donors and many politicians send their kids to private schools.

Which is a way bigger form of hypocrisy because it does affect other people children, unlike personal infidelity.

If you notice even if I am pro voucher schools (and potentially when/of possible for the abolition of the concept of public schools) it's not like I go around all the times claiming democrats (or leftists in general in other countries) are immoral when they send their kids to private schools.

I think you underestimate how much people begin to shape their behavior based on what people at the top of the pyramid are doing. The first thing that popped in my head as an example was in the mob--once a couple mob bosses started having what were basically second wives it then trickled down to everyone else pretty much doing it too. Countless examples of this across our culture--down to things like just being sun-tanned lol Plus they flip back and forth as things go along because as the bottom starts to copy the top wants to get away from it again 😀

I don't , but private schools are too expensive for "commoners" so they can't emulate the elite, exactly because of democrat policies (with vouchers everywhere , everyone would have school choice).

I do agree changes almost always comes from the top sure. Which is why infidelity in the elite isn't a problem at all given that infidelity in society isn't a problem at all once you have contraceptuals that work very well (and easy first trimester abortion).

Of ****ing course MTG would be the one to introduce the ‘Gulf of America’ bill

What bad Democrat policy do you think precipitated the proliferation of private schools in recent decades? They really only started expanding a ton after we ended segregation.

Here's what usually ends up happening back here in reality--people are scammed into supporting full privatization of these kinds of things. Then when it inevitably turns around and bites them in exactly the way everyone else said it would--with high costs etc, they howl like mad. Along with the knee-jerk blame the left response even though they voted for it to happen to themselves.

letting radical teacher unions become the military controllers of schools in many places? they are teaching insane pseudo religious leftist doctrines using public money to do so.

like rainbow flags as all other symbols with any political meaning that isn't fully agreed upon by both main parties, and all associated ideology, should be completely banned from all public school curricula and it should be uncontroversial and obvious to say so and apply that everywhere.

and with COVID their teachers, democrat teacher from democrat donating teachers unions, kept public schools closed when everything else was opened, sometimes for months.

that is something that alone should fully justified the permanent privatization and atomization of the system. if a few school go mad because they get controlled by psychopaths, parents leave them and they close and have to fire all the madmen.

with no such control valve utterly horrific psychopath keep staying as teachers and administrators of public money for education which is simply outrageous

The day you will understand that the goal of the private sector is to maximize profits at the expenses of its consumers , you will stop being a radical right wing yourself .

That makes nonsense to me ….

You're completely disconnected from reality and the language you're using makes it sound like you're foaming at the mouth--about somewhere you'll never even live lol Why don't you calm down and worry about your own country? I promise you not 1 American conservative or liberal cares about your input 😀

because I have family in the USA (must be like the 25th time I say that) and american bases with nuclear weapons in my country.

as for what people care about what I say, you are not the arbiter of that.

the day you understand that's the goal of public employees as well (to pursue their own interests disregarding everything else), you will understand competition is what saves us from their (public and private) greed, and that only happens if everything is private.

private Is Better because it's decentralized and it doesn't have the monopoly of violence on its side and you can always opt out.

Family doesn't count sorry. Good luck finding 10 Americans out in the wild who care what someone from another country thinks about our politics. Lefties and righties have been quick to drop the feuds and circle the wagons my entire life.

Had your ancestors not been dumb they most likely wouldn't be there--so look inward my friend 😀

I don't understand what you mean with the bold, nor what you mean with "family doesn't count".

Family is one of the things that count the most for any decent (ie non leftist) person

You're really bad at making any sort of rational argument. It's probably time to stop posting....

Let’s say it’s true about public employees self interest .
It doesn’t change much about the services at good cost the citizens will get anyway .

Ps: your foolish to believe the private sector , regardless being management or employees , doesn’t have their self interest at play either ….
It’s all the same …but the private sector as well will try to screw their costumers for self profits while public employee doesn’t care much , they get paid the same regardless they sell/provide a lot services or not .

And no you cannot always opt out if for example you sign a contract in the private sector buddy ..

Right, your father is in Santa Clara county. So how does that cause you to opine on our k-12 education system? And why should conservatives or liberals care about your suggestion to burn our public school system to the ground?

yeah i am very sympathetic to a lot of lucioms "let the market decide" but strongly believe that anything essential to basic existence from transportation to healthcare or utilities should either be directly owned or heavily regulated by the gov

i'd love to take a singapore style approach where we pay them a lot and seek the best and brightest and fire those who perform poorly

sadly, government work in the USA is dominated by two kinds of people

1 - ambitious people just seeking higher office or a fast track to parlay their influence into lucrative private sector positions
2 - the lazy just looking for a safe paycheck and not much else - mostly because they wouldn't do well in the private sector

the slimiest and laziest colleagues i've ever had in my life was working with federal employees during my days as a private contractor

both systems suck, i hate the incompetence of our government employees, but i'd still rather have them managing the highways than if they were privatized because while those people are corrupt and incompetent, they are not trying to squeeze every dollar out of drivers

Agree.
The problem to me isn’t private or public , it is to find the right ratio to optimize competition while keeping some « ethics » in the market .
Fair legal competition .

IMO Monopoles and absolute power always ends up in some kind of corruption.

I wonder why we stuck a bunch of military bases in Germany and Italy--it's a true mystery 😀

Pointing out your family member cares is like your mom and dad saying you're the prettiest girl in the pageant. It doesn't count to anyone but you. Welcome to America.

I don't believe for a second you think food production and distribution would be better if government owned fields and supermarkets nor that the current amount of regulations about food productions are proper (or we need even more??), and food is more important than what you listed , objectively.

Utilities stand out of the list, as transportation does in part, because of actual natural monopolies that can exist. That is what justifies a modicum more regulation than normal sectors, on top of the "essentiality" of the service provided.

The idea is markets always work A LOT better than the best public planning (and infinitely better than the usual public planning) every time you have competition, and the more important something is the more you would like the benefits of markets, not viceversa.

This "let markets exist for what isn't super important, let's keep the rest public" is actually called "fascism" in a technical sense, that's what Mussolini did nationalizing the "strategic" sectors and keeping the rest "free" (that's opposed to normal socialism which wants to nationalize everything).

But again think about food and about bread lines in the USSR, and that's the most important good/service of all, every one dies without it, every society had to guarantee that before everything else (next comes security from internal and external aggression, then everything else).