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 -
I still haven't seen a decent theory for why this payment is specifically for the campaign, while it would seemingly be perfectly legal any other day of the week for a Totally Upstanding Well-Known Businessperson and Public Figure.
Is it shady? Absolutely, but "running for office limits your otherwise-available personal publicity campaigning" seems a bit questionable under the generally-favored strict scrutiny for free speech questions. Which is part of why Citizens United came down the way it did: the government claimed then-extant election funding rules allowed them to ban books.
My understanding is that the motivation for it was specifically the impact it could have on voters, especially so close to the election (the payment was in late October). Rather than some general concern about Trump's image. I believe this specific concern is memorialized in contemporaneous communication by Cohen, Packard, and others.
As I mention in my original comment the manner in which Trump went about it is probably the whole issue. If he had decided to pay off Daniels out of his own funds there is probably no crime.
Isn’t the big problem for you that Trump seemed to try to keep this from coming out in 2011! That proves his motivation was not solely for the campaign.
And even then, see Brad Smith’s view on campaign contributions (ie he believes per se it isn’t a campaign contribution)
His motivation doesn't have to be solely the campaign for it to be a campaign contribution. If Cohen made a campaign expenditure on behalf of or in coordination with a campaign, then it was a campaign contribution.
Brad Smith former FEC chairmen appointed by Clinton explained that campaign expenses are things that a person (not the candidate) would only spend on an election (eg polls, fees directly related to the campaign). It would not include things like a nice suit even if the candidate purchased it solely with campaign in mind.
At best the law here is very convoluted. But we are to believe Trump and Cohen connected this scheme to try to keep Cohen out of hot water that may or may not exist even though Cohen didn’t testify “Trump did it for that reason.” Literally zero evidence on that point meaning per se the prosecution loses. But it doesn’t bother you?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link