site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If Trump paid back Cohen, then Cohen no longer made a campaign contribution since he was acting as Trump’s agent… it also isn’t close to clear that cohen made a campaign contribution

This is not how the FEC understands campaign contributions:

Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

Now, a campaign can transform an in-kind contribution into an operating expense by reimbursing the person making the in-kind contribution, but the Trump campaign never did that. Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump organization instead.

It seems really weird you are arguing Trump exposed himself to criminal liability to try to help Cohen…

I mean, it helped himself too. Otherwise Daniel (or Cohen) might have gone public much earlier to unknown effect.

Also you have zero evidence connecting Trump to this scheme except the partial testimony of Cohen (he doesn’t even testify to all needed elements) with no corroboration. So you are using the word of a serial perjurer to send someone potentially to jail.

This is not correct. Trump himself signed some of the reimbursement checks to Cohen.

This is not how the FEC understands campaign contributions:

We could have had testimony on how the FEC understands these things, but Judge Merchan explicitly ruled that Brad Smith couldn't testify to anything substantive on that front, because allegedly only the Court had jurisdiction to rule on legal interpretations like the meaning of statutes and regulations - even ones outside the Court's proper jurisdiction, apparently.

Except for you know allowing Cohen to offer testimony on it.

I will respond to the others when I have time but with the latter signing a check is not the same as saying Trump had a scheme to book things a certain way because they were worried about campaign finance laws. All it says is that Trump agreed to pay money to Cohen presumably in part as reimbursement.

It doesn’t at all go to scheme.

It means that Trump knew about the reimbursement Cohen. Coming from his business. And presumably how it was booked. If there was also no retainer or other legal work Cohen had done (and Trump knew that) it goes to his intent to commit fraud.

See you use words like “presumably.” There is zero evidence of Trump knowing how or why it was booked a certain way. You are making a leap.

And Trump is saying Cohen worked for years on an oral retainer. No evidence to the contrary to my knowledge.

And again none of that goes to the point that that says zero about Trump’s intent to commit the predicate.

1)There was a person at the trial who could have provided insight on Trump's intent - Donald Trump. He and his defence team elected not to have him testify.

2)When you sign cheques, you are responsible for understanding where you are sending the money.

Okay. You don’t believe in civil liberties. Got it. You also don’t believe in the burden of proof.