site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   28013 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That is how you see it. I read it as Trump had his New York business correctly state that he was paying Cohen for legal expenses.

Opposition research clearly wouldn't happen except in the context of a campaign, and thus is a campaign expense. Paying someone to sign an NDA to keep their mouth shut about an affair is not a campaign expense. As former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith wrote:

It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Right. That's why a bunch of Cohen's testimony, texts, emails, etc were about establishing the motive to pay off Daniels was campaign related. It was Cohen's belief that Trump kept putting off paying Daniels because he hoped he could until after the election, when it wouldn't matter if she went public. That is the perspective of someone concerned about the story's impact on the campaign, not the perspective of someone who didn't want it to get out irrespective of the campaign.

It doesn't matter. Let's say Cohen bought Trump a new suit. They went back and forth talking about how this suit would make Trump look more like an every-man, this other suit made him look more powerful, this one made him look healthier, and how those different impressions would impact the different demographics of voters.

It still would not make the purchase of a suit a campaign contribution. The motive being related to the campaign does not make it a campaign contribution.

The idea here is because Cohen made the payoff to Daniels, that when Trump re-imburses Cohen he has to take into account Cohen's subjective belief made at the time Cohen paid off Daniels; if Cohen thought it was personal, Trump has to pay from personal funds. If Cohen thought it was campaign, Trump has to pay from campaign funds.

Of course this is ridiculous, as is the idea that writing "legal expenses" on a check for money paid to a lawyer who served as an intermediary in a deal is "falsification of business records". It's very imprecise, of course. However, these conclusions have now been laundered through a jury and can no longer be further examined by higher courts.

I don't know. I think the analysis is more fact intensive than you present here. Distinguish two cases.

In the first case Trump wants a new suit for whatever reason. Maybe he thinks all his current ones are ugly, he ruined his favorite one, whatever. So he and Cohen go suit shopping. Trump happens to be a candidate and there's a debate coming up so they do the discussion you mention about how various suits might look. Ultimately Trump picks one and Cohen pays for it. The debate ends up cancelled and Trump keeps the suit.

In the second case candidate Trump has a debate coming up. He doesn't think any of his current suits will look good enough on the debate stage so he decides to buy a new one. He and Cohen go suit shopping. They have the same discussion about suits and how effective they might appear. Trump picks one and Cohen pays for it. The debate ends up cancelled. Trump gives the suit back to Cohen to return since he no longer needs it.

I think the first case is probably not a campaign contribution but the second case probably is a campaign contribution. The "irrespective" criteria is fulfilled in the first in a way it isn't in the second.

The second case is literally not a campaign contribution. "That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate."

Clothing does not count as a campaign contribution. Clothing is personal use. Humans have an obligation to be clothed even if they are not campaigning. And public figures have a commitment to hush up their affairs even if they are not campaigning.

Let's imagine the reverse world:

Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count?

There is, at the least, reasonable doubt that this action was illegal, and the standard for convicting someone of a felony is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not convinced those are general as you assert. The statute also lists "meals" as an example of things that can be campaign expenditures (and therefore outside payment of which can be contributions). The question is not "does Trump have a commitment to buy clothes" its "does Trump have a commitment to buy this specific article of clothing." It's not about the category of thing being purchased, it's about the particular expenditure. I think Trump's attempts to put off paying Daniels until after the election, and his belief he wouldn't need to do so after the election, evince that he had no commitment to paying her outside the context of the then-ongoing election. In any case, this is clearly what Michael Cohen believed, and he's the one who actually committed the election crime.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats