I’m not saying the argument doesn’t have merit. I’m saying that this case wasn’t about “paying hush money to a porn star”. I really don’t care who he is if he can’t be nuanced. The world is not black and white. Bad Empanada is guilty of a straw man here and the result is that people who generally agree with the argument can’t tell if this is for or against Trump. Read a certain way it minimizes what Trump did. “Oh those other presidents did war crimes but THIS? This itty bitty little fraud is what gets a former president indicted?”
Instead of judging everything by whether it is a Russian bot consider if there is any merit to the argument instead.
Also this guy lives in Argentina.
I’m not saying the argument doesn’t have merit. I’m saying that this case wasn’t about “paying hush money to a porn star”. I really don’t care who he is if he can’t be nuanced. The world is not black and white. Bad Empanada is guilty of a straw man here and the result is that people who generally agree with the argument can’t tell if this is for or against Trump. Read a certain way it minimizes what Trump did. “Oh those other presidents did war crimes but THIS? This itty bitty little fraud is what gets a former president indicted?”