MAGA vs Taylor Swift. Go!

Taylor Swift is a very talented girl who puts out fluffy pop music and who has somehow become the world's biggest superstar (at least, at present).

Not sure why she should be especially relevant politically, either as a spokesperson or punching bag.

Thus, the point of the thread.

Ever heard of K-pop? If not, might want to check them out. They demonstrated their impact on Donald personally, only a few years ago.

Considering Gen Z is a voting block that does NOT like conservative views, anything that rallies them is worth noting.

Freon

Taylor Swift has over three hundred million followers on social media. 

When she speaks, Swifties listen.

If what you are saying is true, if these indictments are just for show, then the evidence will exonerate him.

Is this what you are expecting?

As to Taylor Swift, what you are saying is that the voting block her Swifties are part of, they are no threat to Donald, yes?

Freon

You're generalizing based on shitty rappers. True lyricists can get deep, complex. A couple years back, I saw Common perform with the San Diego Symphony at an outdoor venue on the water. Beautiful stuff.

It's like if I said I don't like country cause they're all a bunch of shit kicking cowboys. But, even though I'm not a fan, I understand that there are a ton of talented musicians, writers, and singer in this genre. This is why I don't make sweeping generalizations about genres I'm not in to.

There are also a bunch of crazy talented producers making the beats. There are reasons so many of them are hired to score major motion pictures or are asked to do side projects with artists from completely different genres. Sure, there are a ton of shitty producers and beat makers too, but it would be ignorant to point at them and say that they are examples of good hip hop.

You're basically having a "get off my lawn" mentality.

Many of those judges were appointed by Donald himself, so unless he chose corrupt ones, I would expect them to treat him fairly. Eileen Cannon, in Florida, for instance.

But judges do not make verdicts, juries do. And the defense, Donald's lawyers, get to participate in choosing those who will be the most impartial and beneficial to their defense. Is your argument that NO ONE supports Donald in these areas?

What you are suggesting is a level of corruption in all those people, hundreds, maybe thousands, of them, across many states.

I find your conclusion to be overly complex.

A far simpler conclusion is that the prosecutions have diligently collected witnesses and evidence for the past several years, culminating in indictments that are rock solid. And if Donald continues to use his existing lawyers, his chance of losing is going to be high. They have not only shown an inability to defend him, but themselves have been chastised by the judicial system itself, including being fined.

And so I ask again, what will you say when he is found guilty of a ton of crime? Will you say that's he's a victim? That the evidence is wrong? That the jury is unfair? Because if you do, then from where I sit, you do not believe in the American justice system itself. If you believe that he should only be tried in areas you deem favorable to him, then what you are saying is that the whole system is corrupt.

Is this what you are saying?

Freon