metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I agree-- bad example.
BTW, some people [not you] seem to not be able to understand the difference between "Hunter" and "Joe".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Even Republicans are beginning to notice Trump's dementia.
- Thread starter Subduction Zone
- Start date
BTW, some people [not you] seem to not be able to understand the difference between "Hunter" and "Joe".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, you have. You have never been able to justify using the term. I am not the only one that mentioned that. And that is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. You act as if the term was a refutation when it is just an unsupported accusation.
LOL! Oh my, the person that only posts diatribes half of the time is accusing others of it when well reasoned corrections are given to him. Someone stick an irony meter in here. What "name calling" did I do? There is none in that post.
But there were none. You need to be very clear on what rules of law were broken. You never show any. You just yell "kangaroo court". Do you remember your failure in the disqualification issue when you wanted a criminal conviction where none was needed? That was a civil matter. Not a criminal one. Your understanding of the "Rule of Law" appears to be far weaker than those that you debate against.
Every time that you have used that term you have never properly justified it. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand the Rule of Law. And you are the one claiming that there were violations of the rule of law. It is up to you to provide them if you want to use that term. Wow, misusing a term and then trying to shift the burden of proof in just about the oddest way that I can recall seeing.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Panties are made from flimsy fabric, not iron. Good grief, this is disgusting.
Gee, I wonder why rape victims are afraid to speak out? What a mystery.
Boy, you've got every single lame talking point excuse in the rape apologists/victimize the victim playbook.
You should have paid closer attention during #MeToo.
Trump told us he grabs women by the ****. Here is a woman who just demonstrated in a court of law that he did just that, and worse.
It's clear that some have twisted dementia to be proven guilty of crimes. We should not be distracted by attempts to change the subject. The latest story:
Donald Trump 'Slurring' Words Again at Rally Sparks Speculation
What is - in your words " disgusting" here is your inability to provide evidence and then crying out that Evidence should not be required for guilt to be assessed as this would cause rape victims to be afraid to speak out .. and that as per "metoo" the woman should just be believed .. the man guilty until proven innocent.
Trump running around running his mouth about women that throw themselves at rich men .. as Caroll might well have been doing .. does not constitute evidence that Trump is a rapist.
What a horrible and - in your words "Disgusting" anathema to the Rule of Law and principles of Justice .. Equal justice be damned .. the Prog Blue Crew just gonna cancel that one .. innocent be for proven guilty .. come on .. no proof required when wearing the Kangarooland attire.
This woman didn't demonstrate squat .. I keep asking you for the Evidence which backs up your claim .. tell us about the penetration .. was it up to the first knuckle .. ? was it his thumb or finger .. and how long did it remain there .. was there any finger banging... and what is disgusting about flimsy panties ? .. and was Caroll wearing any panties. .. Hardly a "rape" if while in an embrace Trumps fingers found paydirt.. then retreated when the poor girl protested .. the girl complaining to her friends afterwords about a Pig .. the story grown bigger with time and imagination .. well past the statue of limitations which is another anathema to the principles of Justice.
You are happy when a flawed application of the law goes your way .. "My Body My Choice" .. no problem when that violated for the Jab -- but how about when violated by the anti aborts .. something they agree with .. same hypocritical double standard .. and anathema to law.
Sorry mate -- The woman is not to be believed .. nor the man disbelieved .. It is the evidence that engenders belief .. and finding the Truth that brings justice .. equal justice under the law .. same standards for a man .. as for a woman.
This has always been a problematic position of the Nazi Feminists --- the quest for equality became about power and control .. generating inequality .. undermining "Equal Justice" under the Law.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It did not take to long to refute it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When you ignore the fact that evidence was given of Trump's attack and and evidence was given that Trump was lying then you only make yourself look silly.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I am wondering if Sargonski is Trump.
They sure do sound a lot alike
I offer up post 406 as exhibit a
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
She demonstrated enough to win her case. And to have another case heard, as we speak.
The rest of this post makes me want to puke.
It is true as adjudicated in first Carroll trial. The preponderance of evidence supported the plaintiff's claim according to the only opinion that mattered, the judge's. What do you think of Trump and his attorney's choice to reject a jury trial in favor of a bench trial? Not much, I'd imagine.
He said, "Trump's cognitive decline appears to be even worse." That's not substantive to you? Did you need him to make the entire argument and present all of the evidence again?
But that's not what happened. There was also a trial. The judge reviewed the evidence and found for the plaintiff.
Yet Biden hasn't been indicted. How do you account for that if it's the same evidence?
Why would she? The Committee investigated the events surrounding J6 and found no reason to subpoena her. Nor has the Republican House that has investigated every other hare-brained allegation Republicans have come up with.
He can barely stand now. He looks more obese than ever, needs two hands to drink a glass of water, has difficulty with gently sloped ramps, is slurring words, and people who have spent time with him say he's incontinent now. And who knows what that plague is on his palm.
There's reason to believe that Trump has been exposed to Covid recently by his attorney Habba, whose parents tested positive for the virus and who is not well herself now. Nevertheless, she appeared in court and sat with Trump. How do you think he'd fare with another case? Would he survive another bout given his age, physical weakness, and obesity?
There's a good argument that the case he caught in 2020 was the beginning of the end for what's left of his mind and that he suffers from long Covid and persistent neurological symptoms. He didn't seem to decline much before then.
Trump didn't know the difference between them. They're nothing alike (except being female politicians with first names starting with N) and don't look alike. Did you hear him trying to pronounce Stefanik's name? And we are told that whales don't appear on any standard cognitive test.
Yet he still kicked Trump's pitoot. How do you account for that? Dark Brandon again?
They do, but that's just half the reasons to vote for Joe. Trump is the other half.
The IRS and the court system in New York. Trump fooled around there and will soon find out.
Then he should bring his case against her to court like she did to him. Maybe he'll get his $5 million dollars and whatever more he's getting ready to lose in this second trial back.
You've disqualified your opinion with that.
No, there's also the evidence that convinced the judge, which has also convinced the non-MAGA world
Enough to convince the jury of one.
Suddenly, you've changed your position on making such statements.
Rose and Valerie screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free (Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them so, uh oh oh
If the courts are that incompetent or dishonest, then Trump can go to the same kangaroo court system for a similar verdict himself. If you're incorrect, that can't and therefore won't happen. Let's see how things progress and we can decide then.
She was awarded compensatory and punitive damages for what Trump put her through in that department store and thereafter that the court felt she was entitled to. Apparently, the punitive damages weren't high enough. Let's see what they give her this time. The buzz I'm hearing is around $12 million. Of course, that's chump change compared to what James will disgorge from him and his heirs. I hope she gets her millions before all of that is goes elsewhere. Or maybe the law has a provision to pay Trump's debts before banking Trump's last couple of hundred million dollars
You've only made the allegation, not the case.
naked claim after naked claim .. How was my opinion disqualified .. with what ? and since when are tax violations of any relevane to the rape case ? it is you who should be disqualified for that one .. How is what the IRS thinks of Trump .. in any way shape or form .. relevant to a conversation about evidence for the Caroll Rape Trial
You cry out "you have changed your position" .. OK fine .. How did I change my position .. and what position are you talking about ? This is silly strawman fallacy .. so we must ask the question. Do you know what an argument is ?
What do you mean "IF" the courts are that incompent or dishonest .. that you need to ask serves as disqualification .. have courts in how many states made abortion illegal after ridiculously short period .. .. what happened during Covid ? to judicial oversite stepping in and putting a stop to the forced medical treatment mandates. .. no lights go lights start flashing nor canaries in the coal mine of totalitarianism singing in your ear friend ? If not .. = in your words = "Disqualified"
I gave specific rule of law violations .. 12 million dollars for a grope ? "punishment fit crime" "Equal Justice Under the Law" alarm bells not going off friend ? After the statute of limitations has run out ? .. so we should never be here to begin with .. no punishment allowed after that time .. and so on.
You have no justification for any of this.. and in fact never knew it existed .. cept perhaps some dank dim memory "Equal Justice Under the Law" the phrase maybe familiar but the meaning long since lost or forgotten .. or perhaps never there to begin with .. "Disqualified" in any case.
Please .. apologize for the obvious equal justice under the law violation .. tell us how and why this doesn't count .. and the Guliani defamation figure wasn't that something like 140 million. Give me an I - N- S -A- N- E .. Nothing ? not even a little tickle in your ear the canaries singing over the next hill ..
They're not to my knowledge.
Yes.
I'll explain. That's the first part of a conditional argument, which is usually in the form of if-A-then-B, meaning that if the conditional premise obtains, then the conclusion follows. What's implied is that if not-B, then not-A.
I wrote, "If the courts are that incompetent or dishonest, then Trump can go to the same kangaroo court system for a similar verdict himself. " The way to understand the first conditional statement is that if the courts are that incompetent or dishonest, then Trump can go to the same court system for a similar verdict himself, but if they're not, he can't (you have to add the implied part yourself).
Have you seen this from Lewis Carroll (no known relation to the defendant)?: “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
I don't see a rule of law violation there except that groping is illegal. But that's irrelevant. The damages are for the defamation, and the allegation was more than groping. This was a sexual assault. But he got away with that. As many have noted, he hasn't been (and won't be unless the laws on the statute of limitations are changed) indicted for the sex crime.
Is this intended as evidence that the courts are dysfunctional, because they didn't adjudicate as you would prefer? You've already been told that there were no forced medical treatments during Covid except with minor children that didn't want a shot but had to take one anyway at their parents' insistence, but apparently, that made no impact on your subsequent posting, since here you are again making the same false claim.
As I recall, you were offended that your son received a Covid vaccine mandate at work and chose to work elsewhere rather than get vaccinated. Is that correct? If so, that's freedom, not totalitarianism. The boss is free to set the standards for working for him within legal limits and the potential employees are free to accept those terms or look for something more acceptable to them.
Higher. Closer to $150 million. I'll bet that you also didn't like the judgments against Fox News and Alex Jones.
None of it needs justification with me except the punitive damages in the first Carroll judgment, which should have been much higher than $3 million (the other $2 million was compensatory). Somebody needs to justify that very low figure.
As we saw, Trump went right out and repeated the tort repeatedly and is still doing so today. Were you aware that the damages being sought in this current trial have been going up since the case was originally filed? Every time Trump opens his mouth, Ka-ching! Ka-ching! Ka-ching! A $150 million dollar punitive judgment might shut Trump up this time. It shut Giuliani up. Punitive damages have to be based on what the defendant can afford.
I just read about a guy so wealthy that he parks in handicapped parking, where he gets a $250 dollar ticket, which he considers the cost of parking. That guy needs $25,000 tickets or $250,000 tickets to modify his behavior. That's how punitive damages work. They have to hurt to be effective. Frankly, I say let him park in the handicapped spots if he's willing to pay the city a quarter million a pop for the privilege.
Have you heard how they're using the deposition from Trump's financial trials in New York in this second Caroll case? Trump was bragging about his wealth - $400 million in cash and $10 billion total net worth. They're probably lies (he chose a bail bondsman to make a $200,000 bail deposit following one of his arrests, which is an automatic forfeiture of 10% of that figure - money wealthy people don't need to spend), but these figures should be taken into consideration when punitive damages are assessed this time.
Sorry that you see all of this as unfair. I don't. People like Giuliani and Trump need to be dealt with effectively, and you can see, the difference in the effect of a $5 million and a $150 million dollar judgment was that one worked and one didn't. And it seems like the judgments against Fox and Jones were effective as well. Five million wouldn't have shut either of them up, either.
Last edited:
What a joke of a response ..clearly you the one having understanding of the issues trying to tar me with your failings .. .. unable to post but strawman fallacy ?! I didn't tell you Trump never defamed Carrol , where does this made up nonsense come from .. and I didn't tell you there was no evidence of defamation .. yet another made up fairy tale that I wasn't in ?
Clearly ran off the page there friend -- seemingly oblivious to the arguments put forth and points made in the post you are responding to. We are talking about Rule of Law violations --- "Equal Justice Under the Law " "Punishment should fit the crime".
Trump supposedly copping a feel based on a he said she said beyond the statute of limitations don't justify 12 million dollars .. nor any defamation associted with the he said she said.
Please explain to me how the harm from this kind of/ level of defamation .. to this individual .. amounts to millions of dollars ? and show us where this how this standard of harm is applied equally across the board .. while passing the giggle test .. and good luck.
3rd world kangaroo style violations of the Rule of Law .. Principles of Justice and basic common sense.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then why did you change the topic to Trump's rape of Carroll? People draw conclusions based upon the arguments that you use.
And how have they not? Here is an error that you made. You complained about the amount of the penalty. When it comes to defamation the penalty has to take into account the wealth of the person doing the defaming. A poor person that defamed another could be seriously hit by a $1,000.00 fine. But Trump claims to be a multibillionaire. $12,000,000 to him would be chump change. You will note that it did not stop him from defaming Carroll even more. That is why a penalty of 100 million would not be unreasonable for him. Monetarily is it insane to have the same pay outs for that sort of crime for a rich person and a poor person.
Now this is a strawman argument. The charge was much worse than that. He went beyond copping a feel. And Trump clearly disagrees with you on the amount of the fine. It did not stop him. He kept defaming her. It was clearly not high enough which is why there was a second trial.
Once again you are not paying attention. That is not for just for damages. That is for damages and penalty. Trump told us with his own behavior that the penalty was not high enough.
Oh thank you for admitting that you are wrong again.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
How can a person defend themselves when the time of the alleged crime is unknown? How do they know Trump was even in New York or at the location when this happened?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Of course right and wrong are important to me and so is truth. Is justice for everyone important to you or just for your political opponents?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is rather difficult, I will agree to that. Worse yet he incriminated himself by showing that he was a liar in his deposition. Probably one of the reasons that he never took the stand.