Even Republicans are beginning to notice Trump's dementia.

[F1fan]

Who is the one lacking in truthfull data or facts ?

You are.

By all acounts the pullout of Afghanistan was a disaster .. crying out that Trump would have done something different does not change that truth ?

There’s plenty of blame to go around. If Trump had still been president the same disaster would’ve happened. A date was set by Trump and the military had to make it happen.

That you don't know the Ukraine war is a disaster is likely a function of ingested propaganda or simple lack of knowledge on your part .. not any lack of Truth on mine.

You have serious media source problems.

Russia has annexed/occupied territory from Ukraine .. terroritory which represents a significant portion of Ukraines GDP. Bidens JV Team was supposed to take back the annexed territory .. or at least some of it in the much vaunted "Counter Offensive" which ended up with Ukraine destroying army after reconstituted army ..

I have no clue what bogus right wing disinformation source you got this from but it is absurd and untrue.

but failing to breach the first line of Russian Defense. Now Ukraine is running short on ammo and short on human capital .. pressing women and old men into service who don't want to be there.

Some republicans in congress are sabotaging the aid that was promised. That allies them with Russia.

and last .. the apology For Genocide Joe's failure to get tough with the Bibi and declaring himself a Zionist is touching .. but Gaza is yet another Biden disaster of EPIC proportions. Not that USA had much moral authority to begin with but, this is damaging.

Biden doesn’t run Israel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make some good comments "Don't have proof" "None was needed" "Just a preponderance of Evidence" - but don't seem to understand the significance of what you have just said.

Oh my, the evidence was repeated to you multiple times. People were saying that we do not need to repeat showing to you that which was already shown.

This whole business of going after someone civily when they have been found "Not Guilty" as a big anathema to principles of Justice - the rule of Law, 1) Innocent until proven guilty - 2) Punishment must fit the crime

Trump was never found not guilty of rape. It is very hard for women to make charges against men. It has always been a difficult crime for women to prove. Attitudes have changed though. And you forgot what led to this so let me remind you. Carroll was one of many women (26 the last time that I checked) that has come out with allegations against Trump. She went public with those claims. At that point Trump began to lie about Carroll and defame her. If he had not done that the first lawsuit would not have happened. Trump could not keep his big mouth shut. If he had the allegations would have likely to have blown over. Trump has only himself to blame for the first lawsuit since it was his modern lies that led to that. Please try not to forget that as you do so often when the facts refute your tirades. She could not press charges due to the statute of limitations. She was denied justice in that way. But Trump's new act of defamation of character enable her to sue him in court. The fact is that even by your standards justice was done. Her award a paltry $5,000,000. And that was for a combination of the rape and the defamation of character after the event.

Was OJ not the first time they allowed something like this ? -- in any case If he is found not guilty of the crime .. there is no punishment .. because there is no crime to fit.

Once again, statute of limitations. And defamation of character. She could not go after him for the first crime. He made it possible to go after him for his more recent actions. Please try to keep up.

Look -- we all "Think" Trump did it .. including every juror who are all tainted on that basis alone.. so when the judge is giving that Jury Instructions .. on how to decide .. telling them >> Its not what you can prove .. but what you think is likely .. we have entered the land of arbitrary ..

No, in the first trial it was proven that Trump lied about Carroll. The only time I have ever heard any compassion in his voice was when he identified E. Jean Carroll as Marla Maples. He could not even identify his own wife at that time who was standing next to him. And it was not a blurry picture. Carroll was very easily identifiable. How many times did he insult Carroll on her looks and say "not my type" as if that was an excuse for a rapist. He was her type. Very much so. That was probably one of the key factors that convicted him.
Once again, if he had just denied the attack it would have probably have blown over, guilty or not, but he personally attacked her and by his words and actions got his minions to threaten her.

The Colorado clown show .. punished Trump on the basis completely arbitrary lack of due process bars.. what does "what likely happened mean" ??? declared Trump Guilty of Insurrection (not criminally guilty) .. and levied punishment on that basis.

Sorry, but you lost that argument badly. You never got one argument right about that. You only demonstrated your complete ignorance of the law.

Hold on here .. reverse the tape either you are guilty of the crime .. or you are not. to say one is not guilty on a criminal basis .. and therefore no crime = no punishment but guilty on a civil basis .. and punished for the Crime that he is not guilty of .. on that basis.

Do you understand the problem of arbitrary in Law ? Probably not as you have a botched perspect of compensitory and punative damages.

Compensation for Loss - No problem .. quantification of the loss can be calculated reasonably - Johnny Depp for example suffered huge loss from the Amber heard defamation of his good name .. .. The Blue Judge in the Trump -Caroll affair giving jury instructions "The woman must be believed' no doubt .. or some variation on that Woke Joke ideology. How much is Caroll's loss ? How much is the loss of the trailer park election workers awarded 140 million in the Gulianni case. Please provide a rational .. non arbitrary calculation of that one ? .. somewhere in the brain at least a few canaries in the Kangaroo coal mine should be screeching out. How do you make equal justice under the law work in this scenario .. ?

"Punative Damages" - Do you have the faintest idea of that "Punative Damages" means ... outside a dictionary definition and in context ?

No ? Welcome to the Club .. as I have no idea how to do that calculation either .. and neither does anyone else .. because it is anything the Judge is going to make up .. obviously .. as in the case of Guilianni.

Did you wish to try to come up with some legally legitimate quantification and calculation ? Sure the person can pay .. which comes into consderation .. but how much must be dependent on the damages to the Plantiff .. which brings us full circle to "punishment must fit the crime" "Defamation" being the big crime in this case .. not "Grabbing her by the Punani" .. of which Trump must be assumed to be not guilty. but .. even though he not guilty .. we going to punish him anyway .. on the basis of some arbitrary legal bar .. and arbitrary punishment criteria.

These raging anathama's to the rule of Law .. on numerous accounts "innocent until proven guilty" - "Punishment fit Crime" - "Equal Justice" is not the mark of a functional Justice system .. something is broke. How it broke .. how our system has slid down the slippery slope into fallacious Utilitarian Abyss - is a story for another day.

Okay, I have had enough of this rant where you either get all of the facts wrong or distort them. Trump keeps losing in court because he is guilty. That has been shown time and time again.. He lost the first E. Jean Carroll case because he was shown to be a liar in his deposition and because Carroll did properly support her claims with witnesses. And of course the record easily showed that Trump defamed her after the fact. It was the defamation that he was sued for.

The second case occurred because Trump is an idiot that cannot keep his mouth shut. He demonstrated that a five million dollar judgment was too small. He had continued to defame Carroll after having been found guilty of that in the first trial. And you do not seem to understand that for justice to be done that judgments have to take into account a person's wealth. Trump has claimed wealth as high as ten billion dollars. The original five million would only be a fraction of that. About a half of a percent.

Let's make this personal for you. Let's say that you had a friend whose total wealth is One million dollars

Your friend, or maybe even exfriend, had a bit of a shady past and had once raped a woman. Now he did not finish the deal. it was a quick in and out. But still the woman was seriously not happy, but there were no witnesses nor was there evidence at that time. But she told a friend about it. Years later your acquaintance's tawdry past came out and women were beginning to state how they were attacked. Your friend also had ardent supporters and when he not only denied that he did the crime he also had his friend threaten the woman that he raped. She cannot charge him for rape since it was too far back in the past, but she can sue him for defamation and she wins. Is $5,000 too high of a judgment for that action against the rapist?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Gee, I wonder what it would be like to be on the receiving end of that?

Well, you certainly won't find out here. Nobody here has ridiculed, defamed, taunted, mis-characterized, denigrated, disparaged, discredited and disgraced you. Nobody has made up names to call you. All that has happened is that a number of members have pointed out some errors of fact and fallacious arguments that you have made. You ought to be grateful to have people think enough about you to do that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And how many times did Kim Jong Un threaten his neighbors with nukes? How many times did Putin invade another country? Under Trump, it never happened. Under Joe Bite me and Vice president Camel Hair, it hasn't stopped happening.

And there you go -- case in point. Emulating Trump by calling people names. Is that really the best you can do?

And really, I think you would find it rather difficult to find a reason for Putin's timing in starting his war on Ukraine that had anything to do with who was President of the USA at the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who is the one lacking in truthfull data or facts ? By all acounts the pullout of Afghanistan was a disaster .. crying out that Trump would have done something different does not change that truth ?

Yes, it did not go well. And it was Trump's plan. Biden just had the guts to see it through. In the long run it was not a disaster. Staying there would be one.

That you don't know the Ukraine war is a disaster is likely a function of ingested propaganda or simple lack of knowledge on your part .. not any lack of Truth on mine. Russia has annexed/occupied territory from Ukraine .. terroritory which represents a significant portion of Ukraines GDP. Bidens JV Team was supposed to take back the annexed territory .. or at least some of it in the much vaunted "Counter Offensive" which ended up with Ukraine destroying army after reconstituted army .. but failing to breach the first line of Russian Defense. Now Ukraine is running short on ammo and short on human capital .. pressing women and old men into service who don't want to be there.

and last .. the apology For Genocide Joe's failure to get tough with the Bibi and declaring himself a Zionist is touching .. but Gaza is yet another Biden disaster of EPIC proportions. Not that USA had much moral authority to begin with but, this is damaging.

Yes, Russia is a lot bigger than the Ukraine. It is rather amazing that they have held out as long as they have. How does Russia being an immoral thug help you? And why do you oppose helping the victim? You make your morality very questionable when you object to that. It is quite clear that you will only have an irrational response to any post so I may or may not reply to more failed nonsense on these topics.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh man! I've been sitting here waiting so long for you to reply, and i thought you were using all this time 2 give me well thought out definitions of the words I asked you about so I could give you an answer that would satisfy us both.
However, it appears to have been a waste of time, as usual.

In the context in which they were given, there is no need to define the words "attack" and "USA," nor "government buildings," "officials or "law enforcement." It does not take a philologist to work them out.

 

[Firenze]

In the context in which they were given, there is no need to define the words "attack" and "USA," nor "government buildings," "officials or "law enforcement." It does not take a philologist to work them out.

But you have to admit it's an expected dodge......

 

[Firenze]

I personally align with Trump's anti War "morally bankrupt" values .. take him over Genocide Joe on that basis any day. Used to be Blue was the the Pro ACLU - Free Speech - Anti war monger party. The New Woke Progressive Cancel Crew NWPCC -- is the new Neocon .. anti free speech - pro censorship club .. Go after those whistle-blowers who out Gov't Crimes .. and other morally bankrupt values.

Your equivalent argument:

"I won't tell you if I approve or disapprove of Hitlers raging antisemitism or mass murder - but instead will simply say that I do personally align with his claim that Monday comes after Sunday."

Ay caramba......

 

[Laniakea]

Well, you certainly won't find out here. Nobody here has ridiculed, defamed, taunted, mis-characterized, denigrated, disparaged, discredited and disgraced you. Nobody has made up names to call you. All that has happened is that a number of members have pointed out some errors of fact and fallacious arguments that you have made. You ought to be grateful to have people think enough about you to do that.

Sounds like something Hamas are no doubt telling the hostages right about now.

 

[Laniakea]

In the context in which they were given, there is no need to define the words "attack" and "USA," nor "government buildings," "officials or "law enforcement." It does not take a philologist to work them out.

I know all too well how these type of arguments go where you ask a question, I give an answer based on traditional definitions, only to be told that I had said something other than what I actually said or meant. With that in mind, it is necessary to get definitions established in advance. If you're not willing to even give those definitions, it is an indication that you want to reserve their right to redefine words to suit your own ends after the words have been used.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But you have to admit it's an expected dodge......

Of course --(s)he's played the same dodge several times in this thread alone.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know all too well how these type of arguments go where you ask a question, I give an answer based on traditional definitions, only to be told that I had said something other than what I actually said or meant. With that in mind, it is necessary to get definitions established in advance. If you're not willing to even give those definitions, it is an indication that you want to reserve their right to redefine words to suit your own ends after the words have been used.

It looks like you understand that you have the right and ability to deflect endlessly and refuse to answer questions.

But what you can't do is make people not see that that is what you do, nor to speculate on why, this is, nor what your answer would be were you candid enough to give it. It looks like nobody will play your game with you and try to beg you for an answer.

What interests me is why you seem to be ashamed to give it. Who and whatever you are, whatever your values and beliefs, one wonders why you would be unwilling to state them even if they are considered reprehensible and would earn rebuke. Why should you care if that's who you are? And if who you are needs to be concealed, shouldn't you be striving to be somebody that can say what he believes without shame? It's a better way to live.

Anyway, you have my answer for why you won't answer that question, and it's undoubtedly correct. After listening to so much conservative agitprop and imbibing it uncritically, you have been trained to hate the liberals so much that you are willing to see your country go down the drain just to torment them while living what should be a happy life yourself.

The second likeliest answer - and it may be a combination of the two - is that your life has been such a frustrating failure to launch that you just want to burn the world down, and you blame others for your life being a disappointment. That's how I see blue collar MAGA - stuck in dead end jobs, living paycheck to paycheck, and blaming others.

I understand. You don't feel free to be honest, so you prefer to let others decide for themselves why you choose deflection. That's cool. That's your right.

 

[F1fan]

I know all too well how these type of arguments go where you ask a question, I give an answer based on traditional definitions, only to be told that I had said something other than what I actually said or meant. With that in mind, it is necessary to get definitions established in advance. If you're not willing to even give those definitions, it is an indication that you want to reserve their right to redefine words to suit your own ends after the words have been used.

Imagine someone asking you to define every word in your post. If you can’t understand definitions based on the context of statements and questions then it’s your problem. Everyone is capable.

 

[Laniakea]

Imagine someone asking you to define every word in your post. If you can’t understand definitions based on the context of statements and questions then it’s your problem. Everyone is capable.

Two words isn't an entire post.
Try again.

 

[F1fan]

Two words isn't an entire post.
Try again.

You struggle with two commonly used words so does it matter if it’s three or four or more?

 

[Laniakea]

You struggle with two commonly used words so does it matter if it’s three or four or more?

Yes. 2 words is not the same as three or four.
You seem to be satisfied balking at defining a couple of words. It would have taken you much less time to simply answer my question. Aren't you confident that you could have provided an answer that would have been truthful?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to be satisfied balking at defining a couple of words. It would have taken you much less time to simply answer my question. Aren't you confident that you could have provided an answer that would have been truthful?

I guess that thinking doesn't apply to you. You seem to prefer deflecting to answering. It would have taken you much less time to have answered his question: "Will you attack America if Trump asks you to?" Do you think that others will likely reserve judgment regarding your likely answer if you don't give it? That isn't realistic. Do you think that dragging this out with quibberdickery* was a good strategy?

Are you aware of the Streisand Effect? It's basically that the more you insist people look away, the more they look. You could have answered his question long ago and this would be in the past by now, but you chose to do the equivalent of 'taking the Fifth' without saying so.

Are you aware of what's happening to Bannon now? He's trying to conceal banking records from a former attorney trying to get paid, but prosecutors in a separate fraud indictment understand the likely reason for that. From Steve Bannon just got squeezed:

"Steve Bannon is awaiting criminal trial in New York on fraud charges, which will send him to prison for several years if he’s convicted. In the meantime, Bannon is in a legal battle with his former attorney, who claims that Bannon refused to pay him about half a million dollars. The attorney is going after Bannon’s bank records and such. In an effort to stop it, Bannon is being forced to admit that his bank records contain evidence that could be used against him in his criminal trial. Bannon is arguing that he can’t be forced to turn over his bank records in the civil proceeding due to his Fifth Amendment protections.

"But in so doing, Bannon just announced to prosecutors that they should look more closely at his bank records for the evidence that he’s talking about. And prosecutors will have no problem obtaining any bank records that they don’t already have. It’s the kind of catch-22 where in order to try to get off the hook in one legal situation, you end up having to compromise yourself in another legal situation. Bannon may fend off his attorney’s fees for awhile longer, but in so doing, he just increased the odds of going to prison."

*From "Insulting English":

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

No, THIS is a joke of a response. You're just repeating yourself. Again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not that he doesn't have every right to. If someone makes accusations against him, he has every right to speak in defense of himself. But I can see that you believe that some people don't have even a First Amendment right. Especially if it's someone you don't like.

No, he doesn't. As per the court ruling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not that he doesn't have every right to. If someone makes accusations against him, he has every right to speak in defense of himself.

This is true.
But if in the process of defending himself
he slanders or libels someone, then he
can be held liable for damages.
Also, one's speech in a courtroom can be
limited by court rules. Defending oneself
is fine, but attacking a judge, political
speeches, profanity, & yelling won't fly.

Have you ever been in court?