Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
What a liar.
Lies you say?
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Also,
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boysYa I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.That’s why you live alone. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423565]
Defaming members +1, Total = 2
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423576]
Defaming members +1, Total = 3
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423593]
Defaming members +1, Total = 4
Created:
Posted in:
The comments to NBC’s “Meet the Press” directly address a central premise of special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump over his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results: that Trump knew the election claims he was making were false after being told by several close aides that he had lost.
Well I keep telling double R that the election was not legitimate, and so have other people. Since we know it is an absolute fact that if multiple people tell you something you must believe it yourself all we can conclude is that Double R knows the election wasn't legitimate but continues to lie about it.
Sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Even if we accept that continuing to expand NATO was a poor way to treat Russia, Ukraine is innocent of whatever we in the West did. They did not deserve to be invaded.
Iraq and Afghanistan despite the 9/11 attackers being Arabian.
Speaking of which:
The US shouldn't have invaded IraqTu quoque fallacy. But sure, let's talk about this.
No it's not a fallacy. Tu quoquo refers to an attack on an argument. All ducks are birds, all birds are dinosaurs, so all ducks are dinosaurs = a valid syllogism. Claiming it's invalid because "You didn't admit a crocodile was a dinosaur" would be Tu quoque
When someone accuses you of behaving improperly pointing out contradictions in your moral theory is entirely appropriate and not fallacious in the slightest. Note there is a difference between "You claim that scenario is different but it isn't" and "You didn't act according to your claimed morals".
If NATO said "Yes well Iraq was a totally illegal war that violates our moral principles, we made an oopsie" that would be a hard pill to swallow and detract from credibility, but it wouldn't be fatal to the advanced moral theory. In other words it is not fallacious to say "Do X, even if I err by failing to do X".
That is not the case here. NATO countries admit no wrong doing by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also note that NATO's implicit moral framework is not my moral framework. I'm merely making a point about who is committing fallacies and who isn't.
Ukraine, on the other hand, did nothing wrong aside from having an internal revolution that replaced a pro-Russian government with a pro-Western government.
There was a mini-war in the Donbas with nazis fighting. They are accused of atrocities (and it doesn't take much to make that believable, 'nazis').
Now you can claim that Russia started that by arming locals and/or sending in their own agents undercover; but the relevance cannot be sidestepped. You just used people suffering as a justification for invading Iraq.
Euromaidan was an illegal coupNo, it was a popular uprising
Uprisings are always illegal.
The people brought the country to the point of unrest in order to pressure the parliament to impeach Yanukovych.
Sounds like a Jan 6 that worked. Regardless of its legality (which in the long run is irrelevant) the deep state was involved, again, there is a recording of them talking about filling Ukrainian high offices as if they were picking condiments for a burger.
The West did not magically brainwash 45,000,000 Ukrainians, without which Euromaidan would've been impossible.
Well apparently Trump can magically brainwash millions of people by himself. A more mature analysis shows that manipulation must always work with the pre-existing fault lines of the population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It wasn't a coincidence that the first time in American history we saw a president widely and repeatedly claim the election was stolen, half the country believed the election was stolen.
There are four and only four explanations for a correlation:
A caused B
B caused A
A and B caused by C
Coincidence
It wasn't a coincidence. It was a common cause.
The first time half (more like 1/3) of the population believed the election was stolen was also the first time the POTUS said it was stolen.... actually this is false it's happened before; but the first time in a while, was because it was stolen for the first time in a while (with obvious evidence before and after).
It wasn't a coincidence that Trump told them to fight like hell and then they did.
They could have fought a lot harder than some shoving and tapping people with hollow flag poles. They no doubt had enough guns at home to arm each person with primary and secondary weapons.
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that when someone spends months telling you that your country is being literally stolen from you and that you have to fight like hell to save it, when that person also says peacefully make your voice heard that this isn't what he actually wants from you.
Nobody thought "Trump really wants us to attack". The true Trump loyalists were the ones trying to urge peacefulness (like Bannon). The people who attacked didn't care what Trump wanted. They didn't believe that American democracy was being destroyed solely (or primarily) because Trump said it and their loyalty to Trump extended only so far as he was willing to lead them in the direction they believed was necessary.
It is your obsession with Trump and fundamental delusion about a "Trump cult" that makes this clear and simple theory incomprehensible to you.
Trump isn't the heart, he's just the symbol. Killing or breaking Trump won't end this rift.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is no excuse for this misinformation. Anyone can watch trumps speech where he calls for peaceful protest. If you stopped just blindly listening to what CNN told you trump said and instead just listen for yourself you would see he said to go peacefully. Not only did he say to stay peaceful in his speech he tweeted it out to his supporters.It's called a false exculpatory.Trump spent months telling his supporters that the election (and by extension their voices) were being stolen from them.
He never stopped believing it. We never stopped believing it because that is what the evidence says.
If telling people something you believe is true that makes them angry is incitement, then who incited the BLM riots? Oh yea, the entire democrat establishment.
He then invited them to the capitol on January 6 the claiming it "will be wild". He then held the speech where he told them they have to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".
This BTW followed a speech by Giuliani saying "let's have trial by combat".
Stooping so low as to cite jokes now?
clearly violent rhetoric
Moreover, think about the absurdity of this argument. They were assembled there to protest the theft of American democracy by a bunch of people who, by extension according to Trump's own logic, didn't give a rats ass about their voices. And the remedy for that is to go make their voices heard peacefully??? That makes absolutely no sense. And you know who else knew that? His supporters.
This is true. It also makes sense to kill cops on sight if you believe they're just looking for an excuse to murder every black man they see.
We saw the same thing with Ukraine, because "I need you to do me a favor THOUGH" immediately after being asked about the foreign aid which Trump had been withholding couldn't possibly be interpreted as an attempt to get something in return...
I'm sure Trump has learned his lesson. Next time he extorts other nations he'll do it with clear language and brag about it. That is apparently the right way to do it. Hide in plain sight as it were.
Not only did he say to stay peaceful in his speech he tweeted it out to his supporters.He actually didn't. The post that went out during the riot was written by his aids after pleading with him to say something to encourage them to stop. After getting very hard to get him to do so, he finally gave in, not to do it himself but to have them do it.
If that was the standard of presidential action then Biden has yet to say anything comprehensible.
This was revealed by transcripts from the Jack Smith investigation.
Witnesses who change their story after threats don't mean anything to me.
And then there's the 3 hours or so that Trump spent watching the riots on TV while taking no official action whatsoever to stop it. That demonstrates his intent very clearly.
2:38 p.m - 1:50 PM = 48 minutes
So instead of railing against us for "believing whatever CNN tells us", maybe it is you who needs to question where you are getting your information and talking points from.
Maybe if you got any facts correct there would be a reason for further introspection.
You sit here talking about peaceful people as if those who were peaceful cancel out those who weren't.
Never once have I ever seen you use that logic when it came to the summer riots, because you know it's a stupid argument.
It is, but as I have so repeatedly pointed out, double standards cannot be allowed to stand. The faction that tolerates a deceptive tactic without engaging in it will lose.
Trump is essentially being accused of stochastic terrorism, the defense against that is not "but look at the people who didn't listen to me". That's common sense.
Well it would be the peaceful people who listened to him. As opposed to:
Where the non-peaceful people would be listening to them.
And lastly what is it with you and this defense of "super natural mind reading"? Yet another example of which one of us is actually in a cult. Determining a person's state of mind is not that complicated, we do it literally every single day and intent is one of the most basic concepts within criminal law. You tell a person's intent by looking at their actions. "When a person engages in an act, the natural and predictable consequences of said act can reasonably be inferred as that person's intent". This is really simple stuff, all you're doing is appealing to absolute certainty which doesn't exist. Any reasonable person knows that.
"I would go and take Trump out tonight"
"I don't know why there aren't uprisings every day, maybe there will be"
"They're still going to have to go out there and put a bullet in Trump"
"Show me where protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"
"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house"
"For those of you who are soldiers, make them pay"
"Does one of us come out alive?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is among the most ignorant comments you've ever made.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Edit: It was on CNN, they said Trump now has a basis to file a motion for selective prosecution.
Who doesn't really. Everyone arrested for Jan 6 also has that basis.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The determination of a special counsel is not precedent, it's just a prosecutor acting like a prosecutor. The bizarre scenario is when the prosecutors don't presume guilt like with Hunter Biden and you know all those insurrectionists from the summer of love. That's how you get unequal application of the law and the system no longer becomes "rule of law"
Of course there is no precedent against Trump either, they just are in the midst of self-delusions and don't want to admit it much like Double_RR here will write a 1500 page book before he'll explain why a single statement of Trump's is defamatory (he knows the moment he brings one up I'll provide a mountain of jurisprudence proving it isn't defamation, possibly using Double R's own statements as well)
P.S. oh he decided not to charge Joe, never mind. Pseudo-prosecutor. A lot like the Clinton emails "Uh yea he violated the law (as they pretend to understand it) we just don't care"
Why do they do that? Wouldn't it be better to lie about the behavior rather than blatantly just ignoring it? Oh yea "prosecutorial discretion". I repeat: A violation of the 14th amendment.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory.No, I'll support the process which includes appeals that would in such a ridiculous case surely make it's way up to the supreme court if not overturned sooner.
What if the supreme court refuses to take up the case (as they would)?
That requires arguments
Arguments do not prevail against those who are not committed to being rational.
I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.If I have to explain to you what context means and the role it plays in communicating with other human beings, there's no way I'm about to waste my time citing legal precedent with you.
You don't have to do anything of the sort. You're pretending context magically makes non-defamatory statements defamatory.
and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.The default position by law is that any documents taken were not done so on purpose (it's called innocent until proven guilty).
Red herring. The fact that they all took home the documents is evidence that this law was never interpreted this way before.
If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.I provided them when I pasted the link to the judges ruling which contained them and went into fine detail on why they were defamatory.
From post #338: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423734
[ADOL] Well after filtering out these non-defamatory statements:1) Assertions of innnocence2) Arguments to innocence3) Comments on matters of public interest4) Statement of opinion5) Insults and belittlmentThere was nothing left. So you're going to have to be more specific.
You never responded.
I would have been very happy to go through them in detail and explain how they are defamatory
I doubt it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm pretty tired so I'll probably think of other things to say later. For now all I want to comment on is that Putin was mostly right about the facts, I mean the history was all right except for that non-sense about "Hitler had no choice" because Poland wouldn't give up Danzig.
I have no idea why he said that, it's more like a pet theory; incongruent with the rest of the framing.
The maidan coup was definitely not peaceful and definitely involved western deep state (there is a recording).
The Duchy of Kiev was part of the Russian empire for longer than Texas has been a part of the United States and they tell me it's promoting civil war to suggest Texas should be allowed to leave.
Now any talk of entitlements of an ethnicity or culture to land fall on deaf ears when it comes to me. All I care about is who is going to have a more virtuous government. Still the propagandists on the NATO side do harp on about sovereignty this and "___ people aren't they diverse and gloriously homogeneous at the same time" so Putin is responding in the same irrelevant terms.
When I say irrelevant I not only mean morally useless I also mean practically useless. The concept of sovereignty and culture-land connection has never prevented a war, never ended a war, and never will.
He was right that the Canadian parliament cheered for a nazi (like an OG nazi), and even if you say "well they didn't know that" you can't hand waive it away like that. That man was brought there and held up as a Ukrainian national hero by Ukrainians.
There are countless videos and images of neo-nazi imagery from not only the current war but the fighting in the Donbas since 2014.
If you want to criticize Putin for causing a lot of suffering for no observable gains I think that is fair, but he's not out right lying about the nazi problem.
I think the story of Ukraine at this point can be summed up like this: They were corrupt like everything post-soviet was. They got used and abused by the western deep state which includes significant corruption, violence, and propaganda to the point of an anti-democractic coup (because the deep state doesn't give a shit about democracy), at best didn't care that nazis were supporting them just to have the chance to kill people in the Donbas and at worst encouraged the nazis knowing it would maximize the chance of a major conflict.
Putin fancies himself the hero of this story and he thinks he's going to roll though Ukraine and be home by Christmas like Crimea and Georgia. It didn't work out like that, but he's not going to blink which means he's going to lose unless some major changes happen in western leadership.
I can only hope for the collapse of the deep state, it's far more dangerous than Putin's Russia to humanity, there is reason for hope here and in Europe, but that doesn't help Ukraine now and too many are dead already to let bygones be bygones. Putin gambled on a quick victory and he lost.
I hope a full throated endorsement of Putin's attack never comes, but he is an old man and soon we won't have to worry about the pride of individuals like Putin, Trump, Trudeau, or Johnson.
The only way forward and the greatest mistake we need to not make again is to rebuff Russia simply because the military industrial complex needs a reason to steal our money. You treat people like monsters, they become monsters (to you), there is nothing to lose.
Created:
Posted in:
As if the constant lying and attack on integrity protocols wasn't enough evidence.
If there were no thieves, why do they insist on leaving the vault open and then lie about doing it?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I guarantee you the vast majority of the UIs aren't murderers.
They're running away from the murderers (or slaves of the murderers)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The problem is that statute probably has these things called definitions in them. It's harder to rewrite legal history with stuff like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gorsuch points out that under Anderson's theory a military officer can simply stop following orders at the instant he determines that the president (or anyone else) has engaged in insurrection.Good point Neil, I'll be sure to bring it up to any military personal who express concerns about the legality of fighting for the constitution against the swamp.Cool, legal precedent for the creation of a Junta!
This "rule of law" stuff sure is exciting. I mean when the blood and the screaming start I'll probably change my mind, but for now what a ride!
Some people have accused you and I of promoting a civil war. Turns out we're amateurs compared to the Norma Anderson & Co.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok I was wrong, Ketanji actually has a problem with POTUS not being listed. She's might reverse the Colorado insurrectionist. I guess the 14th amendment is easier to comprehend than gender.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
To where? No country is going to want our murderers.
Wherever the illegal migrants are coming from. Concentrate the shitiness, maybe they'll kill each other so our conscience will be clean.
Created:
Posted in:
Gorsuch points out that under Anderson's theory a military officer can simply stop following orders at the instant he determines that the president (or anyone else) has engaged in insurrection.
Good point Neil, I'll be sure to bring it up to any military personal who express concerns about the legality of fighting for the constitution against the swamp.
Created:
Posted in:
Wow wow wow, slanderer, liar, a birther, and a racist. How low can you go IWRA?Wow the known racist doesn't like a black man.He was born in Kenya. He’s not a real American right?
Created:
Posted in:
Wow the known racist doesn't like a black man. Weird.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm listening to the oral arguments about Colorado's insurrection (disqualifying Trump).
Trump's lawyers are making bad arguments. The opposition is even worse.
The only people making salient points are the justices. As usual Clarence Thomas showing himself to be a real judge.
Ketanji tried to lay an obvious trap, she must have been working on it for a while instead of consulting experts on what a woman is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden's pet shows signs of neglect as it often lashes out uncontrollably, much like his voting base.I would rather have a president admit his limitations rather than torture an innocent animal through neglect.
I'd like to get really angry about that accusation and start sputtering but I guess it takes a level of dementia I simply haven't yet achieved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Do I care?Did Trump have a pet when he was in the White House?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump thinks, and has said, that having pets is “low class.” At one point he expressed disappointment that Pence has pets.
I heard he thinks WW2 veterans are losers and that he eats puppies. Since he's orange and the media tells me he's a threat to democracy I make sure to believe all hearsay and rumor while fact checking non-orange KKK connections for rank and other meaningless minutia.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Reason: If you want UIs deported, then you don't want them getting free healthcare. If you are against the death penalty, then you support murderers getting free healthcare.
This is weak as hell.
You could replace "healthcare" with "mac & cheese".
In the lego world you've constructed there is a simple answer: exile the murderers. Then you don't have to kill them and you don't have to provide healthcare. Not a serious suggestion, just a suggestion fit for the absurd rails you think you've constrained the issues to.
Created:
Posted in:
Klan – the basic unit of the Second Era KKK was known simply as a Klan. Its area of jurisdiction was a Klanton (from "canton") which was defined as "extend[ing] in all directions to a distance midway between the location of the Klan and the nearest Klan thereto" unless otherwise directed by the Grand Dragon or Imperial Wizard. The chief officer of a Klan was an Exalted Cyclops and the subordinate officers were known as the Twelve Terrors.[42]
So he was an Exalted Cyclops, forgive me for not knowing and not giving a shit about KKK ranking systems.
Created:
Posted in:
I could never imagine a man so obsessed with a woman he'll never meet but I'm seeing it. If Melania started an only fans and limited to just FLRW she could make buck.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again.I don't think you read the latest opinion by the DC circuit. He didn't just lose that case, the DC court unanimously ruled that Trump's arguments were a fundamental and blatant disregard for the basic principals of our government and constitution.
Yes, but they lied. They didn't even need to lie, they just wanted quotable snippets to circulate in AP so people would talk about them.
When a pseudo-judge feels empowered and entitled to lie about the arguments being made, is that winning a legal argument? I say it isn't.
This entire effort is nothing more than a delay tactic which our system is vulnerable to.
Which works because they tried to time it to interfere with the election. They could have made these allegations in 2021, but that would have played out before the election which means it might have been a big win for Trump and there would be less pressure on the left-tribe judges to "make the right call for democracy".
The deceitfulness and dishonesty of this quote is yet another example of why Dershowitz along with the rest of Trump's MAGA cult are not taken seriously.
"rest of" now Dershowitz is a MAGA cultist. Only a cultist would think Dershowitz isn't a MAGA cultist after all.
Rule of law, that's what you call this right? Hey is Dershowitz a lawyer? cause you said no lawyer agrees with me so I assume you're calling him a pseudo-lawyer on top of a cultist.
Smith was brought on to take the investigations out of Garland's hands to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
If there is a guinness book of world records for PR failures, this should be seriously considered for the #1 position. He's not even a properly appointed special prosecutor. He is a pseudo-prosecutor in more than once sense of the word.
Biden's DOJ is the literal reason Trump may yet get off on these charges. But does that matter at all in MAGA cult world? No, of course not.
Ah, so the timing designed to interfere with the election was a favor from Garland. heheheeeee tell me another one.
Created:
Posted in:
Biden endorsed a KKK grand wizard vs not admitting wrong doing in a claim of discrimination mmmmmm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Is Trump more Christian than any other P.O.T.U.S.?
I think Obama understood Christianity better than any other modern president. I say this because he pointed out that the DoD wouldn't survive applying the sermon on the mount.
Of course then he killed a child with a robot delivered bomb.... so I think the message there was "I understand what a christian is supposed to be and I don't care"
Now Obama calling himself a christian, that isn't counted as a lie by the lying "fact checkers", no they reserve that word for the 30,000 times Trump said "nobody has ever seen anything like this before" or "greatest in history".
I think it's a real lie and a dirty one, but they all tell it.
Created:
Posted in:
“any public use of force or a threat of force by a group of people to hinder the execution of the law.”
CHAZ
Now extend it to everyone who implied CHAZ was motivated by real issues. I'm sure that will work out great. I'll trade Trump being barred for half the democrat party being barred.
Post script: I just realized that wouldn't work out. If the CHAZ disqualified all the democrats than the house was filled with imposters and usurpers on Jan 6 which means it wasn't an official proceeding. So no matter what Trump is fine.
Created:
Gee, you mean like with Roe v Wade? What happened to that precedent?
There is a difference between changing precedent, and changing it to get someone.
Changing Roe v Wade to get someone would look like this:
Roe v Wade was wrong, therefore all those laws that were struck down as unconstitutional were still the law all this time. Therefore millions of women are guilty of murder have a nice day.
Changing the definition of defamation or what presidents can take home from the white house is one thing. Changing the definition and using it to ex post facto attack one guy... (or anyone who thinks like him)...
Leaves very little doubt as to who believes in the rule of law and who doesn't.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.It's not my opinion. Juries get the final say, that's the law. You can look it up. It's there. Every attorney in the country knows this. Why you don't is beyond me.
When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory. That certainty is the proof that reality and the assertions of a jury are two different things.
You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.Then you do not care about the rule of law. Period.
Wrong. The rule of law is not defined as blind obedience to any assertion by any persons. If you define it that way I reject your definition as morally useless as evidenced by the fact that it would be unable to condemn the nazi courts as lawless.
You keep trying to insinuate that I am arguing the jury as the arbiter of reality
You answered the challenge: Provide defamatory statements
With: "The jury decides"
This is no strawman
Do not ask me for legal theories or talk about jurisprudence or precedent
Too late.
You're putting the cart before the horse by claiming the statements begin as non-defamatory.
I didn't realize statements were defamatory until proved otherwise. Must have missed the 200 years of jurisprudence on that one.
Whether they are defamatory depends on the context in which they are spoken in.
If orange-man opens his mouth, it's defamation. If non-orange-man opens her mouth to accuse orange-man of rape without a shred of evidence, it's not defamation.
Here let's try an example: "eh, nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them".So what was this statement? A threat? A statement of concern for your family? It depends on the context.
Uh huh, so the secret meaning of "It never happened, she's lying" is ____?
If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.
You're just repeating yourself. I'm dropping this point until you find something new to say.
Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.Yep, just like Trump's other 25 accusers whom no one knows their names.
Yes, anyone of them could be called liar by anyone in the world and that could never be defamation by the precedent of English common law, especially in the 1st amendment context.
You know you're argument here is wrong.
I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation. The facts don't lie, unlike people robed or not.
personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to.Complete bullshit. The president works for the American people
So you're saying the classified documents are ours? Great I say declassify it all. Whatever advantage over foreign adversaries federal secrets may allow is insignificant compared to the threat against our freedoms that this empire of spies poses.
Taking something you don't own intentionally along with knowing you had no right to it is theft. No one gets charged for taking something by accident
and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.
Biden accidentally stacked up hundreds of documents in and around his garage and closets. Or.... he didn't think he was unauthorized because he was authorized because they rewrote their interpretation book to GET TRUMP.
I can't wait to see how your rule of law works out.
Same to you.
Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.This right here is the heart of all of our disagreement. Behind all of your flagrant violations of basic common sense this is the foundation you sit on; the idea that Trump is being persecuted simply because he's Donald Trump.
I think I've made my theories rather clear and their motivations are quite comprehensible if not honorable.
The problem is that when you are losing every legal argument (as you clearly are) this becomes nothing but an unfalsifiable fantasy.
You have typed many words, but that does not win a legal argument. Everything Trump has said is protected speech for one reason or another. Protected by precedent, some of which is 400 years old. You admit to these protections in several cases. You dance, you hide, but I am not so easily distracted. You have placed the word "context" upon the alter of legal magic and it has not turned into a phoenix.
If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.
You contend that the fact that they ever went after Trump and not Biden in the first place nullifies everything after it.
The fact that they're pretending Biden or Trump weren't authorized nullifies it. Trump was of course more authorized being POTUS, but it's also ridiculous to claim a vice president isn't authorized to know classified information if POTUS shares it with him.
The law was obviously designed so that unauthorized people (who were never authorized) would have to return documents they found by accident, the contents of which they were never meant to know.
Even if I were to accept that the law meant something else, it would have to be adjudicated and equally applied which it was not.
You act as if merely asking him for those documents back was some kind of trap.
A fair assessment. The deep state loves to entrap people. See Whitmer plot.
He's the only defendant stupid enough to continue publicly attacking the person he's literally sitting in a courtroom with as he is on trial for defaming that very person.
You are definitely right about it being unprecedented.
He's the only person so hated that denying a crime was declared defamatory by a former court of law. Never happened before.
Your brain just doesn't work.
Hey, you got any of those defamatory statements yet? No? Are you spelling out "context" again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's his book not my book lol, but that was fast. Audiobook? That's the only way I have time these days.
As to Obama I don't know. Right now the entrenched right-tribe are hyper-appeasers with a few exceptions. The kind of people who the right-tribe wants to elect now would do things that the mainstream seems incapable of comprehending, like what you and Tim Pool are pointing out would be the implications of what they're claiming in order to get Trump.
I'm saying the supreme court might be underestimating how quickly things will go to shit because they think the right-tribe wouldn't dare attack in the same manner. They might think they can dissolve presidential immunity and nothing will come of it. Doesn't mean that's the way they'll rule, at least some of them are trying to follow the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
The common sense in the above video may be painful to TDS sufferers.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Not sure if you're joking, but if you aren't; that's silly.Jeez, maybe try words first?A man that respects himself doesn't let anyone touch his anus, not even his wife. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
He must be pretty stupid, right?
That's more true than 99% of what the TDS afflicted like yourself say.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.
Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.
In this country we often defer that decision to a jury
Until you disagree with the jury, like IWRA just did.
which is exactly what happened here.
It happened many times in the past when the social contract was still perceived to be valid. Now it is not the case. You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.
So if you're pretending to care about the rule of law you would accept as the final legal outcome the verdict. But we both know you don't actually care about that, because in your mind it's whatever you decide.
It's what the law says, and even that I do not bind myself to and never have. This is a cow you are pretending is sacred, not I. I'm just pointing out your shitting on your cow so you can't expect anyone else to take you seriously.
Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement.He lied when he claimed he didn't sexually assault her
Are you claiming that was a defamatory statement?
This isn't complicated.
Until you are asked to provide a theory of the liability that allows non-defamatory statements to become defamatory. Then it becomes so complicated that you sputter about context wander around for a while and then pretend like the question was never asked.
Your definitions made my exact point. You continue to pretend that as long as it merely exists in the public sphere it qualifies as a controversy.
No, it also has to be controversial, as in revealing a widespread disagreement in whatever population of people are considering it be it an single family or the entire population of the nation.
Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.
If you still disagree, I can't wait to post an accusation of Trump on my Twitter feed tomorrow with all 5 of my followers and then spend the next month bragging about how I created and am therefore embroiled in a public controversy.
If someone said "you lie" that is a comment on a matter of public interest. If you then put your own credibility on the line as evidence your credibility just became a matter of public interest making anyone what so ever immune from defaming you by questioning your credibility.
So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statementsWhen the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.
Failed to answer the question I see.
Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.That has nothing to do with the question.
That has a lot to do with the question.
Do you not think it odd that the supreme court, especially considering that 2/3rds of them are right wing, wouldn't even be interested in taking up a case that you claim is a flagrant violation of the first amendment? Not even a little?
I don't think they would. They've shown cowardice on many occasions by refusing to take up cases.
I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification.Are you seriously about to make the "Trump can declassify top secret documents with his mind" argument?
With his actions he can. Any POTUS can and did. It was so obvious that when POTUS shared classified docs with vice presidents (like Biden) it was implied that he was authorized to possesses them in perpetuity.
So the fact that he refused to give the government back it's own property
It's personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to. The US government is not short of letter paper or toner. They don't need any of it, they just didn't want Trump to have copies.
[bla bla bla pretending POTUS isn't POTUS] Is all irrelevant to you?
Yep. To me it's no different than charging Trump with impersonating an official of the united states for hanging around in the oval office or hijacking airforce one (by flying in it).
Redefining clear and obvious authority to pretend Trump committed a crime.
Because rule of law right?
Precisely. Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.
This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like. In no other circumstance would you make an argument so stupid.
Right back at ya
You still have no evidence that NARA has never asked for documents back of any president.
If there was precedent it would have been used in court already and I have been distantly following the developments.
If you want this story to be analogous you need to add quite a bit after "ridiculous"...
Don't care. The inequity exists already by that point.
The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all establishedThe government owns government documents, therefore when they find out you have them and ask for them back, you are required by law to give them back. That has been established, it's called common sense.
Common sense? Well hows this for common sense: If the government owned the documents (the physical pieces of paper), and taking something you don't own is theft, then even taking them in the first place is theft. Therefore Joe Biden stole documents.
None of this is remotely analogous.
Someone once told me only unserious people deny analogies.
Created:
Posted in:
Name 5 people who are members of the deep state.
John Bolton, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray, Peter Strzok, Eric Swalwell, and David Weiss.
There are more known and it would all but impossible if the total of all known are anything but the tip of an iceberg.
Created:
Posted in:
You might call them 'pseudo-jurors'[IWRA] They lack the integrity and neutrality necessary to be qualified jurors.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I would beat the shit out of my wife if she tries, without my consent, to finger my ass during sex.
Jeez, maybe try words first?
The set of scenarios that justify violence don't change at all by being married.
Created:
Posted in:
I have been challenged on what I mean by "pseudo-judge" and I have answered : A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.
Allow me to demonstrate one of the ways you can identify a pseudo-judge.
At "17:15" Tim Pool reads out the purported comments of a so called judge.
"[presidential immunity] would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three branches."
Now if anyone honest and sane was remotely familiar with the arguments in this case they would know that Trump's lawyers argued that presidential immunity is immunity to the petty whims of potentially subverted prosecutors in jury pools that are not representative of the nation (like what is happening).
They argue that the only constitutional way to subject a president to punishment for his actions as president are to impeach and convict him in congress (one of those branches), followed by criminal prosecutions of the conventional kind.
So why did the judge lie?
Why would a judge lie about the arguments in the case is such an obvious and irrefutable manner?
because the oath that judge made means nothing to him/her. That is how you know you're dealing with a pseudo judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes I agree they have not locked up every single Trump supporter (or every single person critical of the government).One is too many, because one is enough to put fear into the rest.The city I live in is about as blue as NY State. There are people that fly the Trump flag and they don't get arrested.
Is Trump censoring conservatives?
Was Trump really the government? That's why we say "deep state". The person you elect is not necessarily the one wielding all (or even most) of the power.
Or are you just doing what you can to make your party's narrative fit?
I do what I can to make the evidence fit. Why did the government tell Facebook to censor people when Trump was president?
They wouldn't be censored a decade later when they have a lot of power.
It's dangerous to censor them when they have a lot of power (money and servers)
No if they've bypassed Big Tech using their own servers, which almost all major or controversial ones have.I don't think servers bypass a YouTube ban.
Of course they do. Just tell your audience to go to your servers (or servers not subject to censorship) instead of Youtube. Crowder, Dailywire, Tim Pool, Alex Jones, Dave Rubin and many more say just that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of factsAny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.I'm not seeing how the existing law would fix the problem. It doesn't say he can deport them or turn them away, it says he can at most imprison them, and btw our jails are full.And then there's this little tid bit...a)Authority to apply for asylum(1)In generalAny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.(B)Time limitSubject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.I'm no immigration lawyer but it sounds a bit more complicated than your little video made it sound.
Well maybe we just need to read a little more and a little more carefully.
(iii) Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution(I) In generalSubject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review....(III) Review of determinationThe Attorney General shall provide by regulation and upon the alien’s request for prompt review by an immigration judge of a determination under subclause (I) that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. Such review shall include an opportunity for the alien to be heard and questioned by the immigration judge, either in person or by telephonic or video connection. Review shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination under subclause (I).(IV) Mandatory detentionAny alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.
So the 'solution' is pretty freaking simple:
Step 1. Tell the truth, asylum officers need to be allowed to determine what all reasonable people know: There is no credible fear of persecution for the reasons listed in immigration law as potential reasons for asylum status
Step 2. Limit the number of asylees that can be allowed. This is within POTUS executive authority. He could say that the number allowed is ZERO, at this instant
Step 3. Follow the law, after determining they are not in credible fear, hold them for no more than 7 days and then put them on the Mexican side of the border (if they came in legally), if they came in by swimming across a river or climbing a fence then hold them for 24 hours, fine them under title 18 (take all their money) and then dump them on the Mexican side of the border.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well they don't claim that's the reason, even though it is.If a lot of people were being jailed for being Trump supporters
One is too many, because one is enough to put fear into the rest.
Now, if one supports the free market deciding what's best, then they would be fine with the free market (aka Big Tech) censoring mainstream conservative viewpoints
An argument that breaks down rather quickly when you see evidence that Big Tech is being directed in their censorship by the government and have government agents infesting their high ranks.
If that is the tip, the iceberg is vast and there is no shortage of things the federal and state governments can use as threats.
Meaning, who would tell you that Big Tech is censoring them? Nobody would.
To censor without the ability to cut off people's internet is a balancing act. Too harsh and you bifurcate the audience (as has nearly happened several times). Too soft and you don't affect the public mood as much as you could.
The lack of instant blanket bans is expected and disproves nothing.
The fact that conservative influencers can tell you that Big Tech is censoring them is evidence that they aren't being censored.
No if they've bypassed Big Tech using their own servers, which almost all major or controversial ones have.
Created:
Posted in:
I see IWRA has expanded his operations to include open racism. Is anyone surprised?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's thinking...
It's thinking the following are substantially true even though a few hours of independent research could debunk all of it:
that the guy who told over 30,000 lies in a 4 year term is the"truth teller".It's thinking that the guy who has nothing but scorn for all of our Democratic allies while having nothing but praise for all the world's dictators is the guy who values democracy and the rule of law.It's thinking that the guy who tried to steal an American election is the guy fighting for your right to choose your own leader.It's thinking that the guy who thought it might be a good idea to nuke a Hurricaine, that injecting bleach into the human body is an interesting idea to pursue, or that clean coal is when you take it out and scrub it with a brush... Is a genius who has the world figured out.It's thinking that the guy who watched as the US Capitol was breached by a mob on TV and did absolutely nothing about it for 3 hours is the guy who cares about protecting the nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Stop playing the victim.
I'd tell you to understand hyperbole but I guess you can't.
none go to jail for criticizing the US government.
Well they don't claim that's the reason, even though it is.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A statement that is not defamation is the zero value. We have an array of statements that are not individually defamatory. You claim that they somehow combine into a defamation.You have to explain how a series of not-defamation becomes defamation.It only takes one word: Context.
Context = Orange Man Bad
Defamation laws do not tell juries what the rules are when it comes to determining the meaning of a person's words because juries are supposed to be able to use their common sense to figure it out. That is specifically why these decisions are turned over to "a jury of your peers".
TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.
If you are claiming that the jury can think any statement means anything they want, there is no debate here on defamation to be had. You are claiming the objective truth is whatever they say it is. You can go fuck off with that belief it's the opposite of objectivity.
If you look at the basic requirements and what the juries are asked here, questions like "was the defendant reckless with the truth", or "did the defendant act with actual malice"
Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement. No amount of malice or disregard for the truth makes "I think Trump colluded with Russia" a statement of fact as opposed to opinion.
Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in."Controversy: argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something : strong disagreement about something among a large group of people"Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.
Collins Dictionary:
Controversy is a lot of discussion and argument about something, often involving strong feelings of anger or disapproval.
Oxford Dictionary:
noun: controversy; plural noun: controversies
- disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated."the announcement ended a protracted controversy"
Dictionary.com:
a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statements that did not meet the burden of actual malice but were made with a reckless disregard for the truth?
(Hint: Defamatory statement count needs to be > 0 to answer this question)
Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.
There is a difference between someone and everyone. Someone cared about it or Trump would not have learned about it.
A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.And who determines whether they have violated their oath? Do you even believe there should be a process for that, or do you think you get to decide based on however you feel and that it's your right to impose the penalty?
If there was a process for that I would prefer the process. However when the bad guys wreck the process it's up to each person, just as it was at the birth of this country or when the south seceded or at any one of thousands of moments of political revolution. Government is a game we play with each other because it's better than the alternative. When the game is (perceived to be) worse than the alternative...
Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soonI know it's not, that's why I worded my response the way I did. The question is, why don't you think it's headed to the supreme court? You just sat here and argued that this case is flagrantly unconstitutional along with defamation laws themselves. Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?
If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.
And if any of the previous 44 president's had ever taken home documents they were not supposed to and were told by the government to give them back, none of them would have been stupid enough to tell them to fuck off.They weren't because no government bureaucrat would have dared fuck with a president. Brave new world where the elected guy is the bad guy and the unelected spy-masters are the real heroes.People didn't want to indict a former president because we all had respect for the office. Trump trampled over the office for 4 years culminating in January 6th and pulling this stunt afterwards so this is the unfortunate but rightful response.
Nah, I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification. Rather than Trump trashing the office, the fact that Trump was in the office made this inversion of authority seem reasonable to 'you' unreasonable people.
Biden didn't argue the documents were his because nobody ever asked for them. It rings quite hollow to say "they're not equivalent because we didn't care if Biden has unauthorized documents".The way that we tell whether two things are equivalent is by looking at whether there are differences between them that are significant and relevant.
The only relevant difference is that nobody ever demanded executive branch documents from a president before.
The similarities between Biden and Trump are that they both had possession of classified documents.
Unauthorized possession (according to left-tribe legal theory)
Trump is not being prosecuted on the similarities, so the similarities are entirely irrelevant. What matters to this conversation are the differences.
Two men drive down a highway traveling the same speed. One is black. One is white.
The black man is pulled over. The officer says that driving with cash in the vehicle is illegal. The man says "that's ridiculous".
He is then dragged out of the vehicle and pinned to the ground for resisting a lawful authority.
The white man sees what happened, he turns back and gives the officer all his money and says "woops won't happen again".
At court the defense lawyer for the black man says "Why isn't the white guy being charged? This is racism!"
The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all established, our officer didn't care about the white man and the white man didn't try to keep his cash. We're not prosecuting on the similarities, but the differences. The fact is that the black man didn't surrender his cash instantly and that's all the state cares about in this case."
Now that may be all you care about, and all the feds are pretending to care about, but it's not all a reasonable person (like myself) cares about.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
[n8nrgim] what do you think of sidewalker's take?[Sidewalker] It’s not my take, it’s Niels Bohr’s take
It's not.
Niels Bohr gets to be the authority here, and he insisted that it was a “sentient observer” that was necessary to collapse the wave function.
Nobody gets authority over reality, he didn't say that, and if he did he was wrong given that the laws of physics apparently worked just fine when the solar system was formed and life first formed on Earth.
Mysticism.... Here’s an idea, try Googling .....
Well it seems you have a problem with googling below:
That’s the problem with Google Scholars
Looks like we agree you can't "just google it".
Well to be precise you can "just google it", but you need to have a working logic engine in your brain.
I guess “mysticism” is just something you say when you don’t understand something
It's something I say when someone says something completely unsupported by reproducible experiments and/or generally spews incoherent (self contradictory) nonsense with the clear aim of making themselves feel better about the universe.
LOL, quit your blathering
Right back at you.
(A) Yes, I always find you comical, but the fact remains that ontologically and epistemologically, the Copenhagen interpretation runs straight into the heart of idealism.
You sure that 'fact' isn't in a super position?
the chain of reasoning I presented is straight forward
If you believe that then fortunately you ought to have nothing else to say.
That’s an invitation to speak to the Copenhagen interpretation and its implications, and that’s what I did.
I was invited to speak on what you said, and that's what I did. Glad we sorted that out.
“if you do think” followed by “this raises the possibility” and think it’s an assertion, it isn’t. It’s an invitation to discuss.
Why did you use the word "fact" in the sentence marked by (A) above?
Created: