Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd.Yet that is what he did and no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise you will never mutate that "peacefully" into "violently".
If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all. The only rational take away in that case is that he didn't actually mean it when he used the word "peacefully".
This is basic human communication. When someone is sending you a mixed message where 99% of what they have conveyed to you lines up with one takeaway, and 1% of what they have conveyed lines up with the opposite takeaway... The 1% can be reasonably written off as a misspeak or otherwise unexplained comment (or in a criminal context, an obvious false exculpatory).
Here's an example; girl tells you she's not interested in you. She also smiles at you in a way she doesn't with anyone else, she touches you constantly, she stairs at you with direct eye contact, she tells you she's feeling horney, she tells you she wonders what a night with you would be like, she tells you she'll be home alone later and invites you to spend the night... Are you bringing a condom with you or you gana hold onto that one line where she told you she's not interested? This question is of course, rhetorical. The answer is obvious.
No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.Their theory of the crime was ridiculous so they are let off the hook?
No genius, they weren't alleging the election was stolen through some vast conspiracy. That's the difference, and that difference matters to anyone who cares about logic and reason.
Alleging that the home team lost because of a bad call by the umpire and alleging that the home team didn't actually lose at all but rather that the scoreboard was hacked and changed by the visiting team to reflect runs that were never scored... Are two very different things. And different things get treated... Differently.
Do you understand?
Again the left-tribe are worse because they took all the actions you call incitement
And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd.
The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".Well I could point out there was nothing to be done at the moment, or I could point out that he offered beforehand, but no I'll go with the left started it. That's more honest.
Well your first two are factually and logically fallacious so I would certainly understand why you wouldn't go with those, but thank you for being honest and making absolutely clear that you don't actually give a rats ass about democracy, the rule of law, or the concept of a responsible government being run by responsible people. Politics is nothing more to you than some WWE style culture war dick measuring contest between the patriotic right and the evil libs. It's utterly pathetic. But thank you for making that clear, it really says allot about this conversation.
Well now you've seen it used on the summer riots.
Yes, except the point being made in each case is entirely different, so thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what we're even talking about when we bring up the violence that occurred on January 6th.
Do you know what stochastic terrorism is? If not please Google it and then take a moment to think about how that is absolutely relavent to the charge with regards to January 6th and completely irrelevant when it comes to the BLM riots.
To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is.Even if that was true, why do you think it matters?
Because that determines what we are actually dealing with and what can be done to fix it.
No individual is primarily responsible for the BLM riots because the underlying issue is one that has been heavily baked into the general world view of the black community and spread to other communities as well over the course of decades, which were then triggered by a real thing that really happened which called attention to those decades worth of grievances... So what we are dealing with is the unfortunate but natural result of a society in turmoil over a deeply contentious issue for which there is no practical solution.
If one individual is primarily responsible for January 6th, then what we all witnessed that day with our own eyes in real time was the unatural result of one man's actions, a man who only had that platform in the first place because we the people gave it to him, a man whose job it was to ensure such an event was prevented at best and addressed immediately at worst, and this issue is compounded by the fact that this very same man is now arguably the frontrunner fort that job again (no such thing can be said about the former example).
The difference here is not arbitrary. Why do you think 9/11 or the Hamnas attacks drew international anger and condemnation, yet we saw nothing like that when thousands were killed in the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan. Why do right wingers care nothing about the guy who was shot and killed in Nashville but the guy who was killed in El Paso by an illegal immigrant becomes a national story?
We do not treat atrocities that occurred through natural means the same as those which were artificially crafted.
This is also why I take such issue with this constant reference to "the left". Right wingers love to talk about "the left" as if it were some person or an entity (left wingers do the same thing as well). They also do this with "the media". By painting this contorted picture of a made up boogyman it becomes much easier to smuggle in the notion of some artificial cause to our issues ("the left is lying about police violence, they're to blame!") instead of seeing the issue for what it actually is; an ideology that has taken hold throughout our society built upon the collective experiences of those who believe in it.
Again, too much here will address the rest later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I want to be correct and telling the truth in using certain language.For example , one person , a male or female, is not a them or they. It's like saying one is the same as two.
This has nothing to do with "telling the truth". All words are just sounds coming out of our mouths that mean whatever we say they mean, which is why language has evolved all throughout our history and will continue to do so.
So it's not a question of what words "really" mean, it's a question of why you are so insistent on refusing to address others how they wish to be addressed?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Ohhhh the standard is other presidents that have supposedly been greater than Trump apparently are not great enough to win conversations to discuss their so much "more "greatness.Think about it. I've done great things as a president according to those who count greatness for what it's worth that really means what it means.Here's somebody else that has done things far from great according to those who count greatness for what it's worth that really means what it means.They get more attention, more shine than my what's supposed to be "greater" term.So this other somebody might as well be the greatest for what it's worth.I hope many of you finally got the point.
What the hell are you talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why would it need to be a government facility?
It doesn't, you just unsurprisingly decided to focus on one term I uttered so you could ignore the challenge I issued you because you know you couldn't fulfill it.
"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.
Yes, which was my point that we seem to agree on.
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd. And when in that same exact speech he also told them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore", the only sensible take away from that speech all things considered is that he wanted his supporters to physically attack the Capitol.
That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)
Once again, context matters, which is why these examples are complete false equivalences. No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.
This is where the rule of law conversation comes in, despite disagreeing with the outcome, we recognized that this is the outcome our system produced so we respected it as the lawful result. Trump is arguing that the system itself was hijacked by nefariously intended criminals, and you are justifying actual violence on that basis. To claim these are the same is ridiculous.
Because first of all, two wrongs don't make a right.Responding to escalating violence/deception/breach of duty in kind is not a wrong. So it's one wrong and then a right.Like say Putin sends a tank to shoot your house. And then you fire a HEAT warhead at the tank. That's not two wrongs. It's just one wrong. It matters who started it.
You seem to have forgotten what conversation you are engaged in. The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".
The "right" doesn't exist as a person, but you people pretend Donald Trump is that person.
Not a single argument I've made is based on that notion.
It's just hard for me to lie as effectively as you people do. "unleashed" it's stretches the limits of my brain (which is accustomed to logical checks) to figure out what that is supposed to mean.
Happy to help you understand what these words mean; unleashed here is being used metaphorically which fits because of the emotional state of Trump's mob. Again, he lead the charge to convince them the election was stolen, then he called upon them to DC. So by the time he directed them to the Capitol, many of them were already itching to attack. So in this context, "unleashed" is referring to the emotional state of these individuals who may have felt compelled to hold off till Trump spoke finally being able to do what they came there to do.
Many of course didn't even wait, they had been too riled up to sit and listen to Trump speak. They came there for action, and it was waiting right there for them.
How you would react to that, that's how the right-tribe feels and felt before Jan 6, and it simmered. It still enrages me to think about. Your system is not my system. Your idea of the rule of law, is not something I want any part of or owe any obedience to.
Because you have so badly contorted it you have nothing in your mind but a caricature of my world view.
Let's start by putting your question in it's proper context; studies showed that something like 93% of the BLM riots had no incidents of violence or property crimes. So what you're really asking is: imagine if we took an entire summer of nationwide riots which took place in about 200 cities, cherry picked all of the worst incidents that occurred throughout that entire period, and compressed them all into one day in one location which just happens to be the seat of our federal government, and did so right as the United States Congress was certifying the presidential election.
Yeah, that sounds pretty damn fucked up. It's also a ridiculous comparison.
Again, regardless of whether you agree with my position at least represent it for what it is:
BLM riots: A civil uprising incited by a viral video calling attention to a problem the black community has been screaming from the mountaintops about for decades, which lead to multiple violent incidents, billions in property damage and an intense nationwide debate over policing in America.
J6: The culmination of a months long effort by the sitting president of the United States to illegally hold onto power and effectively end the American experiment where he assembled, incited, and unleashed a mob of angry followers on attack the United States Capitol.
These are not the same thing, not even close. To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is. To the latter, our democracy and rule of law itself were never endangered, to the latter it was.
So at the end of the day you're comparing nationwide violence to an effort by the sitting president to hijack our political system. No, these are not the same thing.
But to your implied question... Anyone who looted, burned down a building or attacked a police officer (which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters) should have been or if they are ever found should be prosecuted and locked the fuck up. I'm not defending any of those actions, just pointing out how irrelevant this is to the conversation and how silly it is to compare an ideology to an actual sitting president and current frontrunner for the job again.
"Dealt with on its own merits" You mean like Joe Biden not being charged. Like Hunter Biden getting sweetheart deals. Like Clinton not being charged. In each case the elements of the crime were alleged and the prosecutor just couldn't bring themselves to recommend charges for such lovely sweet people.
Yeah, that's because in our system of justice there is this thing you need to produce which is called evidence.
Show me the evidence that Biden, Clinton, Hunter, or anyone else ordered their attorneys to attest to knowingly false statements, ordered the evidence of their crimes moved from one location to another, and ordered the security footage of their crimes deleted, and I'll show you an arrest right on par with Trump's.
SHOW ME THE 14,000 PRISON SENTENCES.
Show me the cases against them and we can go though it to see if a prosecution was warranted. You know they're innocent until proven guilty right?
And hell, let's just skip all the way to the end where you find one cherry picked example where you are absolutely right and justice was not served, then explain what this has to do with the idea that we have a two tiered justice system that somehow favors the left even though the overwhelming majority of people in law enforcement bringing these charges are right wing.
And here's just a thought, imagine all of these individuals instead of being engulfed in crowds in random streets in random cities all throughout the country were, you know, wandering around the US Capitol on camera and posting themselves on social media? Imagine if there wasn't a nationwide effort by everyday ordinary citizens to call the FBI and say hey, I recognize that guy, here's his name and address... It doesn't take a genius to figure out why one side faced far more prosecutions and prison sentences. Does that make it right? No of course not, but it does make clear why this notion of nefarious left wing shadow forces tilting the scales towards prosecuting right wingers is silly.
I'm comparing actions. If you want to compare motives saving democracy is a much better reason to get violent than the propaganda induced delusion that cops like killing black people.
I think most black people would disagree.
I don't disagree with you though that if our democracy was actually hijacked, violence would be justified.But it is useful to compare these two different claims on the grounds that they're both delusional using the but/for test.
But for Donald Trump refusing to concede the election, but for Donald Trump spending months telling the country the election was stolen, but for Donald Trump calling his supporters to the Capitol on January 6th, J6 does not happen. Period.
But for [who?] The BLM riots don't happen.
Fill in that blank with someone ideologically relavent (someone besides Floyd himself or Shovin, etc.). You can't because the belief we're talking about here is one that has been embedded within the black community since slavery. Nearly every black person out there can personally attest to this, so while this belief that police are killing black people might be (for the sake of argument) delusional, there is not a single individual anywhere that could make a dent on the widespread belief itself nor the pent up frustration that lead to these riots. Your enemy here is an ideology, not an actual person. These are again, not remotely the same thing.
Way too much remaining, will address the rest later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
All of a sudden people are terribly upset about what transgender people want to be called and I really don't get it.
It's one of the hallmark qualities of most conservatives; they tend to see the entire world through the prism of their own selves, so every issue becomes about them personally.
Systemic racism? Oh you're calling me a racist?
The economy is great? Really, then why can't I make ends meet?
You want to be called "they"? Why should I have to acquiesce to your delusion?
You want to fund Ukraine? Why can't our tax dollars be spent on Americans? (And then...) You want to spend my tax dollars on other people (like the homeless)? How dare you.
Conservatism has always been far easier for me to understand from that vantage point, and I've been waiting for someone on this site to paint a different picture but it always comes right back to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Why do you think they request strictly to only be identified in third person as they and them?What is the significance of that specifically?
Because that's how they feel. I don't understand it any further than that and I don't need to, at least not for me to recognize as a matter of basic human courtesy that if that's how they want to be addressed then that's how I'll address them.
Why are you asking this, is it a matter of gaining a deeper understanding of transgenderism to empathize with those going through it or are you bringing this up as a political question?
Is " he" singular and "they" plural?
No, not necessarily. If you're talking about person's in general terms you always use they. Example; "if any employee doesn't sign the paperwork they cannot be allowed to continue working". The "they" in that sentence is referring to a hypothetical individual, but without an identified gender neither "he" or "she" is appropriate.
Created:
-->
@Mall
He is single handedly responsible for half the country believing the last election was stolen and calling for civil war. Not exactly my criteria for greatest president ever.He might as well be the greatest or else why don't we have or see more conservations on the "greater" or " greatest"?
When a person is willing to shrug off the fact that Trump tired to end American democracy, we're far beyond comparing Trump to any other president. The question becomes; what the hell are you calling "good" in the first place.
Trump had always been graded on a curve. In 2016 Gary Johnson's campaign essentially ended once he showed in an interview that he didn't know what Aleppo was. Yet no reasonable observer would have bet on on Trump knowing that same fact (he famously didn't know what the nuclear triad was, none of his supporters cared). Trump is not held to the same standards as everyone else, so comparisons are futile until you can demonstrate that you actually have a standard and apply it to all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If any member of Congress spent months telling black people "the police in that station over there are killing black people, so on [insert date here] I want you to meet me next to [insert police station here], WILL BE WILD!", and then went on to hold a rally right outside of that police station on that date full of all their followers where he pointed to the station and said "you have to go over there and fight like hell or you're not going to have a community anymore", but then ended it by saying "peacefully and patrioticly make your voices heard"...Well subtract the 'peacefully' part and you basically have Maxine Waters.
Great, now show me the crowd of supporters who attacked a government facility because Maxine Waters told them to. Show me where and how she assembled them, and explain the context which leads to the conclusion that she was directing them to physically attack it.
The floor is yours...
So what was your argument again defending his speech?It's speech. It's supposed to be a free country
Yelling "bomb" on a plane is also speech, doesn't mean it gets first amendment protection.
Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful, and since the first amendment does not protect against incitement of a riot?
Why should he be responsible for stopping the riots that might act in his interest when the other side doesn't stop their rioters (indeed letting them run rampant for months on end)?
Because first of all, two wrongs don't make a right. But I'm at least glad we agree that Trump was wrong here, so that's some progress.
Regarding "the left", I'm sorry to tell you but "the left" did not hold any elected office because "the left" doesn't actually exist as a person or entity you can hold accountable. Show me the individual who wrongfully allowed neighborhoods or other buildings to burn down and I would be right there with you. That is of course irrelevant to this topic though (see prior paragraph).
There were certainly figureheads. You just don't apply your theory of incitement so you have no idea who they are.
I don't apply "my theory" of incitement to whatever you're talking about because what you're talking about defies common sense.
Trump is guilty of incitement (at least colloquially) because he primed his base beforehand, assembled them, and then unleashed them. There is not a single person anywhere on the left you can say this about, so instead you keep talking about "the left" which is a completely meaningless term. If the best you can do is point to some vague ideology (and misrepresenting it) as the counter to Trump's actions and demonstrated intent that should scream to you that you have nothing here.
Looks like 4 links isn't enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo96_nfW_Qw
100 false equivalences don't equal one valid example.
1.) Trump cares about justice, the left-tribe politicians don't care about their pawns.2.) Nobody can be pardoned for the summer of love riots (or their bombs, plots to derail trains, etc...) because nobody was arrested because left-tribers don't believe in the rule of law3.) The fascist crackdown against Jan 6 protestors has been remarked upon around the world. The imprisoning of people who weren't violent, weren't there, and the leniency shown when they renounced their political beliefs make it easy for someone who doesn't believe political violence was justified at that time to support pardons.
1. The idea that Trump cares about justice is laughable. Trump cares about Trump, everyone knows this.
2. The "summer of love" riots are non analogous to this. You're talking about a national civil uprising with rioting that took place in about 200 cities all over the country with each municipality deciding for itself how to handle it (I thought you guys were all about states rights?). Yet still, there were over 14,000 arrests, each dealt with on its own merits which is exactly how the law is supposed to work.
3. Bullshit. The world is looking upon us because they can't believe half of our country is stupid enough to think what happened on J6 was not that big a deal. You're comparing civil unrest all across the country over the way an entire race within our society is treated with an attack on the US Capitol incited by the President of the United States. They don't compare.
Again, the J6 arrests are dealt with exactly how they're supposed to be dealt with; on an individual level based on the facts and merits of each individual case. This nonsense picture you're painting of grannies getting lost and finding themselves being arrested for sedition because they accidentally wandered into the capitol as the officers waived them is is ridiculous.
It was not a baseless claim. It kept happening. It got worse. Then they started throwing out poll workers, lying about pipes bursting, covering windows, shutting down voter info APIs (which were obviously public records), fighting audits at every level, making absurd claims (most secure election in history), lied to the public and sometimes on the stand, etc... etc...
A national election takes place throughout every precinct in every county in every state all throughout the country. Like any major event you will always find coincidences and things that look nefarious if you squint the right way, that is not how you make a reasonable case of coordinated wrongdoing. Your logic here is no different than that which is used to support every bonkers conspiracy theory throughout our society's history, 9/11 trutherism being the most analogous.
Not a single thing on your list is remotely valid as evidence of conspiracy. This is a bullshit case which is why every high level official in Trump's cabinet told him the election wasn't stolen. The only reason this became anything more than fodder on the dark corners of the internet is because it was propagated by the President of the United States.
Count the authentic ballots. Stop counting the potentially fraudulent ballots. The immediate remedy depended on the kind of cheating those desperate to GET TRUMP were using.
Right, and apparently this nationwide effort to steal the election for Biden involved massively different plans all across the country.
Or, a far more reasonable conclusion is that the conspiracy theorists were just seeing whatever they needed to see in order to justify their accusation at the outset that "the left" was going to cheat and was now relying on ad hoc justifications to hold onto that belief.
Created:
Posted in:
Cherry picked quotes clearly meant to be metaphorical. You fight through legal means not by physical combat.
In most cases yes, that's what it means. But in order to understand what words mean you have to put them in context. In any example you can pull up of politicians telling their supporters to fight it's under the context that or democracy and rule of law works. Trump had just spent the prior two months telling his base that the election had literally been stolen from them. You do not fight people through legal means once you become convinced that they have illegally hijacked your entire political system.
Also having the opinion that the election was stolen is not illegal. Hillary thought the 2016 election was stolen, and by the way saying the election was stolen was something Al Gore also said and it could mean any number of things.
Yes, it could mean a number of things, which is why context matters. The Clinton example is one that highlights the absurdity of this comparison. Clinton argued that Trump's victory was illegitimate because it came with Russia's involvement. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Russia did in fact launch a coordinated campaign to help Trump win that election, and the Trump campaign was in fact aware of Russia's involvement, welcomed it, and at the very least attempted to coordinate their campaign with it (remember the Don Jr meeting?).
But there is absolutely no comparison between accusing the other side of willingly accepting the assistance of a foreign advasary to win, and literally stealing the election. That's like arguing that the guy who says the home team lost because the referees made some bad calls, is the same as the guy who says the home team lost because the visiting team hacked the scoreboard into reflecting points that didn't happen.
he months long effort by Trump to convince his supporters that the country was being stolen from them and his clearly violent rhetoric on the 6th do not get cancelled out because Trump slipped in the words "peacefully and patrioticly" in one sentence of his speech. One of these things is clearly not like the others. And you know who understood that? His supporters.Dumb interpretation of his words. I took it to mean that he didn't want his words to be misinterpreted as meaning to be violent.
Then you took a meaning out of his words that are self contradictory and therefore self defeating as I just explained in detail.
The secret service would not have allowed him to wear a uniform and go down there to police the situation himself.
He was the president genius. He didn't have to suit up, he could have instead done what every other high ranking official within the federal government was doing - making phone calls, authorizing actions, and coordinating responses between agencies. That's literally why we have a president.
By the way, I am sure you are not a partisan hack so what footage released by tucker carlson that painted an alternate vision of that day did you think was the most compelling?Why do you think a lot of the footage he released seemed to contradict CNNs narrative?
It didn't. Showing footage of people not rioting does not cancel out the footage showing people rioting. That's basic common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cougarbear121212
The Constitution says we are innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty is the default position for a criminal trial, ballot eligibility is a different kind of proceeding.
Therefore, let the people decide by voting.
If the question is ballot eligibility, then it is by definition not a constitutionally valid question to be adjudicated by the electorate. The very notion of being disqualified means the people do not get to decide if you get a shot at the oval office. If you don't like that idea, you'll need to take that up with the constitution.
Did Trump commit insurrection on January 6th? When he told the crowd to "peacefully protest" was that an act of insurrection?
Addressed this in post 103. Would love to hear your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
If any member of Congress spent months telling black people "the police in that station over there are killing black people, so on [insert date here] I want you to meet me next to [insert police station here], WILL BE WILD!", and then went on to hold a rally right outside of that police station on that date full of all their followers where he pointed to the station and said "you have to go over there and fight like hell or you're not going to have a community anymore", but then ended it by saying "peacefully and patrioticly make your voices heard"...
I would absolutely hold that member accountable for inciting a riot, and so would you. Now add to that the same person doing absolutely nothing over the next three hours but watching the riot on TV... You would be calling for that person's head. What you wouldn't be doing is sitting here blaming on some nebulous force like "dUh iT wAS The DeMocrAtic 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".
I see you still have no idea what context is or how it works. Not spending any more time teaching you how basic English and human communication works.
This BTW followed a speech by Giuliani saying "let's have trial by combat".Stooping so low as to cite jokes now?
Right... The people in that building over there are literally stealing the presidential election from you, but while we're over here let's joke about it... Ha...ha...ha...
I would come up with an intelligent response but this point is so stupid it doesn't warrant one. It's almost like the horney guy who "jokes" about having sex with the hot girl he's talking too. Like he didn't mean it, it was just a joke... Right?
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...This is true.
Glad we agree. So what was your argument again defending his speech?
Witnesses who [testify to any claim I don't like] don't mean anything to me.
Fixed.
2:38 p.m - 1:50 PM = 48 minutes
That's why I said official action. You do know he was the president right?
Beyond that though, a Twitter post that your aids wrote and had to plead with you to send which did not even match any of your other tweets sent out at the time does not count by any reasonable measure.
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.
Glad we agree on how stupid it is to suggest J6 was peaceful because some of the people were peaceful. That's something, I guess.
To your other point, it isn't a double standard, these are two entirely different issues.
The summer riots was a civil uprising sparked by a viral video. You can blame it on the "Democratic establishment" (a complete meaningless term) all you want, the fact is that there was no person or figurehead of any kind leading the way in that. It was a messy debate with people on all sides of the spectrum.
The election claims were not bottom up, they were top down. Trump started priming the base long before a single ballot had ever been cast, his claims then made it into the news where all of MAGA world caught on and towed the line no matter how baseless. It even lead to a remarkable split screen where people in MI were protesting to stop the count while people in AZ were protesting to count those votes. Whatever they needed for a Trump victory, that is what it was.
And then there's the actual riots, which no prominent left wing figure would defend while Trump has made pardoning the J6 rioters a central issue of his campaign. No single summer rioter has ever claimed nor could be credibly accused to rioting because any left wing figure told them to, meanwhile nearly every J6 rioter has said they were there because Trump told them to be there.
There's more, but you probably won't even read and certainly won't provide a comprehensive response so I'll stop there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm an independent.
Who propagates MAGA talking points on every issue, this thread being the latest example.
after seeing hours of footage released after the kangaroo court proceedings of the "select committee," done nothing close to resembling any part of your pages of left-tribe fan-fiction here.
Um, yeah no shit. When you eliminate all of the footage of rioters bulldozing their way past police barricades, pummeling capitol police officers to the ground, and breaking through windows to force their way in... What's left won't resemble the violent picture I've painted. Great argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The clip I posted clearly showed people visibly interested in what Chansley was saying. It would take the most extreme partisan hack to look at that video and definitively deduce that people thought differently than what their actions showed in that clip.
Yes, they were experiencing cognitive dissonance, visibly confused about why Trump would tell them to be peaceful after months of rallying them up and unleashing them on the capitol. For some it was paralysing, for others it wasn't. The clip demonstrates everything I've been saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The reason no one cared when he read those posts is because they saw them for what they obviously were: an attempt to inject plausible deniability into the conversation when Trump is inevitably blamed for what was about to happen.There's zero proof for this other than partisan mind-reading.
It's called critical thinking.
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.
It wasn't a coincidence that president Trump called for all his supporters to show up on January 6th, and all of a sudden a day that passes by every election cycle without any mention in the news suddenly became a day we will talk about for decades.
It wasn't a coincidence that Trump told them to fight like hell and then they did.
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. You guys take him seriously but not literally right?
It's telling that I've explained all of this in depth and am repeating myself yet again and all you can do is repeat your original assertion which is nothing more than an intellectually vapid blanket denial of my points. Let me know when you have an actual thought to contribute.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Donald Trump was the greatest president. Greater than Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Ford, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Carter, Johnson.
He is single handedly responsible for half the country believing the last election was stolen and calling for civil war. Not exactly my criteria for greatest president ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Deep state gas lighting"... Translation: applying basic logic and critical thinking.
Setting aside that Trump didn't even write the posts Chansley read to the crowds, I just explained in great detail how Trump's relatively tiny sample of statements urging the protests to remain peaceful was at odds with everything else we saw from Trump not only that day but for the two months leading up to January 6th. The reason no one cared when he read those posts is because they saw them for what they obviously were: an attempt to inject plausible deniability into the conversation when Trump is inevitably blamed for what was about to happen.
In other words, Trump was handing a talking point to the propagandists who would go out there and defend him to their graves because he knows that his base will believe anything and parrot this bullshit exactly as you're doing right now.
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. 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.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We know because they told us so genius. It's on tape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
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 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".
The months long effort by Trump to convince his supporters that the country was being stolen from them and his clearly violent rhetoric on the 6th do not get cancelled out because Trump slipped in the words "peacefully and patrioticly" in one sentence of his speech. One of these things is clearly not like the others. And you know who understood that? His supporters.
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.
And one more thing here that I can't help but point out, this conversation always reminds me of that infamous saying in 2016 "the media took Trump literally but not seriously, Trump supporters took him seriously but not literally".
It never ceases to amaze me that Trump gets away with anything he says because his supporters say he shouldn't be taken literally. No matter how absurd, no matter how abhorrent, we're just not understanding him correctly. 'You have to learn to read between the lines' they say. And yet everytime we do that to show his blatantly obvious mal intent, all of a sudden if Trump doesn't literally and explicitly say that he's in the process of committing a crime then we can't possibly say he did.
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...
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.
This was revealed by transcripts from the Jack Smith investigation. But we didn't need the investigation to tell us that, it was obvious from the start given that just like his peaceful comments in his speech, one of these things is not like the others. The post you are referring to was from his Facebook account. Meanwhile his Twitter account was attacking Mike Pence immediately after lanterning that the secret service had to evacuate him from the chamber. He also tweeted essentially an "I told you so" as things were starting to cool down. These are not the posts of a man concerned with anyone's safety at the Capitol.
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.
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.
Created:
-->
@Mall
But give concise clear cut reasons to why most likely there is just no consciousness ever again after death, no creator God, no life and or reincarnation.
The reasons to believe there are not are just as logically supported as the reasons to believe there are.
The only proper response is therefore to not believe any of it until proven otherwise.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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. That requires arguments, not declarations of who gets to be considered by myself as real American citizens.
That certainty is the proof that reality and the assertions of a jury are two different things.
No one is arguing that they are the same thing, in fact I went into depth on this point in my last post which you clearly didn't bother to read. Too many words for you I guess.
The rule of law is not defined as blind obedience to any assertion by any persons. If you define it that way...
I don't. Read my actual arguments.
I didn't realize statements were defamatory until proved otherwise.
Not what I wrote. Read my actual arguments.
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.
I'm repeating myself because you have yet to our together anything resembling a rebuttal to this point.
A Twitter post read by one person is by no reasonable definition, a public controversy.
I can't believe we are really at the point where I have to say this.
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.
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). So until you have valid evidence of intent, there's little in most cases to prosecute.
An example of valid evidence might include ordering your lawyers to sign affidavit's saying everything was returned when it was not, having your staff move boxes to evade detection, ordering your IT department to delete subpoenad video footage... You know, stuff like that.
Biden accidentally stacked up hundreds of documents in and around his garage and closets.
Bullshit. Biden had about 25 classified documents. Trump had 325. Not the same thing.
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. You then posted them yourself, so for you to sit here and pretend you've been demanding that I explain what his statements were and insinuate that I'm somehow hiding them is patently absurd and dishonest.
I would have been very happy to go through them in detail and explain how they are defamatory but you took the conversation elsewhere by instead challenging the very basic notions of how we figure that out in the first place. So instead of explaining how the context of one sentence affects the next I've had to sit here and explain to you how's context itself works.
If you had chosen a more serious and frankly intelligent line of defense this would have been a much more worth while conversation.
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.
Classified government documents belong to the government.
When the owner of something learns that you have it and asks for it back, you haber to give it back.
Thisv is all basic common sense, there's nothing there to adjudicate.
He's the only person so hated that denying a crime was declared defamatory by a former court of law. Never happened before.
Didn't happen here. Let me know when you'd like to join the conversation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
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.
The reason he will possibly not see trial before the election is because Trump is doing what Trump always does; exploits every loophole in our legal system no matter how absurd to get the results he wants. This entire effort is nothing more than a delay tactic which our system is vulnerable to. That has no bearing on the merits of his defense, which are BTW completely non existent. If he had an actual defense he would want this trial before the election so he could exonerate himself, he knows he can't.
“Remember the special prosecutor wasn’t asked to look into everybody who may have mishandled classified material. He was tasked only with getting Trump.”-Dershowitz
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.
Smith didn't come in board to "get Trump". The DOJ was already handling the classified documents case. Smith came on board because as soon as Trump announced he was running, Garland decided that he as someone who technically reports to Biden (even though there is no evidence whatsoever of coordination been the two) should not be in charge of the investigation into Biden's political opponent. In other words, Smith was brought on to take the investigations out of Garland's hands to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
What's funny is that before Garland outsourced these investigations, all indications is that Trump was going to get a free pass despite his brazen disregard for basic laws. Had Smith taken over a year or so earlier, there would have been no chance of Trump not being tried before the election, so 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.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.
Then you do not care about the rule of law. Period.
As is normally the case once we get to the part of the conversation where the point of disagreement is clear and the matter of which one of us is wrong couldn't be more obvious, you know who knows they're wrong when they are forced to distort what the conversation is actually about.
You keep trying to insinuate that I am arguing the jury as the arbiter of reality, when you know damn well I'm speaking about this in a purely legal context. There will always be disagreement within our society, the only question is whether the people of that society are willing to accept the outcome when they don't agree with it. You are clearly not. You claim it's because the jury disregarded the law, but you're the one arguing that the jury doesn't get the final say. That's absurd and couldn't illustrate more clearly that you are wrong on that point.
Do not ask me for legal theories or talk about jurisprudence or precedent or any of these legal terms when you aren't even willing to accept the most basic fact of any trial where applicable - that the jury decides the outcome. If you can't do that then stop pretending this has anything to do with the rule of law.
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.
The reason I haven't directly answered this is because the framing of the question itself is stupid and I have explained why. You're putting the cart before the horse by claiming the statements begin as non-defamatory. Whether they are defamatory depends on the context in which they are spoken in.
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.
If I was a detective investigating the sudden disappearance of your wife and daughter... Statement of concern.
If I was a mob boss whom you owed $100k to and you were explaining to me that you're not sure if you are going to have it... Threat.
This is basic human communication. The fact that I have to sit here and explain to you how to figure out what words mean should make you think about the position you continue to defend.
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.
If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.
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.
When 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.
Read harder.
I don't think they would. They've shown cowardice on many occasions by refusing to take up cases.
lol of course.
It's only the most sacred right of all Americans that you claim is under flagrant legal assault, why take up that case?
It really is amazing to watch. You know they won't even take it let alone rule in Trump's favor because you know there is no actual legal basis for them to overturn this, but rather than admitting that you make up excuses on why a 6-3 conservative court, a third of which appointed by Trump himself wouldn't even bother hearing it. You know you're argument here is wrong.
It's personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to.
Complete bullshit. The president works for the American people, he doesn't magically own the federal government or any part of it he decides to grant onto himself.
This is such basic common sense. You couldn't be any more obviously wrong. Why do you keep defending such obvious nonsense?
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.
It's not about the paper genius, it's about the information on that paper. You know, like top secret SCI nuclear documents that belong in a SCIF...
And you're damn right they don't want Trump to have copies of this stuff being stored next to a bunch of toilets or on a stage at Mar-A-Lago or in his golf club in Jersey where he decided to share it with people who have absolutely no business viewing classified information. That is again, 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.
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, like when someone walks out of a store with paper towels at the bottom of their cart the cashier didn't scan... No one gets prosecuted for that. That is common sense.
Again, Trump wasn't charged for stealing government documents merely by taking them out of the White House so this entire point is yet another distraction you continue to resort to because you are so obviously wrong on everything else you need something to latch onto so you can look like you're making sense.
[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).
Yeah, this is where we are.
Me: A private citizen lying to the federal government about possessing classified documents and obstructing the investigation into their whereabouts in order to avoid handing them back is not the same thing as flying around air force one as the president.
You: No, they're totally the same.
Well we can agree to disagree on that one. Enjoy that delusion, and if you secede from the union please take every moron who thinks that with you. I can't wait to see how your rule of law works out.
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. The problem is that when you are losing every legal argument (as you clearly are) this becomes nothing but an unfalsifiable fantasy.
The Biden/Trump distinction on the classified documents couldn't be a better example. Despite the obvious differences, you contend they are the same. You contend that the fact that they ever went after Trump and not Biden in the first place nullifies everything after it. And in so doing, you ignore all of the obvious reasons they would have gone after Trump's documents; the severity of the documents he took and the volume of the documents he took. You act as if merely asking him for those documents back was some kind of trap. It takes a truly warped mind to think that.
Trump is in this position because he is the only politician we've ever seen stupid enough to tell the government he did not possess classified documents as he was storing them by the box load in a golf club bathroom. He's the only person stupid enough to order his IT team to delete video footage he learned the FBI was working on subpoenaing. 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.
Trump is a special kind of stupid and flouts the law to a very special degree. If you cannot figure out how that man ends up being prosecuted where others weren't, and the only explanation you can come up with instead is that he is being persecuted for political reasons... Your brain just doesn't work.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
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.
No, I'm claiming that determining whether any given statement meets the criteria for defamation is ultimately, an inherently subjective determination. The only person who (in theory) knows the objective truth in this situation is the defendant himself, but there is a reason why we don't just take the defendant's word for it in a court of law when it comes to what their intentions were. I trust I don't have to explain to you why.
No the jury does not have the right to determine "whatever they want", but when adjudicating matters of law there is no other way for a system of law to operate other than to have a final arbiter. That means an arbiter who cannot, by definition, be legally challenged. In this country we often defer that decision to a jury, which is exactly what happened here.
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.
Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement.
He lied when he claimed he didn't sexually assault her, according to the findings of a separate jury. Again, if you actually cared about the rule of law (you don't) you would accept that the process played out and this was the result.
From there the jury must determine whether there was:
- A reckless disregard for the truth (there was)
- Actual malice (there was)
- And significant reputational harm (there was)
This isn't complicated.
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
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. It doesn't, as your own definitions note.
This is basic English.
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.
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
When the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.
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. 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 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?
The only relevant difference is that nobody ever demanded executive branch documents from a president before.
Only relevant difference? So the fact that he refused to give the government back it's own property (including top secret SCI nuclear documents), lied to NARA, lied to the FBI, had the documents moved to evade detection, and tried to delete the security footage... All of which are objectively, very serious federal crimes... Is all irrelevant to you?
Because rule of law right?
This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like. In no other circumstance would you make an argument so stupid.
But for the sake of argument let's pretend for one second that was actually true... You still have no evidence that NARA has never asked for documents back of any president. You know why? Because if they ever had you wouldn't even know about it because... No other president would have been stupid enough to do what Trump did. That's why he's the one who is being charged.
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.
If you want this story to be analogous you need to add quite a bit after "ridiculous"...
"The officers note the amount of cash that's in the car and notify the driver that he has to turn it into the courthouse.
The driver then lies to the courthouse claiming he never had the money.
When the police get a warrant to search the car, there is nothing there because the driver moved the cash to his other car.
The driver then orders his personal assistant to delete the driveway camera footage showing the move.
Then the police execute a search warrant on the other car and find the cash.
He is then dragged out of the vehicle and pinned to the ground for resisting a lawful authority"
Fixed.
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!"
And then the prosecutors explain to the judge that while it's possible the white man might have done what the black guy did after being notified that he had to give that money back, the white man never actually committed such a crime and therefore cannot be prosecuted for it.
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
The 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.
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."
None of this is remotely analogous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
“A federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that Donald Trump can be put on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, rejecting Trump’s sweeping claim of presidential immunity and moving the case one step closer to a jury.“
Not a victory for the left. We all knew they were going to unanimously reject Trump's arguments, they were patently absurd. The point was to delay the trial which appears to have been the case. I really hope it gets back on the schedule quick, no one wants the NY case to go first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The law doesn't say where an illegal migrant must apply for asylum. In fact, they can be deported and still be allowed to apply for asylum.
Sadly there is this thing in this country called due process - you cannot just remove someone from the country without winning that case in court. That's why Obama ended up deporting more illegals than Trump, turns out competence matters.
The problem is our judicial system is terribly backed up. Trump's deportation force would have costed somewhere between $300 billion to $600 billion which is why it never happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And Trump wasn't [bought]?He didn't stay bought, obviously.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the best cure for TDS is to give them exactly what they ask for.
Like border security?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, normal presidents stay bought.
And Trump wasn't? How many millions of dollars were funneled directly into his pocket by foreign governments booking rooms at his hotels and in some cases not even staying in them? And do we really want to get into the $2 Billion from the Saudi's to his son in law?
But I'm sorry, you were saying what exactly about Joe Biden?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The difference is that one is a normal human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In simple terms we're just talking about the agenda and cooperation of some basic interests groups which (by their own desire) are not perceived as being major political forces.
This is nothing more than a list of grievances with human nature (well, those that are not just batshit conspiracy theories). People will always work to ensure their own best interests and will collaborate with others whose interests align. Nothing about this gives anyone a reason to support or vote for Trump, in fact many like myself would argue Trump and the individuals he had brought into the fray exhibit these qualities to much more extreme degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
TDS is thinking that a Manhattenite billionaire and clinical narcissist is the one who really cares about the little guy.
It's thinking 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 thinks he ran against and defeated Obama, that Nikki Haley was in charge of capitol security, and who brags repeatedly for years about "acing" a test for dimentia... Is the one who's cognitively sharp.
It's thinking that the guy who's never been to church, thinks both the new testament and old are equal, and talks about "two Corinthians" is the most religious president we've ever had.
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.
TDS is certainly real and needs to be cured, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is it possible that things which sound stupid to me could actually be smart and I just dont understand them?
This is always a possibility. Rarely will you ever find a stupid person who is aware of his/her own limitations because it often takes the same abilities to understand the world as it does to understand one's own limitations, see Dunning-Kruger.
That's why I believe the important thing is not to focus so much in substance of various argument but moreso on the process of figuring things out, like learning about logical fallacies and critical thinking. We also rely on the input of others to help ourselves look in the mirror. As long as you are open to being wrong you are far more likely to get things right.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning"
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".
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", these are questions based on the person's intent which requires the jury to consider the surrounding context and put it all together in order to determine whether the statements were defamatory.
Your notion of a zero multiplier is not supported anywhere in the law and is completely at odds with basic human communication and common sense. We do not derive meaning or intent from a person's comments merely by looking at a single quote on paper. Everyone knows that.
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.
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?
Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soon
I 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?
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. Trump is not a victim here, he did this to himself and by extension all of us.
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 similarities between Biden and Trump are that they both had possession of classified documents.
That is where the similarities end.
Trump had far more documents than Biden, Trump had documents containing nuclear secrets - the most sensitive information one could have, and Trump lied repeatedly about having them while obstructing (or attempting to obstruct) the investigation into them.
Trump is not being prosecuted on the similarities, so the similarities are entirely irrelevant. What matters to this conversation are the differences.
You continue to claim it's people like me who have TDS. No, this is what TDS looks like. Your brain has been so broken on this that not only do I need to define basic English in order to explain to you why you're wrong, but now I have to explain to you how we tell different things apart from each other.
In no other situation would I need to explain to you that when two people commit a wrong but one goes much further, the one who went further is more likely to be held accountable and when being held accountable will face more serious repricussions. This is such basic common sense. Why do you need me to explain this to you?
Did Biden lie to the FBI? No.
Did Biden order documents moved from one location to another to keep them from being found and taken by the government? No
Did Biden order his security tapes to be deleted? No.
This is why Trump is being charged, and Biden did none of these things or anything remotely similar.
We do not prosecute people based on the crimes we think they would have committed if they were in the same boat as the other guy, nor do we not prosecute someone because we think the other guy would have done the same thing. Trump is clearly guilty of the above. Biden is not. That's why Trump is charged and Biden is not. That's exactly how or system of justice is supposed to work.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This game you're playing of singling out statements and evaluating them as if they occurred in isolation is not how the law works, it's not how logic and reason works.If instances add linearly then that is exactly how logic works. If the function is exponential but every element in the array is zero, the result is still zero. If you are claiming that the output depends on a series of necessary but not sufficient conditions you need to justify their chain causality.
Meaningless drivel. There is no zero element here, speaking geek doesn't make you sound more intelligent, quite the opposite.
Sure, until the right-tribe starts playing the game. Then you'll start complaining about prejudiced juries and stacked courts.
Possibly, because the game they'll be playing is one where they start imitating the batshit crazy conspiracy theory nonsense they made up out of thin air and projected into the "other side".
"public" is not qualified by readership but by the involvement of people and matters of public interest and the act of publishing.If a tweet has one reader, it is still public and if it creates a controversy when discovered by the public (regardless of who may have drawn eyes to it) it is a public controversy.If I tweet that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden gang raped me, I just created a public controversy even if nobody ever reads it.
The term is "public controversy". Note that this term contains two words, not one.
The second is where your problem is. No, you are not creating a public controversy with a tweet that no one has read. In order for it to be a controversy there has to be animated dispute, and in order for that to be public it needs to be felt buy a significant number of people in the community. English 101.
So the false defamation claims are dismissed quickly provided you have a real judge instead of a TDS pseudo-judge.
Real judge (noun): a judge that ADOL agrees with.
TDS Pseudo-Judge (noun): a judge that rules against Donald Trump
Curious to know what your position will be when the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS with 3 of the justices appointed by Trump himself reject every argumentt you made here.
Strawman as usual. Not only have I never asserted or argued that he has no right to deny it, I have explained repeatedly that he does. Learn to read.Great, then it doesn't matter how popular the accusation is does it.
If he only denied the claims then yes, it wouldn't matter. He didn't just deny it, and you cannot sperate the popularity of the sentiment of his denial with the sentiment of his defamatory comments because they were made together. You are trying really hard to unscramble that egg.
I am eager to see you list the statements you are claiming are defamatory.
They were listed in the ruling, and you already posted them.
Something changed, because people have been taking mints since the restaurant opened. Never once has anyone asked for them back.
Probably because no one ever took home Top Secret SCI nuclear documents. 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.
So back to our analogy, what changed wasn't the restaurant, it was the remarkable stupidity of this particular patron.
Whether he did or didn't lie is irrelevant to my point. It's not a false equivalence since the claim is that he stole them.
No, the claim, as in what Trump is actually being charged for, is lying to federal investigators in an attempt to illegally maintain possession of these documents after the government told him to give them back.
Why is this so difficult for you? Why do you keep pretending that the government is charging Trump with something they are not while defending him by asserting something that is completely irrelevant to the case?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I would agree with GP and ADOL here that the statements made were pretty weak and I wouldn't consider it defamation if I was on that jury, but I wasn't so I couldn't change the outcome. I think it was a long stretch for the jury to say that those statements alone were the defamatory remarks considering what has been said by others about other people.
It's important when evaluating statements in the context of a defamation claim that we're looking at whether the elements here were met. The idea of defamation is not that you're not allowed to say mean things about someone else. It's that you're not allowed to cause someone else significant reputational harm by recklessly lying about them in a pubic setting with actual malice. It's a fairly non controversial idea.
When looking at Trump's statements, he did just that. Setting aside his claims that she was lying, he went further by painting her as some kind of Democratic operative which was completely unfounded, and he certainly caused her reputational harm by repeatedly and relentlessly attacking her from the bully pulpit on the United States presidency. All of that matters because the size of your microphone and the repetition play into pubic perception about you, not to mention how many death threats you end up getting.
All of this is not to say there were no issues with the trial, verdict, or even the law itself. I feel like they got it right here but am certainly open to arguments to the contrary. What I'm really responding to in this thread is the absurdity of ADOL and which to some extent seems co-signed by GP that the trial itself was illegal, the jury was some kind of rogue authoritarian group who decided to place their own political desires ahead of their oath to uphold the law, that the people of NY should no longer be considered fellow American citizens, and that he would literally kill to prevent a single dime of Trump's money being seized to pay this award.
You can disagree with the verdict all you want, you can't pretend you're defending the rule of law when the only outcome you are willing to recognize as legally legitimate is the one you personally approve of.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.After sending the waiters...
There is no evidence whatsoever that Biden had any involvement in this.
Trump then claimed as his defense that the mints were his all along because as a patron of the restaurant he was entitled to take whatever he wanted.He was claiming that all along.
Then he had no reason to lie about having them.
That's TDS that can't be sorted out here. Focus on the core claim: That he's not allowed to take the mints. If that is true, then it is also true of Biden.
That's not the core claim, that's the claim you want to focus on because it's a distraction from what the case is actually about. As long as you can keep the attention here, we don't get to talk about the crimes Trump actually committed.
Again, Trump is not being charged because he had possession of documents. He is being charged for his attempts to hold onto those documents after being notified that he had to give them back.
You're pretending they're not because you're assuming intent matters and then assuming that anyone has in anyway proven Trump's intent was pure and Biden's was not.
Uh, yeah genius, intent does matter. That's how the law works, has always worked, and will always work because that's common sense.
We do not hold the guy who forgot to pay for the paper towel at the bottom of his cart accountable in the same way he hold the guy who shoved a t-shirt down his pants and snuck by the security guard.
Trump demonstrated his unlawful intentions when he lied to investigators, when he had his people move boxes from one location to another to evade detention, when he instructed his IT guy to delete video footage, etc. Biden demonstrated his intent when he handed the documents back to the FBI that they were not even asking for.
This is really simple stuff.
I only posted the link so you could confirm. The quote is right there. "After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents."
Correct, he is not. So when he was told to give them back, he should have given them back. We wouldn't be having this conversation if he did.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you must think a world exists where most people believe Trump is a sexual predator, but suddenly those same people forget all about that and believe every word Trump says as soon as the name E.J Carroll is spoken... square peg meet round hole.
Many people out there believe Trump is a sexual predator. That is a fact.
Many people out there believe whatever Donald Trump says. That's a fact.
Nothing about anything I've said suggests there is significant overlap between these two groups of people, it's not even part of the conversation. What is it about you that is so incapable of understanding opposing arguments?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you remove Trump's statements asserting his innocence and his statements pointing out the lack of evidence against him all that are left are matters of public interest, statements of opinions, and as you said insults and belittlements (which are not defamatory since forever).
I already presented you the elements of defamation, that is how you evaluate whether it occurred. This game you're playing of singling out statements and evaluating them as if they occurred in isolation is not how the law works, it's not how logic and reason works.
Communication involves context. You need the full picture in order to understand what message has been conveyed. You can disagree with that all you want, the rest of the world will continue to understand it, and I think, so will you in any other situation in real life.
So it's a continuous variable from 0 to 1, and only people who you approve of get to cherry pick which legal standard to use where.
There is a scale to how notorious a person is within any given society. 0 and 1 are not the only options.
Where a person is on that scale directly impacts how easily their reputation can be harmed by someone else's statements. It also impacts how easily a person can harm the reputation of others.
I don't get to decide who determines who makes the decision. We have a legal process to determine that.
These are all basic facts. I'm sorry if they are too difficult for you to grasp.
Doesn't matter if nobody bought it or read it. She made it a public issue by publishing. Lookup the roots of the words public and publish.
Look up the word "issue". It is by definition, not an issue if people do not care about it.
NO ONE CARED ABOUT EJC UNTIL DJT MADE HER THE FOCUS OF HIS IRE.I WOULDN'T CARE IF THAT WAS TRUE. She accused him of rape. She accused a former president of rape. Publicly. That's a public controversy.
You should care if my point is true, because if so that means it is by definition, not a public controversy.
The first amendment does not protect against defamation.This isn't defamation because (among other reasons) it would violate the 1st amendment if it was. There is no contradiction, you and the fake court are just nuts.
What's nuts is to live in a country where people are sued for defamation all the time and still claim that the 1st amendment of our constitution protects one from being sued for defamation. Apparently every lawyer, every judge, and every constitutional scholar through our 200+ year history all got it wrong, but not you, being the genius that you are you figured it all out.
In your ridiculous world public figures have to wait for the accusation of a heinous crime to circle the world three times before denying it.
Strawman as usual. Not only have I never asserted or argued that he has no right to deny it, I have explained repeatedly that he does. Learn to read.
You believe anyone who contradicts a jury must be acting with actual malice because they are contradicting an established fact.
Yet anther strawman. *Yawn*
Defamation requires among other elements, the intentional distortion of a fact. If the central fact of the defamation dispute is itself in dispute, the only logical next step is to adjudicate the facts and proceed from there.
That's what they did, because it's common sense.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
People are allowed to disagree and question your credibility.
No one here is claiming otherwise. I don't know why you keep repeating arguments that are not in dispute.
Now, explain to me why you think the following person exists: Someone who believes Donald Trump is capable of sexual assault, who didn't know about EJC, but after Trump called her a liar, thought less of EJC.You claimed that damage to reputation was a necessary condition of defamation and further implied that if people's minds were already made up there was no damage to be done. Square the round peg please.
The existence of the person you imagined is irrelevant to this case. The trial was about the harm caused to EJC. Whether any harm was caused to Trump is an entirely sperate matter. The reason we keep discussing it is because you keep trying to equivocate between the two so I have to keep explaining to you how they are different.
The person people's minds were already made up about was Trump, that's why he is nearly impossible to defame. People's minds were not made up about EJC as most people had never even heard of her. That's why she is relatively easy to defame.
Do you understand?
I see Trump's error now. He should have called all the people who accused him of rape liars regardless of whether they wrote books and went on TV.
No, you don't see the error. I don't know why those is so hard for you.
Whether he called anyone else a liar is irrelevant. His error was going beyond calling EJC a liar. And when he did, he was being reckless with the truth and acted with actual malice which caused her reputational harm.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Again, (for what the 4th time?), Ms. Carroll is one of something like 26 of Trump's accusers.There is no global limit to special prominence.
Again, you haven't listened to a word I've said.
You continue to pretend this is a black or white issue, as if you're either a public figure or you're not, and all public figures are exactly the same. That's silly.
Defamation is about causing reputational harm, if the person is barely known within their society it will be much easier to defame them. If everyone in society knows them already it will be much harder. This is common sense.
Publishing a book about a public figure or going onto a public TV broadcast to talk about a public figure are quintessential matters of public interest.
And yet no one in the public seemed to be concerned about this until Trump played right into it.
She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversiesShe obviously did. That's what publishing a book with controversial accusations does.
That's why I put "forefront" in italics. Anyone can accuse someone, that doesn't mean anyone else will care. As I've have repeated half a dozen times already, EJC was one out of over 20 accusers of a man who has been heard by damn near everyone on planet earth admitting that he enjoys sexually assaulting women. And that was before he was elected president of the United States. This was not a major story at the forefront of public discourse. To the extent this story was noteworthy at all, it's because of how useful it is in illustrating the total insanity of our state of politics when an accusation of rape could be such a backseat story to everything else going on with this man.
I could repeat this point a hundred times and you will continue to respond as if I never made it or as if this point is not relevant when it absolutely is. NO ONE CARED ABOUT EJC UNTIL DJT MADE HER THE FOCUS OF HIS IRE. He is why she was elevated. He is why everyone ended up talking about her.
Trump wouldn't have counterattacked if no one knew her name.
lol ok bro. Trump spent the whole republican convention in 2016 feuding with a gold star family because they criticized him. The man has deep insecurity issues.
So anyone who is in fact raped by a public figure either has to shut the fuck up or they lose their right against being defamed. That's ridiculous.It's necessary. The alternative is violating the 1st amendment and creating a society where courts can't be questioned.
The first amendment does not protect against defamation. If it did there would not be a defamation statute in the first place.
If we had such a society nobody would think OJ Simpson was guilty because anyone who suggested such a thing would have been silenced with defamation lawsuits.
And yet again... Everyone in our society already had an opinion of OJ Simpson. There is almost nothing that a single person on planet earth could have said about him that could have caused him significant reputational harm, so to assert that the mere suggestion that he was guilty - something even most people in his own inner circle had already figured out - would have been a case for defamation is beyond stupid. I don't even know if you're serious by this point, either way you are clearly not trying very hard.
Again, just too much nonsense to respond to do I'll respond to the rest later.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There is an absolute right to assert your innocence which means you have an absolute right to call your accusers liars.
No one is arguing that Trump does not have the right to assert his innocence, and the case is not about whether he called her a liar. I would explain what it's about, but that's what we've been talking about for days now. If you seriously think this statement is a retort of anything I have said then you are clearly not paying attention to the conversation you are engaging in nor have you bothered to read any of the actual material that explains the judges ruling or the jury's verdict, in which case I really don't know why you are bothering.
You cut off the next sentence: "the absolute certainty that they broke their oaths to deliberate on the evidence and render a decision regarding the law mean we know there is no legal force."
I cut it off because it is just gibberish nonsense. The jury deliberated, they reached a verdict. You disagree with their verdict. So what? Your disagreement doesn't make it unlawful. Your disagreement doesn't mean they violated their oaths. There was nothing contained within this statement of any intellectual value worth responding to.
If taking the mint was illegal, then Joe Biden committed a crime. If it wasn't then it doesn't matter if you argue with people who claim to own it.
Ok, we'll do the mint analogy.
Biden took one mint. Hell, we'll say he took two. Trump took an entire bag.
The restaurant didn't even notice the two mints were missing, they noticed the missing bag though.
Biden returned the missing two mints without being asked, the waiters had to chase Trump down in the parking lot.
When the waiters caught up to Trump, not only lied about having them, he had his date hide them in her purse and also tell the waiters she never saw them.
The restaurant called the police. When Trump found out they were on their way, he told his date to hide them in the trunk.
The police saw them trying to hide the mints in the trunk and searched it. After finding the mints they charged Trump for theft. Trump then claimed as his defense that the mints were his all along because as a patron of the restaurant he was entitled to take whatever he wanted.
Of course this defense is complete nonsense. If Trump really believed the mints were his he would have never lied about having them and tried to hide them in the first place.
These are not the same thing. Any sane and rational person knows that.
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat.
The link is 44 pages long. Not sifting through it to figure out what your point is. Make it by typing words and I'll be happy to dig into it.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Many of Trump's accusers have done television interviews, that doesn't make them public figures in any meaningful sense.They did television interviews accusing a public figure of serious offenses. That is about as meaningful as it gets.
Clearly, you didn't bother to read your own source:
"A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular publiccontroversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety."
It lists two basic criteria; someone who has assumed roles of special prominence within the affairs of our society or someone have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.
Again, (for what the 4th time?), Ms. Carroll is one of something like 26 of Trump's accusers. No one knows any of their names except Ms. Carroll and they only know her name because Trump attacked her repeatedly. She didn't put herself into the forefront of public controversies, Trump did, which is the entire point here.
Moreover, think of how absurd your argument is here. Accusing a public figure of rape makes you a public figure, which makes you immune from being defamed. So anyone who is in fact raped by a public figure either has to shut the fuck up or they lose their right against being defamed. That's ridiculous.
Lastly on this, this entire point came about after I explained why pubic figures are much harder to be defamed - because they are already well known within society so their reputation is mostly shaped already. It is difficult to defame someone everyone already knows, no significant number of people ever heard of E. Jean Carroll until Trump repeatedly attacked her. That is the point of Defamation.
Repetition has a greater impact on public perception than non repetition.The shaping of public opinion isn't the disqualifier. The nature as opinion and the impossibility of establishing the facts beyond a reasonable doubt are.
"Nature as opinion"? Really not sure what your point is here, maybe you misspoke.
The nature of public opinion isn't some side consideration, it's the consideration. That's literally what defamation means.
The fact is that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that repetition is worse than non-repetition when it comes to shaping the public perception of an individual.
I'll tell you what "excessive force" does not mean: communication.
We were talking about concepts. The concept of excessive force applies just the same rhetorically as it does physically.
If there was some legal rule of proportionality in public attacks (and there isn't circa the 1st amendment), it would be absurd to consider the accusation of rape to be anything but the highest tier of attack. It's an attack that could attract the attention of prosecutors and assassins rather than just a loss of reputation.
First of all, the first amendment does not give one the right to defame someone else, so that is irrelevant to this.
Second and more importantly, you are again asserting the allegation of rape itself is an attack, so in your world the act of being raped is itself a forfeiture of one's right to live free of being attacked should they ever tell anyone (as that would now be considered a counter attack, which according to your other argument is limitless). That is completely ridiculous.
Therefore, since you insist on comparing speech to violence: EJC dropped a hyper-sonic fusion cluster bomb on Donald Trump.
Complete nonsense. No one cared about EJC's claim until Donald Trump repeatedly attacked her, and even then no one cared about the underlying accusation, the story was the defamation trial. After Access Hollywood we all moved well beyond being shocked that Trump would commit sexual assault.
Irrelevant. Actually if there are a bunch of people "pushing you" you are in more danger. So if you believed your own analogy a relevant defense for "stabbing"
This has nothing to do with my analogy. You don't get to bottle up all of your frustrations built up from multiple aggressors and use it as an excuse to take it all out on one person.
Way too much nonsense to respond to. Will address the rest as I have time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Painfully watched the first 3 minutes before finally deciding I couldn't torture myself any longer. This video was remarkably stupid. I can feel myself getting dumber as I watched it.
Apparently the political right lost their minds over Joe Biden joking about McCullough being the "real" governor, arguing that he's being divisive and hypocrite for attacking Trump and others who do the same thing.
The divisive argument never ceases to amaze me. Trump LITERALLY calls his political advasaries his "enemies". Literally. If you would even consider voting for this man you do not ever get to complain about another politician being divisive.
But more to the point, Biden's joke was obviously received as a joke because not a single person in that crowd believed McCullough actually won the election, and if anyone in that crowd expressed to Biden that they seriously did, Biden wouldn't hesitate to give a whole speech to the entire crowd about how the election was fair and we need to accept the results. No rational person can say anything like this about Trump and his supporters.
Why do you post such ridiculous garbage? Is this really where you get your information from?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't understand the point of all this. Willis did some terrible shit, but that's up to the voters to punish her for unless there is a legitimate impeachment like process in Georgia which can address this. Nothing about the Trump team's allegations affect this case in any way.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
why would it manifest itself in humans if it's not tied to natural selection? if it was just a random dude having an experience, it could be called a random hallucination. if it's millions of people, it's got to be tied to natural selection.
It manifests in millions of people because we're all the same species so we share the same DNA. Why are you so surprised that our brains would work so similarly? And why are you so surprised that our brains would concoct an experience that gives us a way out of dealing with our own mortality?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I read the transcripts you sent a link to. Are the 4 remarks from Trump is what she is saying is the defamation?
Basically yes, those are the remarks the jury was assigned to evaluate
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cool, then she can stop pretending that she does.
She's not, that has absolutely nothing to do with defamation.
Have you read a single word I've written? No, of course you haven't.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are
Commonality itself had no necessary tie to evolution. Evolution is a product of the existence of traits that help ensure a species survival, NDE's neither assist nor hinder that outcome.
I just think they are a product of wishful thinking, and of our brains using that which we know (or accept) about the world to make sense or of our experiences.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's madness. You can't claim someone raped you and also care about whether or not they think you are sexy.
*Double facepalm*
Ms. Carroll doesn't care. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I or anyone in this trial is talking about.
First of all, Trump didn't tell anyone to look at old photos of her when she was much younger and considered by most to be far more attractive. His comments were made in the present tense, so there's definitely a heavy agism connotation to it.
But far more importantly, this has nothing to do with Ms. Carroll's feelings, it is entirely about (1) Trump's intentions, and (2) the natural and realized impacts of Trump's actions.
His comment here establishes the former, regardless of how they were received by Ms. Carroll herself.
Created: