Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
Again... A major part of proving defamation is demonstrating that the defendant acted with malice.
An example of how one establishes that the defendant was acting with malice is to show that the defendant went beyond self defense (as in denying the allegation) and decided to (rhetorically) attack the plaintiff.
There is no rational ground to stand on while claiming Trump's "she's not my type" comment was intended to do anything other than insult Ms. Carroll's appearance, which if isn't obvious enough by reading it becomes even more obvious by listening to the many many times he has said this to the laughter of the crowd. Or if you need it put more simply... He's making fun of her. Everyone in his audience knows this.
Making fun of someone in an unwelcomed fashion is malicious by definition.
Moreover, because Trump actually mistook her for his own wife the claim is now reasonably established as factually inaccurate.
Another element of defamation is that the defendant acted with at minimum, a "wreckless disregard for the truth".
So not only does this comment establish malice, it also establishes a wreckless disregard for the truth - Both sides of the coin in one shot. That is why it is impactful to the case.
Do you understand now?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again... It's only one small piece of the story. You continue to break the case apart and evaluate each individual part as if it occurred in isolation. That's not... how... a... case... works.
Feel like I've said that before.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"
Again, cherry picking one piece of the case and evaluating it as if it occurred in isolation. That's how how any good faith attempt to respond to an argument works, but not like you care about that.
As I eluded to with ADOL, insults and belittlement as well as repetition all plays a role. One of the central questions regarding defamation which I haven't even gotten to in this thread is whether a person acted with malice. Trump isn't telling people she's "not his type" purely out of self defense. It's a cheap shot at Caroll, and one which is factually false as proven by the fact that he confused images her with his own wife. There is no reasonable case to be made that his comments are anything but loaded with malicious intent.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Between taking things out of context and false equivalences, one can paint their opposition however they want. It's just a question over whether reality matters to the target audience. With MAGA, the answer is a clear and emphatic NO.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are saying the Politico article misquoted the Judge?
No, I'm saying they never quoted the judge at all. You cited a news article reporting on the verdict, that's very different from and was never intended to be a legal breakdown of the judges ruling.
The fact that I have to explain this says a lot.
What were the exact phrases Trump said that were defamatory according to the Judge
There were multiple statements. For the full list you can see the actual ruling here. Start on page 4:
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's projection. I am citing the judge. You are paraphrasing the judge.
No, you are citing an article from Politico that provided an incomplete description of the judges ruling. I am merely explaining what you failed to understand about it.
He was also held liable for having a bad opinion about her book.
The comment about her book was part of his comments in which he was held liable for defaming her. Again, if you want to criticize the ruling you have to look at the entire ruling and how each individual piece contributes to the whole.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Judge clearly stated one of the statements was "I never met her"
Of course, because that's one of the elements that's needed to establish a claim to defamation (factual inaccuracy). That doesn't mean saying that alone qualifies.
You guys love to take issues like this apart and then pretend that one part has nothing to do with the other. They're all interconnected, that's what a case... Is.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When someone writes a book about a public figure and goes on TV to talk about public figures they become a public figure.
Many of Trump's accusers have done television interviews, that doesn't make them public figures in any meaningful sense. That requires notoriety, the more of it you have the harder it is for you to be defamed, which is factored into a defamation suit.
This is really basic stuff.
The problem is that he attacked her repeatedly and relentlessly, and did it in the most public way possible.If one instance wasn't defamation, neither were a hundred.
Repetition has a greater impact on public perception than non repetition. Defamation is based on one's shaping of public perception.
This is really basic stuff.
The right to respond includes proportionality.Cite law. Cite precedence. You're making things up.
You haven't cited a single law or precedent in this entire conversation.
Regardless, I'll be happy to dig further into this as soon as you claim that disproportionate responses are justified. Go on, tell me that's what you believe. And when you do you might want to think about what the term "excessive force" means.
If someone pushes you, you don't have the right the stab them to death.Even if this was at all analogous, which it isn't, there are plenty of contexts where that is false.
Sure, in contexts where you add unnecessary and non-analogous factors. But if these were the only factors, then it absolutely stands and is absolutely analogous. Carroll was nothing more than an accuser in a sea of accusers. If Trump treated her like any normal person running a country would have, none of us would have ever heard of her.
Trump went way beyond all of this. EJC was just a private citizenWho publicly accused him of rape. End of story. Nothing else is relevant.
Not how the law works, nor should it.
Turns out when you decide to shut your brain down, no further arguments prevail. Who knew?
To ignore your false analogies is simple, easy, and I'm doing it right now.
Of course you are, because you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do.
and they followed that process.They did not.
And yet you can't present a single argument to back that up other than your opinion of how you think the law should work.
Taking home top secret documents is not like taking home top secret documents if you don't argue when someone asks for them.
People walk out of stores with unpaid merchandise all the time. What we wouldn't do is treat the guy who turned around and bright it back to the store the same as the guy who shoved it down his pants and tried to peel off as soon as he was stopped.
Basic common sense.
Trump isn't being charged for taking the documents home. He's being charged for lying to federal investigators and his flagrant attempts to stop the federal government from retaining it's property,
Denying a crime is like a linebacker breaking a woman's jaw.
He didn't just deny the crime. You're either being brazenly dishonest or are breathtakingly ignorant of the case you continue to rail against in your quest to engage in civil war. It really is amazing to watch.
You have failed to explain why the mechanics of defamation that you advanced would not result in criminal appeals being by definition defamatory.
I already posted the elements of defamation for you. I can give you two and then give you another two. I can't make you're brain put them together. You have to do that on your own.
If you can't figure out how appealing a conviction fails to meet the four basic elements of defamation then I have nothing more to say to you, your brain doesn't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Another result because republicans don't actually care about what they claim to care about. You guys wanted something done on immigration. Ok, here. Oh, now you're going to complain cause you didn't get it sooner? Please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats are not the ones *now* talking about succession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It seems that people in Texas are fed up with the migration crisis that old Joe is incapable of fixing.
If only a bipartisan group of senators would be willing to come together and work out legislation to improve conditions at the border which Joe Biden would be willing to sign.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So if someone besides yourself sticks their fingers up your ass, you won’t consider yourself to have been raped? OkAh, suddenly the jury is no longer the sacred final arbiter of the facts. You get to decide now. I am just shocked you would stand against the rule of law in this manner!
"The jury got it wrong", and "I do not recognize the jury's verdict as the lawful outcome" are two very different things.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If it is then defamation to say someone is lying about something that is a fact in the eyes of the court, then surely anyone who has been convicted of a crime and called their accusers liars are liable for defamation right?It then follows that it is impossible to assert ones innocence after being convicted without committing defamation. It then follows that any appeal of a conviction is also defamation.
No, that's not how defamation works.
"To prove either type of defamation lawsuit, plaintiffs must usually prove the following elements:
- The defendant made a false statement of fact concerning the plaintiff;
- The defendant made the defamatory statement to a third party knowing it was false (or they should have known it was false);
- The defamatory statement was disseminated through a publication or communication; and
- The plaintiff's reputation suffered damage or harm"
None of your silly false equivalences pass the sniff test because they fail to meet the basic criteria. It turns out that the people who wrote these defamation laws already thought of your third grade level retorts.
Hilary accused Trump of working with russians to steal the election. Somehow she's not liable?
No, because defamation generally does not apply to public figures and almost never applies to politicians. That would first of all cross over into protected (political) speech, second - politicians sign up to be criticized when they decide to run for office, and third - you cannot cause reputational harm to someone whom everyone already knows and has developed an opinion on based on their own observations of that person.
When you accuse someone of a crime (or any malfeasance really), you can't claim to be damaged when they call you a liar. In fact the only one who would ever be in danger of defamation is yourself.Educate yourself: https://www.isba.org/sections/bench/newsletter/2020/06/therightofconfrontationaconceptfort (again, just rhetorical, I know you won't)
If Trump had just responded by calling her a liar no one would have awarded her a penny, just like his other 25 or so accusers. The problem is that he attacked her repeatedly and relentlessly, and did it in the most public way possible. The right to respond includes proportionality. If someone pushes you, you don't have the right the stab them to death.
Or to put it in another way, imagine a 5'5 women slaps a 250 lb linebacker and he responds by breaking her jaw and knocking her unconscious. No reasonable person would pretend that is just. Everyone has the right to respond in kind, and everyone has the right to defend themselves physically and rhetorically. Trump went way beyond all of this. EJC was just a private citizen, Trump was the president of the United States. He had the largest microphone on earth and he unleashed it on her repeatedly ignoring all consequences that would come of it. It's literally called the bully pulpit, and it's called that in relation to Congress and state governments (a much bigger foe), it's not there to shape the public's opinion on one individual American.
You continue to ignore all of this, as if to say the 5'5 women who got knocked unconscious had it coming to her and the linebacker was within his rights. There is a reason people always say "pick on someone your own size" - Because it's common fucking sense. When you're the president people will attack you. Deal with it appropriately or get out of public office.
Just because you call yourself a court and locate your self in a building that resembles a court does not mean you're following the law.
Correct. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what's written into law does. And what was written into law is that this was the process to adjudicate this claim, these were the individuals designated by that process to adjudicate it, and they followed that process. That's called the law. What's not the law is "we can't reach that verdict because Adreamofliberty said so".
I don't like the outcome because it is an affront to justice.
Bullshit. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about how justice in this case works and have shown no interest in learning a thing about it.
You know what I think helps identify a cult. When you talk to them and what you say clearly goes through a translation matrix before it hits their cerebellum.Like in this case "It is an attack on me" is clearly not the message your consciousness received. It was translated to "It is an attack on Trump only and I want to sacrifice myself for his sake even though were it anyone else he would deserve it"
I understand full well what you're saying, I'm assessing why, which is an entirely different question. You come on here making ridiculous assertions of how defamation works, the issues in this trial, and the relation that any of this has to you which there's no way anyone of your intelligence level would believe without serious psychologal issues, you then demonstrate those issues by declaring yourself ready to kill over them. The problem here is not translation, look in the mirror.
There is nothing about anything Trump has been criminally or civilly attacked over that is even remotely unique to him. Even the incitement of a riot was done a few years earlier by left-tribers and it could be quite sanely argued that they intended to incite a riot while he did not since he said "peacefully" and they implied the opposite.Biden has been accused of sexual assault and kept classified documents in his corvette. Sure he handed them over, but that was an easy decision to make when he controlled the agency that was taking them.The Clinton foundation was definitely a front for public corruption so that should have been the "charity found to be fraudulent".The reason none of this goes anywhere is because the propagandist control the populations of the cities.
None of this goes anywhere because it's all nonsense false equivalences born in right wing propaganda. My favorite is the Biden documents in his Corvette, as if the difference in what he did vs Trump couldn't be any clearer. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it, plain and simple.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Proclaiming your innocence and attacking your accuser are two very different things.If calling your accuser a liar is attacking them then no, but you're the dishonest type so I wouldn't expect you to admit that.
He didn't just call her a liar. Trump denied having met her altogether and repeated this claim despite it being proven factually incorrect. He accused her of being some attention whore trying to make up her story to sell books, he accused her of working with the democrats to help them steel the election, he tried to paint her as some kind of sex feind by twisting her words, and he did all of this from the bully pulpit of the presidency as well as that of a former president.
Those comments alone might be written off as "he said she said", but when the central allegation is adjudicated and a jury finds him liable for assaulting her, the only logical step is to find him liable for the defamation that followed.
You can pretend that isn't how the law works or shouldn't work all you want, it does and it should.
What GP said, and I don't care. No verdict criminal or civil can ever morally compel a man to confess or cease attacking his accuser's credibility.
If you don't care whether he was found liable by a jury in court of law of the underlying accusation then you can stop pretending you're defending the rule of law. You're defending nothing more than your right to impose your will on everyone else because you don't like the outcome.
Trump made a conscious decision to ignore every rule of the trialand thereby choose to follow the rule of law
This is exactly the kind of up is down left is right stupidity we have come to expect from MAGA. God help us.
I would kill to prevent a single extorted penny from changing hands...An attack on the liberal basis for law is an attack on everyone who the law is there to protect. It is an attack on me.
I know of a cult expert who once said: "The difference between a religion and a cult is that in a religion your savior sacrifices themselves for you, in a cult you sacrifice yourself for your savior"
Words I think about everytime I watch MAGA cultists defend the warping of their own minds. The whole point of everything cults do is to convince you that it's all about you while it's really all about someone else. The reason Trump is in legal perril is because of his own actions. You claim he is being treated unfairly while he is objectively given deference beyond anything you or I would ever receive. Have you ever seen a criminal defendant repeatedly attack the judge, the prosecutors, the witnesses, hell even the court staff and get away with it? No, because it has never happened without the defendant being locked up. The law works that way for everyone else, Trump gets a pass, and then people like you pretend he's the victim because he told you so. It's utterly pathetic.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I mean even if someone was convicted of a crime, they have still always been allowed to proclaim their innocence. Now you don't need to be convicted and you're not allowed to do so?
Proclaiming your innocence and attacking your accuser are two very different things.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the defamation trial didn't occur in a vacuum. The first trial already found that Trump was in fact guilty of the underlying accusation. You can disagree with that verdict all you want, you don't get to pretend it didn't happen or wasn't relevant to the verdict in this case.
Once he was found liable the jury was rightly instructed to proceed on that basis. And it was on that basis where his continued attacks were considered. The overwhelming bulk of the reward to the plaintiff was on punitive grounds, which is certainly appropriate in a case where the defendant continued to attack the plaintiff as the trial was ongoing, including while he was literally sitting in the courtroom, by continuing to ignore the judges instructions and proclaim his innocence to the jury after being told very clearly that was not a valid testimony at that point in the trial, and by walking out during the prosecutions closing argument after being instructed not to interrupt in any way. Trump made a conscious decision to ignore every rule of the trial, signalling as clear as he could have possibly signaled that he saw himself as being immune to the law. He deserved every penny of that verdict.
And just to add to all of this is the impact on Trump's attacks. As was pointed out in a prior trial "when a person commits an act, it is only logical to assume the natural and predictable consequences of said act was the person's intent". Trump knows damn well that his repeated attacks on Carroll would result in his followers stalking and threatening her, which is exactly what happened and Trump has never made any attempt to cool that down. This is exactly what he intended, so yes, he deserved every penny of it.
Stop pretending that the circumstances here are like any other defamation trial we've ever seen. They're not. You accuse us of TDS. TDS is actually buying the utter bullshit talking point that this is all somehow an attack on you. It's not, it's nothing more than a New York billionaire who would never associate himself with someone like you and couldn't care less about you manipulating you into thinking he's fighting for you all while grooming you into giving up your livelihood to fight for him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The awarding of nearly $90 million to the second-rate advice columnist E. Jean Carroll will doubtless be remembered for generations as the greatest miscarriage of justice in contemporary American history.
What history will scratch their heads about is the fact that a former president of the United States being sued for defamation continued to defame the plaintiff repeatedly and relentlessly as the trial was ongoing.
To argue that a massive award to the plaintiff here constitutes a miscarriage of justice is absolutely ridiculous and shows that you really don't know what a defamation trial is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine disliking Trump still in the year 2024
You mean the presumptive republican nominee for president who is leading the incumbent in national polling? Why is that remarkable to imagine?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't know why you bother, you can't think anyone here is reading your nonsense and thinking it makes sense.That blade cuts both ways around here.
Not really concerned with whether the guy who is rooting for civil war likes what I have to say
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure you wrote earlier that you were Okay with the Patriot Act....
One position on one issue doesn't define a political ideology.
On the chart of Authoritarianism vs liberty, yes, you are on my left.
You're an anarchist. Anyone one believes government has any legitimate role in our society is on your left.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And I suppose you think the Patriot Act is just fine and dandy. Who is the real Republican here?
lol
Yeah great point GP, looks like I'm the republican and you are to my left.
I don't know why you bother, you can't think anyone here is reading your nonsense and thinking it makes sense.
Created:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Total miscarriage of justice.
Right. Jist like both federal trials against him. Just like the Georgia case, just like the NY case, just like the civil fraud trial against him that's already found him guilty, just like the trial against his charity which has already found it to be a fraud, etc. etc. etc.
It's all a massive conspiracy. He's done nothing wrong at all. Ignore your eyes and ears.
Created:
ITs tHE dEep StatE bahh ha ha
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want the Republicans to do their version of tyranny that the Democrats are doing right now. Whatever gave you that idea?
The fact that the idea of "Democratic tyranny" as an accurate depiction of our current state is anything but a ridiculous notion born in right wing propaganda.
Would you like to support that notion using actual facts and logic? No, of course you wouldn't.
No one except for an ignorant brainwashed right winger would say something so absurd.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I dunno. Maybe ask a right winger?
I just did. Why do you keep pretending to be anything else? You sit here all day arguing with left wingers about every issue under the sun while agreeing with every right winger on just about everything. Why are you so dishonest?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I dunno, there are a lot of people in Texas fighting tyranny right now as per the OP....and plenty of sympathizers in other states....
Why are right wingers so obsessed with convincing themselves they live under tyranny? Do you even know what that word means?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Do Christians themselves even consider that they may have been praying to the "wrong god" for over 2000 years?
In my experience most don't. In their minds it's their God or atheism, which really speaks to why they believe in the first place. If it were really that simple of a dichotomy it would be much more reasonable. For me, even as a child I was always astonished at how everyone believed in a different God and yet everyone believed they were the ones who got it right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hope a few more million illegals get bussed into New York, because sometimes pain is the only teacher. Then, perhaps the traditional rooting for the scripted fake fight in DC will lose the appeal it currently has with partisan hacks in this country.
Right... "I hope [thing that I'm against] keeps happening to teach my political advasaries a lesson"
Says the guy who hates partisan hacks...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Irrelevant. This isn't about screwing over republicans, it's about making a deal that's best for the country which will probably not happen simply because Trump doesn't want it to.
The crazy thing here is, I believe almost everyone in Congress except a small extreme handful really want this deal. Democrats by and large recognize that the southern border is a real issue that really needs to be addressed, but many feel like their base will punish them if they look like they're helping republicans. I think the same is true of most republicans who recognize that we cannot allow Putin to just seize Ukraine, but don't want to upset their base either. So this is a very rare opportunity to make real progress on real issues while giving each side something to tout as well as a defense against the extreme elements of the party.
But because of one man, who is actively demonstrating that our political system is in his mind not about what's best for us but what's best for him, the deal may not happen at all. That is absolutely remarkable, but what's worse is that the people screaming the loudest about wanting border security will once again invent an alternative reality to avoid having to deal with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Things exist regardless if they have been proven to me .
Strawman. Scroll up and read post 54.
Created:
Posted in:
In yet another example of how Trump cares about nothing more than what's best for Donald Trump, a deal to improve the situation at the southern border is possibly dead after Trump ordered his subordinates in Congress to not "give Joe Biden a win".
Will this affect how anyone supporting Trump thinks about him? How will MAGA spin this in their journey of self delusion into arguing that it's because Trump is figuring for them?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
we see that 4 out of 5 options are either beneficial either neutral to atheists, same as for Christians.
Don't forget the "which God?" problem; Even if there's is a god, praying to the wrong one will leave you no better than an atheist. That brings in another few thousand options to be wrong anyway.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Be it collapse into pathetic powerlessness or civil war, either outcome is preferable to the inane slavery of pretending we are living in a nation of laws.
You need help
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
At least with my approach they recognize their ideas are stupid.
No they won't, because they don't care. You're presupposing that facts, logic, and and evidence matter to these people. They don't. If they did they wouldn't embrace such absurdities in the first place.
You cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Their politics is entirely emotional, so they will continue to act based on that. You berating them only pisses them off more. That won't matter to the bulk of them who are fervently in Trump's corner, but many of them are not that invested. Those are the ones who at the very least can be moved into staying home.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The logical default position is "unknown", because it isnt known.
You are not listening to what I am saying.
An assumption is not a belief. "I believe John is telling the truth" is very different from "I assume John is telling the truth"
The former is a conclusion one has reached. The latter is not. The latter is instead a position one would take as a matter of practical necessity because they had to decide how to treat John's statement.
There is a middle ground between believing X vs believing X's negation (not X). That is: one could... not believe X.
Assumptions are an entirely different thing. You claim one can 'assume X is unknown'. In some contexts this would be a coherent statement, not in the context of this conversation. What you are saying here amounts to 'one can assume to not make an assumption'. That's not coherent as it is logically contradictory.
An assumption is by definition, the taking of a position.
The idea that something doesnt exist until proof shows up is contradictive
This is not even close to anything I've said. We're not talking about the actual truth value of a proposition, we're talking how we treat the proposition when we don't have an answer
A simple honest answer of "I dont know" solves those situations and doesnt even take effort.
Now you're just being brazenly dishonest. No reasonable person would tell a child when asked that they "don't know" if Freddy Krueger, or Lord Voldemort, or Thanos, etc. is real.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Just berate them for being morons. After enough negative reinforcement they will be less inclined to speak up as it sinks in that they don’t know what they are talking about.
That is objectively not true, especially when talking about MAGA. The reason they're so obsessed with Trump is because Trump is the first person to make them feel like they're not worthless idiots. He gave them a sense of personal validation and for that they will be forever loyal to him. That is why no one else gets away with the garbage he does, no matter how hard they try to imitate him, they can never replicate the emotional high he gave these people.
Everytime you and others berate them all you do is give them more reason in their own minds to give you the finger by voting for him. We know how childish they are, this is why. Politics is not about policy to these people. It's not about facts and logic, it's not about the country's continued success. It's about making them feel better about themselves because they have nothing else. And they way they do that is by sticking it to people like me yes, but moreso people like you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He promised to repeal them. He broke his promise.
Which is entirely different from saying he extended them. You would realize that if you weren't busy being a partisan hack.
Political rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich primarily serves as a distraction from the United States’ fiscal reality. If spending is not constrained, large and growing deficits will remain
Agreed, but none of this has to do with whether Biden "extended" the tax cuts, whether the partial extension he wants is hypocritical (it's not), or whether we should raise taxes on the rich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So you mean to tell me that I can make up a FALSE story and a true replicant of it could actually exist in the world somewhere.
Your question is incoherent - If the story is false it cannot also be true.
But in writing this you inadvertently made my point. You assumed at the outset that the story you were making up was in fact false without any evidence and despite the fact that any story one can make up is possible (unless it's internally contradictory).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are unlimited options of Gods, so even if they all can exist, praying to all is impossible.
Which is exactly why assuming non-existence is the only logical default position.
You can assume that Zeus's existence is unknown, and still decide not to pray to him.
As I have explained repeatedly already, an assumption is not an assertion. You continue to confuse two very different things.
Let's try this; if a 5 year old asked you whether Freddy Krueger was real, what would you say and how confident in your answer would you be?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
And yet they're damn near half the country so we can't just ignore them
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden also lied to the American people when he ran for Vice President in 2008 when...
"Read my lips, no news taxes".
Wow a politician backing down from a campaign promise, how unthinkable...
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you angry at Biden for extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the rich?
He didn't genius, the tax cuts don't expire so there is no need to be extended. What Biden had said it's that he wants to extend them to households making less than $400k while raising taxes on households making more. It's the "making more" part where the parties disagree.
This is really basic stuff you should know if you're going to keep trying to spread this nonsense.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Boredom. If there were more intelligent and thoughtful people on this site to disagree with I would ignore him and talk to them.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Now I ask you, do you really think that 1.6 trillion would have gone to help poor people? Because the math says that they wouldn't be very poor if it did. If they worked minimum wage + that benefit they would be in the 100k range
The $1.6 trillion is over a ten year period.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am sure they would as well, just as they are trying to do with their "Biden crime family" allegations. Unfortunately for them there is this thing called evidence. One would think that would matter to the MAGA crowd, but they would be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
its unnecessary and illogical to assume non-existence of that which can exist.
Not only is it logical, it is necessary.
You are confusing very different things. An assumption is not an assertion, it is a position one takes out of practical necessity so that we can function. I for example have no evidence for or against the existence of Zeus, that doesn't change the fact that I do have to decide before I go to bed whether I'm going to pray to him or not. That is, I have to decide whether I am going to live my life under the assumption that he doesn't exist, or the assumption that he does. Those are my only two options, and that is the case regardless of whether we're talking about a god, Bigfoot, or the Easter bunny.
There is nothing about a default position that requires us to commit to that position. Think of a video game - you cannot play the game without settings so it comes with a menu for you to adjust as you wish. Absent any changes, the default settings apply. It's not anything you decided or perhaps even thought about, it's just a starting point for which you cannot play the game without.
Again, just because something can exist does not mean you have to act as if it certainly exists.
Certainty has nothing to do with this conversation, that's just a distraction.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There have been plenty of attacks and protests after Jan 6 in Washington D.C.(mostly over Gaza)
Were any of these attacks part of a broader effort to steal an American election? Did they rise to the level where Congress was forced to stop in fulfilling a constitutional duty in order evacuate in fear for their lives? Were they incited by a sitting President of the United States?
Somehow I suspect this is yet another absurd false equivalence, a specialty of yours.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't give a crap who the Jan 6 "select committee" was trying to kangaroo court. I will make fun of the partisan hackery wherever it exists.
Right, because holding those responsible for an attack on the United States capitol accountable is partisan hackery. Ok bro.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, the partisan bible for lazy people... goes well with Wapo's spam
Another reflexive jump to Trump's defense from the guy who swears he hates Trump.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This issue is one of those basic tests which make objectively clear that both political sides are not equal.
Trump continues to claim he did nothing wrong by holding the J6 rally and giving that speech at the elipse telling his supporters to fight like hell or they won't have a country anymore, as if there was no danger to the capitol at all. Then he goes and talks out of the other side in his mouth claiming that he was the one pushing for heightened security. So which is it? Was there a threat to the Capitol that he understood needed to be taken seriously or not?
This very much reminds me of when he tries to take credit for saving lives by shutting down travel from China, which clearly says that COVID was a deadly disease to be taken seriously. Then he goes and blasts the democrats for taking measures to fight COVID. The intellectual inconsistency is amazing.
His supporters do not care about facts or logic, it's all just a blood sport and they support the home team to the bitter end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
No my answer is since you asked,I never looked into those first two figures. The third one I understand is made up by atheists
They were rhetorical questions, that was obvious.
The third one I understand is made up by atheists themselves so that takes care of that.
Takes care of what? It sounds like you're saying that because atheists made up a monster, that monster therefore is proven to not exist. Which does not logically follow, unless you are simply saying that you accept as your default position until such time as evidence can be shown to the contrary, that it doesn't exist.
Created: