Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: JadedGhost

He deserved to be found liable for saying he didn't rape someone when it was found by a jury that he didn't rape someone?

a reply to: JinMI

But he didn’t just deny the sexual assault claim, did he? He personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner… hence the 83 million dollar law suit.

You’d think someone who claims to be “a very stable genius” would possess a little more common sense than that.

I’m failing to see the part where he ‘personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner’.
Maybe you can help.
Did he threaten her with violence in an immature or petty manner?
Did he tell untruths about her in an immature and petty manner?

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: JadedGhost

He deserved to be found liable for saying he didn't rape someone when it was found by a jury that he didn't rape someone?

a reply to: JinMI

But he didn’t just deny the sexual assault claim, did he? He personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner… hence the 83 million dollar law suit.

You’d think someone who claims to be “a very stable genius” would possess a little more common sense than that.

I’m failing to see the part where he ‘personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner’.
Maybe you can help.
Did he threaten her with violence in an immature or petty manner?
Did he tell untruths about her in an immature and petty manner?

You must be expecting them to give an answer that goes with the facts, not the fantasy feces they are spewing.

Liberals are the only ones that are petty and immature, that’s a fact.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: JadedGhost

He deserved to be found liable for saying he didn't rape someone when it was found by a jury that he didn't rape someone?

a reply to: JinMI

But he didn’t just deny the sexual assault claim, did he? He personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner… hence the 83 million dollar law suit.

You’d think someone who claims to be “a very stable genius” would possess a little more common sense than that.

Did he tell untruths about her in an immature and petty manner?

I have no idea if what he said about her is true or not and neither do you, but it was by definition a personal attack all the same.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: JadedGhost

He deserved to be found liable for saying he didn't rape someone when it was found by a jury that he didn't rape someone?

a reply to: JinMI

But he didn’t just deny the sexual assault claim, did he? He personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner… hence the 83 million dollar law suit.

You’d think someone who claims to be “a very stable genius” would possess a little more common sense than that.

Stable genius or no, this isn't a difficult matter unless you're being obtuse or spinning some yarn about why it's ok to deny people their civil rights.

lol, civil rights?

You mean like the civil right to keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer deal with it? Yeah, Trump denied himself of that one.

Eggcelent. You may get a spot in my signature

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: JadedGhost

He deserved to be found liable for saying he didn't rape someone when it was found by a jury that he didn't rape someone?

a reply to: JinMI

But he didn’t just deny the sexual assault claim, did he? He personally attacked E. Jean Carroll in his typical immature and petty manner… hence the 83 million dollar law suit.

You’d think someone who claims to be “a very stable genius” would possess a little more common sense than that.

Did he tell untruths about her in an immature and petty manner?

I have no idea if what he said about her is true or not and neither do you, but it was by definition a personal attack all the same.

I’m not understanding how somebody can be liable when they say something negative but true about someone else.

True statements can’t be defamation can they?
What did he say about her that was untrue?
How can you say that he defamed her if you don’t even know if it was true or not?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: yuppa

LOL. Did you just link a cruddy article titled 'Why Do Some People Get Called for Jury Duty More Than Others?' and try to pass that off as explaining the voir dire process?

AHAHAHAHA.

Obviously you didnt read or understand the article posted. which shows you dont really care to do so or even try to change your mind. typical.

originally posted by: yuppa
Obviously you didnt read or understand the article posted. which shows you dont really care to do so or even try to change your mind. typical.

Uh, no. It's you who linked a 'How Stuff Works' post by an 18 year old (read the very bottom) who is telling you how to get out of being called for jury duty. There is nothing about the voir dire process at all but I think it will be funny if you post the part that you think is actually speaking on the subject so I can be further entertained.

a reply to: JinMI


You claim members responses here have been only to reference authority, we referenced Donald's previous behaviour with other women, both verbally and physically. The guy's a predator and most likely hates women.

Carroll will spend some of that money on those women Donald assaulted - however he assaulted them. It's time.

It's not just women, he also screwed over his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen and Cohen won a settlement against Trump.

He also tried to silence the press and lost that case.

It's his bad behaviour catching up with him.

Donald's upcoming court cases:

In March 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg became the first prosecutor to bring felony charges against Trump, alleging that the former president falsified business records as part of a scheme to pay hush money to women who said they had had sexual relationships with Trump.

The case is set to go to trial on March 25, 2024. In September, the judge overseeing the case signaled that he is open to changing that date, given the various other court cases that Trump is juggling, but he also said he didn’t think it was worth discussing until February.

www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

ou claim members responses here have been only to reference authority, we referenced Donald's previous behaviour with other women, both verbally and physically. The guy's a predator and most likely hates women.

You reference things you are lead to believe happened. My position has been from a factual basis, which all your feels and whims need not apply.

Oh, and there's no better way to say that you aren't deferring to authority than to wrap your comment up by listing more malicious court cases or....authority.


It's just laughable at this point.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If you IGNORE the blue links and actually read you would see its HOW IT WORKS not HOW TO GET OUT OF JURY DUTY.
Can you refute what he wrote on How a jury is picked? Please do oh learned one. I guess i was thinking too highly of some people ability to comprehend what they are reading, and should had explained to the lowest denominator.

originally posted by: yuppa
If you IGNORE the blue links and actually read you would see its HOW IT WORKS not HOW TO GET OUT OF JURY DUTY.

FFS, dude, the 18 year old you linked is talking about how not to avoid your jury summons and is not talking about the voir dire process.

First you link a Canadian source (newsflash: Canada is a different country) and now you have some 18 year old telling you just to say your 'prejudiced against all races' and you can get out of jury duty. Try it next time you get called to jury duty in Canada.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

ou claim members responses here have been only to reference authority, we referenced Donald's previous behaviour with other women, both verbally and physically. The guy's a predator and most likely hates women.

You reference things you are lead to believe happened. My position has been from a factual basis, which all your feels and whims need not apply.

Oh, and there's no better way to say that you aren't deferring to authority than to wrap your comment up by listing more malicious court cases or....authority.


It's just laughable at this point.

All references point to one thing - Donald's behaviour which BTW was brought up in court and by which the people of the two juries came to their conclusions. It matters.

a reply to: quintessentone

All references point to one thing - Donald's behaviour which BTW was brought up in court and by which the people of the two juries came to their conclusions. It matters.

What behavior?

Like possibly his character?

Cool.

You're still appealing to authority though and certainly pre conceived bias.....

Problem with this notion is that if that method of argument can be used against Trump, it can also used by the Trumps lawyers for the petitioner.....

To which the judge denied.


See my point yet?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

All references point to one thing - Donald's behaviour which BTW was brought up in court and by which the people of the two juries came to their conclusions. It matters.

What behavior?

Like possibly his character?

Cool.

You're still appealing to authority though and certainly pre conceived bias.....

Problem with this notion is that if that method of argument can be used against Trump, it can also used by the Trumps lawyers for the petitioner.....

To which the judge denied.


See my point yet?

Appealing only to the authority of the reality of Trump's bad behaviour towards women.

a reply to: quintessentone

Which is subjective......not authoriative like say a jury.


Your feels are not evidence.

a reply to: quintessentone

"Appealingly to authority" is a silly internet warrior's thing. Next it will be "gaslighting" and/or "reading comprehension skills".

So tedious.

But on and on it goes.

Sad, so sad.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

All references point to one thing - Donald's behaviour which BTW was brought up in court and by which the people of the two juries came to their conclusions. It matters.

What behavior?

Like possibly his character?

Cool.

You're still appealing to authority though and certainly pre conceived bias.....

Problem with this notion is that if that method of argument can be used against Trump, it can also used by the Trumps lawyers for the petitioner.....

To which the judge denied.


See my point yet?

Appealing only to the authority of the reality of Trump's bad behaviour towards women.

Reality has factual evidence. Tangible, physical. That thing none of you hens have yet to provide (nor the petitioners)

Face it guy, you're completely OK with subverting justice to get your way.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

"Appealingly to authority" is a silly internet warrior's thing. Next it will be "gaslighting" and/or "reading comprehension skills".

So tedious.

But on and on it goes.

Sad, so sad.

Like that time(s) you said you were leaving this thread because you had no argument?

What is gaslighting Carp?

a reply to: JinMI

Reality has factual evidence.

Hmm. Is the spoken word evidence of reality? Is testimony evidence of reality? Is a blue dress, that is alleged to have DNA on it, evidence of physical contact, even if nobody sees it?

I say "yes, it can be", to all 3 questions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hmm. Is the spoken word evidence of reality?

Absolutely. Do we consider the source as a matter of principal when evaluating testimony?

Is a blue dress, that is alleged to have DNA on it, evidence of physical contact, even if nobody sees it?

No. It's hearsay and maybe testimony.

I say "yes, it can be", to all 3 questions.

No doubt. But that's likely to change depending on who is the target and what the news tells you to feel that day.

Given your post history anyway.