141

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 27, 2023, 07:37:34 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/25/trump-classified-documents-mar-a-lago/

142

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 20, 2023, 12:51:29 AM »

It's remarkable how often I see conservatives and MAGA types share that clip as a jab at the supposed liberal media establishment, apparently not realizing that it was a conservative media organization that was pushing a conservative agenda. Elon Musk himself tried to frame it that way about a month ago.

On the notion of Trump's VP, it won't be MTG (who is in the House btw, not the Senate) or his kids. Beyond the fact that, like Dave pointed out, Trump wouldn't want anyone getting the attention that he views as rightfully his, what would be the point of it strategically? Nobody who wasn't already going to vote for Trump beforehand will be persuaded by a mini-Trump joining the ticket. As for needing someone he can control, well, I think the fact that Mike Pence's presidential aspirations were utterly destroyed and his political career was reduced to a footnote in the space of a single afternoon after he failed to play along with Trump's efforts to overturn the election are all the control Trump needs. It'll almost certainly be another be traditional Republican in an effort to make Trump more palatable to non-MAGA conservatives, and no matter how outwardly respectable they might be, we can be sure that they won't repeat Pence's mistake. No matter what outrageous, illegal, or dangerous stunt Trump tries to pull, they'll back him all the way, and so will the rest of the party.

143

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2023, 02:15:49 AM »

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent?

No. This is what I'm asking you:

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

Your argument is that the verdict ought to have been higher - which seems to have been the point of your odd analogy about traffic tickets, too - and the fact that it wasn't somehow indicates that the case was itself fraudulent. How does that logically follow? You've acknowledged that the jury believed Carroll and ruled in her favor, so why would they lowball her?

144

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2023, 05:55:37 PM »

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

Your argument is based on the wildly-incorrect assertion that people pay a significant percentage of their income and/or net worth for a traffic ticket, and therefore the money awarded in this trial should have been a lot more. No, your argument doesn't stand,  and even if it did, it still wouldn't automatically support your conclusion that the case was therefore fraudulent.

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

145

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2023, 03:21:26 PM »

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

I can only assume that you're fortunate enough to have never received a traffic fine. They aren't based on your income, and anyone poor enough for it to be a significant percentage of their income probably couldn't afford a car to begin with. Also, in your previous post you were talking about Trump's net worth, not his income.

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Five million plus is an awful lot to be settling for out of court. Besides, how does this even follow? Why does a "low" figure like five million indicate fraud? The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.

146

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2023, 03:14:25 AM »

I'll grant that the term may be used to describe a judgment in a civil trial, but it's still clear that the website Tom cited was talking about criminal trials. You can't overturn the results of a lawsuit on the grounds of "The jury shouldn't have found the plaintiff's testimony convincing and my testimony unconvincing," which is essentially what this case came down to. There is no computer that we can plug the components of a trial into and have the "objective" results be printed out for us. Any justice system in the end will come down to human judgment.

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Why is it relevant what percentage of Trump's net worth the verdict came out to, and why does a sum this supposedly low indicate fraud?

147

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM »

We're not talking about sentences, either. That article is talking about criminal trials. I don't think any appellate court would be overturning the results of a lawsuit based on "insufficient evidence," given how subjective meeting the standard of preponderance of the evidence is.

148

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: May 14, 2023, 02:53:05 AM »

Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales

For better or worse, this is more of the same of the previous PS4 spoder game, only it's not all that much more. I don't usually like to try to quantify the value of a game by how many hours it takes to complete, as I think that's a very flawed perspective, but when you release a game that's this much shorter and smaller than the one it's a direct sequel/spin-off to, you're inviting negative comparisons. The 2018 spoder game has 44 missions in its main story and 26 in its DLC. Miles only has 17 missions in its main story, no DLC, and an open world with considerably fewer things to do in it. If the first spoder was "worth" $60, then Miles simply isn't worth the $50 it's going for. I think $30 would have been a far more reasonable starting price.

The good news is that the core gameplay, spodering about New York and beating up criminals, is still a lot of fun. Miles has a few different abilities to Peter that are fun to play around with, and I like the little touch of his animations of swinging and fighting being a bit different to Peter's, presumably to emphasize the exaggerated swagger of a black teen his inexperience at spodering. Miles is a likable character, and proof that you can have a spoder who's a believable teenager while also not being aggressively infantilized like he is in the MCU. The story itself isn't fantastic, but it's largely carried by the characters and their relationships - Miles and Peter, Miles and Ganke, Miles and his mother, Miles and his uncle, and so on. Speaking of that last one, it would have been very easy for the subplot involving Aaron to feel derivative of how it was handled by the excellent Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which came out only a couple of years before this game, but they managed to tell the same basic story in a different but still effective way, and I really respect that.

The one element of the story that I feel just doesn't work is the main antagonist and her relationship with Miles. For a character that we're repeatedly assured is an altruistic genius, her overall plan is remarkably stupid and short-sighted, and her interactions with Miles reek of hypocrisy. She's secretly working with a terrorist group as part of her extensive plan for revenge against an evil corporation that's wronged her, but how dare Miles not trust her enough to tell her that he's spoder! She takes part in a terrorist attack that almost kills hundreds of people, among them Miles's mother, but Miles is the one who betrayed her by infiltrating her group to try and stop her insane scheme! And just like with MJ and Peter in the previous game, spoder actually seems to concede that he's to blame, and the game frames her as being right, even though she's very obviously wrong. To top it off, she has a last-minute redemption and heroic death at the very end of the story, so she never gets any meaningful comeuppance for her actions. I really wish that these franchises would stop this awful sort of unsympathetic-girlboss writing for their female characters. Whatever progressive message they think they're sending - they're not. It's bad representation as well as bad writing.

This is still a good game, though. It just can't really be called a proper sequel to the last one.

149

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2023, 01:37:34 AM »

Appellate courts in the United States rule on issues of law, not fact. It's not a "redo" of the case where they would be questioning if Carroll's story was true.

150

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 07:21:52 PM »

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to say that the jury not finding Trump liable for rape is a repudiation of Carroll's story, then it's only fair for me to say that the jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse is an affirmation of her story. If the jury hadn't believed her, they wouldn't have found Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse - not to mention liable for defamation. They would have found him not liable, period.

And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.

Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.

Sexual abuse obviously involves forcible touching, as does rape. The three options the jury were given were essentially degrees of severity. That the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse rather than forcible touching doesn't mean "therefore he never touched her" any more than finding a defendant guilty of murder rather than manslaughter means "therefore he never killed him."

$5m is nothing to people like Trump, but it's a lot of money as a guaranteed payout for a woman who makes some indemostrable claims.

The jury didn't seem to consider it indemonstrable. I really don't know what you (along with Rushy) are trying to get at here by making these broadly skeptical noises at the very concept of a jury trial, as if obviously you know better and obviously the whole thing was nonsense. I wouldn't have supported convicting Trump of a crime based on the evidence shown, but for preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not that he did it - it wasn't an unreasonable decision. On the one hand, you had testimony from the plaintiff, who by all accounts came across as entirely sincere and credible. On the other hand, you had a guy who had been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct by a number of women in the past, who was recorded bragging about how he could forcibly kiss and grope women because he was a star, and was caught repeatedly lying in his deposition about if he knew who Carroll was, had ever met her, or would ever have found her attractive. I would believe the seemingly-honest accuser over the sleazy liar in that situation, and I'm not surprised that the jury did too. If it's a surprise to you that civil trials have a low burden of proof - well, it's always been this way, so be careful if you're ever sued.

151

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 13, 2023, 03:48:59 PM »

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

152

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM »

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

153

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 11, 2023, 04:24:44 AM »

As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

Outside of one utterly batshit ruling from a court in Massachusetts some years ago, truth is universally recognized as an absolute defense to defamation in the United States.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

No, because that would be an opinion. You can't sue someone for expressing a negative opinion.

154

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 01:22:58 AM »

If the jury believes you, then yes. That's how it works.

155

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 12:01:31 AM »

The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

Yes, that must be it. Because calling someone unattractive is totally considered sexual abuse under the law and definitely something you can sue and win millions for.

156

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 09, 2023, 01:45:00 AM »

If you are referring to the "grab em by the pussy" clip, that's not saying he sexually assaulted women. "They let you do it" can easily be interpreted as consent. Is there some other clip I'm unaware of?

In the same clip, he also says "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait," which is more or less describing sexual assault. Now, his infamous "Grab 'em by the pussy" line was immediately preceded by him saying, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I had a discussion a few years ago with someone here who argued that this was Trump closing the subject of his approaching and kissing women and beginning the entirely new subject of how when someone is a star, women let them do "it" - "it" then being clarified as "Grab 'em by the pussy" - which is all discussed in entirely hypothetical terms, and therefore we shouldn't interpret the "Grab 'em by the pussy" line as being a continuation of the subject of how he approaches and kisses women without asking. There's no way to prove what it was that Trump really meant, but I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would interpret "Grab 'em by the pussy" to be meant in the same spirit as approaching and kissing women without asking rather than the entirely new subject of how he hypothetically could grope women without their consent, but doesn't.

Is this the part where you tell me that every woman you've kissed you literally asked about it first?

This is a very disingenuous reading of what I'm saying, and not at all a reasonable interpretation of what Trump was talking about. If he had been talking about kissing women that it would be seen as generally considered acceptable to kiss without asking, like wives or girlfriends, then there would be no point to him saying this in the first place. Of course you don't need to be a star to kiss your wife or girlfriend without asking. Anyone can do that. Not even Trump would try to brag about something so unremarkable.

It's also worth pointing out that these "Trump didn't actually say anything bad if you pay attention " arguments hit a pretty major snag when you consider that Trump himself already admitted wrongdoing, so to speak, by apologizing for those comments. If he had only ever meant that he kissed his wife without asking or that he could hypothetically grope women without their consent, he would have said so. Trump almost never apologizes even when he is clearly to blame; why in the world would he apologize if he really had done nothing wrong?

157

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 08, 2023, 03:27:34 AM »

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

My bad. For some reason I thought you were talking about his chances of losing the upcoming election rather than this trial. I really have no idea as to which way the trial is likely to be decided, and I can't help but feel apathetic about it due to the fact that it will change absolutely nothing in the current political landscape.

If you are referring to the "grab em by the pussy" clip, that's not saying he sexually assaulted women. "They let you do it" can easily be interpreted as consent. Is there some other clip I'm unaware of?

In the same clip, he also says "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait," which is more or less describing sexual assault. Now, his infamous "Grab 'em by the pussy" line was immediately preceded by him saying, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I had a discussion a few years ago with someone here who argued that this was Trump closing the subject of his approaching and kissing women and beginning the entirely new subject of how when someone is a star, women let them do "it" - "it" then being clarified as "Grab 'em by the pussy" - which is all discussed in entirely hypothetical terms, and therefore we shouldn't interpret the "Grab 'em by the pussy" line as being a continuation of the subject of how he approaches and kisses women without asking. There's no way to prove what it was that Trump really meant, but I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would interpret "Grab 'em by the pussy" to be meant in the same spirit as approaching and kissing women without asking rather than the entirely new subject of how he hypothetically could grope women without their consent, but doesn't.

158

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2023, 03:54:18 AM »

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

159

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?

« on: April 30, 2023, 01:41:56 AM »

At one point Joe Biden's website https://buildbackbetter.gov had the IP address of 66.6.45.1.

Just out of curiosity, are the other 65,535 IP addresses in the 66.6.*.* range evil too, or is it just Biden's site?

I don't know what the motivation is.

He didn't ask what the motivation is. That's something we already know, thanks to the candid admissions of everyone here. Yes, we are Satanists, and soon we will abort every baby, transify every young person, and rig every election. There's nothing you can do about it.

160

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: April 30, 2023, 01:37:55 AM »

These effects are awful. Everything looks so weightless, so fake. This isn't in the MCU with its ten projects a year; they should have had plenty of time to make this look good. What happened? What changed between five years ago and now to apparently make almost all capeshit movies suddenly start looking like ass? Apart from that, well, my misgivings about this movie haven't really changed. They're really counting on people being nostalgic for MoS, even though that movie's biggest fans will almost certainly be hostile towards this one for "replacing" Cavill's Superman with Supergirl. I hope Keaton has more to do in this movie than just repeat his most famous lines and appear in ludicrous all-CGI setpieces. Sorry, I still can't get over the CGI Rubber Man thing.



Maybe it's just the general lack of hype or expectations, but I kind of like this one. The joke at the start made me laugh.