101

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 04, 2023, 12:01:55 AM »

Trump just can't stop whining.

Yeah, he's the world's oldest crybaby.

102

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: June 03, 2023, 04:07:43 PM »

Kids should learn about sex the traditional way, by stealing pornographic print media and hiding it under their bed.

Ok boomer. Nowadays any kid can learn about any kind of sex act they want to with a quick Google search and some tissues handy.

103

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 21, 2023, 05:52:36 PM »

They put homosexuals in jail

Homosexuality has been legal in Russia since 1993. Very accurate information from you, just like everything you say...

But since I'm willing to bet any amount that you weren't even alive back then, I'll give you a pass on that one.

Right, absolutely no changes whatsoever have been made regarding LGBTQ+ rights in Russia since 1993. It is like a rainbow colored, disco dancing paradise for the gays right now.

104

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 18, 2023, 09:46:29 PM »

If Trump wins the nomination then I wonder who he will choose as his running mate. His supporters tried to hang Pence, so I think we can be reasonably certain he won't be the choice for 2024.

He'll choose one of his kids.  Easy to control. And they've already been in the white house.

Don't count out MTG. That chick is sharp, she's going places.

105

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2023, 09:27:54 PM »

There are several ways it can be dismissed. It can be dismissed based on sufficiency of the evidence:

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

Grounds for Appealing a Conviction in New York — A Top NY Appeals Lawyer Explains

"- Sufficiency of the evidence. To support a conviction for an offense, legally sufficient evidence must exist.

We're not talking about a conviction, Tom.

106

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 14, 2023, 12:38:40 AM »

I hate to bring out the no true Scotsman, but are there seriously flat-earthers who are Trump supporters, or is it a joke like this?.

There probably are (they're still out there!) but judging what Tom in particular really thinks is impossible because his primary motive for posting everything he posts is to take the contrarian POV and watch the sparks fly.

107

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 12, 2023, 08:21:31 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.

Every lawyer defending a rapist knows this and works it. It's a standard defense tactic to attack the victim.


Actually, attacking the victim works in a lot of criminal defense cases.

To be fair, it would be a disservice to their clients if they didn't work it, to some degree. I still think that a better, maybe more sympathetic lawyer and a more tight-lipped deposition could have won Trump the case.

108

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 12, 2023, 05:25:17 PM »

What rape victim doesn't victim fantasize about their rapist?

She said she did it because it's better to laugh than cry. Seems reasonable to me tbh

109

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 10, 2023, 04:16:00 PM »

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

110

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2023, 06:06:58 PM »

The entire Trump "rape case" is a national embarrassment. An enormous piece of the American pie now has a terminal case of grasping at straws. Some old woman says Trump raped her. That's it. That's all she has. She says it happened. I could say Trump raped me and I would have precisely the same amount of evidence that she has. Then if Trump says "no, I didn't" I can sue him for defaming my very valuable name! I will now sue him!

The sad fact is that people want what this woman says to be true. They don't care how much or how little evidence she has. They just want Trump to have to give her money because it would embarrass him. I would say that people want to be able to call him a rapist, but they'll do that regardless of the outcome of the case. It's making a mockery of the American court system. As Mitch McConnell has warned these sorts of people before: you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

I mean, to be fair about the idea of people calling him a rapist, he's literally been recorded saying that he's sexually assaulted women. As he repeated in the deposition, it's something that as a rich celebrity he thinks he's entitled to, so it seems like a fair assessment. Other than that, I (shockingly) agree with you.

111

Flat Earth Projects / Re: A simple, cheap project that has probably never been done by Flat Earth Research

« on: May 07, 2023, 02:49:37 PM »

I don't see the point. It seems like a huge expense (you're not as successful at claiming that ten thousand dollars is chump change as you think you are) only to demonstrate something that's not really inconsistent with FET anyway. At best it shows that the Earth might actually be round, but it lacks the immediacy that observing the Earth from ground level affords.

112

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2023, 02:42:43 PM »

Given Trump's record of not being able to filter what comes out of his mouth, I'd think that defamation would be pretty much a slam dunk.

In this case though? All he really did was say that she lied when she said he raped her, and that she's not his type. He's defending himself. I feel like he has a better claim at defamation here than she does, tbh.

113

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2023, 02:10:53 PM »

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.

Keep in mind, this is a civil case not a criminal case. The burden of proof is lower. The standard is not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." It's something like "a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence."

I don't think she's presented either. I'm looking forward to seeing what the jury decides.

114

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2023, 12:27:12 PM »

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.

115

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 06, 2023, 06:15:36 PM »

Honestly I'm not sure I do believe it. That's why I have my doubts about her chances.

But he definitely comes off really rapey there.

Apologies for not posting a link.

116

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 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.

117

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 04, 2023, 04:59:53 PM »

Does anybody else who's not a diehard MAGAhead feel like this E Jean Carroll defamation case is a big distracting ball of nothing? She has no proof, no evidence that she was actually raped. She can't even pinpoint what season it happened in, much less the year. And the crux of the case is essentially that his denial that he raped her amounts to defamation, an absolutely ludicrous claim.

Honestly I'm all for trolling Donald Trump, and given his penchant for filing frivolous lawsuits maybe he deserves having it happen to him. But can we all agree that at the end of the day that's all this really is? I mean, am I missing something?

You actually presented a much more compelling case than Trump's idiot lawyer did.
https://www.salon.com/2023/05/02/ex-prosecutor-lawyer-violated-most-of-the-rules-of-good-cross-examination/

Most observers are saying Trump is on the losing end.

This is basically a he said/she said.   She said her 'said' eloquently and clearly with witnesses to tell the same story. His 'said' was lacking clear memory with conflicting accounts and a dozen other women telling the same story as the victim.  *roll video montage of Trump being a pig when it comes to women*
But the twist is that this isn't a rape trial. She has a right to file a charge of rape and he has the right to defend himself. But he can't be openly trashing her in the press and goading his mongoloid mobs to threaten her.

I applaud your argument. It is important we all question our beliefs. I will now return to my relentless trolling of Trump, Republicans and conservatives in general.

I'll be surprised if Trump loses this case. Like you say, it's he said/she said, as far as the rape, but the trial isn't even really about the rape, it's about whether Trump defamed her by saying she was lying about it (I'm sure you can appreciate that Trump "goading his mongoloid mob to threaten her" is an entirely separate issue, and not one I've seen supported by the evidence anyway). Given the complete lack of real evidence regarding the rape I don't see the accusation of defamation holding up.

118

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 02, 2023, 07:33:49 PM »

Does anybody else who's not a diehard MAGAhead feel like this E Jean Carroll defamation case is a big distracting ball of nothing? She has no proof, no evidence that she was actually raped. She can't even pinpoint what season it happened in, much less the year. And the crux of the case is essentially that his denial that he raped her amounts to defamation, an absolutely ludicrous claim.

Honestly I'm all for trolling Donald Trump, and given his penchant for filing frivolous lawsuits maybe he deserves having it happen to him. But can we all agree that at the end of the day that's all this really is? I mean, am I missing something?

119

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: May 02, 2023, 06:29:12 PM »

Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room - https://www.frontpagemag.com/hunter-biden-has-no-money-forced-to-sleep-in-daddys-room/

Honestly, it feels pretty good that Joe is so hard to scandalize that Republicans feel the need to constantly go after his family to try to discredit him. It only underscores how squeaky clean and untouchable Joe himself really is.

120

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

« on: April 29, 2023, 11:26:58 PM »

All hail our dark lord, ruler of the dewey decimal system.

As a member of the liberal elite, I confirm that we all worship Satan. This is not a secret, you could have just asked.

I sacrificed a baby just this morning. It's blood was delicious.

hey please don't be so obvious, you nuts. you're just supposed to put 666 in lots of stuff and always set your clocks to 9:11, shit like that. i mean damn is this your first day in the cabal or what?

If we don't sacrifice babies how are we ever going to get Biden elected again? Please don't tell me you haven't been doing your part.