-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How is it the same? Tara Reade remembers the dates....
We also have footage in 2023-2024 of Biden inappropriately touching many females.
A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person…
Posts
Read-only
Total:
418
-->
@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?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What does it say about religious people if they will vote for an immoral man to be President?
If morality is my gauge, NOBODY is going to get vote.
If morality doesn’t matter, why bother with religion?
Bother with the voter's religion? or the religion of the candidate? OR religion as a whole?
-->
@Greyparrot
We also have footage in 2023-2024 of Biden inappropriately touching many females.
And sniffing girls hair, biting women's fingers, pinching little girls chest, grabbing women around their waist, etc etc. . .
But who am I to say such trivial things against that. Biden obviously doesn't mean any harm in sexual abusing those people.
-->
@Greyparrot
How is it the same? Tara Reade remembers the dates....We also have footage in 2023-2024 of Biden inappropriately touching many females.
Well I'm smoothing out all the ridiculous layers of supposed credibility or incredibility to the base fact of a very old accusation with no corroborating evidence.
Biden is always sniffing people's hair and Trump says women will let celebrities grab em by the pussy.
If we were in a sane world people would agree that as weird as it is hair sniffing is, it is not a history of sexual assault and locker room brags tend to be exaggerations. People would also note that "and they'll let you do it" would indicate consent as opposed to sexual assault or even rape.
Tara Reade is by far a more convincing accusation for the reason you stated. She also has more contemporary validation that she claimed things at the time. Also I haven't seen her make light of rape. Or making jokes about being paid to have sex with Joe Biden. Or praising a show hosted by Joe Biden. Nor was there a Law and Order episode with the exact scenario Tara Reade describes shortly before the accusation.
-->
@DavidAZZ
Biden obviously doesn't mean any harm in sexual abusing those people.
Exactly. The legal loophole exists when partisan hacks are in charge of what is malicious intent and what is not malicious intent.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well I'm smoothing out all the ridiculous layers of supposed credibility or incredibility to the base fact of a very old accusation with no corroborating evidence.
Yep, smooth concrete theory is the popular thing in 2024. Funny thing about smooth concrete with crappy aggregate is that it is prone to cracking under pressure and over time.
-->
@Double_R
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
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.
Contrast this to larceny. There is a crime of grand larceny. There is theft, and petty theft. The difference between these is quantitative. When you steal a little bit often a series of petty thefts can turn into one big charge of theft.
There is no way the sum of a non-thefts can become a big-theft (or any kind of theft).
You have to have a theory of defamation that somehow factors in repetition but doesn't require any individually defamatory statements. Then you need to support that theory with precedent if you're claiming that 200 years of jurisprudence hasn't just been ignored.
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.
Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in.
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.
A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.
TDS Pseudo-Judge (noun): a judge that rules against Donald Trump
A pretender judge that takes an oath to honestly and consistently interpret laws including the US and state constitutions and blatantly and objectively violates that oath.
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.
Any US court that suggests:
1: Denying a crime or attacking the credibility of witnesses against you is susceptible to defamation liability
2: Making remarks on matters of public interest are susceptible to defamation liability
3: Making statements of opinion or insults are susceptible to defamation liability
Have violated the US constitution and thus their oath. (1) is a violation of the rights of the accused (6th amendment). (2) and (3) are violations of the 1st amendment. As I stated above any judge who so brazenly violates their oath has lost the right to the title and should be referred to as a pseudo-judge (or worse).
This is also consistent with the left-tribe reinterpretation of the 14th amendment which (according to them) means that anyone who attempts to impede an official proceeding or fails to to stop those impeding an official proceeding, or gives aid and comfort to those impeding an official proceeding by suggesting they were anything but nazis cannot serve in an official capacity. No legal process is required for this to take affect, one need merely perceive it to be so and the insurrectionist is no longer an officer of the United States (or any state government either).
They tell me this is what upholding the rule of law looks like. Don't you agree Double R?
Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soon, but I wanted to make it clear that I don't care who says the sun god demands human sacrifice. I don't care who appointed them or what labels you apply to them. They're nuts. To accept their corruption of the US (and state) constitutions and the laws thereof is to reject those constitutions and laws. The pomp and protocol of appointment mean something, but they do not transcend the original authority which is itself of questionable moral foundation to begin with.
In other words if you took a bunch of nazis and dressed them up as US judges, and they declared that jews weren't persons under the meaning of the US constitution, they are pseudo-judges. If they declared that pure aryans brownshirts need not be arrested for rioting, or merely refused to stop them after swearing an oath to uphold the rule of law they are pseudo-prosecutors/police. Such villains are a threat to the rule of law no matter what aura of authority and office they claim to have secured. Somebody needs to shoot them.
Somewhere between that and the jurisprudence of the last couple centuries lies what is going on right now, as described by Alan Dershowitz as "Get Trump" (and of course also applies to his most ardent supporters such as Jan 6 rioters/protestors). You can believe it's all justified and if you find some honesty you could try to make an argument to that affect, but what will always fall on deaf ears is the claim that unlimited loyalty and obedience is owed to the state regardless of how many parts of the law and constitution have been ignored or unequally applied.
Nothing you could ever say will convince me that you feel such blind loyalty to institution over substance. I know left-tribers in general don't they cheered when elements of the government defied Trumps presidential orders because they thought it was up to them to decide what was constitutional and what wasn't. More than a few suggested secession.
You pretend to that loyalty only now because it serves your agenda. When the regalia is seized and used for purposes you find unconstitutional and unlawful you will change your tune. I on the other hand will never have pretended that the issue of constitutionality and objective legality could be sidestepped in favor of blind obedience to the assertions of others. If Trump stacks the supreme court with people who say his son can inherit the presidency, their robes and the fact that they were appointed in emulation of a true constitutional process mean nothing to me, just as it would mean nothing to you.
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
Well if anybody ever suggests defamatory comments we'll see if separation is required.
You are trying really hard to unscramble that egg.
You are trying really hard to scramble it. You insist there is yolk. Looks white to me.
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.
Well after filtering out these non-defamatory statements:
1) Assertions of innnocence
2) Arguments to innocence
3) Comments on matters of public interest
4) Statement of opinion
5) Insults and belittlment
There was nothing left. So you're going to have to be more specific.
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.
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?
It's not difficult at all. The equivalence is in the the asserted equality of impropriety while the asymmetry is that only one party was attacked.
Biden didn't argue the documents were his (well he was never POTUS, but say Obama gave them to him) 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".
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
#338 - excellent rebuttal. Most excellent.
What does it say about you that you call Trump a rapist but not Biden when the exact same evidence stands against Biden?
That’s a lie. Similar to saying both Biden and Trump dodged the draft.
Trump made up his bone spur using a fraudulent diagnosis from one of his father’s tenants.
Biden really had asthma
“Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who in 2020 accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, has said she had defected to Russia.
“I’m still kind of in a daze a bit but I feel very good,” Reade told Sputnik, a Russian press outlet supportive of President Vladimir Putin, while sitting with Maria Butina, a convicted Russian agent jailed in the US but now a member of parliament in Russia”
Reade said: “To my Russian brothers and sisters, I’m sorry right now that American elites are choosing to have such an aggressive stance. Just know that most American citizens do want to be friends and hope that we can have unity again”
“I am enjoying my time in Moscow, and I feel very at home.”
You MAGA MORONS are all linked to communists. You’re so dumb you probably didn’t know Reade defected to Russia.
#338 - excellent rebuttal. Most excellent.
You forgot to say banal
You MAGA MORONS are all linked to communists.
Right out of a McCarthy hearing. Are communists left wing? Are democrats? Guilt by association? The parties don't matter. The spirit of the deep state can be discerned by action.
There are always suckers that believe what they're told, who don't know history, who repeat it.
You’re so dumb you probably didn’t know Reade defected to Russia.
I knew. Doesn't affect my view of her credibility. Cynically she went where people wanted to hear what she had to say. Kinda like EJC going on all those lefty talkshows. More realistically: Did she not feel safe in the US?
Hey I wonder if she can sue Biden from Russia. I bet Double_R will have the utmost respect for the rule of law regardless. He wouldn't dare question the safest and most secure elections over there. Only people who want to destroy democracy question elections you know.
Just know that most American citizens do want to be friends and hope that we can have unity again
Dastardly. How dare she speak for most Americans. I for one want to bathe in Russian blood every day. If Russians aren't dying then how can they justify stealing money from me and using it to build a ton of weapons instead of helping the swarms of homeless Americans?
My god if they help the homeless they would be completely out of excuses to steal half of everything! *shivers in horror*
How is it the same? Tara Reade remembers the dates....
That’s a lie. She does not remember the dates. MAGA MORONS always lie. GP always lies. Because he’s a moron.
“Ms. Reade said that she could not remember the exact time, date or location of the assault but that it occurred in a “semiprivate” place in the Senate office complex”.
As usual, MAGA MORONS are too stupid to get their facts correct
Doesn't affect my view of her credibility
When did conservatives start admiring people who defect to Russia?
When they became MAGA MORONS probably
stealing money from me
Be serious. You don’t pay any income taxes because you earn so little
-->
@DavidAZZ
Bother with the voter's religion? or the religion of the candidate? OR religion as a whole?
If morality doesn’t matter to religious people, why bother with religion?
Republicans are morons.
They are only morons if they lose.
Doesn't affect my view of her credibilityWhen did conservatives start admiring people who defect to Russia?
I didn't say I admired her.
I don't describe myself as a conservative. I'm a liberal (natural meaning, not subverted).
I do admire some people who went to Russia to be safe from the global deep state. For example Ed Snowden.
When they became MAGA MORONS probably
Only morons distrust the state right? I bet you feel safe with Big Brother watching over you.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't describe myself as a conservative. I'm a liberal (natural meaning, not subverted).
I can be considered a liberal also but just give the people who want the title the title. The social justice warriors and technocrats want to be called liberal, so let them have it.
-->
@ponikshiy
The social justice warriors and technocrats want to be called liberal, so let them have it.
You give a centimeter, they take a kilometer. You'll end up calling yourself a fascist if you let them pick labels.
I do admire some people who went to Russia to be safe from the global deep state. For example Ed Snowden.I don't describe myself as a conservative
Right, conservatives have moved on from Bush and Cheney to full on wack jobs.
- Only morons distrust the state right? I bet you feel safe with Big Brother watching over you.
Right.
There is no Deep State. There is no Big Brother. But if there was, they wouldn’t be interested in a person as inconsequential as yourself. A guy who doesn’t even make enough money to pay federal income taxes.
Right, conservatives have moved on from Bush and Cheney to full on wack jobs.
Whose fault is that? I voted for Obama twice but there is no way I could vote for current democrats who want to transition 5 year olds and eliminate police funding
-->
@ponikshiy
First of all, you’re Russian. You don’t get to vote in the US.
Secondly, your comment about transitioning 5 year olds shows how dumb you are.
And I seriously doubt you understand the movement to defund the police
First of all, you’re Russian. You don’t get to vote in the US.
That's what the democratic party wants you to believe.
Secondly, your comment about transitioning 5 year olds shows how dumb you are.
You don't have to insult me just because we disagree on whether kids should be transitioned
And I seriously doubt you understand the movement to defund the police
What does the prefix "de" mean?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I will definitely take time to audiobook that Alan Dershowitz title you mentioned.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I started listening to your Audiobook, this was a Gem in the introduction....
“The trouble about fighting for human freedom, is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
-H.L. Mencken
FLRW will be absolutely devastated to know his grand hero defended Trump.
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is still the downright moron Mencken predicted.
-->
@FLRW
“The trouble about fighting for human freedom, is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
I am glad you are joining the fight in protecting that son-of-a-bitch.
-->
@FLRW
Mencken predicted....
He also predicted we would have a "perfect Democracy"
What we have right now is far from perfect, and far from a Democracy.
Your claim that it was a "perfect democracy" only from the years of 2016-2020 are the utterings of a partisan hack.
-->
@ponikshiy
You don't have to insult me just because we disagree on whether kids should be transitioned
5 year olds only transition in a sense of wearing specific clothes and make up, and being called the way they want to be called.
Its not really a big deal nor a significant argument against democratic party.