Entirety, as in there was nothing else relevant that was left out.
It’s not gaslighting, it’s English.
Yourself, Captain. Me posting in response to you didn’t make that bloody obvious?
What exactly did I say that was a “reasonable request in search of common ground”
So, gee, thanks and all for trying to make my words sound less ridiculous or more relevant by incompletely quoting them while claiming to completely quote them, but I would rather you at least try to keep your shit honest.
you couldn't be bothered to point out a single meaningful difference
it's that I find the projection fascinating
It just comes off as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to win the argument
Your inevitable and stubborn shenanigans negate any chance at moving any discussion with you forward.
accusations of projection are all too often the adult equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”
I have actually seen MSM only reporting Trump lately as "liable for sexual assault" lately.
State laws that charge you for federal crimes should be removed just as surely as Jim Crow.
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil case
Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.
You are a rapist <- Me saying that doesn't mean you are a rapist.
If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.
There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions.
this clown pretend court.
I can't betray what I have never sworn loyalty to and I have never (as an adult) and never will swear blind obedience to any group of people or organization.
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil caseand that is exactly what happened.
Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.you can choose not to believe it if you want.
But a jury of his peers says he did.
In the eyes of the law
Whether or not you believe that is unimportant.
You're one random dude on the internet, not a jury of my peers who heard the available evidence and came to a legally binding conclusion.
If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.it isn't baseless and she wasn't random. She was a woman who was raped by trump.
There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions.when I say "eyes of the law" I mean it is an established legal fact.
Trump cannot say that he didn't sexually assault her in a court.
It is a fact.
If he said otherwise he would be committing as crime.
He has to be very, very careful about it in public either.
oh the court is very, very real.
The money trump has to pay her should prove that.
no one has ever asked you to swear blind obedience.
Trump has appealed the decision.
I doubt he'll win.
That's only the first hire. A second Trump term will result in the gutting of the federal government of anyone who serves the constitution and replace them with those who serve Trump. Let's see how easily he'll get forced out the second time once he has turned the entire executive branch into his own personal task force.
Yeah I just don’t share your confidence in the competence of an 80 year old Trump and his cronies and I think you underrate the stability of the system. I don’t think the apocalyptic rhetoric is warranted, there will be a 2028 election no matter who wins
Of course there will be. Russia also still has elections.
His VP pick is the perfect example of this. It becomes clearer and clearer by the day that they didn't even bother to vet this guy
At least he wasn't like Biden saying the criteria for vetting a VP consisted of the essential and critical characteristics of skin color and genitalia.
I have an obligation to address the content of those characterizations.
At least he wasn't like Biden saying the criteria for vetting a VP consisted of the essential and critical characteristics of skin color and genitalia.
Well minus the "best of their ability"
Fake jury
When I say true law and order may yet prevail I mean that real judges and real juries could easily discard your so called "established legal fact". They have fancy words for it as I'm sure you know but they boil down to "we don't care bro, that was bullshit"
That is why I mean by "your law" vs "my law". "your law" is a dangerous and disgusting delusion having little to no connection with the concept known as "English Common Law", the traditional legal foundation of the USA.
Well minus the "best of their ability"you choose not to believe he's a rapist. But there is no evidence they did anything short of their duty in examining the evidence and coming a conclusion.
so you choose to believe that it's everyone else who is wrong.
Fake jurylol what does that even mean? Do you think they aren't people?
Do you think they were just cosplaying as jurors and random people showed up instead?
lol you think English common law doesn't have laws about defamation? They absolutely do.
They have laws against rape too.
Why wasn't Trump charged then?
so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
Are you talking about in public or in court?
the truth which was the judgement of the jury.
Lol, like it matters. If publicly calling someone a liar was actually in the law, you wouldn't be alive.
we know that they weren't presented with any evidence nor a reasonable theory of the crime
nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free world
I mean that even if a person had committed to obedience to the laws of the USA and New York State they have no duty whatsoever to consider the proclamations of the so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.
The whole psuedocourt was cosplaying.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
He raped her in a changing room in a department store.
nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free worldfor the same reason why most women don't come forward.
Powerful men sexually assault women all the time.
or because people in general will negatively judge them. So they stay silent.
They are absolutely binding.
You are being REALLY dense.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.lol no. He was found civilly liable for raping her. That means it is now an established fact that he did it. If he says she is lying, he is automatically defaming her because a jury has already found that to be a defamatory lie. So if he does it again, he is guilty again. Which is why he was found liable the 2nd time.
