Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38426
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Good stuff. One thing though, the whole scenario is a bit emblematic of the whole "MSM" treatment of Trump. On some occasions, overstate what is already bad enough about Trump (rape vs. sexual assault), on others just completely normalize him. I thought at the beginning of the Trump administration, the media was in a constant state of hysteria, often overstating the gravity of Trump's malfeasance. Then, later, particularly as he was out of office, curiously understating his malignance. Not that any of that really affected his base. But, assuming there are people "reachable" about Trump (debatable in light of the election results) created a narrative that Trump was persecuted or over-harshly judged.
  2. That's the kind of guy I am deathly afraid of, as opposed to Musk or Vivek rama, ramalama, whatever.
  3. I have admitted that the legal system failed to deal with Trump, because it is slow. And one of the reasons it is slow is because it contains a lot of rules and procedures that favor the individual citizen in the face of the government. There are also aspects of it that are influenced heavily by electoral and legislative politics: namely its underfunding, generally, and Congress' unwillingness to enact laws that effectively enforce political and official ethics. And, of course, the pardon and clemency powers granted to state and the federal executive. It is also full of glory-seeking prosecutors who can't get out of their own way, or, if they can, commit grave injustices in the name of "wins" or "tough on crime." Or some other personal aggrandizement. I'm not looking for "mic drops" and never have. I basically address misinformation about the legal system. The irrationals believe that's some kind of defense or normalization of fascism. I get that the frustration leads to that conclusion, but if you look at what I say in a clear-eyed fashion, you understand that it is not. Quite the opposite, actually, because if you change a legal system from its normal operation to contend with what seems to be a dire threat, you have a legal system that is perfect for fascists who get to determine what is a dire threat. This will be exemplified by the attempted lawfare coming from the Trump administration. I've never said it was great and wonderful. It's full of flaws that have been discussed ad nauseam. Much like the entire American experiment, it's a piece of shit. Until you compare it to all the others. I do think that, given time to operate to its conclusions, uninterrupted by the foul desires of the US electorate, Trump would be multiply convicted and likely in prison. I am also hopeful that the built-in protections for defendants will mean Trumplawfare fails. But if it doesn't, because Trumpco manipulated the system, then you'll all get what you wanted: a system where the ends justify the means. You'll just get it in the wrong direction.
  4. Willis is a dumbass of epic proportions. I don't think this is the "globally correct" outcome, but when you're doing the highest profile possible prosecution, which you seem to realize by empaneling a special grand jury before trying to indict and by indicting a sprawling RICO case, you do not, under any circumstances, optionally employ someone on the case with whom you have an ethically questionable relationship. Nor do you host a political fundraiser against a target of your investigation. And, it don't make a shit, because none of this was getting to trial even without this self-inflicted headshot.
  5. Well, clearly they don't give a frog's fat ass about cars. Because all they buy is trucks and trucklets.
  6. You may be too young to know the "full extent.'
  7. I'm not going on and on. Red Five asked how one judge's ruling in a different case didn't answer the question for all other cases, even similar ones. I answered. ABC could very likely have won their case, but Kaplan's ruling about Jean Carroll and "rape" as defamation didn't end the question for all time.
  8. Possibly. But he can't keep his mouth shut either. What I worry about is something fairly stealthy like what went on with the Texas AG/SG.
  9. Where the fuck do you get that from what I typed? You have a very active imagination.
  10. This whole thing is really the nightmare scenario: that someone much smarter and more sophisticated than Trump gets hold of the reins behind the curtain and quietly and very effectively fucks up everything. Elmo is actually smarter than Trump, yes, but he's a giant dildo in his own right, and can't keep his mouth shut, so it's far less of a nightmare scenario. It's the Leonard Leos and Heritage fucks you really have to worry about, and there are plenty of them lurking around, but I don't think they're the type that Trump really likes, listens to, or feels he has their loyalty.
  11. Taking a look at this, Wm. Morris, Lord Nuffield, of Morris Motors, was a major motor (not aircraft) manufacturer, and also a fascist. He pretty seriously obstructed the British buildup of aircraft manufacture, which needed to enlist automotive manufacturers. Nuffield's facility, Castle Bromwich, given to Vickers in 1940, produced 12000 Spitfires over the duration in addition to Lancasters. Long story short, the fascists and isolationists didn't want to play war. There was a lot of that in England until shit got real. Here, too, for that matter.
  12. All valid points. Although, I think my turbo four has a 10k oil change interval, I just follow the oil change indicator and do it at 20% remaining as a nod to LSPI, etc. I haven't correlated that to mileage, though.
  13. Insulting! However, given BMW's proliferation of 4-doors, I find it exceedingly difficult to tell them apart if I can't see the badging. Somehow, despite the 4-series being a two-door 3-series, except the Gran Coupe, it looks substantially larger to me and I easily mistake them for 5s or even 8GCs and vice-versa. And the M-Sport or whatever package that's cosmetically like an M but lacks all the real goodies usually has me guessing a bit.
  14. It's a subtle thing, but by and large a different case between different parties under slightly different circumstances. Specifically, Carroll said she was raped, her opinion and experience. She did not specifically refer to the court's/jury's verdict. Trump tried to say that because the jury found that she wasn't "penisly" raped, it was defamation. Kaplan held that her statement was substantially true, in part because the jury did find she was digitally penetrated and that the nonlegal meaning of rape included fingers as well as penises. In this case, Stephanopoulos said the court found she was raped, that he was "found liable for rape." And that is more inaccurate than what Carroll said. Because when you start saying what a court did, as opposed to your opinion or experience (I/shewas raped), you're bound by what the court actually found or held according to the law it applied. To wit: "Here, of course, New York has opted to separate out a crime of rape; and Stephanopoulos’s statements dealt not with the public’s usage of that term, but the jury’s consideration of it during a formal legal proceeding. Thus, while Defendants’ cited cases are compelling, they are not directly responsive to the issue of whether it is substantially true to say a jury (or juries) found Plaintiff liable for rape by a jury despite the jury’s verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape under New York Penal Law." The opinion that declined to dismiss Trump's complaint. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68351681/34/trump-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc/ All the judge there said was, at least on the basis of the complaint itself, a jury is entitled to sort this out. "To be clear, the Court is not reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants may very well convince a reasonable factfinder to follow Judge Kaplan’s reasoning or to adopt other reasoning leading to the conclusion that Stephanopoulos’s statements were not defamatory. That is not the issue before the Court now. At this stage, the Court only decides that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show collateral estoppel should apply, and that collateral estoppel would not be fairly applied in these circumstances."
  15. I'll buy that for a dollar! While driving my SUX6000.
  16. Well, I tend to agree with that. But it did happen before Trump was president-elect. He filed it in March 2024. I don't know on what principled basis you can keep a private citizen from suing.
  17. Not to mention, we are rarely exposed to the prosecutorial decision process. We have no fucking clue why they declined to prosecute. The spate of special counsel reports and oddball things like the Comey letter are exceptions, not the rule.
  18. I didn't voice an opinion on it. You're the one who tried to characterize it as prepared by a bunch of libtards or something. But, if the GQP prepares a damning report on one of their own, you can be assured that it's bad. Probably a bunch worse than they let on. Also, like acquittal of criminal charges doesn't mean you didn't do it, a failure to indict doesn't mean you're innocent, either.
  19. You mean a report commissioned and presumably prepared by a Republican committee of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives?
  20. Trump loses a lot. Particularly this kind of lawsuit. Shit, he's already posted big bonds for E. Jean, so she's actually going to collect if her judgments survive appeal.
  21. I always buy gently used. But, these things, DI, turbo and I suppose to a lesser extent hybrid, are all things that have been staples of luxury vehicles for nigh on 10 years now and were the things I had in mind when I said may make them expensive to get to the long-haul. And, given Toyota's reputation of last-adoption pending exhaustive reliability review one might think they are convinced they can build these features for the long haul. So, I am curious about why you wouldn't feel comfortable about a Lexus, but would about say an Audi?
  22. On the one hand, it is a capitulation and to a very shitty opponent. On the other hand, it really wasn't necessary to say "rape." Sexual assault is plenty good enough and the little extra whang of "rape" isn't worth it. $16M probably exceeds the cost of litigation to summary judgment, where ABC might have won, but like Dominion, the revelation of discovery would probably look pretty bad. Not in a way that increased their exposure like Dominion, but just that ABC is mostly comprised of thinking people who are vehemently anti-Trump, as they should be. But would also expose them to those accusations.
  23. Maybe not a Toyota, but more because Toyota avoids some of the tech that can make a car unreliable over the long haul, or, possibly more accurately, expensive to maintain to the long haul. And also makes them pretty damn boring. To that end, I am more strongly considering a Lexus for my next car than I normally would. That is, if they still make cars when I get into the market again. 😬
  24. I don't disagree about the concept of national dignity. It's a pretty absurd concept that underlies or justifies unjustifiable nationalism. I do take issue with this, to some degree: It is also a country founded on some pretty high-minded principles. Ignoring those principles because the implementation was flawed lacks as much nuance as ignoring the flawed implementation in favor of the high-minded principles. It's neither a basis for "America, fuck yeah" nor "America, fuck you." Like everything in human existence, it's a mixed bag, The bag has some shit in it and some nice stuff. We're digging around in the shitty part right now.
  25. Should probably look at a CT4, also. The base engine is a downgrade from the ATS, but the CT4-V, non-Blackwing, can be found for pretty good prices. Also, GM seems to be underrating its engines pretty significantly. I didn't realize this, but it's one of few that actually uses SAE-certified horsepower and torque numbers. They all use SAE testing methodologies, but GM lets SAE supervise. I'm not sure I'd worry about one weird tire. There's lots of reasonable explanations for putting a cheap tire on when you're about to trade a car.
×
×
  • Create New...