Jump to content

Trump’s America

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0

My wife went upstairs to wake our kids up this morning.   As she woke up our 12 year old daughter, the first thing she asked was who won the election.  My wife tells her Trump did, and she started to

Red Five
Red Five

This could go anywhere, but a neighbor I barely know just stopped me on a dog walk to say how happy she was about the election. I tried to brush it off but she just kept going. When she said something

Fat Bastard
Fat Bastard

Congrats on you and your wife failing as parents and raising a generation of pussies. 

Posted Images

Gap03

Gap03 3378

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Didn't the judge himself effectively make the point that while the jury didn't find that Trump had committed "rape" within the narrow NY law definition, they did find him guilty of what most would consider "rape"?  If so, fuck Iger and his bitch ass. 

 

excited-coming.gif

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21527

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I'm sure all you say here is true and ABC likely made the prudent decision.

But all I see is Trump winning every time he steps in the courtroom.  I mean, even when he gets convicted, his consequences are less than zero.

"Justice" for the rich.  Everyone else can eat shit. 

I'm almost to the point where I don't really give a shit what happens to the U.S.  Maybe it needs to burn to the fucking ground. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32004

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I'm sure all you say here is true and ABC likely made the prudent decision.

But all I see is Trump winning every time he steps in the courtroom.  I mean, even when he gets convicted, his consequences are less than zero.

"Justice" for the rich.  Everyone else can eat shit. 

I'm almost to the point where I don't really give a shit what happens to the U.S.  Maybe it needs to burn to the fucking ground. 

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21527

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Oh, I know he technically loses in court a lot.  But to date, it's done nothing but help him. Or at the very least, not hurt him.

Trump will live one of the most vile, law-breaking, and hateful lives in American history and never be held accountable for a goddamned thing.  Hell, we'll probably rename ourselves the United States of Trump. 

'Merica.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106684

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Trump will live one of the most vile, law-breaking, and hateful lives in American history and never be held accountable for a goddamned thing.  Hell, we'll probably rename ourselves the United States of Trump. 

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9527r2rwe6verkq5fr8jp

And all of that is true because....that is who we are as a nation.  We are super-extra-ultra-shitty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13712

Posted
Posted

Could there be a shareholder suit against Disney (ABC) for settling a lawsuit with Trump, and perhaps stop it? I know shareholders give a company's execs the power to make decisions that they feel are best but that doesn't mean they can waste corporate resources. Personally I would love to see Trump's lawyers argue that while Trump was found guilty of sexually assaulting someone that doesn't make him a rapist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27702

Posted
Posted

Maybe ABC's decision makes sense from a "business" standpoint -- it unfortunately sets a very dangerous precedent. This will only embolden this piece of shit -- and others in his orbit -- to make further attacks at what is left of America's "free" press.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Underdog

Underdog 29112

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Oh, I know he technically loses in court a lot.  But to date, it's done nothing but help him. Or at the very least, not hurt him.

Trump will live one of the most vile, law-breaking, and hateful lives in American history and never be held accountable for a goddamned thing.  Hell, we'll probably rename ourselves the United States of Trump. 

'Merica.

Good odds it’s already in the planning stages of the House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35545

Posted
Posted

I really like @TwiceHorn but this piece is exhausting. The simple fact is that a POTUS or POTUS elect should never sue a media outlet. The awesome power of the executive should exclude this type of stuff, if not on the pure legal side, then the principal side.  No U.S. citizen should ever have to stare down POTUS or POTUS elect in a court of law because of something they said.

 

The republic is dead and the courts played their role. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26815

Posted
Posted

Musk going after Pork in the new bill. One of things he specifies. I wonder why this?

In more than two dozen posts, Musk assailed the bill on various points, calling it “criminal” for including funding for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, an agency tasked with fighting foreign propaganda and misinformation, which Musk called a “censorship operation.”

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78494

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Any society where a rapist can sue for defamation on a semantic technicality and win millions of dollars deserves to fall.

 

IMG_2514.jpeg

8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Musk going after Pork in the new bill. One of things he specifies. I wonder why this?

In more than two dozen posts, Musk assailed the bill on various points, calling it “criminal” for including funding for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, an agency tasked with fighting foreign propaganda and misinformation, which Musk called a “censorship operation.”

 

isn't he's getting close to $5 billion a year in us govt socialism ?

he needs to fuck off and be deported 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26815

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

isn't he's getting close to $5 billion a year in us govt socialism ?

he needs to fuck off and be deported 

Yes, but he is under orders to fuck it up as much as possible and THEN get the dollars to Putin.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38842

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pancho said:

Musk told turnip he didn’t like a bill so turnip kills it. 

 

What in the ever living fuck

You know how in some futuristic sci-fi movies America is run by a corporation with an evil CEO?

Yeah, that's now.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32004

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I really like @TwiceHorn but this piece is exhausting. The simple fact is that a POTUS or POTUS elect should never sue a media outlet. The awesome power of the executive should exclude this type of stuff, if not on the pure legal side, then the principal side.  No U.S. citizen should ever have to stare down POTUS or POTUS elect in a court of law because of something they said.

 

The republic is dead and the courts played their role. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornmpa96

hornmpa96 2652

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, pacman said:

In regards to Mike Johnson and this budget fiasco with Trump

 

Imagine the psychosis it takes to conclude Johnson works with liberals

Screenshot_20241218_174054_Facebook.jpg

The weird reality is that Johnson has needed D votes to get spending bills across the finish lines because he has enough members of his conference who have never voted for a spending bill. Given the R margins in the House in the next term, it will be fascinating to see if this holds true again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35545

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

And what I am saying is the overarching principals are more important than the subordinate ones.  Here is what principals look like in March 2024:

”It is clear to me that our constitutional system rests upon the right for the fee press to speak freely about former chief executives and candidates for the highest office in the United States. That right far outweighs the personal interests of any candidate or former occupant of said office. Accordingly I am dismissing this lawsuit on First Amendment grounds and higher courts may overrule me on their conscience.” 
 

The jet has been hijacked, dawg. We don’t need to give them a chance to comply with ATC. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
royiv

royiv 9716

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And what I am saying is the overarching principals are more important than the subordinate ones.  Here is what principals look like in March 2024:

”It is clear to me that our constitutional system rests upon the right for the fee press to speak freely about former chief executives and candidates for the highest office in the United States. That right far outweighs the personal interests of any candidate or former occupant of said office. Accordingly I am dismissing this lawsuit on First Amendment grounds and higher courts may overrule me on their conscience.” 
 

The jet has been hijacked, dawg. We don’t need to give them a chance to comply with ATC. 

Principles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32004

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

The judge called it rape. Why on earth did they settle this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35545

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

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."

Everything the Founders did was illegal till it wasn’t. There will always be an excuse. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...