Trump’s America

[TexArcher 38852]

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

[Gap03 3380]

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. 

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21529]

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. 

 

[TwiceHorn 32013]

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.

[DigglerontheHoof 21529]

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.

[Brisketexan 106696]

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. 

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

[Nice Guy Eddie 13713]

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. 

[wildcat09 29569]

31 minutes 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.

[C-Man 27706]

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.

[Underdog 29113]

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.

[956 Worldwide 35554]

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. 

[InkaUtexas 26824]

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.”

[tx 3 putt 78510]

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.

 

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 

[InkaUtexas 26824]

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.

 

[Pancho 46094]

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

 

What in the ever living fuck

[TexArcher 38852]

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.

[tx 3 putt 78510]

13 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

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

 

 

turnip is going to bail out russia, and putin will skim 90%. cold hard cash 

[pacman 7497]

In regards to Mike Johnson and this budget fiasco with Trump

 

Imagine the psychosis it takes to conclude Johnson works with liberals

[TwiceHorn 32013]

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.

[TwiceHorn 32013]

16 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

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

Yeah, that's now.

I'll buy that for a dollar!  While driving my SUX6000.

[Red Five 41619]

3 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.

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

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

[hornmpa96 2652]

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

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.

[Hamttx 423]

I wish they wouldn’t have settled. Discovery would have been entertaining. 

[royiv 9718]

35 minutes ago, Pancho said:

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

 

What in the ever living fuck

Co-President

[956 Worldwide 35554]

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. 

[royiv 9718]

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.

[TwiceHorn 32013]

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."

[956 Worldwide 35554]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

Principles.

Fair enough I went to an office Christmas party and am a few in. 

[956 Worldwide 35554]

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. 

[Underdog 29113]

Still shaking my goddamn head that this tampon on a ear wearing, Arnold Palmer endowed envious motherfucker got re-elected as President. 

[Gil Bang 26190]

On 12/16/2024 at 12:38 PM, tx 3 putt said:

 

That will totally ratfuck small-town, Trump-loving America.

 

[tx 3 putt 78510]

54 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

 

the dumbest fucking people alive 

[tx 3 putt 78510]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

That will totally ratfuck small-town, Trump-loving America.

 

 

[TexArcher 38852]

17 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

That will totally ratfuck small-town, Trump-loving America.

 

That's just a bonus to him.

[956 Worldwide 35554]

21 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

That will totally ratfuck small-town, Trump-loving America.

 

All about the Constitution till we get to . . . Article I. 

[hpslugga 4097]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

All about the Constitution till we get to . . . Article I. 

You misspelled “Preamble.”

[tx 3 putt 78510]

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

All about the Constitution till we get to . . . Article I. 

[tx 3 putt 78510]

pretty damn funny 

 

[tx 3 putt 78510]

yes, eat each other up !!!!

 

[Brisketexan 106696]

yes, eat each other up !!!!
 

My new favorite part of this timeline is the “conservative Christian nationalists” calling out….the New Testament…as a pejorative/negative trait.
We literally have “Christians” shitting on…Christ.
This is fucking fantastic. Do go on.

[SimonBolivar 11042]

"And that whiny ass Paul fellow and his letters. Never would've happened under David!"

[Rex Kramer 1522]

7 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I believe that over the last decade the FDIC has been ignoring their rules and fully covering every depositor. The White House and Congress doesn't want to piss off wealthy donors (business and individual) by only protecting 250K. It's not really an insurance program any more, it's a bail out program governed by politicians. Whether or not it should or could be administered through the Treasury dept is outside of my knowledge.

I also realize that the FDIC does more than only offer deposit insurance.

No, it hasn’t done that once. Your post is laughably wrong, like in every sentence. 

[tx 3 putt 78510]

maga baby !!!!!

teach those women a lesson !

 

[C-Man 27706]

Musk told turnip he didn’t like a bill so turnip kills it. 
 
What in the ever living fuck