|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I was responding to the ridiculous statement MADE BY YOU that nowhere in the testimony did she claim what Boltonj said was true, as if that contradicted the idea that it was hearsay.
I considered that interpretation and decided it was too stupid even for you. I was wrong. Since hearsay requires a claim that what the other person (e.g. Bolton) said to her was true, and at no point did she claim that what Bolton said was true, her testimony about Bolton was not hearsay.
BECAUSE HER TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE HEARSAY. Nowhere in her testimony did she claim what Bolton said was true, so, yes, that does contradict the idea that her testimony was hearsay,.
BECAUSE HER TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE HEARSAY. That's definitely a double duh.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh nonsense, it is implicitly claimed to be true, she doesn't have to say it in so many words.
DUH yourself.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No, it is and was not implicitly claimed to be true. She was reporting on what she heard directly without any claim or implication that what she heard was true or false.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I already said, that would be completely idiotic since if she wasn't claiming that what he said was the truth there would be no point in her testifying at all.
DUH again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hearsay-rule/
[quote]The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered \[b\] to prove their truth andthe maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court [/b] . Hearsay is "second-hand" information. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to give testimony, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine him or her. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something.[/quote] Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I hope there's somebody here who knows what a lot of hot air you are blowing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The point of having her teatify was to report accurately and without interpretation on what she heard and saw. It was not for her to make any determination of the truth or falsehood of what she heard.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You haven't given a thought to the implications of your silly fantasy.
Suppose I said "the Moon is an assemblage of paisley squids. Obviously false. So by your made-up rule you couldn't honestly testify that I said that. Witnesses report. Courts assess truth or falsity. Witnesses don't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
witness | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
quote:Note testifying to that knowledge. "That" refers to "first-hand". Witnesses testify to that of which they have first-hand knowledge. Faith Hill had first-hand knowledge of what Bolton said to her, so she testified that. She did NOT have first-hand knowledge of the truth or falsity of his statements, so she did not testify to the truth or falsity of his statements, explicitly or implicitly. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
This is actually for Faith. Your post just provided the opportunity to comment on a couple things. You said a lot of this stuff yourself, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it.
RAZD writes: Which means the rich will either be moving out of the country to avoid taxes ... Good riddance. The truly rich (as opposed to high income people) have a huge variety of ways to mitigate their tax burden, so it seems unlikely that any change in the tax code would cause them to leave the country. Their tax attorneys would just find alternate avenues for lessening the tax burden. Plus the truly rich can live (establish their residence) anywhere in the world they want, since private jets can flit them about.
... or at least not be expanding their businesses ... Which they have not done with the tax refunds, so no loss there. JonF originally said "the rich and corporations," and Faith truncated it to just "the rich." Most people do not work for "the rich." They work for companies, some big, some small, some somewhere in the middle. Cutting taxes on the rich is not going to employ many more people. The rich can only buy so many cars and boats and jets and houses and fancy vacations, and they can only employ so many maids and butlers and pool boys. The money they save from lower taxes will mostly go into investments or trust funds for the kids and so on. So this brings us to the effect of cutting corporate taxes on jobs, and it turns out it just isn't that great. The economy is a bunch of interlocking pieces that includes supply, demand and workforce availability. If Apple takes the money they save in taxes and builds a new plant to manufacture more iPhones, who are they going to sell them to? Just because they have more money to spend doesn't mean there's higher demand for iPhones. So many corporations used their tax bounty to increase bonuses, pay down debt, buy back stock, upgrade or replace aging equipment, etc. Most did not employ more workers. That doesn't mean that cutting corporate taxes didn't improve employment. It did. Just not to the spectacular extent you keep claiming. This is the unemployment rate through the beginning of 2018:
I couldn't find a graph that goes all the way through 2019, but the current unemployment rate is 3.7%, just a little lower than the rightmost point on that graph. There's no spectacular drop in unemployment. It's just a continuation of the decline in unemployment that began in 2010 under Obama and that you like to keep ignoring. That I keep telling you this probably makes you think I'm plugging Obama, but I'm not. You keep accusing me of being a leftist, but I'm a fiscal conservative. That means I'm neither an Obama fan or foe. He had policies I liked and policies I didn't like. But even if the previous administration had been someone's who I detested beyond ken, I would still call you out for being dead wrong to claim the economy was a mess until Trump took over. It was not. It had been continuously improving for over six years. Trump then embraced policies that continued that improvement. Another important point. At the end of the Obama administration the unemployment rate was already 4.7%, by historical standards already very low. Traditionally, anything below around 5% is considered full employment, plus or minus a percentage point or so. There is not much lower to go. But the full employment point is also considered the inflation threshold. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course. It just means that once you reach full employment that inflation becomes a risk that has to be carefully monitored. But even more concerning is the current very low unemployment rate combined with huge deficits. How can we have that combination and also such low inflation? Is the low unemployment rate masking a structural problem, such as low wages or the necessity of holding two or more jobs to make ends meet or the high cost of housing? Food for thought. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
I would still call you out for being dead wrong to claim the economy was a mess until Trump took over. It was not. It had been continuously improving for over six years. I would agree with the economy was certainly on an upswing during much of Obama's term that has continued under a Trump Administration. But I've always found it really silly to lay such a success at any one person's feet, as if the economy is driven by presidential policy alone. I'm not suggesting that's what you're doing here but some people really are under that misguided notion. Certainly a president can implement good or bad policies and it can have some effect, but I wish standing presidents would stop taking so much credit for things they realistically have very little control over -- the entire health of an economy. Economics is incredibly variable for so many reasons. Presidential impact is negligible. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
F35 program
Weapons development programs are expensive and the outcomes can be disappointing.
Inaccurate gun, cybersecurity issues, and poor reliability found by testing director. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link - Was a space between the "=" and the "https"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
JonF writes: Where evidence is offered as the truth but the originator of the statement isn't present.
This is nonsense as written. We may be interpreting "evidence offered as the truth" differently. Doesn't that refer to what people swear to do under oath? And that when (for example) Fiona Hill testifies to what Bolton said to her, she is only attesting to the words he spoke and not to the truth of those words. I am a fan of precision, but formal definitions aren't always the best way to communicate meaning to laypeople. That's why there's the effort to translate legalese into common language for documents that laypeople have to sign, like mortgage agreements and so forth. I like describing hearsay simply, that it is information one acquires secondhand, i.e., from someone or something else. Information one hears or witnesses cannot be hearsay. It's only when you testify to information someone else heard or witnessed that it becomes hearsay. Or at least that's the way I understand it. I've been wanting to comment on the "originator of the statement isn't present" portion that you've cited in a lot of posts (I haven't gone back to your posts to verify, so I should add that what you cited was not necessarily in those words). I hope that "present" only means "available to give testimony" and not actually present in the courtroom. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Combining several posts in this quote because the posts themselves quoted nothing (but hey, am I complaining? Uh, yes, I guess I am. ):
Theodoric writes: Faith writes: Theodoric writes: Lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations actually disincentives growth and investment. Even if what you are saying is true, what then? If you tax the rich there will be even less jobs and a lot more people on welfare type programs? Is that your solution? There will be more jobs, because instead of hoarding the cash they will invest it in capital projects and human capital in order to lower their tax burden. Basic economics and history. While I can't buy the argument that low taxes are in general a disincentive to investment in the business, I do think that the Trump tax cuts, made in an economy that was already well on it's way to overheating, provided very little incentives for businesses to grow. But we probably agree that, independent of the corporate tax environment, the best way to incentivize businesses to grow is to present them with increased demand, which is best done by putting more money in people's pockets through cuts to personal income taxes. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024