|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9217 total) |
| |
chasebuchanan | |
Total: 920,717 Year: 1,039/6,935 Month: 320/719 Week: 108/204 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Second Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dronestar writes in Message 173: FACT, the former president was adjudicated for rape (using the judge’s words) by a jury of twelve people selected by the former president’s lawyerS. FACT, a jury awarded Carrol $5 million, and then upped it to $83.3 million dollars. The jury found Trump guilty of only sexual abuse, see my Message 165. The judge's words in a filing responding to Trump efforts seeking a new trial were wholly unconvincing:
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan: If many people commonly understand the word ‘rape’ to include digital penetration, then it is also true that many people do not. The judge's words were inexplicably definitive on an issue that is highly equivocal, namely how the common person defines ‘rape’. Here's how this common person defines ‘rape’: penetration of the penis into the vagina. When a woman claims she was raped then to me she is saying that the perpetrator fucked her. I think many people see it the same way. In my opinion the judge erred when he said many people see digital penetration as rape without balancing this statement by stating what is equally true, that many people do not. Legally, a jury found that Trump did not commit rape. The jury verdict form is pretty clear and easily supercedes the judge's comments in his filing, and that's probably why ABC News dropped their defense of George Stephanopoulos's comments and paid Trump $16 million. Just because we do not support Trump doesn't mean we can claim that whatever we say about him is true, just as those who support Trump can't claim that whatever they say about him is true. We should hold ourselves to the same standards of truth that we hold everyone else to. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dwise1 writes in Message 168: So there's nothing mystifying about the judge's comments. The general non-lawyer population's concept of rape would not be restricted solely to penetration by penis, so the general public would consider what Trump had done to her as rape. However, what he had done could not be considered rape legally. But the judge's words only said that that is how many people define rape. But many people do not define rape as digital penetration. In my opinion the judge erred in not making clear the equivocal nature of public understanding on this issue. Consider the argument in another context. Many people believe the world is only 6000 years old. A judge could be truthful saying this in a filing, but it's not even half the story. If you're going to argue that a judge saying that many people believe Carroll was raped and that that means she *was* actually raped, you would also have to accept that a judge saying in a filing that many people believe the world is only 6000 years old means that the world actually *is* 6000 years old. It seems to me that neither argument could be considered true. Carroll was not raped, and the world is not 6000 years old. That's why we have a legal system, so that what is considered true isn't reduced to a layperson's level of understanding and knowledge. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dronestar writes: ABC settled the lawsuit because they are afraid of future retaliations from the new administration. It's likely much more complex than that, as a reading of https://www.cnn.com/...oulos-trump-settlement-abc/index.html makes clear. It concludes:
CNN: This excerpt cites the same issue I did: The jury found that Trump had not committed rape. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
This should be pretty easy to resolve. You quoted the portion of my message where I said, "There is no one way of defining anything." Your response made it seem as if you had missed the word "one" and had read it as, "There is no way of defining anything."
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dronestar writes in Message 185: The jury never said the former prez did not commit rape. They pretty much did. I posted this earlier:
Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
And this was a civil trial where the standard is only "a preponderance of the evidence", rather than the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" of a criminal trial. You're free to believe what you like, but the facts clearly show that Trump was not found to have raped Carroll in the civil trial. You can assert that he was, but then you're getting out over your skis. But I share your view of Trump. I believe that he has raped women. I just don't believe that's ever been legally proven in a civil or criminal trial.
ABC probably would have won the libel case, it is very difficult to prove, and ABC caved. I share this view, as do many political commentators. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 187: Ah, yes, the silver bullet “Convicted-Felon-on-34-Counts!!!” that didn’t pan out, mainly because the electorate saw right through the outrageous, coordinated lawfare and were unimpressed by any accusations or outcomes. While no one here actually used the term “Convicted-Felon-on-34-Counts”, the New York trial on 34 felony counts was a criminal trial. People found guilty of criminal felonies are considered felons. The result of a criminal conviction for felonies is often jail time. Sentencing was originally scheduled for November 26th, but after the election prosecutors requested that sentencing be postponed, and the judge agreed. One suggestion from District Attorney Bragg is to delay sentencing until the end of Trump's term in office. But you again appear to be conflating trials and elections. Getting elected to any office, including president, doesn't void one's legal history. The felony convictions did "pan out", to use your phrase, meaning that Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts. Getting elected president doesn't change that. It just means that more people than not preferred him over Harris despite the felony conviction and all the other baggage.
The case and the proceedings were riddled with irregularities and the whole thing will be overturned on appeal, if for no other reason than no prosecutor will want to try and stand behind it. Can you be more specific? Trump says he will appeal his conviction, but an appeal can only take place after sentencing. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 181: Dronestar quoted someone who said something about yet someone else who said something about Trump, and presented this as some kind of evidence. This is hearsay. What quote of "someone who said something about yet someone else who said something"? I see no quote of anyone except Trump himself in dronestar's Message 113. I do see an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia: You called it hearsay:
K.Rose writes in Message 170: And maybe you overlooked all of this, but this is the hearsay he cites: Which parts of that Wikipedia excerpt represent hearsay? The first paragraph saying there are 26 women who have publicly accused Trump of one form or another of sexual misconduct is not hearsay. The second paragraph is merely a summary of the article, and that's not hearsay. And the third paragraph very specifically quotes what Trump said on a recording, which is not hearsay. Dronestar didn't excerpt the rest of the article, of course, far too long, but it details one by one the accusations of each of the 26 women (or in a couple cases, group of women), and that is not hearsay either. So why did you dismiss it as hearsay and offer that as an excuse for not responding to dronestar when it quite obviously wouldn't be considered hearsay by any casual observer of average discernment or better. I have a couple questions. You're developing a history here of just casting out random accusations with no basis in fact (in this case dismissing very specific validated information as hearsay). Is that the kind of reputation you want? If Trump's a wonderful guy then the evidence will show that. But if the only way you can support your man is through misrepresentations and deflections then maybe you should reconsider your take on him. EvC Forum is not intended to mirror Congress where members lie for living. This is a place where truth is supposed to flourish. And how does a Christian reconcile his beliefs with his support of such a man? Please let us not go in a circle with you repeating your claim that you "don't look to political leaders for moral-spiritual guidance." (Message 159). The issue is moral character and why a Christian would support a man who has none. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 195: Percy writes in Message 190: The felony convictions did "pan out", to use your phrase, meaning that Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts. The 4 coordinated prosecutions (Bragg, Smith, James, Willis) were designed to keep Trump off the ballot, and/or out of office. What is your evidence that the prosecutions were coordinated?
Of course they couldn't say this directly or they would be in jeopardy of Conspiracy Against Rights (ironically, the same thing the Jan-6 committee was accusing Trump of). You say they couldn't admit collusion publicly, so how do you know this?
They must have been very confident they would succeed because the things they said and did made their intentions very clear. Any prosecutor bringing charges always has very clear intentions, which would be to conduct successful prosecutions of the alleged crimes. You have no evidence of anything more that.
The whole world knew what they were up to,... I think those in the conservative echo chamber "know" plenty of things that aren't true.
...but any objections were squelched because hey, it's Trump, and we have to do whatever's necessary. What objections are you referring to?
The felony conviction was successful; however, the end game was to crow about "convicted felon" and turn people against Trump. It didn't take long to realize that the end game wasn't going to work, wasn't going to pan out, and by the time Harris was running it was only mentioned infrequently and unenthusiastically. It is true that the New York criminal felony conviction did not resonate with the public as much of a negative. That's on the public. They know not what they do. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 198: Percy writes in Message 190: Can you be more specific? Percy, you are an informed and studious guy. I'm certain you know all about the case from all angles. But, if you must, you can find some info in these articles. Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Should Have Been Dismissed | Opinion - Newsweek ttps://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/ 2024-07-09 Lawfare - How the Manhattan District Attorneys Office and a New York State Judge Violated the Constitutional and Lega.pdf https://judiciary.house.gov/...nstitutional%20and%20Lega.pdf You're not here to hand out reading assignments. From the Forum Guidelines:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 182: Percy writes in Message 162: Trump is at best areligious. Biden's Catholic. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion? A man can say whatever he wants, but you’ll know a man by what he does. That's not an answer. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion?
K.Rose writes in Message 159: Percy writes in Message 172: …it leaves people wondering how a Christian wouldn't make a different choice regarding their vote… I don't look to political leaders for moral-spiritual guidance. I already responded to this in Message 162:
Percy writes in Message 162: No one suggested that you should. It just seems natural to assume that people of presumably good moral character would want people also of good moral character as president since they will have a significant impact on affairs within the country and be representing America internationally. Trump supporters seem to have a studied lack of concern about their support for someone who so readily engages in immoral activities. The phone calls to Zelenskyy and Raffensperger come to mind, as do the attempts to impanel false slates of electors. You ignored this in your two responses (Message 169, Message 170). This is an "already asked and answered" type of thing. You're just circling back without answering.
In a one or the other election I simply select the person who holds the least animus toward my faith, and who will be the most just in upholding the worldly law. I answered this, too - my answer just happens to be the quote you opened this message with. You're just going in circles.
Once again, the vote is between two sides and you have to pick one, in this case Trump or Biden-Harris. Sitting out because “I don’t want to choose between the lesser of two evils” is a ludicrous position. It will always be between the lesser of two evils, unless you happen to get someone who is in 100% alignment with your views. Trump is against many things a moral Christian stands for. How can you vote for him?
So……Trump wins handily in the “least animus toward my faith” category. You said this before and then didn't answer the question asking what way this is so.
Considering the advantage in the “worldly/earthly/man’s law” category: • Handling the illegal immigrant problem internally – Trump• Fixing both the North and South border disasters – Trump • Tangling with China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela – Trump • Economy – Trump • Straightening out the Regulatory and Bureaucratic agencies – Trump • Weeding out corruption within the Power Structure - Trump • Addressing the health care mess that is coming front and center – Trump • Regaining our respect as the world leader, competent and strong – Trump • Addressing domestic crime – Trump Leaving aside the truth/accuracy of your list, none of this has anything to do with Christian morality. The question remains. How can a moral Christian vote for Trump.
Can’t think of an area where Harris-Biden has the advantage – can you? How many times do I have to say that I'm not a supporter of anyone. I'm an independent. I vote for who I think will be best for the country. If you peruse The Biden Presidency you'll see I was often critical of Biden. In August of 2021 after Biden had been in office only a little over six months I began Message 126 like this:
Percy writes: I'm very disappointed in the Biden administration's performance thus far, mainly because of the pandemic and Afghanistan. And that wasn't the only message I posted criticizing him. So why don't you stop the partisan nonsense and just answer the question. Given the measure of the man, how can a moral Christian vote for Trump? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I'm not responding to a post where your words are outnumbered 427 to 59 by the words you quoted.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Phat writes in Message 210: I counted 80. I didn't count. I used the count-words-region function of Emacs. I just did it again, this time including the labels on your quotes, and I got 86.
But your point stands. You are Ideally you'd understand the issues and would write about them in your own words.
You will notice that I found quotes that defended Trump vs attacking and vilifying him. I didn't read your quotes.
I know that the man is no saint, but I agree with the articles I quoted where they said Tucker Carlson:Harris was less impressive in this area. Harris was raised in a Black Baptist church and attended Hindu temple. She's a practicing Baptist and her husband is Jewish. The only time you'll see Trump in a church is if it's a campaign event. He's only telling Christians what they want to hear - they're being naive.
Christians in general feel that a mans character can change and evolve. We are more forgiving than secular humanists in general. It could, however, be to our detriment. Yeah, no kidding. Trump's second-term vision for America is far darker than his first.
quote:As I have said, the jury is still out. Trump has been active politcally on the national stage since 2015. If the jury is still out for you then you must be deaf and blind. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 198: Percy writes in Message 190: K.Rose writes in Message 187: The case and the proceedings were riddled with irregularities and the whole thing will be overturned on appeal, if for no other reason than no prosecutor will want to try and stand behind it. Can you be more specific? Percy, you are an informed and studious guy. I'm certain you know all about the case from all angles. I don't think it's accurate to say that I "know all about the case from all angles." I've been following the news. So, again, can you be more specific about these irregularities that the case is riddled with.
UPDATE This partial list of observations apply to one or more of each of the 4 coordinated prosecutions against Trump:
Felony convictions are not disqualifying.
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about the Letitia James civil case against Trump for misrepresenting property values for personal gain, or about the Alvin Bragg criminal case about misuse of campaign funds for hush money involving 34 counts.
I think you're referring to Letitia James. I don't think she ever used the phrase "getting Trump," but she made repeatedly clear her intent to prosecute Trump for fraudulent business practices.
Do you have any references? I'm going to stop here. Your list appears to be drawn from points made in an opinion piece. If you can back up any of the claims you make I'd be glad to respond.
When bringing charges against a sitting or ex-President it is incumbent on legal authorities to make the case perfectly clear and to follow all rules/laws/protocols/etc. to the letter to make clear to the world that the US is not a banana republic. These prosecutions were the opposite of that, they backfired spectacularly, and were a huge embarrassment to the US. They also put the prosecutors and their cohorts in jeopardy of Conspiracy against Rights. Do you have evidential support for any of this?
16 Secretaries of the State across the US are also in this jeopardy for removing Trump from the ballot in their respective states based on obviously and legally misrepresented reasons. Any support for this?
Trump could go after these people and probably be successful against many/all of them; however, Trump should come out and say "I could go after these people, but for the good of the country [which it would be] I am going to let it all go and focus on my agenda to MAGA." That would be inconsistent with Trump's vows of vengeance during the campaign. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
K.Rose writes in Message 212: So as you weighed the candidates in this election, what were the Harris advantages over Trump, and what were the Trump advantages over Harris? The election was a couple months ago, let's see what I remember about my thinking then:
That's what I recall. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23170 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
K.Rose writes in Message 214: Percy writes in Message 206: That's not an answer. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion? Trump speaks regularly of his Faith, God, and The Bible. You can never know a man's heart, but at a minimum he is giving vocal support. Yes, he's giving vocal support, because it gains him political support among Christians.
Biden claims he's Catholic. That's because he is. He also regularly attends church services, something Trump does not do.
Biden has just awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Cecile Richards for women's reproductive rights, et al. Richards is a longtime ardent abortion supporter-activist. She was also the president of Planned Parenthood for over 10 years, during which time she oversaw ~4,000,000 abortions. Biden's actions are profoundly antithetical to Catholicism (and Christianity in general, Judaism, Islam,...) A majority of Catholics in the US support abortion, as do a majority of Americans. At what week of gestation varies greatly.
Trump wins in the animus toward faith department hands down. I understand that for you one's position on abortion is a measure of faith, but your views are not shared by a majority of Americans.
Please continue staying tuned for additional responses to 203 and 203. Thanks. I guess you found 203 so nice you said it twice. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025