Elon Musk to head Trump's Gestapo.

[Valcazar]

The verdict in the trial over Carroll calling trump a rapist did say that its legally correct to say that trump is a rapist.
That's the one I've been posting while rich goes back to the first trial.

Which is not the jury verdict richaceg has been talking about.
There was no jury verdict of rape.
There was a lawsuit by Trump that because there was no jury verdict of rape, Carroll was defaming Trump by calling him a rapist.
The judge rendered a decision that the jury did, in fact, determine that he had committed rape in the general sense of the word.

So no, the verdict didn't say rape.
It meant rape.

 

[JohnLarue]

Lol Johnny LaRue you jokes remind me of what Oscar Madison said during the poker game, " It's either very new cheese or very old meat".

i do not get the connection, however Oscar was pretty funny

Earlier in his career (probably late 1950s early 1960s) Walter Matthau played some really nasty, mean, down right evil characters.
slapping women around, calculating favourable casualty ratios in a first strike nuclear war scenario or taking a bull whip to the good guy in a frontier movie
He was really convincing.

it was quite the contrast to see him as the evil bad guy after knowing him as the unkempt but likeable smart ass Oscar Madison

 

[Frankfooter]

Which is not the jury verdict richaceg has been talking about.
There was no jury verdict of rape.
There was a lawsuit by Trump that because there was no jury verdict of rape, Carroll was defaming Trump by calling him a rapist.
The judge rendered a decision that the jury did, in fact, determine that he had committed rape in the general sense of the word.

So no, the verdict didn't say rape.
It meant rape.

I posted the judges defamation ruling saying that its legally correct to say trump is a rapist.
rich replied with the jury decision.

If you're going to jump in, be accurate.

 

[madappl3s]

Damn, you low IQ liberals are still at with the made up BS. You'd figure with landslide losses your team has taken worldwide the last few years that your rhetoric would get better.

I guess they won't be happy until Canada sees a realignment

 

[Skoob]

do you know how to read?

From Frankfooter's link:




You'll notice the part about "written with the help of AI" and this is not from an official court website...it's lawyer-for-hire site.

 

[Skoob]

Which is not the jury verdict richaceg has been talking about.
There was no jury verdict of rape.
There was a lawsuit by Trump that because there was no jury verdict of rape, Carroll was defaming Trump by calling him a rapist.
The judge rendered a decision that the jury did, in fact, determine that he had committed rape in the general sense of the word.

So no, the verdict didn't say rape.
It meant rape.

Thank goodness the justice system goes by verdicts and not perceived opinions, subjective definitions and grey areas in general.

No verdict of rape, means he can not be called a rapist.

btw I say that with the belief that the entire case was a sham to begin with of course and would have been thrown out if it wasn't based on lawfare against Trump.

But in the end, no one really cares as evident by the election win. The majority of American voters obviously saw through all of this and it backfired on the Dems.

If the Dems spent more time governing rather than persecuting, they would have another term.

 

[Valcazar]

Thank goodness the justice system goes by verdicts and not perceived opinions, subjective definitions and grey areas in general.

No verdict of rape, means he can not be called a rapist.

Exactly wrong, at least as determined by the justice system you claim to value so well.
(Also, if you think the justice system doesn't include "perceived opinions, subjective definitions and grey areas in general", I'm not sure how to break the news to you about Santa Claus.)

btw I say that with the belief that the entire case was a sham to begin with of course and would have been thrown out if it wasn't based on lawfare against Trump.

I am aware of your fantasy narrative, yes.

But in the end, no one really cares as evident by the election win.

This I agree with.
Not that "no one really cares", but that it was not something that mattered much to many voters.

The majority of American voters obviously saw through all of this and it backfired on the Dems.

Since a majority of American voter didn't vote for Trump, I'm not sure where you're getting this, but let's just assume you misspoke.

If the Dems spent more time governing rather than persecuting, they would have another term.

No real evidence of that, either.
"I'm voting against the lawfare" doesn't seem to have been much of a motivating factor, as you acknowledged above, and many people voted against the Democrats because they governed too much, in their view.
Remember that Trump has promised to roll back many of the things the Democrats did.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

No verdict of rape, means he can not be called a rapist.

You dont even need a court case to call someone a rapist or hold that opinion.
Looks like you are in the middle of your best double twisting double backflip move.

 

[Frankfooter]

Exactly wrong, at least as determined by the justice system you claim to value so well.
(Also, if you think the justice system doesn't include "perceived opinions, subjective definitions and grey areas in general", I'm not sure how to break the news to you about Santa Claus.)



I am aware of your fantasy narrative, yes.



This I agree with.
Not that "no one really cares", but that it was not something that mattered much to many voters.



Since a majority of American voter didn't vote for Trump, I'm not sure where you're getting this, but let's just assume you misspoke.



No real evidence of that, either.
"I'm voting against the lawfare" doesn't seem to have been much of a motivating factor, as you acknowledged above, and many people voted against the Democrats because they governed too much, in their view.
Remember that Trump has promised to roll back many of the things the Democrats did.

Your arguments about backing the rule of law have one major problem.
You were willing to accept aiding genocide in order to win an election.

 

[Skoob]

Exactly wrong, at least as determined by the justice system you claim to value so well.
(Also, if you think the justice system doesn't include "perceived opinions, subjective definitions and grey areas in general", I'm not sure how to break the news to you about Santa Claus.)



I am aware of your fantasy narrative, yes.



This I agree with.
Not that "no one really cares", but that it was not something that mattered much to many voters.



Since a majority of American voter didn't vote for Trump, I'm not sure where you're getting this, but let's just assume you misspoke.



No real evidence of that, either.
"I'm voting against the lawfare" doesn't seem to have been much of a motivating factor, as you acknowledged above, and many people voted against the Democrats because they governed too much, in their view.
Remember that Trump has promised to roll back many of the things the Democrats did.

So you believe he was officially declared guilty of rape despite the jury report? Yes or no answer.
It didn't matter to voters because it wasn't true. Don't insult voters with your assumption that they agreed with the verdict but it wasn't important to them.
Show me that the percentage of the popular vote for Trump was less than for Harris. Let's see how your new found math works if you disagree with my claim.

 

[Skoob]

You dont even need a court case to call someone a rapist or hold that opinion.
Looks like you are in the middle of your best double twisting double backflip move.

Well you can call someone a marshmallow or a tractor if the voices in your head are telling you to do so...doesn't mean it's true.

You seem confused.

Maybe I'll wait for a few more of your posts so you can pretend you didn't say something contradictory.

 

[Valcazar]

So you believe he was officially declared guilty of rape despite the jury report? Yes or no answer.

No.
It was officially declared that he can't claim you are defaming him if you say he is a rapist and a jury concluded he was a rapist.

It didn't matter to voters because it wasn't true.

I know you want to believe that, but you don't actually know that.

Don't insult voters with your assumption that they agreed with the verdict but it wasn't important to them.

I am quite sure that is true of some voters, though.
With over 150 million of them, it is basically a certainty.
Of course I never said that. I wouldn't say anything was true of all the voters, because saying it was (like you did above) would be comically stupid.

Show me that the percentage of the popular vote for Trump was less than for Harris. Let's see how your new found math works if you disagree with my claim.

I don't have to.
You claimed "The majority of American voters obviously saw through all of this and it backfired on the Dems."
Since Trump didn't win the majority of the votes (he seems to have finished just below 50%), even if you were mad enough to think every single person who cast a vote for Trump "saw through this all" it isn't a majority of the American voters.
(I never claimed he got fewer votes than Harris, so I'm not sure why you are asking about that.)