Winners only.

[rmsanger_2]

Holy ish that town hall had me crying… donald trump just sexually abused cnn

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Trump “Drill baby drill” … some rando in the crowd files s3xual assault.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

So the entire justice system works contrary to how it should?
Can you explain further or provide some data on this?

Doubt is a feeling, whether it’s based on fact, lack of fact, instinct, fear, lack of knowledge.
To say that a court of law disregards feelings when they literally invoke “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is pretty ludicrous, don’t you think?
It’s like saying evidence is disregarded when judging based on “clear and convincing evidence”.

By the way, I didn’t create these standards of judgement, and I do t just invoke them “as needed”. They’ve been around quite a long time, and they are part of how our justice system is operated.

Wow, you literally said jury's convict with their feelings all the time and now you are twisting the conversation. You said the JURY. Now you are saying the COURT OF LAW. Why do you dance around in the conversation so much? Is it to create confusion so you can get the other person to say something you can argue about?

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You have basically said our justice system as it exists and has long existed was set up by people who got it wrong.

I said no such thing be it basically or otherwise.

You have an unusual habit of saying experts are wrong but you are right.

We haven't spoke on any experts in this conversation.

What is your education background regarding law?

What's yours?

Do you trust the extra shady women just as much as the not-so-shady men?

People lie.

I said if you ask someone whether they ***** someone, they will very likely lie even if they did it.
The d indicates an action that happeneD. As in “before”, or the past. It was not meant to question “did you **** anyone before you ***** this one?”. But even that question WOULD have relevance in a **** trial.

You and your English lessons. Auxiliary verbs and proper grammar mean nothing I guess. Are you looking for an argument again?

Once again, you are showing you know nothing about how the legal system or court cases work. If you believe every court case is based on presentation of irrefutable facts and evidence, you really have no understanding at all. Have you ever served in a jury, been involved in a case, or even watched a movie about court?

The only thing I have given you is my opinion that if the jury convicts on feelings the are unjustly convicting. God damn you are thick. Always looking to argue or start a fight.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Wow, you literally said jury's convict with their feelings all the time and now you are twisting the conversation. You said the JURY. Now you are saying the COURT OF LAW. Why do you dance around in the conversation so much? Is it to create confusion so you can get the other person to say something you can argue about?

I’m really not sure what you are talking about here. Do you know how court trials work?
Do you know the job of a jury in a trial?

To keep you on track:
Court of law -
a tribunal presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate in civil and criminal cases.
Trial - The trial is a structured process where the facts of a case are presented to a jury, and they decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge offered.
Jury - A jury is a group of people empowered to make findings of fact and render a verdict for a trial.

Juries and judges DO use their feelings in reaching verdicts all the time.
Maybe you didn’t realize this or maybe you think the process is all being done wrong and has been done wrong for centuries, but this is the way it actually works.

It’s relevant to this ongoing discussion of the Trump case, and your personal feelings that something hasn’t happened unless you see it with your own eyes.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I said no such thing be it basically or otherwise.

This is how words work. When you make sweeping statements, they cover a lot of ground.
“Judging people by using feelings is wrong”. When our justice system works exactly that way, you have stated the justice system is inherently flawed.

We haven't spoke on any experts in this conversation.
What's yours?

I don’t have one. That’s why I defer to the legal experts past and current who established and “maintain” our legal system.

People lie.

They sure do. And they also get caught doing it.

You and your English lessons. Auxiliary verbs and proper grammar mean nothing I guess. Are you looking for an argument again?

YOU are the one arguing that we shouldn’t be discussing “before” when we ask if someone did something.
Sorry, it will always be “before” if someone has already done something.
It’s the past, plain and simple.

The only thing I have given you is my opinion that if the jury convicts on feelings the are unjustly convicting. God damn you are thick. Always looking to argue or start a fight.

Yes, it is your opinion. An opinion that is plainly and obviously contrary to the facts, to history, and to the present.
It’s like putting your hand in the fire and having the opinion you’re not getting burned.
It makes no sense. Why would I care, you might ask? Because tens of millions of people acting on feelings that are very obviously contrary to fact can really fvck things up in this country.
ONE person or small group acting this way can really fvck things up too.

And…it sure didn’t take you very long to jump back on the insult train when havi g the “conversation” you are always complaining no one will have with you.
I’ve expressed things that I think are pretty commonly understood among adults in society. Nothing I have said is made up. Nothing I have said is factually incorrect.

You are expressing opinions that are completely contradictory to commonly known and well-established fact. Yet, you want to accuse me of being “thick”.
It makes no sense.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

That deposition is what did him in the civil trial. IF he could keep quiet he wouldn't have been found liable or if he had just been sensible and used common sense (yeah I know asking a lot of trump and TBH any celebrity or politician) he wouldn't have gotten hit with the 5 million dollar judgement against him.

Kinda shocked also that no one has posted on good 'ole Lying Multiple Personalities George Santos being charged today with multiple felonies including money laundering iirc.

Agreed! E Jean had almost zero evidence against Trump, Trump did himself in by running his mouth and blatantly lying to the grand jury.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Agreed! E Jean had almost zero evidence against Trump, Trump did himself in by running his mouth and blatantly lying to the grand jury.

Testifying could be a big benefit to a defendant in a case, but with his record of public speaking it may have made things far worse.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]