ChiGoose

The new trope is that if you acknowledge that gays exist, it means you’re literally grooming children for pedophiles. It’s disgusting and obviously false. But some people are so far down the internet brain worms rabbit hole enough to believe it. And then they sit around and wonder why gays won’t vote their way…

What theory is that? Please tell me what I believe since you seem to know so well. All I’m saying is that if you want to cite someone for their legal analysis and have people respect that, maybe cite someone with a legal background or experience in the law. It’s fine for people to have their own opinions but if you’re trying to convince someone of something in a particular field, maybe use someone with experience in that field…

I guess citing experts in specific fields is too difficult when the experts disagree with you, huh?

Is it a requirement that to be on this board, you have to have a severe lack in reading comprehension skills? I was challenging the idea of citing an article from someone with absolutely no public experience in the law for legal analysis. I am sure there are some lawyers out there who have views that maybe the tape isn't damaging (though that is certainly the minority view), so why not cite them? If someone who had never watched a football game before wrote an article about how teams should start every drive by running up the middle three straight times, would you cite them as a reliable source of football analysis?

Usually they take the approach to experts as the equivalent of getting the 5th dentist from “4 out of 5 dentists recommend…” Often, that’s someone with an outside the mainstream opinion that’s defensible though not necessarily definitive. Other times, it’s like it’s a dentist recommending you chew on aluminum foil instead of gum and it turns out it’s Dr. Wrap Reynolds of the Reynolds Wrap fortune running a grift. Here, they’re not even trying. Just finding someone, anyone, who agrees with them and taking it as gospel regardless of the person’s qualifications or strength of argument. Non-lawyers giving legal opinions here. Another thread had people citing a British comedian for strategy on the war in Ukraine. Maybe next they’ll get a tv star to tell them what the optimal marginal tax rate is.

Not to mention that, while classifications is important and drives the headlines, none of the charges require the documents to be classified. Also can’t find much about this Drew Allen guy. Where did he get his law degree from? Does he practice or have a specialization?

So is the new rule that standing doesn’t matter and is just whatever is needed to achieve the desired outcome? Used to be you needed a case or controversy brought by someone who had been harmed and there was relief available through legal action. Now we have someone who wants to start a business but is so concerned about a hypothetical scenario that they make a fake invoice to pretend that they had been asked to do something. That’s apparently standing now? Or a company that decides not to sue but someone else sues on behalf of the company. That’s standing now too? I wonder, if I pretend that my neighbor has been asked to do something they don’t want to do, can I sue on their behalf without them knowing and get to SCOTUS?

No idea what MSNBC said. I don’t watch tv news. But the coverage from actual lawyers in the actual legal field with actual experience with criminal matters seems to have a consensus: the tape is incredibly damaging for Trump’s case.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason the tape is being reported as damning to Trump’s chances is because it’s damning to Trump’s chances.

Still wake up thinking about me? 🥰🥰🥰🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

Simple question. Kinda telling that you can’t answer it.

Yes, and the oppo was so unusable that the Clinton campaign buried it. It only came to light when Steele started shopping it around. They hired a firm to do oppo. That firm contracted a guy. That guy talked to a bunch of people and when he presented his findings to the campaign, they rejected it. Unlike the Trump campaign, the Clinton campaign was not knowingly dealing directly with Russian operatives.

You think a 12 year old getting mental health treatment is the same as transitioning?

Intentionality on the part of the campaign certainly matters, don’t you think?

“Miraculously?” We know how it got out. I even just told you in a previous post. It’s public record. That you cannot understand something incredibly basic and integral to your own thesis makes me question your intelligence.

I’m just reading the text of the law you cited, buddy. Please point to where in the law it says that anyone can just take my kid away from me for no reason.

We know how the dossier got out. If you can’t see the difference between: 1. A campaign hiring an oppo team and then rejecting their findings only for the oppo team to make them public later; and 2. A campaign eagerly and willingly meeting with agents of a hostile foreign power to obtain oppo Well then, I guess I would just have to question your skills of comprehension.

Under the text of that law, my kid would never end up getting therapy without my involvement. As a loving and supportive parent, I want to foster an environment where they can come to me if they have any issues and we can address them together, with or without therapy. They’d only be able to get therapy without my involvement if I was such a jackass that a professional thought they would cause themselves or others serious harm or were the victim of abuse.

I’m literally just trying to figure out what your issue is. Based on the text of the law you cited, it seems to be an objection to 12 year olds getting therapy without their parents consent, unless I’m missing something.

So your opposition is to 12 year olds being able to get therapy without consent of their parents?

I don’t know how many times it needs to be said, but for the nth time: The Steele Dossier was a raw intelligence document. The way that’s supposed to work is that they collect all the information and stories they can and then vet them for accuracy. The dossier had not been vetted and should never have been made public because people didn’t realize what it was and instead took the claims as verified facts. However, it was not the basis for the Russia investigation (as confirmed by the Durham Investigation), was buried by the Clinton campaign, rejected by the FBI, and only came to light because Steele got it to John McCain’s team. But the facts can be really hard for people when it doesn’t match their feelings.

Section 1(k)? Section 2(a)(1)? Section 2(b)? What language do you object to? This is why the actual text is important. 1st graders and 16 year olds are different but are both children. So bad actors take something that may only be appropriate for kids 16+ and then say it’s for all children in order to elicit an emotional response. Likewise with “gender affirming care.” It’s talked about like it means surgery when, for the most part, it’s therapy. (This also is frequent with the term “abortion” which may include miscarriages in the medical field but is assumed to be voluntary in the political world) The game for the activists is to misrepresent the facts and then call out anyone trying to explain them as being a pedophile. But I have sympathy for people who don’t understand what’s going on and think that people who just want kids to feel safe in their own skin are actually advocating something evil based on the lies they hear.

He resigned, not fired. Would you be ok if Chelsea Clinton had met with Chinese spies because they claimed that the Chinese government, in support of her mother, was offering damaging info on Trump?

I have a child. I’m not defending anything. I’m just asking what particular part of the law’s text you disagree with.

I mean, you clearly don’t understand how the law, facts, or reality works. The tape is likely admissible under an exception of Rule 404(b). Also, your buddy Julie Kelly should probably go to law school so she might stop being wrong so often.