Jump to content

ChiGoose

Community Member
  • Posts

    3,941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChiGoose

  1. Yes. 100% without equivocation. Anyone who tries to intimidate or cause harm to someone else by swatting them is a garbage person who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
  2. It would be hard to pin down. Almost everyone who works for him ends up hating him or otherwise believing he is an idiot.
  3. This seems to explain the drive behind the backlash: Why Trumpers are losing it over Taylor Swift "There’s a good argument that the GOP has for some time been out of gourds, in no small part because right-wing media ate them. Republican politicians today often seem more focused on media hits, and the consequent fundraising bonanza, than they are on passing conservative policies. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz may be AWOL when his state suffers a national disaster, but he never misses an opportunity to promote his podcast. Florida Republican congressman Matt Gaetz — a key figure in this session’s rolling leadership fiasco — has introduced virtually no bills of significance. But he’s on Newsmax constantly, and a CNN analysis found 160,000 articles about him, in comparison to 347 about a congressman in Gaetz’s neighboring district. Blowing up the party is good for business—and the business is, not politics, but right-wing media."
  4. What @The Frankish Reich posted is absolutely true: "Trump was found by a jury to have digitally penetrated Carroll" They had to reach that conclusion to find him liable.
  5. In a civil case, the jury finds by a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are two different standards of finding facts / guilt. Digital penetration means fingers penetrating. Not making stuff up. Just explaining facts and reality.
  6. Under the NY code in effect at the time of the trial, first degree rape is defined as: "A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person: 1. By forcible compulsion; or 2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or 3. Who is less than eleven years old; or 4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more." Therefore, as the judge correctly stated, the jury could only find that Trump had raped Carroll if they believed he had penetrated here with his penis. As they only found that he used his fingers, they did not find he had raped her under the definition in NY law. However, that is not how people understand the word "rape" to work and not how it is commonly defined. As you pointed out, NY even moved to update its definition to better fit the common understanding of the word. Had the trial occurred with the updated definition in effect, it is likely that the jury would have found he had raped her. The idea that the judge should be impeached for explaining reality seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
  7. In the documents quoted in the tweet, it literally says that there is a difference between NYS law and how the word “rape” is used colloquially. Different states define crimes differently and people use words differently. Per the dictionary: “unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception” So what you have is that the word “rape” can and often does include sexual assault but does not require intercourse. However, NYS law requires intercourse for the charge of rape. That gap is what is causing the confusion here. The judge merely pointed out that while the actions did not constitute rape under the specific NYS law, it did amount to rape as it is commonly understood.
  8. You just have to enjoy the “oh, you suddenly have opinions about the current thing (i.e. news)” crowd failing to understand how law or even basic sentence structure works and then being upset that their misinformed take isn’t taken seriously.
  9. Ah. It appears to be dumber than I originally thought. If it was simply that they were worried she would use her tremendous influence to help the Dems, that would make sense. But as with most things MAGA, it's just dumb as hell. Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce and a MAGA Meltdown "The conspiracy theories coming out of the Make America Great Again contingent were already legion: that Ms. Swift is a secret agent of the Pentagon; that she is bolstering her fan base in preparation for her endorsement of President Biden’s re-election; or that she and Mr. Kelce are a contrived couple, assembled to boost the N.F.L. or Covid vaccines or Democrats or whatever." *** "The pro-Trump broadcaster Mike Crispi led off on Sunday by claiming that the National Football League is “rigged” in order to spread “Democrat propaganda”: “Calling it now: KC wins, goes to Super Bowl, Swift comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield.” *** "Some of the Monday morning quarterbacking has been downright silly, including speculation that Ms. Swift is after Mr. Kelce for his money. (Her net worth exceeds $1 billion, a different universe than the athlete’s merely wealthy status." "Other accusations appear to be driven by fear and grounded in some truth, or at least in her command of her 279 million Instagram followers: that she has enormous influence, and has supported Democrats in the past. For much of her extensive music career, Ms. Swift avoided politics, but in 2018, she endorsed two Democrats in Tennessee, where she owns two homes: former Gov. Phil Bredesen, who was running for the Senate against then-Representative Marsha Blackburn, and Jim Cooper, a House member who has since retired." *** "Then Swift-bashing reached Fox News in mid-January. The host Jesse Watters suggested the superstar was a Defense Department asset engaging in psychological warfare. He tied Ms. Swift’s political voice with her boyfriend’s Pfizer endorsement to the remarkable success of her Eras tour, which bolstered local economies and landed her on the cover of Time." “Have you ever wondered why or how she blew up like this?” Mr. Watters wondered on air. “Well, around four years ago, the Pentagon psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset during a NATO meeting.”
  10. I don’t understand why this is a political issue or why people care so much. The culture war is dumb.
  11. Are there actually any Dems out there who would oppose disclosures for the Biden admin?
  12. He is the classic archetype of narcissistic personality disorder. He does what feels good in the moment with no thought, strategy, or ability to think for the long term.
  13. He’s deeply unwell and apparently doesn’t have anyone close to him to help. Best to just ignore. Feel bad for the guy.
  14. Do you honestly believe this? Do you truly believe that an entire jury would disregard their oaths for political purposes? Do you think that a guilty verdict by a jury is based entirely on political leanings and not at all on the facts presented at trial? Because I’ve read a lot of dumb ***** from ignorant fools on this site, but it’s still hard to believe some one would be this stupid.
  15. In case anyone is wondering, the death penalty does not deter crime. In fact, states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than those without.
  16. I don’t think the state should have the power to execute people.
  17. It's "telling" that Dems are focused on the guy who is running against their candidate? It'd be really weird if they weren't...
  18. After about three hours of deliberation, the jury found that Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll They ordered $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages for a total of $83.3 millions
  19. Actually this is just people who have no idea how the judicial system works making assumptions based on nothing and then being mad. Testimony and evidence at trial is limited to what is relevant to the case. You don’t get to introduce irrelevant evidence and you don’t get to go on an unrelated political rant just because you want to.
  20. Here’s the actual fact: The judge made a ruling and Habba repeatedly ignored that. Even if you disagree with a judge’s ruling, repeatedly ignoring their ruling is a good way to find yourself in contempt of court.
  21. Trump was already found to have committed sexual assault in a court of law, so he wasn’t allowed to dispute that verdict in this trial. He had to keep his testimony to the issues relevant in this case, which is about defamation. He just didn’t want to do that.
  22. Yes. Multiple GOP officials have said they won’t do a border deal because they don’t want to do something that might make the Dems look good before the election. The GOP wants the border to be a disaster because it benefits them politically and they think their voters are ignorant enough to think otherwise even when they admit publicly.
  23. SoCal Deek seemed like a good dude. Generally engaged in good faith. Hopefully he’s found something more fun to do than spend time in this cesspool.
×
×
  • Create New...