Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes, but he is under orders to fuck it up as much as possible and THEN get the dollars to Putin.

 

 

turnip is going to bail out russia, and putin will skim 90%. cold hard cash 

Posted
36 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I really like @TwiceHorn but this piece is exhausting. The simple fact is that a POTUS or POTUS elect should never sue a media outlet. The awesome power of the executive should exclude this type of stuff, if not on the pure legal side, then the principal side.  No U.S. citizen should ever have to stare down POTUS or POTUS elect in a court of law because of something they said.

 

The republic is dead and the courts played their role. 

Well, I tend to agree with that.  But it did happen before Trump was president-elect.  He filed it in March 2024.  I don't know on what principled basis you can keep a private citizen from suing.

Posted
16 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

You know how in some futuristic sci-fi movies America is run by a corporation with an evil CEO?

Yeah, that's now.

I'll buy that for a dollar!  While driving my SUX6000.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, pacman said:

In regards to Mike Johnson and this budget fiasco with Trump

 

Imagine the psychosis it takes to conclude Johnson works with liberals

Screenshot_20241218_174054_Facebook.jpg

The weird reality is that Johnson has needed D votes to get spending bills across the finish lines because he has enough members of his conference who have never voted for a spending bill. Given the R margins in the House in the next term, it will be fascinating to see if this holds true again.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Musk told turnip he didn’t like a bill so turnip kills it. 

 

What in the ever living fuck

Co-President

Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I tend to agree with that.  But it did happen before Trump was president-elect.  He filed it in March 2024.  I don't know on what principled basis you can keep a private citizen from suing.

And what I am saying is the overarching principals are more important than the subordinate ones.  Here is what principals look like in March 2024:

”It is clear to me that our constitutional system rests upon the right for the fee press to speak freely about former chief executives and candidates for the highest office in the United States. That right far outweighs the personal interests of any candidate or former occupant of said office. Accordingly I am dismissing this lawsuit on First Amendment grounds and higher courts may overrule me on their conscience.” 
 

The jet has been hijacked, dawg. We don’t need to give them a chance to comply with ATC. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And what I am saying is the overarching principals are more important than the subordinate ones.  Here is what principals look like in March 2024:

”It is clear to me that our constitutional system rests upon the right for the fee press to speak freely about former chief executives and candidates for the highest office in the United States. That right far outweighs the personal interests of any candidate or former occupant of said office. Accordingly I am dismissing this lawsuit on First Amendment grounds and higher courts may overrule me on their conscience.” 
 

The jet has been hijacked, dawg. We don’t need to give them a chance to comply with ATC. 

Principles.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

The judge called it rape. Why on earth did they settle this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

It's a subtle thing, but by and large a different case between different parties under slightly different circumstances. 

Specifically,  Carroll said she was raped, her opinion and experience. She did not specifically refer to the court's/jury's verdict.  Trump tried to say that because the jury found that she wasn't "penisly" raped, it was defamation.  Kaplan held that her statement was substantially true, in part because the jury did find she was digitally penetrated and that the nonlegal meaning of rape included fingers as well as penises.

In this case, Stephanopoulos said the court found she was raped, that he was "found liable for rape."  And that is more inaccurate than what Carroll said.  Because when you start saying what a court did, as opposed to your opinion or experience (I/shewas raped), you're bound by what the court actually found or held according to the law it applied.  To wit:

"Here, of course, New York has opted to separate out a crime of rape; and Stephanopoulos’s statements dealt not with the public’s usage of that term, but the jury’s consideration of it during a formal legal proceeding. Thus, while Defendants’ cited cases are compelling, they are not directly responsive to the issue of whether it is substantially true to say a jury (or juries) found Plaintiff liable for rape by a jury despite the jury’s verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape under New York Penal Law."

The opinion that declined to dismiss Trump's complaint.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68351681/34/trump-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc/

All the judge there said was, at least on the basis of the complaint itself, a jury is entitled to sort this out.

"To be clear, the Court is not reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants may very well convince a reasonable factfinder to follow Judge Kaplan’s reasoning or to adopt other reasoning leading to the conclusion that Stephanopoulos’s statements were not defamatory. That is not the issue before the Court now. At this stage, the Court only decides that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show collateral estoppel should apply, and that collateral estoppel would not be fairly applied in these circumstances."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's a subtle thing, but by and large a different case between different parties under slightly different circumstances. 

Specifically,  Carroll said she was raped, her opinion and experience. She did not specifically refer to the court's/jury's verdict.  Trump tried to say that because the jury found that she wasn't "penisly" raped, it was defamation.  Kaplan held that her statement was substantially true, in part because the jury did find she was digitally penetrated and that the nonlegal meaning of rape included fingers as well as penises.

In this case, Stephanopoulos said the court found she was raped, that he was "found liable for rape."  And that is more inaccurate than what Carroll said.  Because when you start saying what a court did, as opposed to your opinion or experience (I/shewas raped), you're bound by what the court actually found or held according to the law it applied.  To wit:

"Here, of course, New York has opted to separate out a crime of rape; and Stephanopoulos’s statements dealt not with the public’s usage of that term, but the jury’s consideration of it during a formal legal proceeding. Thus, while Defendants’ cited cases are compelling, they are not directly responsive to the issue of whether it is substantially true to say a jury (or juries) found Plaintiff liable for rape by a jury despite the jury’s verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape under New York Penal Law."

The opinion that declined to dismiss Trump's complaint.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68351681/34/trump-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc/

All the judge there said was, at least on the basis of the complaint itself, a jury is entitled to sort this out.

"To be clear, the Court is not reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants may very well convince a reasonable factfinder to follow Judge Kaplan’s reasoning or to adopt other reasoning leading to the conclusion that Stephanopoulos’s statements were not defamatory. That is not the issue before the Court now. At this stage, the Court only decides that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show collateral estoppel should apply, and that collateral estoppel would not be fairly applied in these circumstances."

Everything the Founders did was illegal till it wasn’t. There will always be an excuse. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, pacman said:

In regards to Mike Johnson and this budget fiasco with Trump

 

Imagine the psychosis it takes to conclude Johnson works with liberals

Screenshot_20241218_174054_Facebook.jpg

 

the dumbest fucking people alive 

Posted

Good to see how Mike Johnson handles a crisis when the future president is upset with the current funding bill. I don’t see how Johnson even remotely makes everyone happy. And now that Trump has jumped in, trump cannot compromise one inch.

Posted
Good to see how Mike Johnson handles a crisis when the future president is upset with the current funding bill. I don’t see how Johnson even remotely makes everyone happy. And now that Trump has jumped in, trump cannot compromise one inch.

Pure chaos that the American people voted for. And the people who voted for it have already turned away to whatever shiny thing is distracting them next.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

How would a shutdown affect the inauguration? Would be hilarious if he was forced to have a smaller one. I would imagine they wouldn’t be able to have it at the Capitol building. Would military even be involved? He would probably have Proud Boys in their place 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

IMG_2526.jpeg

This whole thing is really the nightmare scenario:  that someone much smarter and more sophisticated than Trump gets hold of the reins behind the curtain and quietly and very effectively fucks up everything.

Elmo is actually smarter than Trump, yes, but he's a giant dildo in his own right, and can't keep his mouth shut, so it's far less of a nightmare scenario.

It's the Leonard Leos and Heritage fucks you really have to worry about, and there are plenty of them lurking around, but I don't think they're the type that Trump really likes, listens to, or feels he has their loyalty.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This whole thing is really the nightmare scenario:  that someone much smarter and more sophisticated than Trump gets hold of the reins behind the curtain and quietly and very effectively fucks up everything.

Elmo is actually smarter than Trump, yes, but he's a giant dildo in his own right, and can't keep his mouth shut, so it's far less of a nightmare scenario.

It's the Leonard Leos and Heritage fucks you really have to worry about, and there are plenty of them lurking around, but I don't think they're the type that Trump really likes, listens to, or feels he has their loyalty.

You're gonna graduate from paragraphs to pages for bending over backwards to say why everything their doing is legally above reproach and they deserve their chance to fuck us all NowThis style

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

This whole thing is really the nightmare scenario:  that someone much smarter and more sophisticated than Trump gets hold of the reins behind the curtain and quietly and very effectively fucks up everything.

Elmo is actually smarter than Trump, yes, but he's a giant dildo in his own right, and can't keep his mouth shut, so it's far less of a nightmare scenario.

It's the Leonard Leos and Heritage fucks you really have to worry about, and there are plenty of them lurking around, but I don't think they're the type that Trump really likes, listens to, or feels he has their loyalty.

image.jpeg.eeda58de2c24b8523827bb50b27261b2.jpeg

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

How would a shutdown affect the inauguration? Would be hilarious if he was forced to have a smaller one. I would imagine they wouldn’t be able to have it at the Capitol building. Would military even be involved? He would probably have Proud Boys in their place 

Proud Boys as security.  It’ll be like Altamont v.2.  What could go wrong?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

You're gonna graduate from paragraphs to pages for bending over backwards to say why everything their doing is legally above reproach and they deserve their chance to fuck us all NowThis style

Where the fuck do you get that from what I typed?  You have a very active imagination.

Posted
40 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

image.jpeg.eeda58de2c24b8523827bb50b27261b2.jpegai

Possibly.  But he can't keep his mouth shut either.  What I worry about is something fairly stealthy like what went on with the Texas AG/SG.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Where the fuck do you get that from what I typed?  You have a very active imagination.

Sorry, a little unfair towards you. Last page you're going on and on how a jury should decide on trump's specious complaint over quoting a judge in her courtroom. It drives me nuts how much leeway you give the fascists and their tactics in your headspace and in your commentary. It validates and furthers normalization of the thought that he's doing things that any normal person would be doing. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sorry, a little unfair towards you. Last page you're going on and on how a jury should decide on trump's specious complaint over quoting a judge in her courtroom. It drives me nuts how much leeway you give the fascists and their tactics in your headspace and in your commentary. It validates and furthers normalization of the thought that he's doing things that any normal person would be doing. 

I'm not going on and on.  Red Five asked how one judge's ruling in a different case didn't answer the question for all other cases, even similar ones.

I answered.

ABC could very likely have won their case, but Kaplan's ruling about Jean Carroll and "rape" as defamation didn't end the question for all time.

Posted
15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's a subtle thing, but by and large a different case between different parties under slightly different circumstances. 

Specifically,  Carroll said she was raped, her opinion and experience. She did not specifically refer to the court's/jury's verdict.  Trump tried to say that because the jury found that she wasn't "penisly" raped, it was defamation.  Kaplan held that her statement was substantially true, in part because the jury did find she was digitally penetrated and that the nonlegal meaning of rape included fingers as well as penises.

In this case, Stephanopoulos said the court found she was raped, that he was "found liable for rape."  And that is more inaccurate than what Carroll said.  Because when you start saying what a court did, as opposed to your opinion or experience (I/shewas raped), you're bound by what the court actually found or held according to the law it applied.  To wit:

"Here, of course, New York has opted to separate out a crime of rape; and Stephanopoulos’s statements dealt not with the public’s usage of that term, but the jury’s consideration of it during a formal legal proceeding. Thus, while Defendants’ cited cases are compelling, they are not directly responsive to the issue of whether it is substantially true to say a jury (or juries) found Plaintiff liable for rape by a jury despite the jury’s verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape under New York Penal Law."

The opinion that declined to dismiss Trump's complaint.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68351681/34/trump-v-american-broadcasting-companies-inc/

All the judge there said was, at least on the basis of the complaint itself, a jury is entitled to sort this out.

"To be clear, the Court is not reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants may very well convince a reasonable factfinder to follow Judge Kaplan’s reasoning or to adopt other reasoning leading to the conclusion that Stephanopoulos’s statements were not defamatory. That is not the issue before the Court now. At this stage, the Court only decides that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show collateral estoppel should apply, and that collateral estoppel would not be fairly applied in these circumstances."

ABC's case should have been crowd-funded for the simple reason that if ABC is found liable for this hyper-technical mischaracterization, then we'd be able to sue Fox News, Newsmax and every one of their anchors to Bolivia, which would absolutely be worth a few hundred million in legal fees and damages.   

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)

Last night, my wife was really beside herself.  A refresher; she's a fed and she has to report for work whenever there is a shutdown---she can't sit at home, pick up a new hobby, whatever---her job requires her to show up for work whenever she is scheduled.  For no pay, until the shutdown is resolved, then she will receive the backpay.

It's not the first shutdown she's ever experienced in her 20 years as a fed, nor will it be the last.  What is really grating to her, however, is this was totally created by a non-elected person with a dubious immigration history of his own with a platform that decided to bully the GOP into it.  Hell, even Trump was fine with the CR up until the moment he was bullied by Musk.  

Imagine that.  Musk bullied Trump. A man that receives billions from the federal government (oh, and as a contractor, his various companies will receive no money from the feds during a shutdown) has decided that the government needed shutting down, and turned his followers to elected officials who decided that by God, we have to do this because Elon and his congregration have told us to.

That's where we are as a country.

It's bad enough that hoping for Trump's death was one possibility into getting things back to a semi-normal place; now we have to hope for Musk's, too.

 

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 5
Posted
18 hours ago, C-Man said:

Maybe ABC's decision makes sense from a "business" standpoint -- it unfortunately sets a very dangerous precedent. This will only embolden this piece of shit -- and others in his orbit -- to make further attacks at what is left of America's "free" press.

Which is precisely why the lawsuit was filed in the first place.  In addition to being a financially wise choice (versus the cost of litigation and risk of a runaway Trumpy jury), it also reflects ABC choosing to "kiss the ring" rather than fight a good fight as the 4th estate against the incoming fascist regime.

This also reflects the danger of corporate consolidation of the media.  When Disney/Amazon/Murdoch enterprises is making decisions that affect journalism, you are no longer independent.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Which is precisely why the lawsuit was filed in the first place.  In addition to being a financially wise choice (versus the cost of litigation and risk of a runaway Trumpy jury), it also reflects ABC choosing to "kiss the ring" rather than fight a good fight as the 4th estate against the incoming fascist regime.

This also reflects the danger of corporate consolidation of the media.  When Disney/Amazon/Murdoch enterprises is making decisions that affect journalism, you are no longer independent.

You'll get no argument from me. I'm somebody who spent nearly 10 years of my professional life in that realm, albeit on the sports side. All the Presidents' Men is probably in my top three favorite movies of all time. Bezos and other similar wide-ranging corporations owning news organizations is problematic to say the least.

Posted
4 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:


Pure chaos that the American people voted for. And the people who voted for it have already turned away to whatever shiny thing is distracting them next.

So do we still have to self-reflect on how out of touch we--and Democrat policies--are to the common man now that we've 100% accurately predicted his pathetic sycophant appointments and pay-to-play governing (not that that was difficult), and Trump voters are done dunking on us because they're busy purposely ignoring the shit show?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Nah - Doesn’t matter, we’re going to go the route of default before too long.  It’s either inflating our way out of debt or default.  As said elsewhere, we’re an unserious country in search of dopamine hits.  
 

I see this as the end state and probably some catastrophic event will need to happen to shock the populus before anything changes.



×
×
  • Create New...