Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Irongrip400 on April 21, 2026, 05:29:42 PM
-
So, if it goes the way of the dems, do they allow it to be voted on again in 2032 after the census?
-
It passed 50 to 49 percent. The wording was very questionable, hopefully something can be done.
-
It passed 50 to 49 percent. The wording was very questionable, hopefully something can be done.
Add wording to the list of things that need to change in government. They pulled that shit out here in CA with a gas tax and people unwittingly voted to keep. Verbiage in bills should be clear and concise.
-
A true FAFO moment. Incoming rage tweets are going to be hilarious.
-
Nobody should be proud of any side doing this.
It's just a domino effect.
Now, they'll push Florida to do it while there's still time to offset, and the horseshit will continue.
-
Nobody should be proud of any side doing this.
It's just a domino effect.
Now, they'll push Florida to do it while there's still time to offset, and the horseshit will continue.
I don't seem to recall you having this attitude when it started. Maybe I missed those posts. Link? Trumpy started this shit with Texas. Then Missouri and NC. Little MAGA wet their collective panties. But suddenly when Virginia does it, they lose their little minds with outrage. You don't get to start a gerrymandering war and then complain when the other side shows up.
-
I don't seem to recall you having this attitude when it started. Maybe I missed those posts. Link? Trumpy started this shit with Texas. Then Missouri and NC. Little MAGA wet their collective panties. But suddenly when Virginia does it, they lose their little minds with outrage. You don't get to start a gerrymandering war and then complain when the other side shows up.
You are so predictable - I literally texted chaos and said you'd bring up Texas, as that's the current talking point.
But no, it did not start there. I mean look at Massachusetts right now.
And no, I didn't say anything about it with Texas, just as I didn't with California. And, I said it's bullshit overall, even if Florida does it.
-
So, That New VA Congressional Map That Dems Want Could Get Tossed
Matt Vespa | April 22, 2026
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/04/22/so-that-new-va-congressional-map-that-dems-want-in-virginia-might-get-tossed-n2674869
-
You are so predictable - I literally texted chaos and said you'd bring up Texas, as that's the current talking point.
But no, it did not start there. I mean look at Massachusetts right now.
And no, I didn't say anything about it with Texas, just as I didn't with California. And, I said it's bullshit overall, even if Florida does it.
You know what else is predictable? Facts. And no, it did start with Texas after Trumpy called for redistricting in 2025 ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Of course you didn't say anything about it. Texas, Missouri and NC were all supposed to be in your party's favor. Your passive neutrality was evident. So no... it isn't all bullshit. It's turn about, fair play and FAFO. But "now" it is all "bullshit". ::)
Make sure you text chaos my reply here too.
-
"IT WAS RIGGED"
:D :D :D :D
Let's see the pitiful defense - or rather deflection and avoidance - of your orange hero's claim now.
-
That was fast.
Virginia judge blocks redistricting referendum result that boosted Democrats’ election hopes
Published Wed, Apr 22 2026
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/22/virginia-election-results-redistricting-congress-democrats.html
-
Rand McNally is thrilled.
-
So attempting to overturn voters again is the playbook? :D :D :D :D What is this? 2020 all over again. Subverting legit elections seems to be a trend for these losers.
-
You know what else is predictable? Facts. And no, it did start with Texas after Trumpy called for redistricting in 2025 ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Of course you didn't say anything about it. Texas, Missouri and NC were all supposed to be in your party's favor. Your passive neutrality was evident. So no... it isn't all bullshit. It's turn about, fair play and FAFO. But "now" it is all "bullshit". ::)
Make sure you text chaos my reply here too.
This has been happening way before Texas.
I didn't mention it with California either and said it would suck if Florida did it. Didn't even know about Missouri and NC........
trumpy taco trumpy taco trumpy taco..... ::)
-
This has been happening way before Texas.
I didn't mention it with California either and said it would suck if Florida did it. Didn't even know about Missouri and NC........
trumpy taco trumpy taco trumpy taco..... ::)
one party tried to end gerrymandering for 10 years, one party voted against it. I will let you guess which ones.
You could just admit the truth here.
Trump has been trying to sow distrust in elections because it's beneficial to him. If he loses, its rigged.
Claiming mail in ballots are ripe for fraud when there have been less the 80 cases in 20 years is retarded.
So they try to gerrymander to avoid the beating they are about to get, they attempt the save act in time for the mid-terms which is another failure and clear attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
They clearly know they are going to lose but are ok with cheating.
Has it not registered that this guy is a criminal and fraud yet?
-
This has been happening way before Texas.
I didn't mention it with California either and said it would suck if Florida did it. Didn't even know about Missouri and NC........
trumpy taco trumpy taco trumpy taco..... ::)
Let's stick with modern times. In 2025 Trumpy called for Texas to redistrict. And here we are.... your orange loser is whining and lying because he got beat at his own game.
But don't let that interfere with your passive neutrality facade.
:)
-
Let's stick with modern times. In 2025 Trumpy called for Texas to redistrict. And here we are.... your orange loser is whining and lying because he got beat at his own game.
But don't let that interfere with your passive neutrality facade.
:)
I'm not neutral.
I despise the left and the democrats infinitely more than any issues I have with the right.
I'm willing to accept the right's shortcomings if it means the Democrat shitstains stay out of power.
So, yes, I can say I don't like gerrymandering at all, when either side does it. But can also be aware of the history of it.
You, on the other hand, can never concede one thing or show any semblance of centrism.
-
one party tried to end gerrymandering for 10 years, one party voted against it. I will let you guess which ones.
You could just admit the truth here.
Trump has been trying to sow distrust in elections because it's beneficial to him. If he loses, its rigged.
Claiming mail in ballots are ripe for fraud when there have been less the 80 cases in 20 years is retarded.
So they try to gerrymander to avoid the beating they are about to get, they attempt the save act in time for the mid-terms which is another failure and clear attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
They clearly know they are going to lose but are ok with cheating.
Has it not registered that this guy is a criminal and fraud yet?
Claiming mail in ballots are not ripe for fraud is retarded.
-
Claiming mail in ballots are not ripe for fraud is retarded.
What evidence is there for it? that's the point, if there isn't any then your assumption is unfounded and retarded.
Its like quantum mechanics, have you heard of entanglement? einstein (look up the EPR paradox) said it makes no sense and defies common logic but yet it turned out to be true.
You can't just take surface level assumptions and hold onto them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
-
What evidence is there for it? that's the point, if there isn't any then your assumption is unfounded and retarded.
The term for this is called Arguing from Ignorance.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
But I am positive I could search for evidence, find cases of it, and you'd dismiss it.
But you could also apply common sense and stop being retarded.
-
I'm not neutral.
I despise the left and the democrats infinitely more than any issues I have with the right.
I'm willing to accept the right's shortcomings if it means the Democrat shitstains stay out of power.
So, yes, I can say I don't like gerrymandering at all, when either side does it. But can also be aware of the history of it.
You, on the other hand, can never concede one thing or show any semblance of centrism.
I take it you don't understand the definition of passive neutrality. But yeah, you are. That's why despite it being "bullshit" back then, you still chose to stay quiet about it. But as soon as the other side does it, you have to speak up. If you thought it was bullshit when Texas did it, then why didn't you say so?
Passive neutrality. Look it up.
-
The term for this is called Arguing from Ignorance.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
But I am positive I could search for evidence, find cases of it, and you'd dismiss it.
But you could also apply common sense and stop being retarded.
He's asking for evidence of a claim you made and you are making excuses on why you don't need to provide evidence for the claim to be true. You are attempting poor linguistic gymnastics to try to achieve an indirect route to your statement. Absence of evidence (proof) is always evidence (proof) of absence. If a woman takes multiple pregnancy tests and they are all negative, it means she isn't pregnant. It doesn't mean she can't get pregnant in the future, it means at that point in time she isn't. In this scenario, the sheer volume of mail in ballots vs. the actual number of fraud cases is so low there is no way they are "ripe for fraud" under the current safety checks. It is said 1 in 3 Americans vote by mail. If it were so ripe then the actual number of documented fraud cases would be higher than it is. Which is what again?
-
The term for this is called Arguing from Ignorance.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
But I am positive I could search for evidence, find cases of it, and you'd dismiss it.
But you could also apply common sense and stop being retarded.
There are cases, that's not the argument. There are cases of bank robbery and credit card fraud yet you use them? The cost benefit analysis is what's important.
This isn't that logical fallacy.
We have evidence, decades in fact and multiple investigations so while I appreciate that you brought that up its not actually applicable. If you are making the claim the burden is on you.
The fallacy applies to things like does cannabis help pain-- aka a lack of studies or approval does not mean the negative, it simply means we don't know, there is an absence (we do but I am making a point). There is no such thing wrt what we are discussing.
-
What evidence is there for it?
I can provide personal evidence for that. Recently I received the mail in ballots for our local election. I received 2 ballots for people that I had never heard of, along with a ballot for someone that hasn't lived in my house for almost 20 years, correct address, wrong names. So I had the opportunity to vote 4 times (mine plus the 3 others that don't live at my address for you retards that aren't good at math). If that's happening to me, how many others does that happen to? How many of those that receive those extra ballots cast those votes? All legit ballots and votes, right? No fraud there. ::) I guess if I had to show up in person and show ID some how I could have cast all 4 of those votes right?
-
You, on the other hand, can never concede one thing or show any semblance of centrism.
This such a obvious & common problem among Prime / Necrosis /
LurkingForBoys & all other Lefty posters - they have Zero introspect
& are Totally unable to say anything against their leftist indoctrination
& accept & back every single stupid & ridiculous thing.
Yet they think they're Oh so clever & intelligent ::) ;D :D ;D
-
All states will probably do this. Red states will become redder and blue states bluer.
-
This such a obvious & common problem among Prime / Necrosis /
LurkingForBoys & all other Lefty posters - they have Zero introspect
& are Totally unable to say anything against their leftist indoctrination
& accept & back every single stupid & ridiculous thing.
Yet they think they're Oh so clever & intelligent ::) ;D :D ;D
Very closed minded people.
-
I can provide personal evidence for that. Recently I received the mail in ballots for our local election. I received 2 ballots for people that I had never heard of, along with a ballot for someone that hasn't lived in my house for almost 20 years, correct address, wrong names. So I had the opportunity to vote 4 times (mine plus the 3 others that don't live at my address for you retards that aren't good at math). If that's happening to me, how many others does that happen to? How many of those that receive those extra ballots cast those votes? All legit ballots and votes, right? No fraud there. ::) I guess if I had to show up in person and show ID some how I could have cast all 4 of those votes right?
Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak stuff.
In theory it's rife with fraud, it provides a very key service for people who have a right to vote so if they want it replaced there needs to be a virtual option.
-
Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak stuff.
In theory it's rife with fraud, it provides a very key service for people who have a right to vote so if they want it replaced there needs to be a virtual option.
Mail in for disabled or overseas military.
Who else needs virtual?
-
Mail in for disabled or overseas military.
Who else needs virtual?
folks with disabilities across the board. Illegal immigrants.
-
This such a obvious & common problem among Prime / Necrosis /
LurkingForBoys & all other Lefty posters - they have Zero introspect
& are Totally unable to say anything against their leftist indoctrination
& accept & back every single stupid & ridiculous thing.
Yet they think they're Oh so clever & intelligent ::) ;D :D ;D
🩸
-
Actual voter fraud - of all types - is less than 0.001% Not even 1%. For something "so ripe", there isn't even enough to sway an election.
-
Actual voter fraud - of all types - is less than 0.001% Not even 1%. For something "so ripe", there isn't even enough to sway an election.
This is the point. There is clearly an ulterior motive.
-
Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak stuff.
Of course it is when it disagrees with your point of view. :)
-
Of course it is when it disagrees with your point of view. :)
It is but I am not saying it's worthless. It's considered the lowest form of evidence, technically.
The fact remains... what lurker posted is in fact correct as far as anyone knows. There is no actual evidence to the contrary and all the investigations have been pretty consistent. It's simply not a problem and what problematic elements exist are unimpactful. It's a solution to a gordian knot that doesnt exist that results in a faustian bargain of less access for vulnerable folks like seniors and the disabled for political gain.
-
It is but I am not saying it's worthless. It's considered the lowest form of evidence, technically.
The fact remains... what lurker posted is in fact correct as far as anyone knows. There is no actual evidence to the contrary and all the investigations have been pretty consistent. It's simply not a problem and what problematic elements exist are unimpactful. It's a solution to a gordian knot that doesnt exist that results in a faustian bargain of less access for vulnerable folks like seniors and the disabled for political gain.
Please list all the in depth investigations so we can evaluate.
But you still ignore the perception problem.
Many Americans feel our elections are not secure, despite what the canadian medical workers say.
So what's the downside of limiting mail ins, and requiring voter ID, which is what most of the population wants anyway?
We've already gone over limiting the barriers to voting under this scenario, so why not do it?
-
Please list all the in depth investigations so we can evaluate.
But you still ignore the perception problem.
Many Americans feel our elections are not secure, despite what the canadian medical workers say.
So what's the downside of limiting mail ins, and requiring voter ID, which is what most of the population wants anyway?
We've already gone over limiting the barriers to voting under this scenario, so why not do it?
What are the stats on wanting voter id beyond what you guys currently have? I am talking about the claim there is fraud. I would want voter ID but thats besides the point.
-
It is but I am not saying it's worthless. It's considered the lowest form of evidence, technically.
So you're admitting there's evidence... :o
-
Add wording to the list of things that need to change in government. They pulled that shit out here in CA with a gas tax and people unwittingly voted to keep. Verbiage in bills should be clear and concise.
Absolutely, and no gutting and stuffing bills either. BTW, anyone can write bills by using the initiative process in California. You can too.
-
I can provide personal evidence for that. Recently I received the mail in ballots for our local election. I received 2 ballots for people that I had never heard of, along with a ballot for someone that hasn't lived in my house for almost 20 years, correct address, wrong names. So I had the opportunity to vote 4 times (mine plus the 3 others that don't live at my address for you retards that aren't good at math). If that's happening to me, how many others does that happen to? How many of those that receive those extra ballots cast those votes? All legit ballots and votes, right? No fraud there. ::) I guess if I had to show up in person and show ID some how I could have cast all 4 of those votes right?
I guess you could if you don't mind being charged and convicted of fraud. Have you ever heard of signature verification? California uses it when processing ballots.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-regulations/elections/signature-verification-ballot-processing-and-ballot-counting-emergency-regulations
-
What are the stats on wanting voter id beyond what you guys currently have? I am talking about the claim there is fraud. I would want voter ID but thats besides the point.
Voter ID is routinely referred to as an "80/20" issue, and I have never seen push back on that. I have seen polls quoted in that range, or directionally close - 70% +.
If you need in depth specific polls, easy for you to find.
Please provide the links claiming negligent amounts of fraud. I'm not dismissing the numbers, I want to see what was actually looked at that you are basing your statements off.
-
Voter ID is routinely referred to as an "80/20" issue, and I have never seen push back on that. I have seen polls quoted in that range, or directionally close - 70% +.
If you need in depth specific polls, easy for you to find.
Please provide the links claiming negligent amounts of fraud. I'm not dismissing the numbers, I want to see what was actually looked at that you are basing your statements off.
Please remember who you are dealing with- these deranged Leftists
Cannot think straight or rationally
Just look at what they Believe & support
Oh & NO MORE KINGS - IN A COUNTRY THAT DOESNT HAVE A MONARCHY
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
-
So you're admitting there's evidence... :o
lol of course.
But thats not good enough to scrap it. What about those old folks who cant get out, diabled folks, expats etc.. is there enough evidence to justify doing that? like would you stop using a credit card because there is some degree of fraud? the amount matters.
-
So attempting to overturn voters again is the playbook? :D :D :D :D What is this? 2020 all over again. Subverting legit elections seems to be a trend for these losers.
Ehhh, I’m here and to think a state which voted 51/49 in favor of the gerrymandering had a 6/5 split before will now have a 10/1 split is beyond horrific.
-
lol of course.
But thats not good enough to scrap it. What about those old folks who cant get out, diabled folks, expats etc.. is there enough evidence to justify doing that? like would you stop using a credit card because there is some degree of fraud? the amount matters.
We've already said people that can't get out should be able to vote by mail. Voting in person with ID would ease everyones mind except democrats. Why is that?
-
I can provide personal evidence for that. Recently I received the mail in ballots for our local election. I received 2 ballots for people that I had never heard of, along with a ballot for someone that hasn't lived in my house for almost 20 years, correct address, wrong names. So I had the opportunity to vote 4 times (mine plus the 3 others that don't live at my address for you retards that aren't good at math). If that's happening to me, how many others does that happen to? How many of those that receive those extra ballots cast those votes? All legit ballots and votes, right? No fraud there. ::) I guess if I had to show up in person and show ID some how I could have cast all 4 of those votes right?
I was visiting someone in California several years ago, and they had a number of mail-in ballots at their house too.
-
I was visiting someone in California several years ago, and they had a number of mail-in ballots at their house too.
Funny enough I got mine and a few others Sample Ballot today for the state primary in June. :D
-
Funny enough I got mine and a few others Sample Ballot today for the state primary in June. :D
That's why Larry Elder had no shot. And why if a Democrat makes the top two in the jungle primary, Steve Hilton has no shot. Anyone who doesn't think these mail-in ballots are not extremely vulnerable to fraud just has their head in the sand. Or is ok with cheating.
-
That's why Larry Elder had no shot. And why if a Democrat makes the top two in the jungle primary, Steve Hilton has no shot. Anyone who doesn't think these mail-in ballots are not extremely vulnerable to fraud just has their head in the sand. Or is ok with cheating.
Only the idiotic & corrupt leftists think mail in ballots are okay - of course they do so they can
Cheat - If there was Zero benefit to them they'd be 100% against it.
Bunch of Khvnts they are.
-
Only the idiotic & corrupt leftists think mail in ballots are okay - of course they do so they can
Cheat - If there was Zero benefit to them they'd be 100% against it.
Bunch of Khvnts they are.
Completely agree. The left has shown repeatedly over the past ten years or so that they cannot play by the rules. Cannot beat your opponent at the ballot box? Try and imprison him for life. Cannot get the Supreme Court to agree with your warped views? Expand the court. Cannot get your radical agenda through the legislative process? Make DC and Puerto Rico a state. Cannot get voters to support you? Attempt to create millions of voters through open borders and amnesty. The list goes on . . . .
-
Completely agree. The left has shown repeatedly over the past ten years or so that they cannot play by the rules. Cannot beat your opponent at the ballot box? Try and imprison him for life. Cannot get the Supreme Court to agree with your warped views? Expand the court. Cannot get your radical agenda through the legislative process? Make DC and Puerto Rico a state. Cannot get voters to support you? Attempt to create millions of voters through open borders and amnesty. The list goes on . . . .
They beat him in 2020 didnt they?
you don't mind making up stuff do you?
-
They beat him in 2020 didnt they?
you don't mind making up stuff do you?
His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Remember when the Dems lost that election and spent years claiming it was rigged? Or when the Dems filed bullshit junk lawsuits over and over to overturn a fair legitimate election? Or when all those Dems got together and create a group of fake legislators to submit illegal votes that their leader had won. Remember how stupid those Dems were to sign their own name onto it as well? Making their punishment later pretty ironic. Remember when those Dems that were parroting their leader's lies got arrested, disbarred, sanctioned and had judgements against themselves and their companies over it? Those Dems that had their lives completely wiped away because of their absolute refusal to accept simple truth? We saw one of those Dems shirtless on TV just last week crying and blubbering because he lost his little company to The Onion (out of all people). Remember those Dems that end up filing bankruptcy because of their devotion to the orange liar? Remember the Dems that had their own party conduct recounts and investigations and their own party could find no wrong doings?
Remember those Dems? Yeah, I don't either. Because it was Dems.
-
His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Remember when the Dems lost that election and spent years claiming it was rigged? Or when the Dems filed bullshit junk lawsuits over and over to overturn a fair legitimate election? Or when all those Dems got together and create a group of fake legislators to submit illegal votes that their leader had won. Remember how stupid those Dems were to sign their own name onto it as well? Making their punishment later pretty ironic. Remember when those Dems that were parroting their leader's lies got arrested, disbarred, sanctioned and had judgements against themselves and their companies over it? Those Dems that had their lives completely wiped away because of their absolute refusal to accept simple truth? We saw one of those Dems shirtless on TV just last week crying and blubbering because he lost his little company to The Onion (out of all people). Remember those Dems that end up filing bankruptcy because of their devotion to the orange liar? Remember the Dems that had their own party conduct recounts and investigations and their own party could find no wrong doings?
Remember those Dems? Yeah, I don't either. Because it was Dems.
Why would dems file lawsuits that might expose their cheating ??? LOL imagine cheating and still losing. Cheat harder faggots!!!
-
They beat him in 2020 didnt they?
you don't mind making up stuff do you?
They lost to him in 2024, after they tried to imprison him for life, kick him off the ballot, and bankrupt him.
-
Why would dems file lawsuits that might expose their cheating ??? LOL imagine cheating and still losing. Cheat harder faggots!!!
Any proof of this cheating? Or is it all in that conehead of yours with those nonstop gay thoughts?
-
They lost to him in 2024, after they tried to imprison him for life, kick him off the ballot, and bankrupt him.
He lost to them in 2020. And well.... I've already listed the massive amount of crying and consequences that occurred.
-
They lost to him in 2024, after they tried to imprison him for life, kick him off the ballot, and bankrupt him.
That's because they're crooked Cheats & totally obsessed With TDS.
-
They lost to him in 2024, after they tried to imprison him for life, kick him off the ballot, and bankrupt him.
they were seeking a life sentence?
-
they were seeking a life sentence?
And bankrupt him? ::) He does that to himself well enough.
-
We've already said people that can't get out should be able to vote by mail. Voting in person with ID would ease everyones mind except democrats. Why is that?
That's just not true. If you think the way you go about it doesn't matter and that federalizing the process is the right thing to do then we would disagree. As it stands, the save act is terrible.
There needs to be something better and more thought out that won't result in people being forced to spend money or alter birth certificates.
Then you have the fact that there is no evidence of a clear problem with whats been done so far and the question arises, why would you rush it and force it through?
I know you think there is a problem, you probably think the 2020 election was stolen but there simply isn't and any problems that do arise have no impact whatsoever.
I don't know whats so hard for you guys to understand about that. I get you think there is fraud, but there isn't on any real scale.
-
That's just not true.
Retard.
-
they were seeking a life sentence?
Go look up what he was charged with, the maximum punishment, his age, and do the math.
-
And bankrupt him? ::) He does that to himself well enough.
And he’s still one of the wealthiest men on the planet. And your president.
-
Go look up what he was charged with, the maximum punishment, his age, and do the math.
Oh ok so they weren't trying to put him in jail for life like you said, just the appropriate time for his crimes. It sounded like you were being hyperbolic.
I guess if someone does something at that age you shouldn't charge them because it might be "for life". I get why you used the words you used, it clearly wasn't for effect at all.
-
Oh ok so they weren't trying to put him in jail for life like you said, just the appropriate time for his crimes. It sounded like you were being hyperbolic.
I guess if someone does something at that age you shouldn't charge them because it might be "for life". I get why you used the words you used, it clearly wasn't for effect at all.
If his life expectancy is (for example) about 20 years, but he literally faces hundreds of years of potential prison time, of course they are trying to imprison him for life.
No, you don’t refrain from charging or prosecuting someone solely because they might get life. But this something a simpleton would say.
-
If his life expectancy is (for example) about 20 years, but he literally faces hundreds of years of potential prison time, of course they are trying to imprison him for life.
No, you don’t refrain from charging or prosecuting someone solely because they might get life. But this something a simpleton would say.
HAHA
They are just trying to imprison him, how old he is is something you are adding on top. I see you didn't catch my sarcasm lol.
You are suggesting that you goof.
What about if someone dies while in prison? do you retroactively deem it was "for life" lol.
They tried to give him the appropriate sentence, how old he is or his life span etc has zero bearing on that. You just want it to so it can sound hyperbolic and worse than it is.
You have a low verbal IQ brother, sorry to say.
-
And he’s still one of the wealthiest men on the planet. And your president.
He's also a lying, whining, 34 count convicted felon, twice impeached sex abuser, who can't do business in his favorite state of NY. And the man you voted 3 times for.
-
He's also a lying, whining, 34 count convicted felon, twice impeached sex abuser, who can't do business in his favorite state of NY. And the man you voted 3 times for.
And still your 2 time 2 time 2 time PRESIDENT!!! ;D ;D
-
And still your 2 time 2 time 2 time PRESIDENT!!! ;D ;D
would of been somewhat clever if you only repeated it twice instead of three. Or are you going meta and pretending he actually won 2020? Nah never mind you didn't put that much thought into it.
-
would of been somewhat clever if you only repeated it twice instead of three. Or are you going meta and pretending he actually won 2020? Nah never mind you didn't put that much thought into it.
LMAO!
-
Voter ID is routinely referred to as an "80/20" issue, and I have never seen push back on that. I have seen polls quoted in that range, or directionally close - 70% +.
If you need in depth specific polls, easy for you to find.
Please provide the links claiming negligent amounts of fraud. I'm not dismissing the numbers, I want to see what was actually looked at that you are basing your statements off.
According to the Secretary of State
Is voter fraud a problem in Oregon?
No. Oregon elections are secure and protected against voter fraud in all but exceedingly rare instances.
A review of the vote by mail system by the state’s Legislative Fiscal Office found from 2000-2019 there were approximately 61 million ballots cast. Of those, 38 criminal convictions of voter fraud were obtained. This amounts to a .00006% rate.
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/security.aspx
Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state.
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections
-
would of been somewhat clever if you only repeated it twice instead of three. Or are you going meta and pretending he actually won 2020? Nah never mind you didn't put that much thought into it.
Meltdown
-
HAHA
They are just trying to imprison him, how old he is is something you are adding on top. I see you didn't catch my sarcasm lol.
You are suggesting that you goof.
What about if someone dies while in prison? do you retroactively deem it was "for life" lol.
They tried to give him the appropriate sentence, how old he is or his life span etc has zero bearing on that. You just want it to so it can sound hyperbolic and worse than it is.
You have a low verbal IQ brother, sorry to say.
Your logic and analytical ability suck.
-
He's also a lying, whining, 34 count convicted felon, twice impeached sex abuser, who can't do business in his favorite state of NY. And the man you voted 3 times for.
What was the underlying crime supporting the 34 felonies?
I voted for Trump twice you lying zombie.
And you sound like this guy. :o
“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” Allen wrote, apparently referring to the president.
WHCD suspect Cole Allen sent anti-Trump manifesto, wanted to take out officials: ‘The Friendly Federal Assassin’
By Steven Nelson and Chris Nesi
Published April 26, 2026
https://nypost.com/2026/04/26/us-news/whcd-gunman-cole-allen-sent-anti-trump-manifesto-to-family-just-before-opening/
-
What was the underlying crime supporting the 34 felonies?
I voted for Trump twice you lying zombie.
And you sound like this guy. :o
“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” Allen wrote, apparently referring to the president.
WHCD suspect Cole Allen sent anti-Trump manifesto, wanted to take out officials: ‘The Friendly Federal Assassin’
By Steven Nelson and Chris Nesi
Published April 26, 2026
https://nypost.com/2026/04/26/us-news/whcd-gunman-cole-allen-sent-anti-trump-manifesto-to-family-just-before-opening/
Many people forget that folks are considered innocent until proven guilty... even when a lot of other folks think they are indeed guilty or they simply do not like someone and wish they would be found guilty of something. I admit that I am guilty of believing where there is smoke there is fire.
-
Tit for tat, looks like Florida is next. :)
-
Many people forget that folks are considered innocent until proven guilty... even when a lot of other folks think they are indeed guilty or they simply do not like someone and wish they would be found guilty of something. I admit that I am guilty of believing where there is smoke there is fire.
I don't forget that. I just know that the presumption of innocence applies to a courtroom, not a person's opinion. Nothing wrong with forming an opinion before someone is actually convicted (unless you're sitting on a jury). And as we saw with OJ, the system doesn't always get it right.
I agree with the smoke/fire thing. Things usually are as they appear to be, the simplest explanation is typically the best, etc. But not always.
-
I don't forget that. I just know that the presumption of innocence applies to a courtroom, not a person's opinion. Nothing wrong with forming an opinion before someone is actually convicted (unless you're sitting on a jury). And as we saw with OJ, the system doesn't always get it right.
I agree with the smoke/fire thing. Things usually are as they appear to be; the simplest explanation is typically the best, etc. But not always.
People's opinions and perceptions greatly impact whether we think someone is guilty or innocent. Whether wrong or right, juries are made up of regular people, people who, like it or not, have opinions. Jurors are strictly instructed to keep an open mind and not form an opinion or discuss the case until all evidence, arguments, and instructions are presented. Not everyone follows those instructions even when they say or even believe they have. Human nature prevails.
As for smoke and fire, more smoke often means a bigger fire. How many fires does the average person face in their lifetime? Some folks are on the hot seat more than others. It is only natural to wonder why they are.
-
People's opinions and perceptions greatly impact whether we think someone is guilty or innocent. Whether wrong or right, juries are made up of regular people, people who, like it or not, have opinions. Jurors are strictly instructed to keep an open mind and not form an opinion or discuss the case until all evidence, arguments, and instructions are presented. Not everyone follows those instructions even when they say or even believe they have. Human nature prevails.
As for smoke and fire, more smoke often means a bigger fire. How many fires does the average person face in their lifetime? Some folks are on the hot seat more than others. It is only natural to wonder why they are.
People who are not serving on a jury have no obligation to refrain from forming an opinion about someone's guilt or innocence.
-
People who are not serving on a jury have no obligation to refrain from forming an opinion about someone's guilt or innocence.
This is obvious. Did I say otherwise?
-
This is obvious. Did I say otherwise?
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, because you appear to be saying people should not have an opinion about someone's guilt or innocence before they are actually convicted. If you're not saying that, then ok, I accept that.
-
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, because you appear to be saying people should not have an opinion about someone's guilt or innocence before they are actually convicted. If you're not saying that, then ok, I accept that.
I was not saying that at all. In fact, I believe the reality is that the opposite is true. For as long as I can recall, people I know have (sometimes strong) opinions about pretty much everything, including someone's guilt or innocence. However, many people do not qualify their opinions. And yet, we do tend to justify them.
My opinions about Trump are influenced by my dislike of the man. And I disliked him long before he was a political figure.
-
I was not saying that at all. In fact, I believe the reality is that the opposite is true. For as long as I can recall, people I know have (sometimes strong) opinions about pretty much everything, including someone's guilt or innocence. However, many people do not qualify their opinions. And yet, we do tend to justify them.
My opinions about Trump are influenced by my dislike of the man. And I disliked him long before he was a political figure.
I thought Trump was a clown when he first entered the race. I despised him. You can read my posts about him on the board. But three things happened. First, I did what Hillary Clinton lied and said we should do: gave him an open mind and opportunity to lead. Second, I realized I had been duped by the media by things like mocking a reporter's disability. Third, I focused on what he actually did instead of what he said on social media.
-
Many people forget that folks are considered innocent until proven guilty... even when a lot of other folks think they are indeed guilty or they simply do not like someone and wish they would be found guilty of something. I admit that I am guilty of believing where there is smoke there is fire.
Oh yeah sure Except when it comes to Joe Biden - Hypocrite.
-
Oh yeah sure Except when it comes to Joe Biden - Hypocrite.
There is nothing hypocritical about this. To repeat: Many people forget that folks are considered innocent until proven guilty.
-
There is nothing hypocritical about this. To repeat: Many people forget that folks are considered innocent until proven guilty.
PLENTY OF SMOKE AROUND BIDEN - SO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S FIRE ?
-
Looks like Texas will get it's way. Florida next...tit for tat!
-
Tit for tat, looks like Florida is next. :)
You tards started it lol
didnt the dems introduce a bill blocking all gerrymandering but every repub voted no? I am pretty sure that happened.
-
I thought Trump was a clown when he first entered the race. I despised him. You can read my posts about him on the board. But three things happened. First, I did what Hillary Clinton lied and said we should do: gave him an open mind and opportunity to lead. Second, I realized I had been duped by the media by things like mocking a reporter's disability. Third, I focused on what he actually did instead of what he said on social media.
You listened to him speak and thats what convinced you?
The man is banned from his home state wrt business is he not? lolol.
Trump is leading you into pure idiocracy.
-
You tards started it lol
didnt the dems introduce a bill blocking all gerrymandering but every repub voted no? I am pretty sure that happened.
Looks like they'll finish it too. 8)
-
I thought Trump was a clown when he first entered the race. I despised him. You can read my posts about him on the board. But three things happened. First, I did what Hillary Clinton lied and said we should do: gave him an open mind and opportunity to lead. Second, I realized I had been duped by the media by things like mocking a reporter's disability. Third, I focused on what he actually did instead of what he said on social media.
In my opinion, your initial instincts about Trump were correct. Sometime in the future, you will have come full circle, because you will wake up to reality.
I am surprised that you listened to Hillary Clinton. During her concession speech on November 9, 2016, she said what was expected of her when she declared, "We owe him (Trump) an open mind and the chance to lead."
Are you still focused today on what Trump is doing? Have you not noticed that Trump eventually does much of what he posts on Truth Social and says to MSM. His posts are often more of a warning of what's to come -- from him.
There was a time when you and I agreed about Trump. I have hope that this happens again.
-
What was the underlying crime supporting the 34 felonies?
I voted for Trump twice you lying zombie.
And you sound like this guy. :o
“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” Allen wrote, apparently referring to the president.
WHCD suspect Cole Allen sent anti-Trump manifesto, wanted to take out officials: ‘The Friendly Federal Assassin’
By Steven Nelson and Chris Nesi
Published April 26, 2026
https://nypost.com/2026/04/26/us-news/whcd-gunman-cole-allen-sent-anti-trump-manifesto-to-family-just-before-opening/
For falsifying business records. And you only voted twice? Stay home with a tummy ache during one of the elections? Must be why you are kissing his ass extra hard now to make up for that one time.
-
In my opinion, your initial instincts about Trump were correct. Sometime in the future, you will have come full circle, because you will wake up to reality.
I am surprised that you listened to Hillary Clinton. During her concession speech on November 9, 2016, she said what was expected of her when she declared, "We owe him (Trump) an open mind and the chance to lead."
Are you still focused today on what Trump is doing? Have you not noticed that Trump eventually does much of what he posts on Truth Social and says to MSM. His posts are often more of a warning of what's to come -- from him.
There was a time when you and I agreed about Trump. I have hope that this happens again.
Did she say that after her Giant tantrum & smashing everything she could & running away from
Addressing her supporters on the Night.
Just left them waiting - Hideous Slag - America Dodged a bullet that night.
-
Did she say that after her Giant tantrum & smashing everything she could & running away from
Addressing her supporters on the Night.
Just left them waiting - Hideous Slag - America Dodged a bullet that night.
Ask Dos Equis. He is who brought Hillary's comments up.
-
For falsifying business records. And you only voted twice? Stay home with a tummy ache during one of the elections? Must be why you are kissing his ass extra hard now to make up for that one time.
Maybe you should read the thread, LurkingforBOYS
-
You listened to him speak and thats what convinced you?
The man is banned from his home state wrt business is he not? lolol.
Trump is leading you into pure idiocracy.
Here is what I said:
I thought Trump was a clown when he first entered the race. I despised him. You can read my posts about him on the board. But three things happened. First, I did what Hillary Clinton lied and said we should do: gave him an open mind and opportunity to lead. Second, I realized I had been duped by the media by things like mocking a reporter's disability. Third, I focused on what he actually did instead of what he said on social media.
Your reading comprehension sucks.
-
For falsifying business records.
And how do you know this when the jury was not required to find that he falsified business records?
Here is a little help:
Judge Merchan issued legally incorrect jury instructions
• Judge Merchan instructed the jurors that they “need not be unanimous as to
what those unlawful means were.”2
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
-
For falsifying business records. And you only voted twice? Stay home with a tummy ache during one of the elections? Must be why you are kissing his ass extra hard now to make up for that one time.
I voted for Trump twice. I didn't only vote twice, you lying zombie. Wait. Are you just outright lying, or do you just not understand what I said?
-
I voted for Trump twice. I didn't only vote twice, you lying zombie. Wait. Are you just outright lying, or do you just not understand what I said?
3X
-
Maybe you should read the thread, LurkingforBOYS
Maybe you should read the question I was asked, GAYaos.
-
And how do you know this when the jury was not required to find that he falsified business records?
Here is a little help:
Judge Merchan issued legally incorrect jury instructions
• Judge Merchan instructed the jurors that they “need not be unanimous as to
what those unlawful means were.”2
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
Sounds like he might want to pay more attention to checks he signs then.
-
I voted for Trump twice. I didn't only vote twice, you lying zombie. Wait. Are you just outright lying, or do you just not understand what I said?
So reading the first two sentences of a reply is your limit?
-
3X
You voted for Trump three times?
-
Sounds like he might want to pay more attention to checks he signs then.
That's your response? Do you understand that there is no way to tell whether or not the jury determined that Trump falsified business records? I gave you the info.
-
So reading the first two sentences of a reply is your limit?
::)
-
Virginia Supreme Court leaves order temporarily blocking redistricting certification in place
by Sophie Brams - 04/29/26
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5854983-virginia-supreme-court-redistricting/
-
That's your response? Do you understand that there is no way to tell whether or not the jury determined that Trump falsified business records? I gave you the info.
Do you understand if he hadn't signed those checks that he would have never been in front of a jury?
-
Do you understand if he hadn't signed those checks that he would have never been in front of a jury?
Do you realize of dems didn't have TDS he would never have been in front of a jury?
-
Do you realize of dems didn't have TDS he would never have been in front of a jury?
I didn't know Michael Cohen was a Dem.
-
I didn't know Michael Cohen was a Dem.
You don't have to be a dem to have TDS, RetardforBOYS.
-
Do you understand if he hadn't signed those checks that he would have never been in front of a jury?
Just playing devils advocate here, I am small fucking potatoes, but I can see how running the enterprise he does that you can sign a lot of shit and never really fully read it.
I know I do, and I don’t have shit compared to him and all the paperwork drives me crazy. Shit, I even have an in house controller and I still get caught looking sometimes.
-
You don't have to be a dem to have TDS, RetardforBOYS.
Don't try and confuse him with the facts. I know I've said this before, but I've tried to have a rational discussion with him and he's just not capable of doing it.
-
You don't have to be a dem to have TDS, RetardforBOYS.
No but you have to be fat and stupid to deflect constantly GAYaos.
-
That's your response? Do you understand that there is no way to tell whether or not the jury determined that Trump falsified business records? I gave you the info.
Maybe you should try this info :
Yes, it is possible to tell that the jury determined Donald Trump falsified business records.
On May 30, 2024, a New York jury unanimously found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. Here is how that determination was made and how it can be verified:
1. The Verdict Sheet (Public Record)The jury filled out a public Verdict Sheet in the Manhattan criminal trial (Indictment No. 71543-23). The sheet clearly lists "GUILTY" for all 34 counts, which included:11 invoices from Michael Cohen to the Trump Organization.11 checks and stubs used to pay Cohen.12 general ledger entries from the Trump Organization.
2. What "Guilty" Specifically Means HereTo reach this verdict, the jury had to unanimously conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that:Trump created or caused false entries to be made in the business records of the Trump Organization.He did so with the intent to defraud.The falsification was done to conceal or commit a separate crime (making it a felony under New York law), such as violating tax or election laws.
3. Jury ConfirmationWhen the verdict was read in court, the jury foreperson stated "Guilty" 34 consecutive times. Following this, Judge Juan Merchan asked the jury if the verdict was unanimous, and each juror confirmed it individually.
That really was like a 3 second search.
-
No but you have to be fat and stupid to deflect constantly GAYaos.
Well you are fat and stupid....and gay and probably on a watch list because of your blue hair and flapjack titties.
-
Well you are fat and stupid....and gay and probably on a watch list because of your blue hair and flapjack titties.
I see you discovered mirrors. Or is this one of the 12 Step Program requirements? Admitting your flaws?
Fat - check
Stupid - check
Gay - CHECK
titties - CHECK
The only things you left off of was the conehead, cankles and shitty ass prison tattoos. But I am sure you will get around to this in Part Two. But good start. Self admittance is a step to overcoming your constant projections.
-
I see you discovered mirrors. Or is this one of the 12 Step Program requirements? Admitting your flaws?
Fat - check
Stupid - check
Gay - CHECK
titties - CHECK
The only things you left off of was the conehead, cankles and shitty ass prison tattoos. But I am sure you will get around to this in Part Two. But good start. Self admittance is a step to overcoming your constant projections.
Typical of you blue haired, nose ringed type, reading comprehension is out of your capacity.
-
Maybe you should try this info :
Yes, it is possible to tell that the jury determined Donald Trump falsified business records.
On May 30, 2024, a New York jury unanimously found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. Here is how that determination was made and how it can be verified:
1. The Verdict Sheet (Public Record)The jury filled out a public Verdict Sheet in the Manhattan criminal trial (Indictment No. 71543-23). The sheet clearly lists "GUILTY" for all 34 counts, which included:11 invoices from Michael Cohen to the Trump Organization.11 checks and stubs used to pay Cohen.12 general ledger entries from the Trump Organization.
2. What "Guilty" Specifically Means HereTo reach this verdict, the jury had to unanimously conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that:Trump created or caused false entries to be made in the business records of the Trump Organization.He did so with the intent to defraud.The falsification was done to conceal or commit a separate crime (making it a felony under New York law), such as violating tax or election laws.
3. Jury ConfirmationWhen the verdict was read in court, the jury foreperson stated "Guilty" 34 consecutive times. Following this, Judge Juan Merchan asked the jury if the verdict was unanimous, and each juror confirmed it individually.
That really was like a 3 second search.
I get that you are unable to understand what actually happened--and frankly you're just dishonest--but for the benefit of anyone else reading, no one knows what the underlying crime was. Here is a repost of I provided earlier:
Judge Merchan issued legally incorrect jury instructions
• Judge Merchan instructed the jurors that they “need not be unanimous as to
what those unlawful means were.”2
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
In other words, only one of the three options the jury was given included "falsification of records," but we don't know if that is the underlying crime they selected.
-
I get that you are unable to understand what actually happened--and frankly you're just dishonest--but for the benefit of anyone else reading, no one knows what the underlying crime was. Here is a repost of I provided earlier:
Judge Merchan issued legally incorrect jury instructions
• Judge Merchan instructed the jurors that they “need not be unanimous as to
what those unlawful means were.”2
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
In other words, only one of the three options the jury was given included "falsification of records," but we don't know if that is the underlying crime they selected.
While you may be saying we don't know the underlying theory they chose, we know the underlying crime. Falsification of business records with intent.
-
Typical of you blue haired, nose ringed type, reading comprehension is out of your capacity.
Typical of you estrogen soaked, B Cup, wide waist, cankle cursed, whining type - deflecting, pivoting and excuse making overrides facts.
-
You voted for Trump three times?
Yes. 6X if you count the primaries.
-
I get that you are unable to understand what actually happened--and frankly you're just dishonest--but for the benefit of anyone else reading, no one knows what the underlying crime was. Here is a repost of I provided earlier:
Judge Merchan issued legally incorrect jury instructions
• Judge Merchan instructed the jurors that they “need not be unanimous as to
what those unlawful means were.”2
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
In other words, only one of the three options the jury was given included "falsification of records," but we don't know if that is the underlying crime they selected.
There was even more to it than that, but we've been over it.
This one was bound to be overturned on it's own merit.
It accomplished it's mission - to get the talking point out and have the sheep parrot it.
Smart people saw it for what it is, and not let it affect anything.
-
Typical of you estrogen soaked, B Cup, wide waist, cankle cursed, whining type - deflecting, pivoting and excuse making overrides facts.
You wouldn't know a fact if it pulled out and slapped you across the face then wiped itself off on your curtains, LurkingforBOYS.
-
You wouldn't know a fact if it pulled out and slapped you across the face then wiped itself off on your curtains, LurkingforBOYS.
Is this your self loathing version of TDS about what facts do? No wonder you are a pivotin, raving faggot.
-
Is this your self loathing version of TDS about what facts do? No wonder you are a pivotin, raving faggot.
Much like your gender, this post makes no sense.
-
Much like your gender, this post makes no sense.
Much like heterosexuality, testosterone and masculine characteristics are lost on you GAYaos?
-
While you may be saying we don't know the underlying theory they chose, we know the underlying crime. Falsification of business records with intent.
You got it backward. They found he used unlawful means. Falsification of business records was one of three unlawful means they could have picked. We don't know which one they picked.
-
There was even more to it than that, but we've been over it.
This one was bound to be overturned on it's own merit.
It accomplished it's mission - to get the talking point out and have the sheep parrot it.
Smart people saw it for what it is, and not let it affect anything.
They had to engage in gymnastics, doing something that had never been done, using a ridiculous set of facts, over something that should be akin to a parking ticket.
-
You got it backward. They found he used unlawful means. Falsification of business records was one of three unlawful means they could have picked. We don't know which one they picked.
Doesn't matter which one they picked. They unanimously agreed that Trump was guilty on all 34 counts.
-
Doesn't matter which one they picked. They unanimously agreed that Trump was guilty on all 34 counts.
Yes but that doesn't count and he isnt a rapist either! its all made up! the 2020 election was stolen as well and trump finished first in his class despite records showing otherwise. The man doesn't lie!
-
Yes but that doesn't count and he isnt a rapist either! its all made up! the 2020 election was stolen as well and trump finished first in his class despite records showing otherwise. The man doesn't lie!
Glad to see you're slowly opening your eyes.
-
Glad to see you're slowly opening your eyes.
I think you actually believe what I said above about Trump.
-
I think you actually believe what I said above about Trump.
I don't believe anything you post. You are a notorious fibber.
-
I don't believe anything you post. You are a notorious fibber.
name ten times i lied?
-
name ten times i lied?
Open your post history and see for yourself.
-
Open your post history and see for yourself.
oh so you can't even name ten lies?
-
Doesn't matter which one they picked. They unanimously agreed that Trump was guilty on all 34 counts.
So you say this:
For falsifying business records.
I try and help you understand we don't know if the jury found that he falsfified business records:
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
Now you say it doesn't matter whether or not the jury actually found that he falsified business records.
-
oh so you can't even name ten lies?
Lie#1^^^
Lie #2
The retarded thing is it's likely effecting the markets, they would be even higher without all this bullshit lololol.
Lie#3
you pusillanimous pugnacious truculent troglodyte
Lie#4
All exoteric religious people are retarded. You can't convince me otherwise.
Lie#5
He clearly should be impeached. He is as corrupt as they come. The bitcoin thing should of been the end of it. No reasonable person thinks its fine to scam, rob and defraud folks of their money whilst being alive let alone the president. He then rug pulled again with Melania. It's disgusting behaviour. The ballroom thing is another fucking debacle. How about the tariffs, basically stealing from consumers whilst lying to them about who is paying. He is hocking shit from the white house like it's a temu distribution center, pretending to make folks insiders if they give him money... lol. it's what plants crave!
Threatening to attack a friendly in Greenland and causing a shit show. Talking about building hotels in Gaza. Starting a war costing the whole world after clearly lying about the previous attack, bankrupting farmers and having to us taxpayer money to bail them out. Waging economic war on friends and allies.
I mean I could go on how horrendous of a human being this man is but it appears tons of magatards are already turning on him. It's a never ending shit show.
Congress is doing literally nothing. Won't matter, mid-terms will be a nightmare, the world can rest a bit easier knowing that one of the biggest imbeciles on the planet is neutered.
Lie#6
https://github.com/abdoqwert0112/5/blob/main/readme.md#12-new-photos-of-trump-in-epsteins-files
Who isn't friends with a pedophile. This guy has more pics with this man then I do with my wife lol.
Lie#7
wasnt this predicted before the event? that there would be a mic drop moment? a big event was reported.
The guy is clearly getting a ton of money from the ballroom for favors lol. It's not even disclosed to congress how he is funding it nor by whom- just donors.
Then you have tards like Chaos who cheer him on while he makes a mockery of your country.
The guy is dying and can't get enough money. The greed is insane .
Lie#8
Nothing to see here folks, Patel only has two arrests for being a drunk. Definitely a hit piece.
It's not like you could literally know nothing about him and just assume he is incompetent because he is willing to work with trump. Surely the self-proclaimed extraordinarily brilliant man surrounds himself with nothing but the best and isn't giving out positions based on fealty or anything.
I just got my welfare cheque. I am thinking trump coins a safe place to park some money.
Lie#9
No doubt he is grifting.
Man is a rapist criminal.
Lie#10
there is an accusation in the files and another from a limo driver regarding things he said with epstein. He has been accused of sexual assault by 20 plus women. The judge presiding over the case for carroll said that the jury found the sexual abuse met the common definition of rape. He was found liable. He has bragged about going backstage to view naked girls (some underage) on tape. He said he just grabs women by the pussy- because he is a star
He was best friends with the largest pedophile in the world, who died under his watch suspiciously. He has obfuscated the files and asked to be removed from them according to the FBI. He gave maxwell an all inclusive spa package. He has been found lying about things related to epstein.
Yes this is all just my imagination, it's not context. The guy is a saint. He is the best of the best of course and should be president.
Don't be like the other fools on here, you're better then that. You know I think he is a rapist pedo but would agree I could not prove it and you know it's not because there isn't any smoke.
-
Lie#1^^^
Lie #2
Lie#3
Lie#4
Lie#5
Lie#6
Lie#7
Lie#8
Lie#9
Lie#10
I appreciate the effort, truly. lol
-
I appreciate the effort, truly. lol
No problem, glad you enjoyed the trip down memory lane.
-
So you say this:
I try and help you understand we don't know if the jury found that he falsfified business records:
• Judge Merchan provided the jury with three options of “unlawful means”: a
violation of Federal election law, violation of tax law, or falsification of records.
• Under these instructions, the jury was not required to agree on the underlying
crime Trump committed. It could have been split 4-4-4 among the three vague,
distinct options provided by the judge.
• The jury was ultimately only unanimous with respect to half of the elements.
• The underlying crime and the jurors’ agreement on it remain entirely unknown.
https://aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf
Now you say it doesn't matter whether or not the jury actually found that he falsified business records.
They reached an unanimous agreement that he was guilty on 34 counts. Are you denying this? It doesn't matter which of the three choices they took to reach it. They were not responsible for determining which underlying crime was committed, only that a crime was committed. They were given parameters and defined options and only had to find at least one of the options applied. They didn't have to specify what they agreed on. By your same argument, there is no way to know they didn't all agree on the same one or not.
-
They reached an unanimous agreement that he was guilty on 34 counts. Are you denying this? It doesn't matter which of the three choices they took to reach it. They were not responsible for determining which underlying crime was committed, only that a crime was committed. They were given parameters and defined options and only had to find at least one of the options applied. They didn't have to specify what they agreed on. By your same argument, there is no way to know they didn't all agree on the same one or not.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMnk1NjBsZjdlMjZ1YnEwaGVzZ3ZxZWM1M2Ywd2RhNmJsbnB0b242NCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Ph0oIVQeuvh0k/200.webp)
-
They reached an unanimous agreement that he was guilty on 34 counts. Are you denying this? It doesn't matter which of the three choices they took to reach it. They were not responsible for determining which underlying crime was committed, only that a crime was committed. They were given parameters and defined options and only had to find at least one of the options applied. They didn't have to specify what they agreed on. By your same argument, there is no way to know they didn't all agree on the same one or not.
He won't answer because it's obvious. The guy has essentially been found guilty of rape and other crimes and is clearly fucking grifting money (fraudulently ) whilst in the whitehouse and these clowns love it.
-
He won't answer because it's obvious. The guy has essentially been found guilty of rape and other crimes and is clearly fucking grifting money (fraudulently ) whilst in the whitehouse and these clowns love it.
Another lie. Why do liberals lie so much?
-
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMnk1NjBsZjdlMjZ1YnEwaGVzZ3ZxZWM1M2Ywd2RhNmJsbnB0b242NCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Ph0oIVQeuvh0k/200.webp)
Of course facts leave you dumbfound. Oxygen does too apparently.
-
Another lie. Why do liberals lie so much?
I mean he was convicted, so technically and legally it's true.
I suppose if you are a conspiracy theorist it's not true.
-
You fags quit arguing about shit not germane to this situation.
-
I mean he was convicted, so technically and legally it's true.
Technically and legally, there are no convictions in civil trials.
-
Technically and legally, there are no convictions in civil trials.
was he not convicted on 34 counts?
-
was he not convicted on 34 counts?
I am going off this exchange:
He won't answer because it's obvious. The guy has essentially been found guilty of rape and other crimes and is clearly fucking grifting money (fraudulently ) whilst in the whitehouse and these clowns love it.
Another lie. Why do liberals lie so much?
I mean he was convicted, so technically and legally it's true.
I suppose if you are a conspiracy theorist it's not true.
What do the 34 "felonies" have to do with rape.
-
I am going off this exchange:
What do the 34 "felonies" have to do with rape.
I wrote and other crimes.
He was liable in the other case which is tantamount to guilty. But I can see where you got super hung up on things here ::)
The man is a criminal and continues to commit crimes whilst in office. It's shameful stuff.
-
I wrote and other crimes.
He was liable in the other case which is tantamount to guilty. But I can see where you got super hung up on things here ::)
The man is a criminal and continues to commit crimes whilst in office. It's shameful stuff.
Hung up? Anyone reading that would have likely been confused.
Anyway, you're wrong on rape, regardless.
However, it's interesting that you will dismiss what doesn't fit your narrative with a quick google (americasdigitalshield, for example), but won't go into the Bragg case in depth.
Any thinking person, regardless of political affiliation, should have major issues with this case.
It's the litmus test for who is a partisan sheep or not.
-
Hung up? Anyone reading that would have likely been confused.
Anyway, you're wrong on rape, regardless.
However, it's interesting that you will dismiss what doesn't fit your narrative with a quick google (americasdigitalshield, for example), but won't go into the Bragg case in depth.
Any thinking person, regardless of political affiliation, should have major issues with this case.
It's the litmus test for who is a partisan sheep or not.
He was find liable and then for defamation was he not? his appeal was denied as well as far as I am aware. I will say it's not something I have dug into at all as I don't really give a fuck about politics all that much.
Are you saying he was not found liable for rape/sexual abuse?
-
He was find liable and then for defamation was he not? his appeal was denied as well as far as I am aware. I will say it's not something I have dug into at all as I don't really give a fuck about politics all that much.
Are you saying he was not found liable for rape/sexual abuse?
You are conflating again.
The Bragg case is the 34 felonies. That is the one you should look at in depth so you don't fall into the sheeple category.
The E Jean Carroll is the civil case where he was responsible for damages.
Neither case has him "essentially convicted of rape" and are both complete horseshit.
-
You are conflating again.
The Bragg case is the 34 felonies. That is the one you should look at in depth so you don't fall into the sheeple category.
The E Jean Carroll is the civil case where he was responsible for damages.
Neither case has him "essentially convicted of rape" and are both complete horseshit.
This is what the judge said
Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".
I know the differences in the two cases, I have not looked into the Bragg stuff at all, I simply don't have time to dive deeply into this stuff unless there was a debate to be had and a bit of fun.
I am certain of his character based on his actions, pattern recognition and accumulated information. The man is a conman, narc who clearly abuses his power and has admitted as much.
I would imagine the judge has more knowledge on the case than either of us and unless you were biased, one would have to accept the outcome and veracity of the suit.
-
This is what the judge said
Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".
I know the differences in the two cases, I have not looked into the Bragg stuff at all, I simply don't have time to dive deeply into this stuff unless there was a debate to be had and a bit of fun.
I am certain of his character based on his actions, pattern recognition and accumulated information. The man is a conman, narc who clearly abuses his power and has admitted as much.
I would imagine the judge has more knowledge on the case than either of us and unless you were biased, one would have to accept the outcome and veracity of the suit.
Oh please, we have AI now - you could get the gist of the bullshit around Bragg in minutes. I mean, seriously, ask yourself the following: "Do I know what the felonies are, and why there's 34?". If you don't, then you should educate yourself if you're going to parrot it.
Anyway, the Carrol case had zero evidence. Since you're SO busy, I got a summary of the issues with it:
Key elements of the case: In the 2023 civil trial (Carroll II), a federal jury in New York found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996 (specifically, forcible digital penetration, which met the civil standard for sexual abuse but not the narrow New York Penal Law definition of "rape" requiring penile penetration). The jury also found him liable for defaming her in 2022 statements. It awarded $5 million. A follow-on 2024 defamation trial added $83.3 million.
The case was civil (preponderance of the evidence, ~51% standard), not criminal. Trump did not attend the first trial or testify live. Appeals have largely upheld the verdicts so far, though Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court.
Critics (including Trump's legal team and supporters) have raised several substantive issues with the case's fairness, evidence, and process. Here are the main ones, grounded in public records:
1. Extreme Delay and Statute of Limitations Revival
The alleged incident occurred ~27–28 years before the battery claim was filed. No contemporaneous police report, physical evidence, or medical exam existed.
Carroll filed her initial defamation suit in 2019 (after publicizing the claim in a book excerpt). The battery claim came in late 2022 under New York's Adult Survivors Act (ASA), a one-year lookback window specifically reviving time-barred adult sexual assault civil claims.
Critics argue this retroactive revival raises due process concerns for the defendant, especially for decades-old claims reliant on faded memories. Trump challenged the ASA's constitutionality. Similar lookback laws have faced scrutiny elsewhere for fairness to defendants.
2. Lack of Corroborating Physical or Eyewitness Evidence
No DNA, forensics, or video: Carroll claimed she had a dress from the incident but declined or did not pursue DNA testing that could have provided definitive evidence (or exoneration). Critics highlight this as a missed opportunity that tainted credibility, especially given her public references to the dress.
No eyewitnesses to the alleged assault in a busy Manhattan department store.
Evidence for the encounter itself was primarily Carroll's testimony, plus two friends she says she told shortly afterward (hearsay, but admitted). A photo of Carroll and Trump from 1987 was shown, but it predated the incident.
In a "he said/she said" with a decades-long gap, this leaves heavy reliance on credibility assessments rather than hard proof.
3. Evidentiary Rulings Favoring the Plaintiff
"Other acts" testimony: The court admitted testimony from two other women (Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff) alleging similar misconduct by Trump years earlier or later. This was allowed under Federal Rule of Evidence 415 in sexual assault civil cases, which has a low bar and no strict time limit. Critics argue it was highly prejudicial propensity evidence (i.e., "he's done it before, so he did it here") that overwhelmed the specific claim, especially given the time gaps. Trump’s team has appealed this as conflicting with Rule 403 balancing.
Access Hollywood tape (2005): Played for the jury, in which Trump made vulgar comments about women ("grab them by the pussy"). Admitted as relevant to pattern/credibility, but critics call it a 10-year-old hot-mic statement unrelated to the 1990s incident and inflammatory.
Restrictions on defense evidence: Trump argued the court limited rebuttal, including on inconsistencies in Carroll's account or her motivations.
4. Credibility and Motive Issues with Carroll's Account
Carroll could not pinpoint the exact date (only mid-1990s window). Details evolved or faced challenges (e.g., on the dress, location specifics).
She came forward publicly in 2019 during #MeToo and while promoting a book. Critics view the timing as opportunistic/political, especially given her opposition to Trump. Trump called it a "hoax" and said she was "not his type."
The jury rejected the rape claim (penile penetration) but accepted sexual abuse. Some see this as inconsistency in her core story; others see it as jurors splitting hairs on legal definitions.
Funding and contingency aspects of her legal team have been scrutinized by critics.
5. Venue, Judge, and Jury Context
Trial in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), a heavily Democratic area. Trump argued bias in venue and rulings by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
Trump's deposition clips (e.g., denying knowing Carroll while mixing up her photo with Marla Maples, comments on "his type") were damaging and played to the jury.
Counterpoints and Context
The jury (unanimous after short deliberation) found Carroll met the preponderance standard, crediting her testimony and pattern evidence over Trump's denials. Courts have rejected many of Trump's challenges on appeal. Many other women have accused Trump of similar misconduct, which his defenders dismiss as coordinated or unproven. Trump has consistently denied all such claims and often attacked the accusers' appearances or motives.
Bottom line: Legally, the verdicts stand as a civil finding under relaxed standards and specific evidentiary rules for sexual assault cases. Substantively, legitimate flaws exist around the extreme delay, absence of physical proof, heavy use of propensity evidence from unrelated acts, and a specially tailored statute reviving old claims against a political opponent. These raise reasonable doubts about reliability and fairness for skeptics, even if they satisfied the jury and appellate courts. The case turned more on credibility and pattern than forensic proof. Ongoing Supreme Court review may address some procedural issues.
I firmly belive if this wasn't Trump, you would be looking at it the same way.
-
Hung up? Anyone reading that would have likely been confused.
Anyway, you're wrong on rape, regardless.
However, it's interesting that you will dismiss what doesn't fit your narrative with a quick google (americasdigitalshield, for example), but won't go into the Bragg case in depth.
Any thinking person, regardless of political affiliation, should have major issues with this case.
It's the litmus test for who is a partisan sheep or not.
Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carrol case. The main difference between sexual abuse and rape is that the latter typically involves penetration.
-
Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carrol case. The main difference between sexual abuse and rape is that the latter typically involves penetration.
No, he wasn't. There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.
He's liable for damages.
And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.
On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.
-
No, he wasn't. There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.
He's liable for damages.
And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.
On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.
Don’t argue, that dude is a fucking moron.
-
No, he wasn't. There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.
He's liable for damages.
And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.
On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.
Your nitpicking of legal terms aside, you are correct, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation because it was a civil and not a criminal trial. This was because the criminal statute of limitations had expired by the time the allegation was made public. Lucky for Trump.
Considering she had no evidence or eyewitnesses; she must have been extremely convincing about the sexual abuse since the jury believed her and ruled in her favor. As for defaming her, this is just one more example of Trump not knowing when to keep his mouth shut, IMO.
-
You fags quit arguing about shit not germane to this situation.
Leave the Jacksons out of this.
(https://imagez.tmz.com/image/c9/4by3/2026/04/24/c976f5a47e974b12af31d43687f98c4d_md.png)
-
Your nitpicking of legal terms aside, you are correct, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation because it was a civil and not a criminal trial. This was because the criminal statute of limitations had expired by the time the allegation was made public. Lucky for Trump.
Considering she had no evidence or eyewitnesses; she must have been extremely convincing about the sexual abuse since the jury believed her and ruled in her favor.
It's not nitpicking, it's eons of difference.
She didn't have to be convincing. They were getting the decision they wanted regardless.
-
Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carrol case. The main difference between sexual abuse and rape is that the latter typically involves penetration.
Did you know Carrol couldn't identify the day or even the year she was allegedly raped?
-
Oh please, we have AI now - you could get the gist of the bullshit around Bragg in minutes. I mean, seriously, ask yourself the following: "Do I know what the felonies are, and why there's 34?". If you don't, then you should educate yourself if you're going to parrot it.
Anyway, the Carrol case had zero evidence. Since you're SO busy, I got a summary of the issues with it:
I firmly belive if this wasn't Trump, you would be looking at it the same way.
Thats not AI, please don't be as dumb as chaos and the like. It's from wikipedia, I don't use AI as I am nearly a luddite to be honest.
You can look it up, third paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump
If there was zero evidence the judge and jury should be sued and the appeals should work. Strange how that didn't. You are coming across a little like a conspiracy theorist and showing some serious group think here.
-
No, he wasn't. There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.
He's liable for damages.
And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.
On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.
The judge's quote is directly there, we are not privy to all of the evidence, do you think the judge is lying or just a moron? it would have to be one or the other, but I suppose they are mutually exclusive.
-
The judge's quote is directly there, we are not privy to all of the evidence, do you think the judge is lying or just a moron? it would have to be one or the other, but I suppose they are mutually exclusive.
Do you think a judge is infallible or impartial 100% of the time?
-
Thats not AI, please don't be as dumb as chaos and the like. It's from wikipedia, I don't use AI as I am nearly a luddite to be honest.
You can look it up, third paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump
If there was zero evidence the judge and jury should be sued and the appeals should work. Strange how that didn't. You are coming across a little like a conspiracy theorist and showing some serious group think here.
I didn't say it was AI. I said you could use AI to summarize the Bragg Case, after you claimed "you didn't have time".
-
The judge's quote is directly there, we are not privy to all of the evidence, do you think the judge is lying or just a moron? it would have to be one or the other, but I suppose they are mutually exclusive.
I didn't not see what you are saying when I read it, so I put the third paragraph into AI and asked the following:
In layman's terms, in this paragraph, does the judge in the trial say there is additional evidence we are not privy to? "Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."
The answer:
No, the judge does not say (or even imply) that there is additional evidence the public is not privy to.
In plain terms, here's what the paragraph actually says the judge did:
The jury heard the evidence presented in the trial and decided Trump was not liable for "rape" under New York's strict legal definition at the time (which required forcible penile penetration). They found him liable for the lesser offense of sexual abuse.
Judge Kaplan later clarified two things:
In his view, what the jury did find (the sexual abuse) still counts as "rape" in everyday/common language — even if it didn't meet the narrow legal definition.
When he dismissed Trump's countersuit, he wrote that E. Jean Carroll's accusation of rape was "substantially true."
This is the judge interpreting and commenting on the same evidence the jury already considered in open court. He is not hinting at secret evidence, withheld proof, or anything the public doesn't know about. He's essentially saying: "Based on what was proven at trial, her core claim holds up as substantially true."
The paragraph contains no reference to any hidden or extra evidence.
Did I use the wrong one?
-
I didn't not see what you are saying when I read it, so I put the third paragraph into AI and asked the following:
The answer:
Did I use the wrong one?
I honestly don't like AI. I find it gives you the answers you are looking for. I put in a bunch of genetics RS numbers the other day and prompted it without text and with text (which I knew was wrong) and it gave me two different answers.
I don't care what AI thinks, if you want to share you personal thoughts I would be happy to engage!
-
I honestly don't like AI. I find it gives you the answers you are looking for. I put in a bunch of genetics RS numbers the other day and prompted it without text and with text (which I knew was wrong) and it gave me two different answers.
I don't care what AI thinks, if you want to share you personal thoughts I would be happy to engage!
It didn't give me what I was looking for. I asked it objectively to verify what you said, and provided the paragraph stated.
So, in my own words:
You said the judge said in paragraph three there was evidence we aren't privy to.
I read paragraph three and did not see that.
Where did you read that in paragraph three from your wiki link? Here it is to save you time:
"Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."
-
For a guy that doesn't follow politics Negrosis sure has all of the TDS talking points down. ::)
-
For a guy that doesn't follow politics Negrosis sure has all of the TDS talking points down. ::)
I would just like to explain where in paragraph 3 the judge says there was evidence we were not privy to, as he claimed.
He could have already answered it, but chose to ignore what was written because.......AI.
-
I would just like to explain where in paragraph 3 the judge says there was evidence we were not privy to, as he claimed.
He could have already answered it, but chose to ignore what was written because.......AI.
You are claiming the verdict was bullshit- you would be the one that is required to prove that. They attempted to prove that, in court and failed. What more defense do I need? the appeal failed and was he not then ordered to pay her money for defamation?
My point is unless I am mistaken the judge would have heard the full case, the arguments in toto which we did not- that's a very safe assumption unless you were in the courtroom? The ulterior point of my post is that you claiming it's bullshit would force one to believe that you know better then the jury and judge. Your AI post is slop and simply an opinion, nothing more and a bad one at that.
Lets play the AI game
would the judge be privy to more information than a layperson or person not involved with the case
Yes. A judge in a case like this is typically exposed to much more information than an ordinary person following the case through news coverage.
For example, Lewis A. Kaplan would have had access to:
Full testimony from witnesses
Evidence submitted by both sides
Pretrial motions and legal arguments
Depositions
Material that may never have been widely reported publicly
Arguments over what evidence the jury was or was not allowed to hear
A judge also spends much more time examining the consistency and credibility of evidence than a casual observer would.
That said, there is an important distinction:
The judge cannot simply decide based on private beliefs or secret information.
The formal verdict still depends on the legal standards and the evidence properly admitted in court.
In this case involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, the jury made the factual findings. Judge Kaplan later interpreted what those findings meant legally and linguistically.
So when Kaplan later said Carroll’s rape accusation was “substantially true,” he was not saying “I secretly know more than the public.” He was saying that, based on the evidence and the jury’s findings, the ordinary-language description “rape” was supported even though the technical New York statutory definition had not been met.
Exactly what I am claiming.
-
You are claiming the verdict was bullshit- you would be the one that is required to prove that. They attempted to prove that, in court and failed. What more defense do I need? the appeal failed and was he not then ordered to pay her money for defamation?
My point is unless I am mistaken the judge would have heard the full case, the arguments in toto which we did not- that's a very safe assumption unless you were in the courtroom? The ulterior point of my post is that you claiming it's bullshit would force one to believe that you know better then the jury and judge. Your AI post is slop and simply an opinion, nothing more and a bad one at that.
Lets play the AI game
would the judge be privy to more information than a layperson or person not involved with the case
Yes. A judge in a case like this is typically exposed to much more information than an ordinary person following the case through news coverage.
For example, Lewis A. Kaplan would have had access to:
Full testimony from witnesses
Evidence submitted by both sides
Pretrial motions and legal arguments
Depositions
Material that may never have been widely reported publicly
Arguments over what evidence the jury was or was not allowed to hear
A judge also spends much more time examining the consistency and credibility of evidence than a casual observer would.
That said, there is an important distinction:
The judge cannot simply decide based on private beliefs or secret information.
The formal verdict still depends on the legal standards and the evidence properly admitted in court.
In this case involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, the jury made the factual findings. Judge Kaplan later interpreted what those findings meant legally and linguistically.
So when Kaplan later said Carroll’s rape accusation was “substantially true,” he was not saying “I secretly know more than the public.” He was saying that, based on the evidence and the jury’s findings, the ordinary-language description “rape” was supported even though the technical New York statutory definition had not been met.
Exactly what I am claiming.
It would be much easier if you would just admit you didn't know what "preponderance of evidence" meant and move on. It's ok to admit mistakes.
But for anyone who wants cliff's notes, here a summary:
GA: Trial was bullshit, no evidence
Nec: The Judge had access to more evidence than we did, look at this link in paragraph three, it says it right there.
GA: I read you link, didn't see it, asked AI to confirm and it didn't either
Nec: I don't use AI
GA: Ok, where does it say it
Nec: Here, let me use AI, but never show you where it was said in my link
Take the L. Move on.
-
It would be much easier if you would just admit you didn't know what "preponderance of evidence" meant and move on. It's ok to admit mistakes.
But for anyone who wants cliff's notes, here a summary:
GA: Trial was bullshit, no evidence
Nec: The Judge had access to more evidence than we did, look at this link in paragraph three, it says it right there.
GA: I read you link, didn't see it, asked AI to confirm and it didn't either
Nec: I don't use AI
GA: Ok, where does it say it
Nec: Here, let me use AI, but never show you where it was said in my link
Take the L. Move on.
I am predicting Necrosis' response will look something like this:
While I remain cognizant of the epistemological limitations inherent to any self-assessment of intellectual hierarchy, the asymmetry in our respective capacities for abstraction, synthesis, and metacognitive inference appears sufficiently nontrivial that continued attempts at parity-based discourse may constitute an inefficient allocation of cognitive resources.
-
I'm starting to think Necrosis might be a tad dishonest.
-
A true FAFO moment. Incoming rage tweets are going to be hilarious.
Virginia Supreme Court tosses out congressional map that favored Democrats
By Kathryn Watson
Updated on: May 8, 2026
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-supreme-court-redistricting-congressional-map-democrats/
-
It would be much easier if you would just admit you didn't know what "preponderance of evidence" meant and move on. It's ok to admit mistakes.
But for anyone who wants cliff's notes, here a summary:
GA: Trial was bullshit, no evidence
Nec: The Judge had access to more evidence than we did, look at this link in paragraph three, it says it right there.
GA: I read you link, didn't see it, asked AI to confirm and it didn't either
Nec: I don't use AI
GA: Ok, where does it say it
Nec: Here, let me use AI, but never show you where it was said in my link
Take the L. Move on.
He was found liable lolol.
What are you talking about? you used AI first and I used it after to show you how silly it was to do so. Your prompt got you the information you wanted.
It's like living in a bizzaro world- guys is found liable, then liable for defamation, his appeal rejected and you are saying its all bullshit on the grounds of some weak circumstantial evidence like you tried the case or something. You then lock on to something I said which is completely reasonable, aka you didn't try the case and clearly the jury and judge heard way more evidenced and arguments than you.
You clearly took the L. You are arguing for things that never happened in clear contradistinction to reality.
You seem to be having trouble deciphering the multiple arguments I made and are lumping them all into one run on topic.
I am not even sure what we are arguing? he was found liable by the jury and the judge.
-
It didn't give me what I was looking for. I asked it objectively to verify what you said, and provided the paragraph stated.
So, in my own words:
You said the judge said in paragraph three there was evidence we aren't privy to.
I read paragraph three and did not see that.
Where did you read that in paragraph three from your wiki link? Here it is to save you time:
You need to go read my paragraph again lol.
The claim was not related to the quote. I am making a general statement about lay people making claims like the case was bullshit (you) based on internet sleuthing, while a judge who sat on the case would clearly be privy to more information (in all cases, not simply this one). I am not saying there is some clandestine information per se but that you claiming bullshit is silly and clearly related to your partisan hackery.
You are latching onto it because you have no leg to stand on here.
-
I told you so. ;D ;D
-
I told you so. ;D ;D
You did.
-
I see I have you guys trauma bonding now LOL.
Two grown men talking about another man in private than sharing it publicly giggling like little school girls.
I will take this as another W.
I am undefeated so far if anyone is keeping track.
-
I see I have you guys trauma bonding now LOL.
Two grown men talking about another man in private than sharing it publicly giggling like little school girls.
I will take this as another W.
I am undefeated so far if anyone is keeping track.
Epic display of arrogance from the far left canadian. It's part of the problem with you people, you're too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
-
Libturds and their kid-raping cult is just getting destroyed all over...
-
I see I have you guys trauma bonding now LOL.
Two grown men talking about another man in private than sharing it publicly giggling like little school girls.
I will take this as another W.
I am undefeated so far if anyone is keeping track.
Who said we assumed you're a man?
-
Epic display of arrogance from the far left canadian. It's part of the problem with you people, you're too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
I won, carry on.
-
I won, carry on.
So did the pigeon after he knocked all the chess pieces over.
-
So did the pigeon after he knocked all the chess pieces over.
I see you don't know how to play chess. Tracks.
-
I see you don't know how to play chess. Tracks.
If you add the best attributes of Strawman and Lurker together, you get Necrosis. Well done my northern neighbour.
-
If you add the best attributes of Strawman and Lurker together, you get Necrosis. Well done my northern neighbour.
:-*
-
If you add the best attributes of Strawman and Lurker together, you get Necrosis. Well done my northern neighbour.
I was wrong about you.
-
I was wrong about you.
I smell weakness! I see you boys are co-ordinating your attacks and method of troll. I appreciate the effort and thanks for the laughs, truly.
At this rate I am going to create a discord chat full of abuse victims. It's just a bit of fun after all. The allostatic load you are carrying is too much to bare, makes sense to spread it around.
-
Court denies Virginia’s request to reinstate congressional map that would benefit Democrats
By Amy Howe
May 15, 2026
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/court-denies-virginias-request-to-reinstate-congressional-map-that-would-benefit-democrats/
-
Court denies Virginia’s request to reinstate congressional map that would benefit Democrats
By Amy Howe
May 15, 2026
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/court-denies-virginias-request-to-reinstate-congressional-map-that-would-benefit-democrats/
9-0. Even the justice who can't define what a woman is voted against the libs.