US Politics Thread

[Jelenafan]

Identify as whatever you want mate. That's the new world we live in. I identify as myself it's more than enough

 

[Federberg]

so the orange turd has been found to be a sexual abuser. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand by his own words he pretty much outed himself. Also his claims that she wasn't his type was pretty much refuted by the fact that he mistook a picture of her to be his ex- Marla Maples. For sure on that basis alone I think that him being found guilty of defamation was appropriate, he didn't have to get himself in trouble with that. But... this thing about bringing suits to SA allegations after decades? Nah.. that's a bit weird to me. Particularly when the alleged victim can't even remember when the thing happened!

 

[Jelenafan]

How Troubling Are the Payments and Gifts to Ginni and Clarence Thomas?

They’ve gone on for years and they raise serious questions about accountability at the Supreme Court.

www.newyorker.com

The many ethics scandals of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, briefly explained

We’re keeping a running list as more and more reports continue to pile up about Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas.

www.vox.com

Ok per Clarence Thomas and his disclosure issues; doesnt pass the common sense rule, your great nephew that you are raising has all his tuition expenses paid by your billionaire buddy?

Disclosure statements are filed regularly with those in public service, they can seem repetitive & redundant, ive filled them out regularly just serving on a board with government grants and its boring & tedious, but again, common sense detector

 

[Federberg]

How Troubling Are the Payments and Gifts to Ginni and Clarence Thomas?

They’ve gone on for years and they raise serious questions about accountability at the Supreme Court.

www.newyorker.com

The many ethics scandals of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, briefly explained

We’re keeping a running list as more and more reports continue to pile up about Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas.

www.vox.com

Ok per Clarence Thomas and his disclosure issues; doesnt pass the common sense rule, your great nephew that you are raising has all his tuition expenses paid by your billionaire buddy?

Disclosure statements are filed regularly with those in public service, they can seem repetitive & redundant, ive filled them out regularly just serving on a board with government grants and its boring & tedious, but again, common sense detector

this text book corruption. If that's not bad enough, apparently the Chief Justice's wife has earned millions from commissions for legal recruitment at top law firms. You can't make shit up. How on earth would he have a moral authority to censure Thomas??

 

[Fiero425]

this text book corruption. If that's not bad enough, apparently the Chief Justice's wife has earned millions from commissions for legal recruitment at top law firms. You can't make shit up. How on earth would he have a moral authority to censure Thomas??

Dems can't jaywalk w/o a Congressional hearing to sort it out! We have outright corrupt SC Justices and nothing's done but to add to their #'s!

 

[Moxie]

How Troubling Are the Payments and Gifts to Ginni and Clarence Thomas?

They’ve gone on for years and they raise serious questions about accountability at the Supreme Court.

www.newyorker.com

The many ethics scandals of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, briefly explained

We’re keeping a running list as more and more reports continue to pile up about Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas.

www.vox.com

Ok per Clarence Thomas and his disclosure issues; doesnt pass the common sense rule, your great nephew that you are raising has all his tuition expenses paid by your billionaire buddy?

Disclosure statements are filed regularly with those in public service, they can seem repetitive & redundant, ive filled them out regularly just serving on a board with government grants and its boring & tedious, but again, common sense detector

I think ethics oversight of the Supremes is coming. Possibly even term limits.

 

[Moxie]

so the orange turd has been found to be a sexual abuser. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand by his own words he pretty much outed himself. Also his claims that she wasn't his type was pretty much refuted by the fact that he mistook a picture of her to be his ex- Marla Maples. For sure on that basis alone I think that him being found guilty of defamation was appropriate, he didn't have to get himself in trouble with that. But... this thing about bringing suits to SA allegations after decades? Nah.. that's a bit weird to me. Particularly when the alleged victim can't even remember when the thing happened!

You weren't on the jury. They found the claim credible.

On a side note: I saw that bit where Trump mistook the woman for his ex-wife, Marla. That was odd! Fox News has spent an awful lot of time and effort at making Biden look dotty. If you ask me, that one makes Trump look borderline Alzheimer's. Even with 3 wives, you think you'd recognize all of them in a photo.

 

[Moxie]

George Santos charged with fraud, money laundering and more crimes in New York court

The embattled congressman pleaded not guilty in his first appearance in federal court.

www.cbsnews.com

On top of everything, the guy took unemployment. And I heard this quote from him today: "There's a book in this." He has his exit strategy. Somebody forgot to tell him that you don't get profits from book deals based on your crimes. But it will give him something to do in prison.

 

[Federberg]

You weren't on the jury. They found the claim credible.

On a side note: I saw that bit where Trump mistook the woman for his ex-wife, Marla. That was odd! Fox News has spent an awful lot of time and effort at making Biden look dotty. If you ask me, that one makes Trump look borderline Alzheimer's. Even with 3 wives, you think you'd recognize all of them in a photo.

As usual you succeed in misunderstanding my post with gusto I’ve learned that even explaining further is a waste of my energy as you’re always so convinced what you felt I mean is what counts. Nothing to do with the jury.. putz

 

[Moxie]

As usual you succeed in misunderstanding my post with gusto I’ve learned that even explaining further is a waste of my energy as you’re always so convinced what you felt I mean is what counts. Nothing to do with the jury.. putz

I'm perfectly happy if you refuse to waste your energy with me anymore. Better than encountering your bile. I understood your point. You find the sexual abuse part of the judgement late in the day, while agreeing with the defamation. My point stands. The jury found it credible. You can re-litigate it on the internet if you like, but your opinion isn't the same as what the jury knew, and they were unanimous. That's my opinion, as a response to your comment. Not an especial amount of gusto, just a rebuttal. You've made it clear that you think men are getting a raw deal out there.

 

[Federberg]

I'm perfectly happy if you refuse to waste your energy with me anymore. Better than encountering your bile. I understood your point. You find the sexual abuse part of the judgement late in the day, while agreeing with the defamation. My point stands. The jury found it credible. You can re-litigate it on the internet if you like, but your opinion isn't the same as what the jury knew, and they were unanimous. That's my opinion, as a response to your comment. Not an especial amount of gusto, just a rebuttal. You've made it clear that you think men are getting a raw deal out there.

You just proved my point. You don’t understand my point

 

[Jelenafan]

If it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?

Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.

 

[Federberg]

If it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?

Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.

I won’t be surprised if he has a strong argument for appeal

 

[tented]

If it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?

Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.

Given that it’s Trump, I suspect this event really did happen, but it is problematic, in a broader sense, that testimony is permitted about events from decades ago. There have been many studies showing how faulty memory is.

 

[Federberg]

I hear the CNN Townhall was a disaster. It's a tough problem but I don't see how it's right to de-platform the guy. I just hope that the more he exposes himself this time folks just come away feeling.... not again! On a percentage basis he has won fewer and fewer votes from the electorate. That's what I'll have to hang my hat on...

 

[Moxie]

If it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?

Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.

Spring of 1996 is fairly specific, as is the 6th floor dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, in the lingerie dept., if I have that right.

It should be remembered that this was a civil case. The woman sued Trump for defamation. In order to prove she was defamed, she has to convince the jury that what she said about him was true, since he called her a liar. As far as the jury was concerned, unanimously, they thought she did. As for the "Rashomon," Trump declined to offer his side, even though he said he would. All he did was go on TV and defame her all over again.

As @tented points out, memories aren't always reliable, and it was a long time ago. But she did tell two women, who are journalist-friends, (she herself is a journalist,) one on the day and another the day or two after, and it's not that hard of a thing to remember, especially as Trump was a well-known figure, even then. Again, it's not a criminal conviction, it was a civil case.

 

[Federberg]

debt ceiling done it seems. That senile old Biden just keeps winning. Frankly I'm getting tired of it!

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

jeepers! I'm hearing that Tucker Carlson's first show on Twitter had 70 million views. Versus Fox News averaging a couple of million in the same time slot. Oops!

 

[Fiero425]

jeepers! I'm hearing that Tucker Carlson's first show on Twitter had 70 million views. Versus Fox News averaging a couple of million in the same time slot. Oops!

Such hateful people like to pay attn. on the Q-T! Conservative radio, not social media has been thriving over TV for years!