The Race For 2024

[Shadowy Man]

Do you really think this was EJC's thirty year plan?

I don’t know, after Obama’s Kenyan family snuck a birth announcement into a local Hawaiian newspaper, I wouldn’t put any level of Count of Monte Cristo long term planning past these scheming lefties.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

President Biden has been suffering from memory loss and exhibits signs of early onset dementia. He couldn't recall the name of a German leader or his son's birthday. You know Donald Trump would never forget, because he never cared enough to know it in the first place because he only cares about making America Great Again. *Donald's Voice: I'm going to make America great again for every man, woman, camera, tv...*

Donald Trump for President - A man who is such a stable genius, his IQ rivals his LDL level.

*Donald's voice: And if you donate $50 to me now, I'll even blow up NATO.*

 

[southernhybrid]

Yes, Biden is old, but there have been plenty of world leaders who were at least his age. Biden's biggest problem is that he's a thin man with a raspy voice, leaving some to think he's mentally impaired. I don't think he is, but even if he was senile, I'd prefer a mildly senile man to a deranged psychopathic senile man like Trump. Sure, it would be good if we had better choices, but we don't so this is one race when voting for the least harmful one is true. Trump is a threat not only to the US, but to the world. Biden isn't a threat, and despite those who dislike Harris, I'll take her any day over Trump or any of the Trump suckers who want to be his VP. Right now, I think Trump may easily win, but a lot of things could happen between now and then, so there is hope.

I did read this morning that several groups that support liberal policies, like early childhood education, for example, are putting up huge sums of money to help the Democrats this fall. I'm not convinced that money is going to win this race, but if they can get out the vote, that's a good thing. I've also read that the Black churches in Georgia are uniting to work at getting out the vote. Supposedly this has never happened before, so that's another good thing that might help the Democrats.

To quote Paul Rieckhoff, a few minutes ago, "Donald Trump is a totally disgusting human being". Amen Paul.

 

[Derec]

Under oath.

And people don't lie under oath? Especially when they are motivated by personal loyalty and politics?

Do you really think this was EJC's thirty year plan?

No. Her friends may be lying about her telling them this. Or EJC may have made it up for personal sympathy (a version of Munchhausen's) and later used it first to sell her book and later to sue him in a friendly jurisdiction.
I do believe EJC is a fabulist. Remember when the accusation first surfaced publicly? It was when EJC was promoting her book where she made claims that she was sexually assaulted by many different men throughout her life. How likely is that to be even remotely true? Note also her bizarre interview with Anderson Cooper and similarities to a Law and Order storyline.

No, the only reason "your ilk" believes this crap is because of who the victim of the witch hunt is. If EJC (or somebody like her) was accusing a Dem you would not be buying it for a nanosecond.

Besides, your claim was that "there was lots of evidence". Other than these two statements, what "lots of evidence" are you referring to? Because this seems to be the grand total of it, and it ain't "lots".

 

[Derec]

No, it does and we can observe why.

Only through a funhouse mirror.

You are giving some evidence right now, but said there was no evidence. Some evidence is more than zero.

No real evidence. No disinterested witnesses. No physical evidence.
Only claims by her friends that she told them about it decades earlier.

What is some of the evidence? I mean, there's EJC herself. She's the victim.

She is the accuser. Just like Tawana Brawley, Crystal Magnum, Jackie Coakley and countless others.

So that's evidence. Of course, it's evidence in a similar fashion to Trump saying he didn't do it. But then you also have Trump himself who said he used to grab women by the pussy.

Accusation itself is not evidence. Especially when the accusation was originally made in order to sell her book.
And even if Trump's claims are anything but idle talk that does not mean he assaulted EJC herself.

He said "they let you do it."

Seems consensual.

More than two dozen women have come forward publicly to talk about sexual misconduct by Trump.

And EJC would have known about these accusations and would have seen it as an easy way to make a buck by jumping on that gravy train.

Of course, that certainly isn't enough to be convincing

This is where the case should have been dismissed. EJC has no evidence that anything happened at Bergdorf. Trump being the kind of person who would do something like this is not evidence.

EJC's testimony and Trump's public comments.

That's not evidence. How about physical evidence? How about disinterested witnesses?

Then, you have Lisa Birnbach who testified she got a phone call from EJC minutes after it happened. So, so far we have 3 bits of evidence.

Is there any corroboration for that? Like a recorded message that can be authenticated as being from 1996 or whenever this could have happened? Otherwise, statements by the friend of the accuser are not evidence. Any more than statements by Jackie Coakley's friend were.

You have an employee who said that the lingerie dept was often not staffed in those times, another bit of evidence--that's 5.

How is that evidence of anything happening? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it also is not evidence of presence. It's just nothing.

You have another employee who said there were no security cameras there--that's 6.

Same as your claimed evidence 5. No evidence is no evidence.

Then, you DO actually have another woman testifying to Trump's character of criminal sexual misconduct. Jesica Leeds--that's 7. Natasha Stoynoff--that's 8.

Being the person who would do stuff like that, even if true, is not evidence of EJC's particular claims. Or otherwise any woman could claim Trump raped her and would be believed sans evidence because he is the type of person who would do that. I believe EJC did just that.

A psychologist who testified EJC has psychological symptoms of being raped--that's 9 pieces of evidence.

EJC in her book accused a number of men of attacking her. I agree she has psychological issues but I do not think they stem from being raped. Rather, I think her mental health issues caused her to make up stories.

You may not LIKE the evidence, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

I would not consider any of this evidence. You have a very low standard of what evidence is. Lack of employees or cameras around a changing room is NOT evidence that a rape happened in a changing room in the 90s.

This is exactly my problem with the US tort system. Very little if any evidence is actually required, the juries treat it more as a popularity contest (which side do they like more?) and the juries can make up any dollar amount as "damages". The whole system needs to be reformed from the ground up.

 

[Ford]

I must say that looking afar from down under I am pleased that thus far we have not seen the torrent of words, images emanating from you septics like in 2016 & 2020. Praise God for small mercies.

Am aware though that the silly , sorry the campaigning, season has not yet begun.

As someone far away in America, I wish we had an outfit like the one in your country that produces the "Honest Government Ads" on YouTube. Because we sure do have plenty of shitfuckery they could have a go at.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have a source for your claim about why Ms. Carroll was found more believable than Mr. Trump or is it simply impossible for you to accept that a woman can be more credible than a man (especially Mr. Trump)?

That was obviously my opinion based on utter lack of any evidence.
What "source" would you expect to exist, short of the unlikely possibility of jurors coming clean about their motivations?

At least you are forthright about your bias.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Anyone who gives credence to Trump over 99.999% of humanity has never understood The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf.

 

[ZiprHead]

Under oath.

And people don't lie under oath? Especially when they are motivated by personal loyalty and politics?

Do you really think this was EJC's thirty year plan?

No. Her friends may be lying about her telling them this. Or EJC may have made it up for personal sympathy (a version of Munchhausen's) and later used it first to sell her book and later to sue him in a friendly jurisdiction.
I do believe EJC is a fabulist. Remember when the accusation first surfaced publicly? It was when EJC was promoting her book where she made claims that she was sexually assaulted by many different men throughout her life. How likely is that to be even remotely true? Note also her bizarre interview with Anderson Cooper and similarities to a Law and Order storyline.

No, the only reason "your ilk" believes this crap is because of who the victim of the witch hunt is. If EJC (or somebody like her) was accusing a Dem you would not be buying it for a nanosecond.

Besides, your claim was that "there was lots of evidence". Other than these two statements, what "lots of evidence" are you referring to? Because this seems to be the grand total of it, and it ain't "lots".

He admitted to it in the grab them by the pussy speech.

 

[laughing dog]

Under oath.

And people don't lie under oath? Especially when they are motivated by personal loyalty and politics?

Is this another conjecture on your part or do you have a shred of independent evidence to support your opinion?

 

[southernhybrid]

Under oath.

And people don't lie under oath? Especially when they are motivated by personal loyalty and politics?

Do you really think this was EJC's thirty year plan?

No. Her friends may be lying about her telling them this. Or EJC may have made it up for personal sympathy (a version of Munchhausen's) and later used it first to sell her book and later to sue him in a friendly jurisdiction.
I do believe EJC is a fabulist. Remember when the accusation first surfaced publicly? It was when EJC was promoting her book where she made claims that she was sexually assaulted by many different men throughout her life. How likely is that to be even remotely true? Note also her bizarre interview with Anderson Cooper and similarities to a Law and Order storyline.

No, the only reason "your ilk" believes this crap is because of who the victim of the witch hunt is. If EJC (or somebody like her) was accusing a Dem you would not be buying it for a nanosecond.

Besides, your claim was that "there was lots of evidence". Other than these two statements, what "lots of evidence" are you referring to? Because this seems to be the grand total of it, and it ain't "lots".

He admitted to it in the grab them by the pussy speech.

I don't remember the exact number, but at least 20 women accused Trump of some type of sexual assault. Women very rarely lie about such things, despite what some men might believe. Plus, Trump is obviously a pathological liar. He lies almost every time he opens his mouth. Why should we believed a lair over 20 women with no history of criminal behavior. Why would anyone defend Trump is beyond me.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Under oath.

And people don't lie under oath? Especially when they are motivated by personal loyalty and politics?

Is this another conjecture on your part or do you have a shred of independent evidence to support your opinion?

Just because someone can do something doesn’t mean that they did do something. Thats the same standard Derec is applying to Trump, but he seems unwilling to apply that to the witnesses. Is there any evidence they were lying?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Kids are being pushed along from grade to grade whether or not they learn anything. Some colleges are implementing easily cheatable online exams even in in-person classes to artificially boost grades and graduation rates. Meanwhile, school districts are getting rid of 8th grade algebra in the name of "equity".

Something I was told by a teacher: The district wants to pass the problem kids to get rid of them sooner. Hold a kid back and you're going to have deal with the trouble they cause for another year.

 

[Tigers!]

I must say that looking afar from down under I am pleased that thus far we have not seen the torrent of words, images emanating from you septics like in 2016 & 2020. Praise God for small mercies.

Am aware though that the silly , sorry the campaigning, season has not yet begun.

As someone far away in America, I wish we had an outfit like the one in your country that produces the "Honest Government Ads" on YouTube.

They are pretty good. One thing we Aussies do well is poking fun at each other. Tall poppy syndrome.

Because we sure do have plenty of shitfuckery they could have a go at.

Just like every damn country on earth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see that D,J. Trump won 99.1% of the vote in one of the two Nevada primaries. (Voters were allowed to vote in BOTH primaries.)

I know Haley and Trump were not on the same ballot, but Google doesn't show me the ballot with Trump's name. Was there a "None of the above" option? There WAS another name on the ballot; at worst he could have been viewed as a stand-in for None-of-the-Above. Was the 99.1% figure a percent of all ballots cast -- as it should have been -- or a percent of only non-blank ballots?

Nevada made a mockery of the Republican primary process this year, but I still have a question.

How on Earth did the orange-flavored psychopath get 99% of the vote??? I read about at least a few Republicans regaining their sanity and rejecting Trump. But this didn't seem to affect Gopsters voting in that Nevada Primary. 99.1% !!! What gives?

We only had one primary. We switched from caucus to ballot for the primary. However, the GOP went ahead and held a caucus anyway. Note that his name was not on the primary ballot--the QOP has said they will not permit a candidate in the general that went with the primary rather than the caucus. AFAIK it's still being fought about in court--unless they can subvert the system it seems to me that he's not going to be on the ballot for the general.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Kids are being pushed along from grade to grade whether or not they learn anything. Some colleges are implementing easily cheatable online exams even in in-person classes to artificially boost grades and graduation rates. Meanwhile, school districts are getting rid of 8th grade algebra in the name of "equity".

Something I was told by a teacher: The district wants to pass the problem kids to get rid of them sooner. Hold a kid back and you're going to have deal with the trouble they cause for another year.

Don’t hold them back and you’ll just be dealing with them later when they take over the school board.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is about time.

.....
Legislation introduced Tuesday by a pair of Democratic lawmakers would close a loophole that lets billionaires donate assets to dark money organizations without paying any taxes.

The U.S. tax code allows write-offs when appreciated assets such as shares of stock are donated to a charity, but the tax break doesn't apply when the assets are given to political groups.
....

New Bill Would Prevent Billionaires From Donating to Dark Money Groups Tax-Free | Common Dreams

"Billionaires attempting to influence politics from the shadows should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

www.commondreams.org

I don't like it--they're going at it wrong. Charities should be completely prohibited from political activity beyond saying whether they agree or disagree with a political position. Don't fix stock donations, fix the whole thing!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't remember the exact number, but at least 20 women accused Trump of some type of sexual assault. Women very rarely lie about such things, despite what some men might believe. Plus, Trump is obviously a pathological liar. He lies almost every time he opens his mouth. Why should we believed a lair over 20 women with no history of criminal behavior. Why would anyone defend Trump is beyond me.

I wouldn't say "very rarely lie" because it's a crime with an above average false reporting rate. However, many of those are trying to cover up consensual behavior and a decent amount more are retaliation by young women over perceived wrongs. When a bunch of women accuse one person of sexual misdeeds it's almost certainly either true or collusion--and for the latter they must have some connection.

It's like with the Kavanaugh allegations--it wasn't too long ago that I would have categorically said that there wasn't possible to have adequate evidence to prove long-ago rape allegations. But then Kavanaugh basically proved the allegations against him and while I'm not quite so certain in this case his "defense" would leave me with no hesitation on preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Derec]

Just because someone can do something doesn’t mean that they did do something. Thats the same standard Derec is applying to Trump, but he seems unwilling to apply that to the witnesses. Is there any evidence they were lying?

I did not say EJC's friends (they are not witnesses!) were lying. I just said that many people lie, and that because they are friends with one of the parties, their statements should not be considered evidence one way or the other. I am applying the same standard to Trump - his friends' statements would not be not evidence either.

Note also that the vagueness of the timeline benefits EJC. Had she said that she was attacked on 2/12/1996 around 7 pm Trump could conceivably prove that he wasn't anywhere near Bergdorf's at that time and date. But if you say "sometime in 1996" how does one defend himself? That's why NY's law to extend the statute of limitations for these lawsuits is so perverse.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Just because someone can do something doesn’t mean that they did do something. Thats the same standard Derec is applying to Trump, but he seems unwilling to apply that to the witnesses. Is there any evidence they were lying?

I did not say EJC's friends (they are not witnesses!) were lying. I just said that many people lie, and that because they are friends with one of the parties, their statements should not be considered evidence one way or the other. I am applying the same standard to Trump - his friends' statements would not be not evidence either.

I don’t know the court rules of evidence enough to know whether a jury should be instructed to consider the testimony of friends to be suspect or just that you assume that they should make that judgment on their own.

Certainly lying under oath is considered a pretty serious offense so I would assume they must be pretty damn good friends to do that. Maybe they were promised some of that sweet pay out.

Note also that the vagueness of the timeline benefits EJC. Had she said that she was attacked on 2/12/1996 around 7 pm Trump could conceivably prove that he wasn't anywhere near Bergdorf's at that time and date. But if you say "sometime in 1996" how does one defend himself? That's why NY's law to extend the statute of limitations for these lawsuits is so perverse.

So, how exactly did Trump defend himself in that case? What testimony did he provide to counter her claims? I recall one statement that he couldn’t have done it because she “wasn’t [his] type”, despite his inability to discern her from an ex-wife of his in a photo from the time. I guess the takeaway is that he would be more inclined to rape someone more his type?