• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Race For 2024

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.
How did he "prove" it? Like with EJC, there is no evidence - it's a political witch hunt.
And even Blasey Ford's friend Keyser (not Söze) is skeptical of her claims.

Ford friend has said she was pressured to revisit Kavanaugh statement: report
The Hill said:
Leland Keyser, a friend of Christine Blasey Ford, told FBI investigators she was pressured by Ford’s allies to reconsider her initial statement that she was unaware of evidence supporting Ford’s claims of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.
Keyser eventually revised her statement, saying she could not corroborate Ford’s claims, but believed the assault had happened.

Christine Blasey Ford’s friend now says she’s skeptical of Kavanaugh accusation
NY Post said:
A high-school pal of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford says in a new book that she’s skeptical of Ford’s claim the Supreme Court justice sexually assaulted her at a party in the 1980s.
“I don’t have any confidence in the story,” Leland Keyser — who Ford has said was at the party where the alleged assault occurred — told two New York Times reporters in their book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.”
“Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense,” Keyser insisted of Ford’s account, according to authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
[...]
Keyser was downstairs when the alleged assault took place, Ford said.
But in the new book, released Tuesday, Keyser threw cold water on that scenario.
“It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she’s getting home,” Keyser told the authors. “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”
 
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.
I think the US tort system is hopelessly broken. My point does not hinge on current rules of evidence. I think the whole system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
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.
Quite possible. But since there isn't any objective evidence in that case, I do not see how any perjury could ever be proven. And it's not like Bragg would ever prosecute them even if it could be proven. He can barely be bothered to prosecute robbers.

So, how exactly did Trump defend himself in that case?
That's my point - how do you defend yourself from a case from almost three decades ago? Especially with a timeline as vague as this one. Hochul should never have signed that perverse bill into law.
 
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.
That's not correct. Such false claims are pretty common.
Plus, Trump is obviously a pathological liar.
So is EJC. Unless you really believe her that she was attacked by over a dozen men during her lifetime (as she is claiming in her book) or that she kept the dress she wore at the time of the Trump attack all these years as a sort of memento rapti.

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.
Just because he was accused of many women does not mean he is guilty in all those cases. He may have attacked one or some of them and still be innocent in the EJC case.
I am not defending Trump as Trump but because I see this as a perversion and pollicization of the legal system. I would be defending Newsom or Biden too if either one was accused with a similar paucity of concrete evidence. And no, lack of cameras in the changing room area is not evidence. Statements by friends are not evidence.
 
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?
You are doubting that? What do you want next, "independent evidence" of the blueness of the sky?

Here is a good one. A bit old, but the human nature does not change.

A Proposed Solution to the Problem of Perjury in Our Courts
Alfred David Whitman said:
Perjury runs rampant throughout our judicial system. So say the cases, the textwriters, legislatures, lawyers and judges. "The opinion that perjury is common in our trial courts is one on which all of the writers on the question seem to be in complete agreement", writes McClintock.' "Hundreds of persons perjure themselves in the courts every day except Sunday", states another writer.2 One speaker estimated to his audience that perjury is present in fifty percent of contested civil actions, seventy-five percent of criminal cases and ninety percent of divorce cases.3 ". . . the crime of perjury pollutes the stream of justice at its source .... We all know that this crime is one of the most serious and that its effects are far-reaching, obstructive and destructive."
More recent, but behind a paywall. If you are really interested, and not just playing gotcha, I am sure you can get access.
Lying in the Courtroom: 'It Happens All the Time'
 
He admitted to it in the grab them by the pussy speech.
It is not an admission of any criminal activity. And it especially is not admission that he attacked somebody in the Bergdorf's in the 1990s.
I still fail to see your "lots of evidence". Care to list all the allegedly numerous pieces of evidence here?
 
Yes, Biden is old, but there have been plenty of world leaders who were at least his age.
There are some. A lot of those, like European monarchs and some presidents, serve a largely ceremonial role.
Biden's biggest problem is that he's a thin man with a raspy voice, leaving some to think he's mentally impaired.
I do not think he is mentally impaired, but he does seem like a frail old man.
Compare him and Trump. Ignore for a second the idiotic content of what he says, just listen to his voice:

He sounds energetic, he has a good cadence.
Now take Biden. Again, don't listen to the content, just the speech:

No energy, slow and monotone, hesitant. And he forgot the name "Hamas".
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.
Me too. Nothing I write should be misconstrued that I support Trump winning in November. But I am concerned that Biden will blow it. He would have been the better choice in 2016. He was successful in 2020. But in 2024, I am more skeptical.
He is behind in most polls. In a recent PA poll, he is 8 points behind. Bob Casey is ahead by 1 in the same poll - that's a Δ of 9.

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.
I am apprehensive whenever churches get too involved in politics.

To quote Paul Rieckhoff, a few minutes ago, "Donald Trump is a totally disgusting human being". Amen Paul.
Nevertheless, he just might win.
 
Don2 said:
He said "they let you do it."
Seems consensual.

Somehow, you seemed to have forgotten the next sentence:
Don2 said:
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. He said "they let you do it." And in a sense he was right because women out of fear mostly did not report Trump in those days.

Grabbing people by their private parts without actual knowledge of their agreement is entitled, narcissistic thinking and lacks empathy.
 
Yes, Biden is old, but there have been plenty of world leaders who were at least his age.
There are some. A lot of those, like European monarchs and some presidents, serve a largely ceremonial role.
Biden's biggest problem is that he's a thin man with a raspy voice, leaving some to think he's mentally impaired.
I do not think he is mentally impaired, but he does seem like a frail old man.
Compare him and Trump. Ignore for a second the idiotic content of what he says, just listen to his voice:

He sounds energetic, he has a good cadence.
Now take Biden. Again, don't listen to the content, just the speech:

No energy, slow and monotone, hesitant. And he forgot the name "Hamas".
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.
Me too. Nothing I write should be misconstrued that I support Trump winning in November. But I am concerned that Biden will blow it. He would have been the better choice in 2016. He was successful in 2020. But in 2024, I am more skeptical.
He is behind in most polls. In a recent PA poll, he is 8 points behind. Bob Casey is ahead by 1 in the same poll - that's a Δ of 9.

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.
I am apprehensive whenever churches get too involved in politics.

To quote Paul Rieckhoff, a few minutes ago, "Donald Trump is a totally disgusting human being". Amen Paul.
Nevertheless, he just might win.

Don't get me wrong. I share your concern as well, especially since the media is doing such an excellent job of obsessing over Biden's age, while not mentioning Trump's many confusing statements as often. I heard this morning that he even forgot that he said he has a great memory. WTF!

Another problem is that so many people are so ignorant as to how government is run. They seem to think that a president can control the price of food and gas, for example. One young woman who said she will probably vote for Trump because Biden didn't forgive her student loans. Whether or not you agree with student loan forgiveness, Biden did try to do more about students loan forgiveness, but SCOTUS prevented that. Do these people not pay attention to what's going on? It's very depressing that it's come to this.

One thing that I personally love about Biden is his sense of humor and ability to laugh at himself. I saw him say during a speech the other day that he knows he looks old because he's been around for quite awhile. Can you imagine Trump ever making a remark like that about himself? A good president needs a sense of humor and the ability to take criticism without acting like an unhinged toddler. We may not like that we have to old guys running for president, but one isn't a deranged sociopath. I'll take the old guy who can laugh at himself and who according to many people who have spoken to him in private is still very sharp over Trump.

But yes. Derek, Trump might win and that is frightening.
 
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.
....

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!
Is there anything you don't get wrong?

Some charities have that restriction. They are organized under 501(c)(3) rules. If a charity/non-profit wants to be able to endorse a specific candidate, they have to file as a 501(c)(4). There are already rules for this. This law simply closes one of the loopholes for some of those charities.

So, it's already 'fixed' and does exactly what you want.
 
No, it does and we can observe why.
Only through a funhouse mirror.

So the real world is very scary to you.

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

It's real evidence but you think you have arguments against it. That doesn't make it not real.

No disinterested witnesses. No physical evidence.

But you didn't say no physical evidence, you said no evidence.

Only claims by her friends that she told them about it decades earlier.

It would be unreasonable to have expected her to confide in her enemies, instead of a couple of close friends.

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.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean an accuser's testimony is not evidence. The fact that it is evidence does not mean you have to support it. While you did not snip what I wrote following this, you didn't address it. See below: "Of course, it's evidence in a similar fashion to Trump saying he didn't do it." Statements under oath, including out of court or in court are all part of the collection of evidence. So EJC's statements under oath as well as Trump's are both evidence.

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.

All accusations of this nature are not necessarily evidence. BUT under oath, they are.

Especially when the accusation was originally made in order to sell her book.

The accusation was originally made to her close friends.

And even if Trump's claims are anything but idle talk that does not mean he assaulted EJC herself.

I didn't write that Trump's claims of sexually assaulting people without their prior agreement amounted to a definite conclusion he assaulted EJC. What I wrote is "That's evidence of his character that is consistent with her claim but inconsistent with his claim." In other words, it isn't too different from the concept of a character witness or character evidence. Neither of which PROVES a thing. Evidence doesn't have to PROVE a thing by itself but it ought to tend to do so with a burden of proof in mind when taken in concert with other evidence. So, Trump's claims that he engaged in sexual misconduct, even criminally is evidence.

He said "they let you do it."
Seems consensual.

No, and speaking of scary funhouse mirrors, the fact that you said that is horrific.

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.

You seem to be under the impression we are arguing about the innocence or guilt of Trump. We are talking about evidence of which you said there is none. No, her testimony under oath is evidence, even if you are suspicious of financial motivations.

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.

Well, yes, it is. It's not overwhelming evidence by itself but his public statement is in contradiction to other things he has said. Since you think his public statement is completely good, a perfectly good statement, the best statement, and everything is consensual with women he sexually assaulted, one can see why you are so confused by this.

EJC's testimony and Trump's public comments.
That's not evidence.

Testimony under oath is evidence. Trump's public comments are evidence of his character. Evidence of character isn't a proof. It's just a fact that he said this and more--that it is consistent with criminal behaviors.

How about physical evidence?

There was no physical evidence, sure, but it isn't what we're discussing--you said there was no evidence and that is different from saying there is no physical evidence.

How about disinterested witnesses?

How biased people are is you opining again. Again, EJC wouldn't have confided in her enemies. Testimony under oath is evidence. You said there was no evidence. Whether you want to argue for the innocence of Trump is a separate question from your inaccurate claim that there is no evidence....that now you have reworded to say no REAL evidence or no physical evidence. We're discussing what you originally stated and that I responded to, not your goalpost shifting.

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?

Again, I don't care about a discussion of Trump's innocence or guilt because that is going to be an endless discussion with a person like you. This is about whether or not there was evidence and there was. You may not like it and may want even more evidence, but that doesn't mean there was no evidence.

Like a recorded message that can be authenticated as being from 1996 or whenever this could have happened?

How many answering machine messages do you have from 1996? Come on, really. That doesn't make her testimony not evidence.

Otherwise, statements by the friend of the accuser are not evidence.

No, testimony under oath is evidence. It's evidence she said it at the time.


No idea who that is offhand anyway and don't care.

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?

That isn't what evidence means. It's all evidence taken in concert that leads to conclusions. If Carroll was making up random lies then there is a good chance it can be disproved by examining such close questions as this. Instead, those things were consistent with her claim and so they are accepted facts.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it also is not evidence of presence. It's just nothing.

It isn't nothing. It's a small bit of a test that failed to invalidate Carroll's testimony.

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.

Same. It's a small bit of a test that could have invalidated Carroll's testimony, but doesn't.

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.

No one said that this bit of data in and of itself alone is proof of EJC's claim. It's character evidence that is taken in concert with other data. Surely, if you wanted to prove by preponderance of evidence that Trump did this, somewhere in there you would include a fact that he is the type of person to do it. Character evidence is still evidence.


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.

Your opinion is an example of an opinion with no evidence.

Rather, I think her mental health issues caused her to make up stories.

You don't "think" but instead you are guessing and doing so based on faith that is contrary to this bit of evidence. We can conclude you are exhibiting faith-based guessing because the psychologist is making a particular diagnosis and then you are generalizing that to ALL mental health issues and then coming back down to zoom in on a DIFFERENT mental health issue. This is like, for example, a psychologist who finds that an IDF soldier suffers from PTSD. Then, you say, "ahah! he has mental health issues! Therefore, I think he is a psychopathic serial killer!" Would you do that, too? Or it's like looking at an occupation, say a lab tech who worked at a bio lab, and saying "Ah, they worked in biotech, therefore they can do biotech computer programming!" Or it's like having 7 kittens. Then, saying, "Ahah, I have a prime number of kittens. Therefore, I think I have 11 kittens!" Needless to say, you are still trying to argue for Hair Furor's innocence, instead of arguing your point that there was no evidence. But this is evidence, it just isn't proof in and of itself. It works with other evidence in a civil trial where the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence.

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.

I do not have a low standard of what evidence is. This is like saying that I have a low standard of what prime numbers are because I say 7 is a prime number. You might not like the number 7 for some reason or you might like BIG prime numbers, but 7 is still a prime number.

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.

Even if you want to redefine terminology, disbelieve the evidence, or operate in a different country's tort system, there still was evidence in the civil case.
 
Now once Trump takes office....
Kami has a duty to the Constitution to certify Joe as the winner, regardless.
But before it comes to that, there's the Seal Team Six option, right Donald?
I am pleased that thus far we have not seen the torrent of words, images emanating from you septics
Us WHATS??!!!
 
He said "they let you do it."
Seems consensual.

No, and speaking of scary funhouse mirrors, the fact that you said that is horrific.

Yes. And this is by the guy who is "not a Trump supporter"

It takes such types to consider themselves qualified to render judgments against (almost exclusively black or female) litigants that are contrary to the findings of judges and juries that have heard all the evidence.
So fond of themselves, I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Biden is old, but there have been plenty of world leaders who were at least his age.
There are some. A lot of those, like European monarchs and some presidents, serve a largely ceremonial role.
Biden's biggest problem is that he's a thin man with a raspy voice, leaving some to think he's mentally impaired.
I do not think he is mentally impaired, but he does seem like a frail old man.
Compare him and Trump. Ignore for a second the idiotic content of what he says, just listen to his voice:

He sounds energetic, he has a good cadence.
Now take Biden. Again, don't listen to the content, just the speech:

No energy, slow and monotone, hesitant. And he forgot the name "Hamas".
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.
Me too. Nothing I write should be misconstrued that I support Trump winning in November. But I am concerned that Biden will blow it. He would have been the better choice in 2016. He was successful in 2020. But in 2024, I am more skeptical.
He is behind in most polls. In a recent PA poll, he is 8 points behind. Bob Casey is ahead by 1 in the same poll - that's a Δ of 9.

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.
I am apprehensive whenever churches get too involved in politics.

To quote Paul Rieckhoff, a few minutes ago, "Donald Trump is a totally disgusting human being". Amen Paul.
Nevertheless, he just might win.

Don't get me wrong. I share your concern as well, especially since the media is doing such an excellent job of obsessing over Biden's age, while not mentioning Trump's many confusing statements as often. I heard this morning that he even forgot that he said he has a great memory. WTF!


 
If flinging bs makes you feel better about yourself, then it was worthwhile.
Tough job, but someone has to do it.
Oh wait, no they don’t.
A person who thinks they know better than a court’s decision, never having heard all the testimony or seen all the evidence, does NOT deserve to “feel better” about themself.
 
I found a fairly good article that discusses memory and forgetfulness at all ages. I personally think that a few of Biden's recent gaffes are due to the extreme stress he's been under along with the unsubstantiated claims made against him. Any of us, regardless of age, are likely to make similar errors.

Rearrange the following words into a familiar phrase;

Straws Clutching At

It’s laughable that some on here just can’t come to terms with what is plain to see. Brandon is is a feeble minded old man. He was never the brightest but holy shit, he’s way worse now and it’s getting worser :ROFLMAO:
So what should they do about that, if it were true?
If it were true?

Hilarious 😂


Waiting for you to answer the question.

You say Biden is a bad candidate.
So what should the people who currently plan to vote for him do instead?
What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?
 
I found a fairly good article that discusses memory and forgetfulness at all ages. I personally think that a few of Biden's recent gaffes are due to the extreme stress he's been under along with the unsubstantiated claims made against him. Any of us, regardless of age, are likely to make similar errors.

Rearrange the following words into a familiar phrase;

Straws Clutching At

It’s laughable that some on here just can’t come to terms with what is plain to see. Brandon is is a feeble minded old man. He was never the brightest but holy shit, he’s way worse now and it’s getting worser :ROFLMAO:
So what should they do about that, if it were true?
If it were true?

Hilarious 😂


Waiting for you to answer the question.

You say Biden is a bad candidate.
So what should the people who currently plan to vote for him do instead?
What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?
Swiz is in worse shape than Dark Brandon, obviously. All he can do is mouth RW insults, with no idea of their basis or if they contain even the usual grain of truth.
Expecting him to come up with a better alternative than the one he was trained to reject, is way too tall an order. People like that will vote for Trump, then deny having done so.
 
Back
Top Bottom