BTW, I'm pretty sure I know what Trump meant, the implications, and where he's coming from, and going, given the power he's asking for this one time, and his designated successor (Vance?) won't have to ask.

What's odd (for lack of a better word) is that there is no doubt whatsoever that he's successfully co-opting Christianity in his quest for Trumpism's version of institutionalized authoritarianism. He's bold and open about it now.

Who would run his candidacy/campaign using the specific word Christofascism as ID?

No one, of course. But Trump would openly run on the ideas, the concepts.

It is entirely possible that trump will dump Vance & try again. I think it's 50/50 that he will. Vance brought nothing to the table but bad PR.

He will deliver the Rust Belt.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
It is entirely possible that trump will dump Vance & try again. I think it's 50/50 that he will. Vance brought nothing to the table but bad PR.

He will deliver Ohio which is a swing state and likely PA as well. I’m not as sure about MI as that’s heavily Democratic but seems to be in play. I do think he will help being in GA as well.

If that all happens and it’s by no means a lock then based on polling and which states are leaning which way (I used to slightly left of center Realclearpolitics data for this then DKT wins and we can move this felony over to 4 years if “Nor my President”

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
It is entirely possible that trump will dump Vance & try again. I think it's 50/50 that he will. Vance brought nothing to the table but bad PR.

How is it possible for Vance to cause Trump's PR to get worse?

I think it's too late for Trump to dump Vance.

But it's not too late for us.

Sen Vance brought nothing to the ticket.

Ohio was is done in the red side of the board.

He is nothing but trouble.

However, he has a disrespect for women that Trump would admire.

If he helps add PA…it is all over.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If he helps add PA…it is all over.

There is iron in your words.

https://www.commonwealthfounda...tate-poll-pa-voters/

New Swing State Poll: PA Voters Evenly Divided, Presidential Election a Toss Up

Harrisburg, Pa., July 26, 2024

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.commonwealthfounda...tate-poll-pa-voters/

New Swing State Poll: PA Voters Evenly Divided, Presidential Election a Toss Up

Harrisburg, Pa., July 26, 2024

Rather than using one individual
Pill I have been using realclearpolitics.com. They lean slightly to the left and they aggregate all polls which during the last couple of elections has been fairly accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Sen Vance brought nothing to the ticket.

Ohio was is done in the red side of the board.

He is nothing but trouble.

However, he has a disrespect for women that Trump would admire.

Wait until the religious instruction his children get comes up...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Sen Vance brought nothing to the ticket.

Ohio was is done in the red side of the board.

He is nothing but trouble.

However, he has a disrespect for women that Trump would admire.

Wait until the religious instruction his children get comes up...

Nothing you won’t stoop to is there little liberal. Now you are attacking his children.


Just another shameful attack from an ill Informed socialist.


I hope you never bred.

Trump and Vance, two peas in a pod!

Brainless, stupid, selfish IDIOTS!

Almost as stupid, selfish, IDIOTS as their voters!

Only ones worse are those voting the for commie left!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Trump and Vance, two peas in a pod!

Brainless, stupid, selfish IDIOTS!

Almost as stupid, selfish, IDIOTS as their voters!

Only ones worse are those voting the for commie left!

Well you sort of hit that one out of the park. Lol

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Sen Vance brought nothing to the ticket.

Ohio was is done in the red side of the board.

He is nothing but trouble.

However, he has a disrespect for women that Trump would admire.

Wait until the religious instruction his children get comes up...

Nothing you won’t stoop to is there little liberal. Now you are attacking his children.


Just another shameful attack from an ill Informed socialist.


I hope you never bred.

Hard to argue when Vince calls childless women “miserable” and having “no stake” in the country.

The ill informed are those who excuse such statements of political belief. Actually, they are informed. They are just wishing the real totalitarians they happen to agree with take control.

I would be happier w Dems winning every election took under our system then change it for a works where I was absolute king.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Sen Vance brought nothing to the ticket.

Ohio was is done in the red side of the board.

He is nothing but trouble.

However, he has a disrespect for women that Trump would admire.

Wait until the religious instruction his children get comes up...

Nothing you won’t stoop to is there little liberal. Now you are attacking his children.


Just another shameful attack from an ill Informed socialist.


I hope you never bred.

Hard to argue when Vince calls childless women “miserable” and having “no stake” in the country.

The ill informed are those who excuse such statements of political belief. Actually, they are informed. They are just wishing the real totalitarians they happen to agree with take control.

I would be happier w Dems winning every election took under our system then change it for a works where I was absolute king.

And yet another fellow travler has outed himself.

Yeah…I am not sure how to take Joshua in that one Hash.

How should I take a "Libertarian" who thinks he knows what is best inside other people's marriages?

Deeply confused best case scenario, disingenuous seems more likely.

If you are referring to me…did you not read the statement where I agreed with Jeff5 that the government should be out of the marriage business…pretty Libertarian thought…don’t you agree?

If it is Vance you are speaking of, I see nothing in his remarks but statements of reality…harsh reality but reality nonetheless.

I see nothing about governing marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you are referring to me…did you not read the statement where I agreed with Jeff5 that the government should be out of the marriage business…pretty Libertarian thought…don’t you agree?

If it is Vance you are speaking of, I see nothing in his remarks but statements of reality…harsh reality but reality nonetheless.

I see nothing about governing marriage.

Lane,

The left will never quote you verbatim but instead po k and chose the bits and pieces that suit them rather than use the whole comment.


Just like our sound bite left wi g media.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you are referring to me…did you not read the statement where I agreed with Jeff5 that the government should be out of the marriage business…pretty Libertarian thought…don’t you agree?

If it is Vance you are speaking of, I see nothing in his remarks but statements of reality…harsh reality but reality nonetheless.

I see nothing about governing marriage.

Lane,

The left will never quote you verbatim but instead po k and chose the bits and pieces that suit them rather than use the whole comment.


Just like our sound bite left wi g media.

But it is Steve…the beacon of truth, morality, and ethics! Even the Rocky Mountain Snow can’t compete on purity.

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
The gutless coward bullshit artist made a huge mistake and he knows it....he took his sons advice and he now sees how wrong they were..don't be surprised if the treasonous traitor removes the idiot...

I don’t see Trump taking you out (although in another thread you appear to condone politically motivated murder) and you are a tiny guppy in his pond and took small to be bothered with.

Lane

When did you change your mind and stop following the teachings of Jesus?

* When did you decide to accept the leadership of a convicted fraud, felon and rapist?
* When did you decide to detest and condemn the poor, the sick, the hungry, the destitute, the homeless, the immigrant?
* When did you decide to accept hatred and violence as a political strategy to win at all costs?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Roland,
Have you never changed your mind about anything?

Naki
Please stop using the lie of rapist. Not denying his other problematic issues, but "rapist" is a criminal charge, requiring adherence to rules of evidence, which aren't required for a civil suit

The civil suit determined that he probably did it.

It was not a criminal conviction, which would have determined that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trump would be barred from arguing he didn't do it in any subsequent civil action involving the same incident(s) and victim. He wouldn't be barred from contesting the accusation in a criminal action.

I don't make many decisions or determinations in life beyond a probable standard. For me, the fact he probably did it is enough to label him a sex predator.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The civil suit determined that he probably did it.

It was not a criminal conviction, which would have determined that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trump would be barred from arguing he didn't do it in any subsequent civil action involving the same incident(s) and victim. He wouldn't be barred from contesting the accusation in a criminal action.

I don't make many decisions or determinations in life beyond a probable standard. For me, the fact he probably did it is enough to label him a sex predator.

No

A civil suite requires a 51% to convict in rough terms. This is known as the POE or Preponderance Of the Evidence.

In a criminal trial it requires a the BARD standard also known as Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

It’s ho OK won (if it does not fit you must acquit) in his criminal trial but kilos run civil court.


Hopefully this will keep you and your leftist brethren from twisting words and facts in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The civil suit determined that he probably did it.

It was not a criminal conviction, which would have determined that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trump would be barred from arguing he didn't do it in any subsequent civil action involving the same incident(s) and victim. He wouldn't be barred from contesting the accusation in a criminal action.

I don't make many decisions or determinations in life beyond a probable standard. For me, the fact he probably did it is enough to label him a sex predator.

except that's not the facts -
he was found criminally liable for sexual assault
https://apnews.com/article/tru...bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped

it wasn't a criminal case, due to little things like SoL, unknown/unremembered dates, location, place, time, .. to even within the YEAR .. that it happened in.

he isn't barred from any such thing, "any subsequent civil action", he is barred from talking about it other places -- you CANNOT deny the accused the right to defend themselves in court - no gaag order can do that, in america.

you label him a "sex predator" .. which is odd .. as the judge wouldn't agree with you ...

remember how they let OJ walk on criminal charges, of which he was found not-guilt, but he was found LIABLE for the death of the pair ...

i get it, civil cases are entirely different than criminal cases, and standards and measurements are entirely different

He was found liable, not probable - that you might not have use for the difference is, in itself, immaterial -- but, hey, don't trust me, ask any lawyer on this site.

ICK -- i need a bath after that

I am fully aware of the facts.

1. His involvement in raping a 13 year old with Jeffery Epstein is still in the courts
2. His interview clip on boasting about very young women is well known.
3. Have you ever objected to lies spread by Republicans and bigoted loons here?
4. Just look at Ann referring to "pedo" all the time.

Where is your moral compas?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Naki
Please stop using the lie of rapist. Not denying his other problematic issues, but "rapist" is a criminal charge, requiring adherence to rules of evidence, which aren't required for a civil suit

Naki,
Does turning it personal frequently work out well for you? I mean, you seem committed to it, but I am wondering if it actually works, or do you take this as just a tactic?

as you are fully aware of the facts, perhaps you could dain to take a couple minutes and explain to me, please use little words, where my distinction with criminal vs civil findings was incorrect?

Then, you could explain to me how ignoring the facts and persisting with the previous incorrect position is a superior moral position?

oh, let me be petty for a second, compass has 2 ss - i know i am being petty, and it's a troll like action .. i get it .. but it's funny

quote:

hey, don't trust me, ask any lawyer on this site.

Well, I don't trust you, except maybe to supplement or correct my description of the facts.

Btw, I'm an ex-lawyer who tried many civil cases and drafted numerous jury instructions on the standard of proof in my 33 years of practice.

Legally-speaking, "probably" or "more likely than not" is a 51-percent probability standard. All three mean the same thing.

There is a doctrine known as collateral estoppel that says a party cannot relitigate a factual issue previously decided against them, if the prior determination was made in in a tribunal with the same or higher standard of proof. A criminal case can bind a party in a later civil suit; but not vice versa. A determination in one civil case binds another.

A civil jury found that Trump sexually assaulted the plaintiff. Didn't they? That makes Trump a probable sex offender. In a later civil suit, he wouldn't be allowed to deny it.

But don't trust me. Ask any practicing attorney on this site.

Nice,
Thanks for volunteering - Could you explain to Naki the difference between a criminal trial that finds someone guilty, and a civil trial that finds someone liable ..

My memory may be coming back.

Didn't the jury in that civil case find that Trump was liable to the plaintiff for sexual assault? And also find that he did not rape her?

That's what I recall,
this article affirms that
https://apnews.com/article/tru...bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

This has long been answered.

Trump was found liable for the tort of sexual assault.

The jury found Trump sexually assaulted the Plaintiff. They found she was not raped.

In a subsequent suit, the issue of Trump engaging in the prohibited, tortious sexual conduct cannot be relitigated (assuming the finding is not overturned on appeal). This legal principle is called Res Judicata. The issue/claim is precluded from re-litigation.
The matter is judged.

Trump has been adjudicated as having engaged in sexual assault of a woman in a civil case. The matter is judged.

I would trust Rolland.

Civil cases with a few exceptions do not place one’s liberty in jeopardy. Civil cases require a much Lowe burden of proof being a preponderance of the evidence. I would never say this to a jury, but short hand, one can think of preponderance of the evidence as being 51 percent. Civil cases depending on the state do not have to be unanimous. A simple majority can be sufficient to find the person liable. Civil cases do not have a mandatory right of one appeal. An appellate court in theory could refuse to grant cert. some rights such as Crawford right to confront from the 6th Amendment does not apply to civil cases. One also does not have a right to counsel (generally).

In contrast, criminal trials now by S. Ct., incorporation of the 7th Amendment through the Equsl Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment require unanimous jury verdicts.
The burden of proof is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The highest burden of proof in our system. This does not require all doubt to be extinguished. One’s liberty interest is in jeopardy. All jurisdictions allow at least one appeal by right. The appellate court must hear the appeal properly brought. Even when the Court is going to deny the appeal. They have to hear it; ie grant cert. The highest level of incorporated due process rights apply including, but not limited to, right to competent counsel; right to confront witnesses; and more strict application of the rule against hearsay. Courts have allowed exceptions to hearsay on civil cases that they have denied in criminal cases.

Of course, the right to remain silent. In a civil case unless criminal prosecution is foreseeable one cannot invoke the right to remain silent. I have seen prosecution declined to prevent a defendant in the civil suit from invoking the 5th.

These are the highlight differences. There is some major difference I am forgetting, but cannot bring it up. Oh, criminal convictions misdemeanors and felonies carry ancillary penalties that civil cases may not.

For example, when one is convicted of a drug dii. That person cannot qualify nor maintain government subsidies (HUD) housing. The same applies for any felony conviction. Of course, the big two are the right to vote and firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This has long been answered.

Trump was found liable for the tort of sexual assault.

The jury found Trump sexually assaulted the Plaintiff. They found she was not raped.

In a subsequent suit, the issue of Trump engaging in the prohibited, tortious sexual conduct cannot be relitigated (assuming the finding is not overturned on appeal). This legal principle is called Res Judicata. The issue/claim is precluded from re-litigation.
The matter is judged.

Trump has been adjudicated as having engaged in sexual assault of a woman in a civil case. The matter is judged.

I would trust Rolland.

Sample size you

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
A fetus, not a human being and not your business.

Yes, it is. You should quit propagating this “lie” ole arbiter of truth.

I am happy to allow others to make the choice that they feels is best for them. A novel concept I know.

Sort of Libertarian.

Can you explain your position in a Libertarian context? You know, small Government, choices left to the individual...etc?

Abortion does not kill human beings but it does terminate a fetus.

It is alive and the procedure “kills” it — don’t be afraid to say what you support!

Happy to help you out on these medical details Doc

And as usual you are wrong.

being - a person or thing that exists

It is definitely human.

Thus, abortion kills a human being — usually by smashing its head.

I hope you are finally able to comprehend.

And hopefully…quit lying! You being the arbiter of truth and all. It’s a bad look for you Steve.

I usually avoid getting in the middle of pro-life vs pro-abortion arguments.

I suspect everyone has opinions about it, and find support one way or another.

For the shock of it, I'll just say up front that my opinions align more with Lane's than otherwise. And that's not based on religious belief on my part.

There are many, many so-deemed science based articles about it.

Some try to boil it down to a question of when is a fetus a Sentient Being? https://human.libretexts.org/B...acts_about_Abortions

The broad info search:

https://www.google.com/search?...B7pa&sclient=gws-wiz

IMO, that's aside the point. It's not a matter of when, but the fact that it will most likely be if nature is allowed to take its course uninterrupted.

IOW, all the rationales about when is a fetus a sentient being is moot, IMO.

I often think of it this way: We all know of, and I could list many people who were soldiers in WWII who survived and went on to do great things in the world. Many were our fathers and grandfathers.

How many potentially great people died and never got to make their contribution to the world due to very bad chain of events, decisions made by others, and circumstances out of their control?

A fetus has no vote in its fate whatsoever. They are helpless. It's up to us.

Anyway, I've had my say.

BTW, I realize there's an argument favoring the woman's rights and so-deemed control of her body. I get that.

Look at it this way:
I'll make a Bible reference here, as I remember it - the fertile earth is not ours to own, nor is its fertility. Sure, we divvy it up for civil reasons, and that's a human construct and mess it up at will, but we are designated stewards, caretakers of the gift, for several reasons but one thing is future generations.

Similarly, a woman's fertility is a gift of nature. That and her body are something her own. But the product of that fertility, the sentient being, is not Her's to own. It owns itself. She, designated by nature (or God in Lane's view) is the steward or caretaker with innate responsibility. Abortion shuns all that, and rationalizes it as a moral right.

Holy smokes!!!!!!!!

What a thoughtful sentient post! No,cut and paste, your actual thoughts. I am impressed!

Incredibly logical as well....I need a beer....


.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
A fetus, not a human being and not your business.

Yes, it is. You should quit propagating this “lie” ole arbiter of truth.

I am happy to allow others to make the choice that they feels is best for them. A novel concept I know.

Sort of Libertarian.

Can you explain your position in a Libertarian context? You know, small Government, choices left to the individual...etc?

Abortion does not kill human beings but it does terminate a fetus.

It is alive and the procedure “kills” it — don’t be afraid to say what you support!

Happy to help you out on these medical details Doc

And as usual you are wrong.

being - a person or thing that exists

It is definitely human.

Thus, abortion kills a human being — usually by smashing its head.

I hope you are finally able to comprehend.

And hopefully…quit lying! You being the arbiter of truth and all. It’s a bad look for you Steve.

I usually avoid getting in the middle of pro-life vs pro-abortion arguments.

I suspect everyone has opinions about it, and find support one way or another.

For the shock of it, I'll just say up front that my opinions align more with Lane's than otherwise. And that's not based on religious belief on my part.

There are many, many so-deemed science based articles about it.

Some try to boil it down to a question of when is a fetus a Sentient Being? https://human.libretexts.org/B...acts_about_Abortions

The broad info search:

https://www.google.com/search?...B7pa&sclient=gws-wiz

IMO, that's aside the point. It's not a matter of when, but the fact that it will most likely be if nature is allowed to take its course uninterrupted.

IOW, all the rationales about when is a fetus a sentient being is moot, IMO.

I often think of it this way: We all know of, and I could list many people who were soldiers in WWII who survived and went on to do great things in the world. Many were our fathers and grandfathers.

How many potentially great people died and never got to make their contribution to the world due to very bad chain of events, decisions made by others, and circumstances out of their control?

A fetus has no vote in its fate whatsoever. They are helpless. It's up to us.

Anyway, I've had my say.

BTW, I realize there's an argument favoring the woman's rights and so-deemed control of her body. I get that.

Look at it this way:
I'll make a Bible reference here, as I remember it - the fertile earth is not ours to own, nor is its fertility. Sure, we divvy it up for civil reasons, and that's a human construct and mess it up at will, but we are designated stewards, caretakers of the gift, for several reasons but one thing is future generations.

Similarly, a woman's fertility is a gift of nature. That and her body are something her own. But the product of that fertility, the sentient being, is not Her's to own. It owns itself. She, designated by nature (or God in Lane's view) is the steward or caretaker with innate responsibility. Abortion shuns all that, and rationalizes it as a moral right.

Until it can live outside the Mother's body it is, technically, a parasite.

Is killing a tapeworm "murder"?

Wow. Wow just wow......A human fetus is no different than a tapeworm....and no more valuable than a tapeworm.

You are a true leftist!

.

Jefffive

What a horrible human being (using the description loosely).

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Jefffive

What a horrible human being (using the description loosely).

I prefer Democratic lap dog. But same thing.