The Reality Distortion Field, Strong With Trump It Is

[_Robert_Participant]

Deadly diseases and bathing in the blood of Jesus are preferable to proven vaccinations, the invaded country being slaughtered is the one fault, not the authoritarian invading dictator. The billionaire class is helping the working class by cutting benefits to the poor, slashing services and research while reducing taxes on the wealthy. The Gulf should be renamed “The Gulf of Stupidity”.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

So, you’re saying that European Jews moved into Palestine and created Israel through individual economically fair and uncoerced land purchases at something like actual market value.

Got proof. And not a picture of just one receipt. One can’t tell from a receipt whether a transaction was done under duress.

Jews both moved there from Europe and other parts of the Diaspora and were there indigenously as a distinct people from other parts of Caanan since at least 1200 B.C.E. And Caananites, who were predecessors of both Arabs and Jews, were in the area since at least 1900 B.C.E.

Market value for anything is always determined by what individuals are willing to pay. I’m sure you could do title searches in Israel and do discovery to find out if the titles are good…for as long Israel lasts, lf course.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

Whatever Kamala’s flaws, I can easily place more trust in her than a three-time adulterer, adjudicated rapist, and convicted tax cheat who is currently turning the United States into a Russian asset. Today, Trump announced that, far from increasing sanctions, he’s preparing to do tremendous “deals” with Putin.

Are you with Trump or Kamala on support for Ukraine? to do tremendous “deals” with Putin.

Are you with Trump or Kamala on support for Ukraine?

Whatever Trump’s many other flaws, this side of our borders, rape is not a civil tort that is adjudicated. It’s a criminal act that requires conviction beyond a resonable doubt in a criminal court by a judge and a jury of peers.

With that said, I don’t support either Trump or Harris and don’t have to in order to support Ukrainians right to self-defense, which I did since the day of Putin’s invasion 3 Years and 3 days ago, while you were simping for Putin the whole time.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Whatever Trump’s many other flaws, this side of our borders, rape is not a civil tort that is adjudicated. It’s a criminal act that requires conviction beyond a resonable doubt in a criminal court by a judge and a jury of peers.

The judge in the E. Jean Carroll case stated from the bench that unwelcome finger penetration is a rape as commonly understood even if not defined as such under NY law. It’s not true that rapes only occur if a jury says so. Penalties apply when a jury says so but facts remain facts, contrary to what you seem to be implying. To take another example, if you murder someone but the state fails to convince a jury that you did so, you are still a murderer. Your POV is nonsensical on its face.

With that said, I don’t support either Trump or Harris and don’t have to in order to support Ukrainians right to self-defense, which I did since the day of Putin’s invasion 3 Years and 3 days ago, while you were simping for Putin the whole time.

If you’re for supporting Ukraine in its repelling of Russia, you’re with Kamals, like it or don’t.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unbelievers,

Don’t do it, Dawg, it’s just not worth it!

If there’s one thing crazier than some of the things Donald Trump has proposed, it’s the reaction to it! Don’t let him or anyone else have the power of self-sabotage over you!

Jon Stewart slices hand open in Elon Musk rant about wasted money on pharmaceuticals
https://www.the-express.com/entertainment/tv/164692/jon-stewart-slices-hand-open-elon-musk-rant

Thing is pharmaceutical waste paid for by taxdollars is real. George Bush’s Medicare Part D was basically The Let’s Subsidize Grandpa’s Viagra and Grandma’s Oxycontin and Pollute the Water Table When They Go Potty Act. And the most recent Medicare benefits on the health care cards used in grocery stores are paying for things like dog food! Alas, not even Trump and Musk are touching that.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

The judge in the E. Jean Carroll case stated from the bench that unwelcome finger penetration is a rape as commonly understood even if not defined as such under NY law. It’s not true that rapes only occur if a jury says so. Penalties apply when a jury says so but facts remain facts, contrary to what you seem to be implying. To take another example, if you murder someone but the state fails to convince a jury that you did so, you are still a murderer. Your POV is nonsensical on its face.

If this occured as you stated, isn’t it obligatory on someone to inform law enforcement and for there to be a criminal trial, not just a civil trial? And if Trump were convicted, wouldn’t that have saved the nation and world all the trouble we see today?

The scenario you lay out is nonsensical on it’s face.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

If this occured as you stated, isn’t it obligatory on someone to inform law enforcement and for there to be a criminal trial, not just a civil trial?

The incident occurred 30 years ago and it was a different world for women back then, well before Me Too. I think implying that she (who else?) should have filed charges back then could be viewed as classic blaming the victim.

If you’re curious why he wasn’t criminally charged once she decided to do something, I suspect it was due to a statute of limitations that applies to criminal charges but not civil allegations. A civil trial has a preponderance of evidence threshold which is easier to meet than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applying to criminal prosecutions. Also, a criminal prosecution puts a third party, the prosecutor, in control whereas in a civil trial the aggrieved party is far more in control. Ms. Carroll’s attorney works for her, not the government.

Who’s nonsensical now?

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

The incident occurred 30 years ago and it was a different world for women back then, well before Me Too. I think implying that she (who else?) should have filed charges back then could be viewed as classic blaming the victim.

Not at all. If charges result in a conviction, it’s how you get a victimizer off the street, as well as prevent other victims.

Everyone genuinely concerned with rape victims advises them to preserve as much evidence as possible, not to bathe or shower until after a forensic examination, and to report it as soon as possible.

If you’re curious why he wasn’t criminally charged once she decided to do something, I suspect it was due to a statute of limitations that applies to criminal charges but not civil allegations.

All the more reason to report it as soon as possible.

A civil trial has a preponderance of evidence threshold which is easier to meet than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applying to criminal prosecutions. Also, a criminal prosecution puts a third party, the prosecutor, in control whereas in a civil trial the aggrieved party is far more in control. Ms. Carroll’s attorney works for her, not the government.

I know all that and the verdict of the judge and jury still controls all, whether criminal or civil. And do you want resolution of something like an accusation of rape and all it’s implications dependent on a mere preponderance of evidence? That is a green light for a legal lynching and every innocent person ensnared in that way can mean at least one guilty person on the street. This serves neither the falsely accused nor actual victims of rape.

Who’s nonsensical now?

You tell me and exercise some self-awareness here.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

I know all that and the verdict of the judge and jury still controls all, whether criminal or civil. And do you want resolution of something like an accusation of rape and all it’s implications dependent on a mere preponderance of evidence? That is a green light for a legal lynching and every innocent person ensnared in that way can mean at least one guilty person on the street. This serves neither the falsely accused nor actual victims of rape.

As for this paragraph, you essentially disagree with the law as it is, in which case someone should get off his flabby ass and work to repeal the civil justice system and make everything a crime. But just think of how many more prosecutors we would need. The wisdom of having civil redress for various harms is obvious.

(BTW, let me remind you that she won a case of defamation…TWICE. Each time, the evidence she provided was so convincing  that the two juries awarded her large sums as redress. It was no legal lynching.)

Your ramblings and rumblings before this paragraph are classic “mansplaining.” “Think like me, a rational male, not like a silly  irrational female.” There’s a bit of “presentism” involved as well. Back in the 1990’s a woman accusing a man of rape with scant evidence to show for it was often treated by police and the press like someone who was trying to cash in, when the perpetrator was rich and well-known. Even today, a woman accusing a man—and not even a rich man—is essentially psychologicslly reassaulted by police, and if it ever goes to trial, by the accused lawyer.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

As for this paragraph, you essentially disagree with the law as it is, in which case someone should get off his flabby ass and work to repeal the civil justice system and make everything a crime. But just think of how many more prosecutors we would need. The wisdom of having civil redress for various harms is obvious.

(BTW, let me remind you that she won a case of defamation…TWICE. Each time, the evidence she provided was so convincing that the two juries awarded her large sums as redress. It was no legal lynching.)

I have no objection to the civil justice system, I just think an accusation of rape needs to be subtantiated beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court before the accuser can claim it as a civil tort.

Your ramblings and rumblings before this paragraph are classic “mansplaining.” “Think like me, a rational male, not like a silly irrational female.”

No, it’s man-to-silly-irrational-man-‘splaining.

There’s a bit of “presentism” involved as well.

It’s just the reverse. You’re saying a man today should be subject to an accusation of rape that sticks because of injustice of a past judicial and law enforcement system, when the man most likely had no hand in the creation of the injustice.

Back in the 1990’s a woman accusing a man of rape with scant evidence to show for it was often treated by police and the press like someone who was trying to cash in, when the perpetrator was rich and well-known. Even today, a woman accusing a man—and not even a rich man—is essentially psychologicslly reassaulted by police, and if it ever goes to trial, by the accused lawyer.

So get to work on your time-travelling DeLorean Snowmobile with the Flux Capacitor. Maybe you and the Woke Reparationists could make it a joint project. I’ll chip in if it means we won’t need roads.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Correcting a tag
• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Correcting a tag again

[unapologeticParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

To take another example, if you murder someone but the state fails to convince a jury that you did so, you are still a murderer.

So would you also say a soldier is also a murderer even though condoned by society?

[unapologeticParticipant]

I don’t care about Isreal. But that article says the jews owned only 6% of the land.

How did that give them control?

[UnseenParticipant]

Trump is starting to test the courts by resisting or ignoring their orders.

These cases will be appealed up to the Supreme Court (good-bye summer recess!) and hopefully Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts who are now the two “swing” justices will be telling him “No, you can’t do that!” for all of his unconstitutional moves and most of his questionable ones. Roberts criticized Trump today for calling for impeaching judges blocking some of his moves.

If he gets frustrated with that, he can execute either of two terrible plans: 1) He can pack the court with three MAGA-oriented justices (I’m sure he has Judge Aileen Cannon on speed dial) or 2) Declare a national emergency, suspend the Constitution, and use the military whenever necessary to get things done and suppress any opposition, which might include taking control of the major networks and the Internet.

We are truly living in the shadow of a full-blown dictatorship where, if it comes to that, it will take some brass deciding that they swore an oath to the Constitution not The Orange Overlord.

[Author]

Posts