₦airaland Forum

basilico:
You ask for proof as if I'm an investigator.
I know Mitchell Obama is a woman despite me not having seen her genitals.
A supreme court female judge can't define a woman because she is not a biologist.

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for logic. I recommend that you look up the difference because you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the two. You can provide neither proof nor logic to support your claims, and that's why you easily resort to cheap strawmen attacks, like responding to my post as if I ever claimed that a supreme court female judge can define a woman, when I never did.

Intellectual dishonesty is a cancer on productive discourse, and you have made yourself its' willing carrier.

@basilico

I didn't fail to notice that you carefully avoided these questions. But perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you truly and honestly missed them. In any case, here they are again:

JessicaRabbit:
Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

PoliteActivist:
Oh the evidence we are in some sort of a simulation abound. Besides glitches in the matrix everywhere, the fact that the speed of light can never be exceeded no matter the speed of the light source, is a great tell tale sign of simulation to any computer game designer. I'll post an article on it that I came accross.
Of course if this is a simulation, this all can't be happenstance per atheists, nor could it be according to biblical creation story

Let's address the "glitches" first.

Attributing random events to a simulated reality is a classic case of confirmation bias. You see a pattern where none exists, ignoring the vast majority of unremarkable spoon-bending that happens, you know, all the time. As for the speed of light, that's not a glitch, it's a fundamental law of physics, beautifully explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. It has nothing to do with video game limitations and everything to do with the fabric of spacetime itself. Just because we can't outrun a cosmic speed limit doesn't mean we're trapped in a computer program. You're also presenting a false dichotomy: either everything is a simulation or it's pure happenstance. Evolution begs to differ with this myopic distinction. It gives plausible explanations for the complexity of life without invoking invisible programmers or divine interventions. No magic required, just billions of years of natural selection tinkering away.

Finally, if you don't mind, let's keep this a science vs. faith conversation. Bringing in religious creation stories muddies the water and frankly, belongs in a different debate altogether. Thanks.

Gracelander:
I just had to ask this question because it's been causing issues between me and my guy. He doesn't seem comfortable at all with me having male friends and he throws tantrums each time I visit my bestie. He even tells me to my face that he doesn't trust me, so he scrutinize every move I make.

Each time I answer calls from male friends with him around it leads to him nagging about how much I don't respect him and it's not as if I talk dirty or tell them that I love them, just friendly conversations. We had a slight issue last night cos I came over to see him and stay for a week before leaving, I didnt warm the food out of anger and it got spoilt this morning. When I told him about the food he told me that it was supposed to be our breakfast so that means no food this morning.

I had to chat one of my friends and he agreed to take me out, I dressed up and left the house and he sent me a message not to return to his house. Did I do something wrong?

Sister, let me tell you, possessiveness is not love, it's control! Your "guy" sounds less like a partner and more like a jealous toddler throwing a tantrum over spilled juice.

Here's the deal: If he can't handle you having friends, male or otherwise, that's a major red flag. Where's the trust? You deserve freedom, independence, and the right to choose your own damn friends. You are an autonomous human being, not a puppet on his strings, so the fact that he scrutinizes your moves and guilt-trips you with "respect" only leads to me to conclude that you're in an emotionally abusive relationship...because THIS is emotional abuse. Punishing you for not warming up food is straight up manipulative and childish. You're not his mommy.

PoliteActivist:
Well, your "complex consciousness" are only complex to you. See these shorts videos below, if a mere human can take control of another person and the person not even know they are under control, how much more a cosmic being. Even in the Bible God said he hardened Pharoah's heart. Likewise you may think it is happenstance you "fell in love" when in reality some being manipulated your heart to do exactly that.
As for Einstein, if he could figure out things about reality that we still don't understand, just sitting in his study, we better listen if he comes out with position that freewill is an illusion!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ON_Q5RXr44?si=hRX88mOx-5WJD2NO

https://youtube.com/shorts/LyQ8krZpCtw?si=B0vwypCh_eShg0pR

I'm not sure you fully realize the absurdity of comparing a product of billions of years of evolution, to a magic trick. Neuroscience isn't some magician's smoke and mirrors; it's a complex dance of neurotransmitters, electrical impulses, and a lifetime of experiences shaping our perceptions. And please, with all due respect, spare me the Pharaoh's heart nonsense. The Bible is a collection of stories, not a physics textbook. If you want to talk evidence, stick to the realm of science, not ancient mythology.

Einstein was a brilliant mind, no doubt, but even geniuses are susceptible to flawed thinking. To claim that because he pondered determinism, everyone else should bow down to his musings is intellectually arrogant. The scientific method speaks for itself -- it is not based on blind acceptance of authority figures. And just because he grappled with free will doesn't mean he definitively disproved it. It's a complex philosophical question, not a binary switch. Look at you demanding evidence, yet throw around baseless claims about "cosmic beings" manipulating our hearts. The burden of proof lies with the one making extraordinary claims, not the skeptic asking for evidence. And even if we were in a simulation, so what? It wouldn't change the reality of our subjective experience. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "reality is just turtles all the way down, but those turtles are still pretty damn real."

As for the YouTube shorts, I've seen them, and I'm far from impressed. We can't tell for certain, but I'd wager they're more likely demonstrations of well-known psychological principles, cleverly edited to appear more mysterious than they are. If you want to impress me, you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, not cherry-picked internet clips. I feel I should also remind you -- because it seems you're a having a very fundamental misunderstanding here: Atheism isn't about blind rejection of everything unseen. It's about demanding evidence before accepting extraordinary claims! It's about using reason and critical thinking to navigate the complexities of the universe. So, before you try to control my nonexistent strings or manipulate my heart, you should try backing up your assertions with actual evidence and sound logic -- as is characteristic of any genuine intellectual exchange. Otherwise, you'll just be lost in a self-constructed reality of youtube shorts and ancient fairytales.

PoliteActivist:
Thanks for your erudite and well-thought out response.
Well, since we don't know the true nature of existence, everything we know is by preponderance of circumstantial evidence (see last Thursday theory below). The only reason we believe lots of things is NOT because we have first-hand knowledge, but because a bunch of people (call them scientists if you wish) say it is so. So if a bunch of people say they have encountered a tea pot orbiting the sun, you don’t start your doubting of a bunch of people there, you should start by doubting those first bunch of people ("scientists" that told you everything you believe.
Like I said, atheists can never say they encountered God who told them he does not exist. But bunch of religionists have had personal encounters with God in various ways that confirmed to them that God exists and is anthropomorphical. If you think they could have been hallucinating, well, so could those "scientists" that told you everything you believe. If you doubt it, see Lastthursdayism below

There's a lot of misconceptions you're having here. I'll start by pointing out the fact that equating the vast body of scientific evidence, meticulously gathered and tested through rigorous methodologies, with the "Last Thursdayism" thought experiment is a flawed comparison. One stands on a foundation of observation, experiment, and peer-review, the other on a whimsical "what if." Also, I don't think I can accept your flippant dismissal of the expertise of scientists as merely a matter of numbers. Expertise is not a popularity contest. It's built on years of dedicated study, rigorous training, and the ability to critically analyze evidence. To suggest that a random "bunch of people" claiming teapots in the sun holds equal weight to the collective knowledge of the scientific community is, frankly, absurd. Another thing I find absurd is your claim that religious experiences hold more weight than scientific evidence. Personal experiences, even if sincere, are subjective and prone to bias. They can be influenced by cultural expectations, emotions, and even neurological quirks. Science, on the other hand, strives for objectivity, constantly questioning and refining its findings through open debate and experimentation. You suggest scientists are just as prone to hallucination as those claiming religious experiences. This is a dangerous generalization, ignoring the rigorous protocols and peer review that safeguard scientific inquiry. To suggest that established scientific principles are mere hallucinations is not only disrespectful but demonstrably untrue.

I'm familiar with the "Last Thursdayism" thought experiment, but I'm not sure why you have presented it here because it doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion. That is a red herring fallacy, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, it doesn't actually disprove the existence of the past. It merely highlights the limitations of our knowledge, something scientists readily acknowledge. But it doesn't provide any evidence for your specific claims, like a teapot orbiting the sun or, for that matter, an anthropomorphic deity.

PoliteActivist:
To both:
As you can see from videos on hypnosis, we could all be under some sort of cosmic hypnosis or mind control and not know it - we would swear we are acting out of free will. But only ALMOST all of us would be fooled. The best geniuses amongst us would somehow be able to figure out we are under some sort of mind control - which they did! Einstein figured out that freewill is an illusion; while our other geniuses say we are very likely in some sort of a simulation!

https://youtube.com/shorts/WLM9roC5lJg?si=LE2K2klgbGCR8xPn

https://youtube.com/shorts/1W1-KBRY0e8?si=JOGIxtEj-gQpeNw_

https://youtube.com/shorts/ed_Nl_MimYY?si=412kQUnA43FEBt3J

Comparing our complex consciousness to a carnival magician's parlor trick is a bold move. Unless this cosmic hypnotist is leaving the latest iPhone in my handbag and making me forget my high school crush, I'm not buying it. And if the "best geniuses" already figured it out, shouldn't everyone else have access to their secret decoder ring?

I'm not inclined to agree with your claims about Einstein. He did grapple with determinism, but is it absolutely the same as dealing with the "free will illusion"? And even if our choices are influenced by factors beyond our immediate control, does that make them any less meaningful? We still experience the world, make decisions, and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards). It's like saying a river doesn't choose its course because gravity influences it. As for the simulation theory, it's a fun thought experiment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where's the evidence? And even if we are in a simulation, wouldn't that just be...reality for us? Are simulated experiences any less real than "real" ones? It's all just turtles all the way down, my dear.

PoliteActivist:
To Atheists:
Yours is even worse. A religionist can say they had a personal encounter with God. You can't say you heard from God that he doesn't exist! They'll also point out to you that we humans know almost nothing about the true nature of existence. That we are even worse than Einstein's little child in a library - and are therefore in no position to be saying anything doesn't exist, talkless of God!
They'll also point to all the countless miracles through the ages, and all the testimonies - so they are ALL lies, totally made up? They'll also point to the community and ritual available in religion that you can't find in atheism. Also the morality - maybe your potential robber was converted on his way to rob you and is instead in church! They'll also point to the supernatural companionship and placebo effect that comes with faith, not possible with atheism.

I'm curious, this "personal encounter" you're alluding to here, can it be verifiable by anyone else? Because, you see, subjective experiences are a dime a dozen in human history. From alien abductions to near-death visions, the brain is a marvelous storyteller, often weaving narratives based on emotions and cultural influences. Just because someone feels something deeply doesn't make it objectively true, especially when it aligns perfectly with their pre-existing beliefs. Given the vastness of our universe, we obviously don't have all the answers, yet. But here's the thing: claiming vastness doesn't equate to proving the existence of something specific, like, say, a bearded sky wizard. It's like arguing a teapot orbits the sun just because we haven't explored every square inch of space. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence, my friend.

As for miracles? Let's be honest, the majority of them often have very earthly explanations, from misdiagnosis reversals to psychological phenomena. And testimonies? Confirmation bias is a powerful force, leading people to interpret events in a way that confirms their existing beliefs. Plus, let's not forget the countless testimonies throughout history of Zeus, Thor, and a plethora of other deities – were they all true too? You also mentioned community and purpose. Those things can be found in countless ways beyond religion! Sports teams, book clubs, volunteering etc. Oh, and synchronized chanting and burning incense haven't exactly solved world hunger yet. Morality predates religion by millennia, evolving from empathy and social cooperation. And let's not forget the countless atrocities committed in the name of faith throughout history. As for the robber, his conversion might be genuine, but attributing it solely to religion ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence individual choices. Since I've been there before, I can understand and relate to the appeal of seeking solace and comfort. But attributing it solely to faith ignores the power of human connection, self-reflection, and critical thinking. Plus, relying solely on placebos for well-being is a risky proposition.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe the claims presented here are inherently true. They rely on subjective experiences, logical fallacies, and selective interpretations of evidence. As an atheist, I find wonder and meaning in the vastness of the universe we can explore, guided by reason, curiosity, and a 10kg bag of salt.

DaHighLife:
You ought to consider researching the topics you select to post about before doing so. It appears that you have a substantial amount of time at your disposal to dedicate to such. The majority of the posts I have encountered from you are either factually inaccurate or lack coherence, such as this one. In my humble opinion, your posts sound nonsensical and bear resemblance to something one might expect from a paid shill.

I think he tries to weave a logical argument, but often ends up with a tapestry of nonsensical threads, sprinkled with emotional outbursts.

basilico:
Now here is a piece that looks at the case from different perceptive.

https://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2024/02/21/judge-engorons-retribution-n2635501

Salient points.
Judge structured the case for him to be sole arbiter and retributor.
Judge acknowledge all loans were repaid accordingly.
Judge said they were not remorseful at all hence the hefty fines.


By all means , this case is avery unusual and rarely if ever prosecuted. It is an application of a law to find a way to punish Trump, other business owners in NY 'should not be worried.'
The striking thing was that Engoron suggested that the overvaluations -- the heart of the case -- weren't really a serious offense; it was Trump's refusal to confess error that led Engoron to impose such a draconian penalty
...........
This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a 'See no evil, hear.

The article goes on to list what Soros DA said during her campaign.
If you cease being a democrat mouthpiece the article should be an eye opener.Let there be light.

When it comes to Soros and his globalist ambitions , Trump is his greatest enemy. A minion to take him out permanently is a worthy investment to him.A black one especially who bragged About women like her and jean Carroll get stuff done.

At any rate, it's nice to see that you're effectively destroying any little credibility you have left on this topic by continuously quoting from Townhall -- the sensationalists' wet dream. Anybody with a little respect for intellectual honesty would take everything written on that website with a grain of salt, or maybe a whole salt shaker. And I think Byron York (the gentleman who wrote the article you cited), is missing the point of the case and the ruling by a country mile. The case is not about whether Trump overvalued his assets or not, but whether he did so fraudulently and intentionally to deceive lenders, investors, and tax authorities. The judge found that he did, and that he did it repeatedly and systematically over many years.

The rest of your post is nothing more than the trademark basilico debate strategy of finding conspiracies in the most mundane things. You are actually living proof that any bum can connect any two dots, no matter how far apart they are, as long as you have enough duct tape and paranoia.

basilico:
A Deutsche Bank employee testified that it's normal to see overvalued properties in loan request forms. He was involved in personally approving at least one loan to Trump. Which was paid back with interest , called him a high value client. An they wanted to do more business.
Show me the testimony of any witness who was defeauded by one *false filing* Not an auditor or data analyst going through the records. One witness in court who relied on Trump statements of account and lod money.
Soros if he is your type of cake, I have no further comments save for wondering where on earth you get your news from. If you said so in some quarters they would teach you to bungee without a rope
I have seen something about his foundation which he used to promote himself by doing a fundraising for veterans. As he put it the foundation had minimal expenses .Compare to the Clinton Global thing with administrative expenses figures. Which was allegedly used to finance Rodham's weddings.

I can surmise your brief here is to whitewash democrats, injecting plain lies doesn't seem odd to you.

Any state body collecting taxes has its own assessor. Every insurance and bank had it's own assessors.
The most intensive medical I underwent was paid for by a life insurance company. They underlying tests were to determine how long I'm likely to live based on my internal and external health status. I could have gone to my doctors, obtained a medical and presented it to them , but no, they have their own medical staff who direct you to their radiologists, labs and so on
I think you see my point. Insurances are in the business of making money and they are way more thorough .
Get a proper life policy today an see what it entails.

Somebody who did not do his job to evaluate Trump taxes should be in jail.
In all every current Trump case is a witch-hunt meant to block his oval office bid.
You can never convince me otherwise. Never.

I should have awarded you points for your passionate rants, but I'm really not interested in you enlightening me about your frustrations.

I also see you are having hallucinations about the Clinton Foundation and its charitable work. You imply that the foundation was a slush fund for the Clintons and their cronies, and that it had high administrative expenses. But the facts tell a different story. The Clinton Foundation is an operating foundation, meaning that it conducts most of its charitable activities directly, rather than just giving grants to other organizations. According to an independent analysis by the Center for High Impact Philanthropy, about 89 percent of its funding went to charity. The foundation has also been rated highly by various watchdogs, such as Charity Navigator and GuideStar, for its transparency and accountability. The foundation's work has improved the lives of millions of people around the world, especially in the areas of health, education, and economic development.

Your suggestion that because state bodies, banks, and insurance companies have their own assessors, they are somehow immune to fraud and deception, only lends credence to your naive and simplistic understanding of how taxes and insurance work. Assessors are not infallible, and they can be misled, bribed, or pressured by powerful interests. That's why there are laws and regulations that require accurate reporting and disclosure of financial information, and that's why there are audits and investigations to ensure compliance. Trump and his company violated those laws and regulations, and they were caught and punished. It's not a witch-hunt, it's justice. I get it, champ. You have opinions, but they're about as flexible as a rusted nail. And here's the kicker: being right isn't a participation trophy you get for clinging to the same beliefs since the Stone Age.

basilico:
Tax liability to NYS. You have invented a lie. There was no victim no damages There was a disclaimer according to Trump in every application.

I'm sorry, I can't hear your miserable waffle over the sound of cold reality. The judge ordered Trump to pay nearly $355 million in damages, plus interest, for his fraudulent business practices. The victims of Trump's fraud include the banks that lent him money based on his inflated net worth statements, such as Deutsche Bank, which lost millions of dollars in interest and fees when Trump defaulted on his loans. The insurers that relied on his deflated valuations of his assets to set his premiums, such as Aon, which paid more than $20 million to settle a related investigation by the New York Department of Financial Services. And the taxpayers who were deprived of revenue when Trump claimed tax deductions and credits based on his manipulated financial information.

As for the disclaimer that Trump claims to have in every application, it does NOT absolve him of responsibility or liability for his intentional misrepresentations. The disclaimer, states that the statements are not audited, that they may contain estimates and assumptions, and that others might reach different conclusions about Trump's financial position if they had more information. However, the disclaimer does not give Trump or the Trump Organization license to submit fraudulent and misleading asset valuations to their accountants, lenders, insurers, and tax authorities, as the New York Attorney General's Office argued in its complaint. Moreover, the disclaimer does not negate the fact that Trump signed the statements under penalty of perjury, and that he personally guaranteed some of the loans that he obtained using the statements!

You can't stop yourself from lying

Perhaps you're confusing my honesty with your own selective memory.

You are lying about Mar a Lago. Anyone would want to buy it. Investors may look at the location of a property and buy it despite being a burial ground for pigs.

Let me remind you that Trump himself lied about Mar-a-Lago when he bought it in 1985. He claimed that it was worth $200 million, when it was actually worth only $25 million. He also lied about his plans to use it as a private residence, when he actually turned it into a club that charged $200,000 in initiation fees.

Letitia James is Soros funded.

Soros is a well-known philanthropist and supporter of progressive causes, who has donated to many Democratic candidates and organizations. You have no proof that there is anything illegal or unethical about his contributions to James' campaign, apart from assumptions and speculations. That's the only way you know how to argue. You build up your points based on suggestions and implications as opposed to actual facts that have been confirmed. Moreover, James is not the only one who has pursued legal action against Trump. The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., has also indicted Trump and his company on criminal tax fraud charges. Are you going to claim that Vance is also Soros funded? Or are you going to admit that Trump is facing serious legal troubles because of his own wrongdoing, not because of some conspiracy?

I don have to add anything.

Is modesty getting the best of you today, basilico? Don't be shy, share your hidden gems of insight!

basilico:
Dershowitz is a Harvard legal scholar. You might have changed you opinion of Harvard when it was Harvard then .He is a democrat who sees through the lies.
He defends what is constitutional.
I won't mention he is tainted with Epstein shenanigans.

I hope you're aware that appealing to authority in this discussion is fallacious and irrelevant. Dershowitz's academic credentials do not make him immune to criticism or scrutiny.

Precisely the point. The appraiser took brick and mortar values plus annual revenue. I compared his finding to 77k pairs of shoes. Letitia is a publicist, her campaign funded by George Soros was a get Trump one.The jury decides on the strength of evidence the judge allows to seep through it. The bank loaned money, in the filings presented there was a clear disclaimer - Do your own evaluation and due diligence. Which they did, lent the money and got repaid in full with interest. Bank testified it was happy with the deal, a Soros lawyer Cooked the books . There is no victim , no damages warranted but hey Trump lied in his filings to banks. By that measure every time someone wants a loan in NYS he/she/they/them should ask Letitia and Engoron whether their valuations are correct. She went for a colonoscopy to look for a crime as if there are not other serious matters in her docket. Dershowitz says damages are paid to victims, we can do a 3 to 1 factor. Who was the victim in the loans lent out and repaid And who screwed up to not get top dollar from the loans?

Stop trying to distract from the main issue with yet more heaps of logical fallacies and misinformation. The point here is that Trump and his organization committed fraud by inflating and deflating the value of their assets depending on the situation. It's not a matter of different valuation methods, but of deliberate deception and manipulation. You are also ignoring the fact that Trump's fraud case is not only about loans, but also about tax benefits. He claimed millions of dollars in tax deductions based on inflated appraisals of his properties, which reduced his tax liability and deprived the public of revenue. This is a clear violation of the law and a harm to society. Then, coming to Letitia James, she is not a publicist. She is a duly elected official who has the authority and the duty to investigate and prosecute fraud and corruption. Beyond watery news sources and idle speculation, you don't have any proof that her case is based on political motives, as opposed to solid evidence.

I'm curious to know where you got the spurious information that Dershowitz has endorsed your absurd 3 to 1 factor, which has no basis in law or logic. He did state that Trump's fraud case is a serious one, and that he could face significant civil and criminal liability. He also said that the damages are not limited to the victims, but also to the public interest and the deterrence of future fraud.

Your argument here is weak, flawed and dishonest. You are only trying to defend the indefensible, and as usual, you are failing miserably.

So is Mar a Lago worth 19-27 m. If you have to value, you consider sales within the neighborhood also. Properties in that area go for much higher. I calculated his shoe price to show how ridiculous the appraiser was. I have mentioned brand value on other posts here. Michael Jackson 6 pairs of all his NBA titles winning sneakers fetched $8m in a Sotheby auction a few days ago. A third of Mar A Lago my foot. Brand value my friend.

You really don't get it, do you? Mar-a-Lago is not some fancy mansion that anyone with a fat wallet can buy. It's a private club that has more rules than a kindergarten classroom. It's completely nonsensical to compare it to other properties in the area that are actually useful and profitable. Do look up the meaning of False Equivocation. The value of Mar-a-Lago is based on how much money it makes, not on how famous or infamous its owner is. The county appraiser has done a good job of estimating its market value, which is way lower than what Trump thinks. Your shoe analogy is not only laughable, but pointless. Michael Jackson's sneakers are priceless treasures that his fans would kill for. They are not like a club that has a shrinking and unhappy membership, a track record of lawsuits, and a divisive owner. Brand value is not a magic trick that can turn a lemon into a gold mine. It is a factor that depends on many other factors, such as quality, reputation, demand, and customer satisfaction. Mar-a-Lago does not have a strong brand value, but a stained one.

By the way e don tire yourself wearing me down here . I'm resourceful.
And I'm never wrong.

Don't flatter yourself. You're not a challenge, you're a nuisance. And you're never wrong? That's a laugh. You're wrong about everything, especially who you think you are.

And Joe Biden stole.

I don't know where I ever initiated this conversation with you. Apparently you have a tangent for every point on a circle. Kindly stay on topic. Thanks.

Dtruthspeaker:
Your admitting of the bold proves that morality is the standard and everything is measured on those basis.

And this does not stop anyone from being creative..

It really is as simple as that No need to overcomplication.

You are missing the point. Morality is not a fixed standard that everyone agrees on. It is a complex and dynamic concept that evolves with time, culture, and context. What is considered moral in one society may be immoral in another. What is considered moral today may be immoral tomorrow. Therefore, basing your authenticity on morality is a futile and limiting exercise. You are conforming to a set of rules that are arbitrary and subjective, not universal and objective.

Creativity is not the same as authenticity. Creativity is the ability to produce original and valuable ideas. Authenticity is the ability to express your true self, regardless of external pressures or expectations. Creativity can be influenced by morality, but it does not depend on it. Authenticity can be enhanced by creativity, but it does not require it. They are both valuable qualities, but they are not interchangeable.

Again, this is a gross oversimplification of a nuanced and multifaceted issue, ignoring the diversity and complexity of human nature. You are imposing a rigid and narrow framework on a fluid and expansive phenomenon. That, my dear, is the very definition of dogmatism.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is a good post but it is also a rubbish post.

Yes, its good to be different and out standing however, it is not praise worthy to stand out for evil eg like a girl been a Corssy Ojiakor or a guy being Anini.

But standing out like Osimhen, Nwabali, Dora Akun. Noah, Daniel, Job., Now that is a stand out worthy of emulation.

So dont just stand out and be a rebel, stand out good and be a rebel because its right and good!

I'm afraid your criticisms are misguided.

Morality isn't a binary code. While I agree that standing out for "evil" isn't praiseworthy, judging authenticity based solely on "good" or "bad" is a dangerous simplification. True belonging isn't about seeking external approval, it's about aligning with your values, regardless of whether they align with the norm. Creativity, innovation, and progress often stem from individuals who challenge the status quo, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Do you recall that Galileo was once considered an "evil" rebel for his astronomical discoveries?

Rebellion isn't always synonymous with negativity. Standing out can also mean questioning harmful traditions, fighting for social justice, or simply pursuing a unique path. It's about having the courage to be your authentic self, even when it's challenging, and inspiring others to do the same. Belonging that requires sacrificing your true self is likely superficial and fleeting. Finding your tribe means surrounding yourself with people who appreciate your individuality, not just your adherence to a specific mold.

basilico:
Granted. The jury delivers it's verdict strictly based on the judges direction. The judge sets the evidence they will review, can block jurors from reviewing exculpatory evidence, can block defence presenting evidence .

Here is a democrat's take on Letitia James.

Dershowitz called for New York State Attorney General Letitia James to be brought up before the bar.

“I didn’t make it up,” Dershowitz replied. “I wish I were creative and original, but I got it from obviously Letitia James campaign. She ought to be brought up before the bar. You should not have an elected prosecutor campaigning on the promise to get a particular defendant. Now if she didn’t get him. She would lose the election. This is a variation of Stalin and Beria back in the 1930s when the head of the KGB says to Stalin, show me the man, I’ll find you the crime. This is — show me the man, we know who it is. She told us who it was, Donald Trump, and we’ll find you the fraud even though there was no harm.”

“Generally in our legal system, particularly under the system of equity when you go get a jury trial, if it’s no harm, no foul, no harm, no fine, but when you have no damages at all, usually you can do a multiple,” he continued. “Say there’s a million dollars of damages, you can give $3 million fine. But when you have zero damages, no matter how many times you multiply it, zero plus and nth times whatever, is all still zero. So it it’s outrageous. Now, I don’t know whether it’s going to be reversed in the appellate division


Oh and you might want to acknowledge that Letitia valued Mar a Lago at the same price as 77000 pairs of $349 shoes that Trump is selling
Food for thought. Brand

(1) Dershowitz is not a credible source of legal or political analysis, sorry. He's a notorious contrarian who likes to stir up controversy and defend the indefensible, like the impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, or the idea that 15-year-olds should be able to consent to sex. He's not a Democrat or a lawyer, he's a clown.

(2) You're also twisting Letitia James' words to fit your insane narrative. She didn't promise to go after Trump specifically, but to uphold the law and investigate anyone who breaks it, including the president. She said: "I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president", not "I will charge this illegitimate president". She also said: "We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well", not "We will find a crime to charge President Trump and his family with". She was expressing her duty to hold the powerful accountable, not her personal grudge against Trump.

(3) Of course, you will conveniently ignore the evidence that supports the fraud allegations against Trump and his organization. The New York Attorney General's office has obtained millions of pages of documents, tax returns, and financial statements that show a pattern of lying about the value of assets to get loans and tax benefits. For example, Trump claimed that his Mar-a-Lago resort was worth between $426.5 million and $612.1 million, while the Palm Beach County appraiser valued it at between $18 million and $27.6 million. This is not a matter of opinion, but of facts. The jury will have to decide whether this amounts to fraud, not whether they love or hate Trump.

(4) I already know you're dishonest, but downplaying the harm that Trump's alleged fraud has caused to the public interest is just pathetic and disgraceful. Fraud is not a harmless prank. It robs the government of tax revenue that could be used for public services and programs, and also erodes the trust and confidence in the financial system and the rule of law. It is not fair or ethical that Trump and his organization should profit from dishonest and illegal practices, while others have to follow the rules and pay their fair share. The damages in this case are not zero, but huge and serious.

(5) I find it hilarious that you'd compare Mar-a-Lago to a pair of shoes. The value of a property is not determined by how many shoes it can buy, but by how many people want to buy it, where it is, what it looks like, what it offers, and other factors. Mar-a-Lago is not a unique or priceless property, but one of many clubs and resorts in Palm Beach County. Its value is not based on Trump's ego, but on objective and verifiable criteria. The fact that you have to use such a silly analogy shows that you have no valid argument to defend Trump's inflated valuation.

basilico:
Find a shred of any lie I put down here. Was once active circa 2013-15 with this moniker on the Islam section if you want to interogate my history here and I have no shame about it.

Once active on the Islam section? Very interesting. If you are pro Islam, then I guess that explains a lot.

y3mi:
Forced conformity! How interesting.
What would be more interesting is to learn from you what and what could be behind the enforcement of this conformity, afterall, you'll agree -behind every forces exist an enforcer or exertive factor.

I don't accept we are born wired for connection to fellow humans as such assertion not only contravenes the subject of unmasking the magic of individualism as your piece attempts to tackle, it also fails to breakdown why the majority tend not to go beyond the script as its just played out tonight - Nigeria - an oppressive colonial state that perpetually makes life unbearable for the people, no light, insane economy, corruption, no security and safety as crime reigns etc yet the majority amassed to watch a football match in the cover of pitch darkness afforded by the incessant blackouts. What breeds this sort of conformity for human to conform into a fixation of pseudo-euphoria attached to pain and suffering constantly brought by those who will bask in the glory of credit or the oppresive ruiners if Nigeria had won ?


I agree. That defines who Nigerians are.

Intriguing counterpoints there, buddy. You asked about the "enforcers of conformity". It's true that conformity often isn't explicitly forced. Instead, it's subtly woven into multiple variables such as social pressure from peers, family, media, and societal norms, subtle cues that reinforce "acceptable" behavior, which deviating from can lead to exclusion and judgement. Institutional structures like schools and offices often reward conformity and punish individuality as well. There's also our cognitive bias which leads us to naturally seek belonging and acceptance, leading us to unconsciously adopt group behaviors to fit in.

Individualism doesn't mean isolation. When I say humans are wired for connection, I mean our social nature compels us to connect. But it's important to remember that healthy connection doesn't require us sacrificing our unique selves. Your example of Nigerians cheering for the Super Eagles in the dark is highly significant. It shows how even amidst hardship, humans seek community and shared experiences -- a basic human need. However, blind conformity in face of oppression contradicts true individualism. It isn't just rejecting established norms. It's about consciously questioning them, critically examining their source, and choosing our own paths based on reason and values. We don't necessarily need to ignore the society. We can still engage with it critically, examining the status quo, and strive for a better future. True societal change often starts with individuals challenging the script!

basilico:
You can never debunk what I put down.
I always state whether it's my opinion.
I have never been proven wrong.
To prove me wrong, you have to provide proof to the contrary.

Challenge accepted! But first, pass the salt, because your confidence is seasoning my popcorn.

basilico:
Granted. The jury delivers it's verdict strictly based on the judges direction. The judge sets the evidence they will review, can block jurors from reviewing exculpatory evidence, can block defence presenting evidence .

Here is a democrat's take on Letitia James.

Dershowitz called for New York State Attorney General Letitia James to be brought up before the bar.

“I didn’t make it up,” Dershowitz replied. “I wish I were creative and original, but I got it from obviously Letitia James campaign. She ought to be brought up before the bar. You should not have an elected prosecutor campaigning on the promise to get a particular defendant. Now if she didn’t get him. She would lose the election. This is a variation of Stalin and Beria back in the 1930s when the head of the KGB says to Stalin, show me the man, I’ll find you the crime. This is — show me the man, we know who it is. She told us who it was, Donald Trump, and we’ll find you the fraud even though there was no harm.”

“Generally in our legal system, particularly under the system of equity when you go get a jury trial, if it’s no harm, no foul, no harm, no fine, but when you have no damages at all, usually you can do a multiple,” he continued. “Say there’s a million dollars of damages, you can give $3 million fine. But when you have zero damages, no matter how many times you multiply it, zero plus and nth times whatever, is all still zero. So it it’s outrageous. Now, I don’t know whether it’s going to be reversed in the appellate division


Oh and you might want to acknowledge that Letitia valued Mar a Lago at the same price as 77000 pairs of $349 shoes that Trump is selling
Food for thought. Brand

Bookmarked.

Another baseless, illogical wall of text.

basilico:
Jessicarabbit.
Fani Willis woes keep on growing Judge rules there will be an evidentiary hearing ( in 2 days?) .

BREAKING: Judge in Trump Case in Georgia on Fani Willis: “I think it's possible that the facts alleged could result in disqualification. I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations”

NB: She will give testimony under oath. How will she explain why she filed court documents saying her affair with Nathan Wade started after she appointed him, while his business partner is willing to testify in person that the affair started much earlier?
She also tainted the jury pool by claiming the accuser was going after her and Wade because they are black leaving out the other two white special prosecutors.

LOL. Donald Trump plans to attend the hearing. Master troll..That black who conspired to have mugshots of those who took action to expose the steal in Georgia.
Georgia's was a state case. The president cannot issue a pardon for state level case. Was to be the fail safe Incase federal level cases got thrown out.
All the same it will be such a nice mugshot of Fani Willis. She has brokem some law I believe that deserves an indictment and jail sentence.
There is a little mentioned filing at the Supreme Court questioning the legality of private citizen named Jack Smith as a Special Counsel wielding Super Cow powers; more than the Presidential nominated US Attorneys who have passed confirmation from the Senate.

Same old, same old.

Misinformation, bias and hateful insults... that's pretty much all there is to your debating prowess.

I'll debunk this watery rant when I'm more lucid. At this present moment, I don't have much patience for your wanton ignorance.

basilico:
Are you still lurking in the shadows afraid to prove me wrong.

Shadows? Hardly. More like dodging the spotlight to avoid outshining you, my dear jester. While you spin your narrative, I'm busy engaging with the real world, leaving you to your digital kingdom of make-believe. Perhaps when you grow tired of your echo chamber, I'll offer a real rebuttal. Until then, enjoy your shadow boxing.

basilico:
My simple point is that hat valuing his assets using brick and mortar construction costs and annual revenue was incorrect.
You agree Trump is a brand. It is not priceless as I may have mentioned, but it nevertheless has a value. That the left wants to crush.
In other words Letitia case is. a complete sham and a mockery of justice
Banks were happy, there is no victim.
An undervalue to pay less taxex us the domain of IRS.

As for your other posts, I'll respond later. In your defence of the jury, don't forget it's said a jury can indict a ham sandwich.

I appreciate your clarification about valuing assets, and I agree that a holistic approach is necessary. However, the New York Attorney General's case goes beyond brick and mortar. It alleges misrepresentation of property values to obtain loans and tax benefits. Whether the Trump brand has value isn't the question. It's whether that value was accurately represented.

Additionally, while some may see the Letitia James case as political, it's important to remember that violations of financial law are not partisan issues. The justice system should hold everyone accountable, regardless of their political affiliation.

As for the jury, they're instructed to base their verdict on evidence, not public opinion. The "ham sandwich" saying is a reminder of their power, not a justification for ignoring facts.

bemeruca:
🤐

If that is your way of saying you finally understand, then my work here is done!

bemeruca:
Stop making noise talking nonsense all the time. At the end of the day she will not receive a penny. Watch and see.

Time will tell who's right, but at least I'm speaking my mind. You, on the other hand, seem content to hide behind negativity.

basilico:
"His Airness" six NBA teams title winning sneakers
Sold for a record $8m in a Sotheby auction.
Darn you Americans have cash to burn.

CNN ^ | Updated 9:46 AM EST, Sat February 3 2024
Basketball legend Michael Jordan won six NBA championships during
his prolific sporting career – and a set of the six sneakers he worewhen
clinching those titles has sold for a record-breaking $8 million at auction.

Friday’s winning bid for “The Dynasty Collection” reached $8,032,800,
setting a new global auction record for game-worn sneakers, according
to auction house Sotheby’s.

The set consisted of Air Jordan VI (1991), Air Jordan VII (1992),
Air Jordan VIII (1993), Air Jordan XI (1996), Air Jordan XII (1997),
and Air Jordan XIV (1998).

Don't get your knickers in a twist, my dear. It's essential to recognize that all these valuations on items are often driven by collectors, enthusiasts, and the mystique surrounding iconic athletes. The intersection of sports, culture, and commerce can yield astonishing results. The notion that the Trump name is a brand with immeasurable worth is intriguing. However, at the end of the day, brand valuation remains subjective!

While some may view the Trump brand as priceless, others may question its reputation due to political polarization and controversies.

basilico:
Correct me on this and don't spring out your lies.
She met Donald at the entrance She was happy to assist him buy lingerie for a woman. They walked into 6th floor section , picked out some kinky stuff. She asked him jokingly to try it on. All the same she walked into a changing room to try it on. Trump followed her, closed the door and inserted his fingers in her vagina. Then he dropped his pants and inserted his dick. She can't remember whether it went in half way or full. She walked out after the act and never told anyone.She never wore that dress again. She does not remember the year that happened. She said in court that Donald destroyed her love life And has never been with another man since 25 years later.
Questions.
The jury found he sexually violated her but did not rape her. The judge in the courtroom told Trump that he inserted his fingers in her vagina. How did the jury arrive at the conclusion that he was liable for sexual violation but NOT rape?They talked to a fly that was on the wall?

Short answer is, because you're a clueless halfwit who doesn't understand the simple meanings behind legal terminologies. Now for the more in-depth answer:

The New York jury did not determine that he raped her. Why, you ask?

(1) The trial was a civil case, not a criminal one. In civil trials, the standard of evidence is preponderance of evidence, which means the jury must find it more likely than not that the plaintiff's contentions are true. This standard is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal trials. The jury concluded that Trump had sexually abused the woman based on this standard, but there are no criminal consequences to this finding.

(2) You're ignorant of basic legal definitions, and so can't see the distinction between sexual abuse and rape. Sexual abuse encompasses a range of behaviors, including unwanted touching or sexual contact. Rape, on the other hand, typically involves non-consensual penetration. The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse but did not specifically find him guilty of rape. The judge's statement about Trump inserting his fingers in her private area likely contributed to the sexual abuse finding.

(3) It's essential to recognize that a civil verdict does not equate to a criminal conviction. Criminal cases require a higher burden of proof, and the decision to charge someone with rape rests with prosecutors. In this case, the jury's verdict led to financial liability (damages) for Trump but did not result in criminal charges.

So basically, the jury's conclusion was based on the evidence presented in a civil trial, and it did not directly address the criminal offense of rape. The legal system distinguishes between civil liability and criminal guilt, and the jury's decision reflects that distinction.

Is there anything else I can clarify, or are you finally ready to graduate from this elementary-level interrogation?

basilico:
Where is the liar Jessicarabbit? Jean Carroll life is documented by her in this tell all
You lied she didn't get laid after the rape, Well it's in her own words. She never wore that dress again. She has not been screwed again.
Yet in her shows and interviews was always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog'" whatever she meant.

Long read, she details all her hideous men in her life.

https://www.thecut.com/article/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html#_ga=2.208057690.931097574.1705722541-1999883557.1705722541

Excerpt .


down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.

And that was my last hideous man. The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening. And whether it’s my age, the fact that I haven’t met anyone fascinating enough over the past couple of decades to feel “the sap rising,” as Tom Wolfe put it, or if it’s the blot of the real-estate tycoon, I can’t say. But I have never had sex with anybody ever again


Exposing your lies.

Here's some questions for you to answer, if you aren't intellectually dishonest:

(1) How does the fact that Jean Carroll has written about her experiences and encounters with various men (including Trump), invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(2) Do you think it is right for you to make assumptions about people's personal lives based on a single event?

(3) Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that sexual assault survivors' responses and coping mechanisms are diverse and cannot be generalized?

(4) How does Carroll's decision to wear, or not to wear the dress, invalidate her accusations against Trump?

(5) As a writer and advice columnist, Carroll has covered a wide range of topics beyond sex. You don't think you're grossly oversimplifying her work by saying her "interviews were "always about sex, anal sex, lessons from 'My Dog.'"?

basilico:
Jessicarabbit.

Your infatuation with the moral uprightness of one Jean Carroll should end when you read page l
linked below.

Tara Read ( Joe Biden s victim) had DMs with Jean Carroll where Carroll admitted supporting Blasey Ford because of Roe vs Wade. No hint at all that she was sex starved for decades because Donald Trump raped her in a high end fashion store while wearing a dress that had not been designed then. Jean Carroll hoped to have a cup of tea with Tara Reade one day.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/02/heres-why-e-jean-carroll-got-behind-christine-blasey-ford-n2634729

Reading on , the page details Blasey Ford activist lawyer implying that her client was doing it for Roe v Wade ie Ford was accusing Kavanaugh for political reasons.

Mr Apologetic, how will you spin that? What lies will you conjure up this time?

Phew! you really scraped the bottom of the barrel to find a source that backs up your fantasy that Carroll and Reade were plotting against Biden. The link you shared is from Townhall, a website that makes Fox News look like the BBC. The article you cited is based on a chopped-up video clip from a documentary called "The Hunting of Biden", which was made by a Trump fanboy who has already been busted for lying and twisting facts. The clip shows Carroll and Reade chatting like old pals, but it does not show any confession from Carroll that she only supported Blasey Ford to save abortion rights. Actually, Carroll has said that she trusts both Reade and Blasey Ford, and that she stands with women who speak up about sexual assault. I get that you have a hard time accepting reality, but please, get a grip.

And don't you have any shame repeating a lie that Carroll was wearing a dress from the future when she was attacked? This lie was first cooked up by Trump's lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, who said that the dress was not made by Donna Karan until years after 1994, but it was busted by many sources, including Donna Karan herself, who said that the dress was from her 1993 collection. Carroll also showed a photo of herself in the dress in 1993, and a receipt from Bergdorf Goodman, the store where she got the dress and where the assault happened. Do you really think Carroll was celibate for decades because Trump supposedly raped her? That's a ridiculous and offensive assumption. Carroll never claimed that she stopped having sex or dating after the alleged attack, or that it ruined her love life. She said that she didn't tell anyone or report it to the cops, because she was scared of Trump's revenge and felt guilty for what happened. She also said that she finally spoke up in 2019, when she saw Trump lie about the other women who accused him of sexual abuse. As for Blasey Ford, did you skip the part where she swore under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018, and gave reliable and consistent details of her accusation? She also aced a lie detector test and had backup evidence from her therapist and her hubby. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that she was driven by politics rather than civic duty and personal trauma. She said that she had to come forward after finding out that Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, and that she worried about the consequences of his confirmation for women and girls. She also said that she suffered from anxiety, depression, and PTSD because of the assault, and that she had to move and hire bodyguards because of the threats and harassment she faced after going public. Your arguments are as empty as a vacuum, and it shows. But please, don't let me stop your game of make-believe. I'm actually having fun exposing your silly claims.

In review, Townhall almost exclusively publishes news articles that favor conservatives and utilizes strongly loaded language such as this: Shove It, House Democrats: Another Trump-Russia Story Blows Up. This story is sourced from the left-leaning Axios and right-leaning Fox News. In another article with loaded language, by Rush Limbaugh’s brother David: Abortion Extremism Exposing Left’s Moral Contradictions, there is not a single source listed to support Mr. Limbaugh’s claims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/

basilico:
You are trying to lead me into a rabbit hole.
Trump witch- hunt cases are not going as per plan. Chutkan DC case is off the court calender. Fani Willis extra maritals are a huge dent in the case ( by the way is she under blackmail eg FBI has her nudes?) .
Alvin Bragg case is (mis)interpretation of the law and plain witch-hunt.
Florida cases, that judge is not in the get Trump by all means train, Jackboot needs solid evidence and be free of bias. I think he implied Mar a Lago has secret rooms they didn't search.. Another raid? Who knows?
My opinion . These cases are going nowhere and democrat options to stop Trump are running out.
Enter Judge Kaplan, who let a paedo go, while listening to a crazy sex starved sicko.
Judge Engoron, he may have their best and final chance of delivering the killer blow to Trump chances , he has moved the verdict to mid Feb possibly on revelations of some obscure Chicago loan Trump took out.

Pish posh!

First, you are wrong about the Chutkan DC case being off the court calendar. The trial date was pushed back, not canceled, as the court is still scratching its head over Trump's claim of presidential immunity. Even if Trump dodges the bullet in DC, he still has a target on his back in Florida for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and blocking the government's attempts to get them back. He also has to deal with civil lawsuits in New York and Virginia for being a creep and a liar. So, no, the witch-hunt cases are not going according to plan - they are going downhill for Trump faster than he can tweet!

Your baseless speculation about Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney who is prosecuting Trump for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election in Georgia, amounts to nothing more than petty character assassination. Willis and Nathan Wade, the lovebirds working on the case, have admitted that they had a fling, but they swore they did nothing wrong or shady. They also claimed that their romance did not cloud their vision or the quality of the case. There is no proof that Willis is being blackmailed or that the FBI has her naughty pics, as you ridiculously imply. These are just lame and pathetic attempts from a Trump fan who can't face reality. You are also misrepresenting the case brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, who indicted Trump on four counts related to his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016. This is not a case of misinterpretation of the law or plain witch-hunt, as you claim. This is a case of applying the law and holding Trump accountable for his crimes. Bragg has a strong legal basis for charging Trump with conspiracy and obstruction of official proceedings, as he violated federal election law by concealing his payment to Daniels and tried to interfere with the congressional investigation into his conduct. Bragg also has ample evidence to support his charges, including Trump's own admissions, his former lawyer Michael Cohen's testimony, and the documents seized from the Trump Organization.

And I like how you tried to undermine and dismiss the case brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who sued Trump and his company for fraud, alleging that they inflated the value of their assets on financial documents to obtain loans, insurance, and tax benefits. Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the case, has already found Trump guilty of fraud in a pre-trial ruling in September 2021. The trial was over whether Trump committed fraud with intent, which could result in a hefty fine and a ban from doing business in New York. The verdict, which was delayed until early to mid-February, could be influenced by a letter from the court-appointed monitor, Barbara Jones, who identified certain deficiencies and errors in the financial information provided by the Trump Organization, including a $48 million loan that never existed.

So, are there any more pointless rabbits you're itching to pull out of your wretched hat?

basilico:
Circling round the proof .
Caroll said she has never sleot with any other man since Donald raped her. I doubt one would forget the year you last got laid. And esp women who tend to insert feelings and emotions into romantic encounters.
So how did jury find out she was NOT raped but was sexually violated?
Same judge who oversaw the first biased trial was the same one who ruled Trump defamed her by denying he knew her.
You waltzed in here from wherever with emotive SOB stories of how justice is fair,yet you have to twist legal definitions and terms to make this
sham Trump case look solid.
What an epic fail!!!

LOL. I'm sorry, are you here for a debate or a remedial class? Had you bothered to acquaint yourself with even the most rudimentary legal terminology, perhaps your arguments wouldn't have resembled a toddler's first attempt at finger painting. Rape is a specific type of sexual abuse, but not the only one. Sexual abuse can include any unwanted sexual contact, such as groping, handling, kissing, or penetrating. The jury said Trump did that to Carroll, which means he violated her bodily autonomy and consent. Who cares if he raped her or not? That's not what they were asked to decide.

Questioning Carroll's credibility based on her personal life is a classic ad hominem fallacy -- attacking the person instead of the argument. Carroll's personal life has nothing to do with her argument. That's like saying you can't trust a chef because he likes pizza. Who cares if she hasn't slept with anyone else since Trump? Does that make her story less true? And why do you think women always get emotional about sex? Are you saying women are crazy and men are smart? That's a load of baloney, and you know it. And your allegations against Judge Kaplan remain unfounded. He has a reputation for being a fair and impartial jurist, who has handled many major cases such as:

(1) The trial of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law

(2) The extradition of a Mexican drug lord

(3) The fraud case against Exxon Mobil.

You have no credible evidence that he is a political hack, nor a Trump hater. The only thing we've continuously established in this discussion is that you have ZERO proof for your nonsense. You just fling shit constantly at the wall and hope that it sticks. Kaplan is a top-notch judge, who did his job by the book and the facts.

It's not my fault that you're wantonly ignorant of the law to the point where you don't even understand legal definitions and terms. You have no clue about the difference between criminal and civil cases, or the level of proof needed for each. You also have no idea what battery and defamation mean, or how they relate to Carroll's case. And you're the one who's dodging the evidence, trying to divert attention from the fact that Trump was busted for sexually abusing and slandering Carroll. Calling the Trump v Carroll case a sham is just you throwing irrelevant tantrums over the results. In the real world, it's a historic win for survivors of sexual abuse. Carroll is one of the many women who have courageously spoken up about being attacked by Trump. She is also one of the few who have taken him to court and won, and she has proven that no one is above the law, not even the ex-president.

You have failed to demonstrate any intellectual or political acumen, any wit or style, or any decency or civility. You have failed, miserably and completely. And that, my friend, is the true tea!

bemeruca:
You are sick.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's as accurate as a horoscope written by a squirrel.