Generational Dynamics World View News

[Bob Butler]

For always offended Butler...

I don’t think offended is the right word. When Trump first told the big lie, he put out a bunch of court cases to prove his point, but lost 60 of them. Yet, he is still telling the lie. The January 6 Committee, the juries approving indictments in DC, New York, Florida and Georgia found he likely meddled in insurrection and other crimes, as did the Colorado Supreme Court. He lost his charity, his university, and seems bound to lose his business. He was found guilty of sexual assault.

Yet conservatives would pick him as the best person for the highest office in the land.

Fox News confessed that for profit they told people what they wanted to hear. Knowing this conservatives still believe what has been shown in court to be lies.

As I said earlier, the country could not be so divided if one group were not perpetually lying. You would think there would be some interest in objectively determining which one? The problem is the conservatives have such a passionate desire to continue with the lies. Confront them with obvious truth and they will contort themselves to throw forward denials.

I mean… seriously? What would be required for them to accept truth?

Recently I have expanded on the instinct to hate, oppress and kill the different with a connection to the territorial instinct, fascism, racism and war. It is not just fascism. In the agricultural age it was a thing to war over which dynasty would rule. Communism, the Ba’ath party, Hamas and others still believe war cost effective and attempt to gain power through violence. Oppression by race or sexual preference abounds. If a group perceives itself as dominant within a territory, they believe themselves entitled to oppress, to force their culture on others.

Anyway, I’m not sure offended is the right word. If in a S&H crisis one advocates new values to supplant old ones, to fix a flaw in the culture, one must focus in on the flaw. In many was, this is the flaw.

[jdcpapa]

In the Carroll case, the jury concluded that "she failed to prove Trump had raped her". Read your own cite. In the Fox case, your cite does not support a guilty verdict or an admission of guilt. Your insult is unfounded.

In the Fox case, during discovery phase, before the settlement, Murdock admitted to lying on air to increase audience share. ‘It is not red or blue, it is green'

You do not provide any evidence that Murdock admitted to lying about the subject matter. According to your cite, "in a deposition Murdock testified that he believed the 2020 election was fair and had not been stolen from Trump". There is no other reference to him in your article.

The judge stated that: "the statements at issue were dramatically different than the truth. In fact, although it cannot be attributed to Foxes statements, it is note worthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged".

Foxe's attorney stated: "We never reported that to be true. All we ever did was provide viewers true fact that there were allegations being made. Fox said it was obligated to report on a president who claimed he had been cheated out of an election."

"The larger importance of the settlement is that the high level of protection for news media remains intact for now" said Doreen Weisenhaus an instructor of media at Northwestern University.

Once again, in the Fox case, your cite does not support a guilty verdict or an admission of guilt.

In the Carroll case there are New York legal definitions of sexual assault and rape. The judge from the bench proclaimed the either act would be understood as rape in commonly used language.

If you are counting on that degree of weasel wording to make your point, the insult is very much deserved. Fox lied. Trump raped.

According to your cite: "The judge said the definition of rape was 'far narrower' than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere."

"The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed … the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

"Lawyers for Trump, the front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, did not immediately comment Wednesday but quickly amended their appeal of the trial to add the judge’s ruling."

Trump was not convicted of rape. The judges commentary and the entire case is under appeal. Your insults remain unfounded.

[Bob Butler]

See?

Trump raped.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... udge-rape/

Conservatives will lie outright rather than admit truth. In this case, Spottybrowncow claimed to know more about New Your sex crime law than the judge..

Fox lied.

“It is not red or blue—it is green,” according to Monday’s court filing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... c6a89e494b

Conservatives will contort themselves to deny the obvious. Rather than admit the truth, they will double down on the lies. I am still curious. What will it take for them to admit truth?

[jdcpapa]

See?

Trump raped.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... udge-rape/

Conservatives will lie outright rather than admit truth. In this case, Spottybrowncow claimed to know more about New Your sex crime law than the judge..

The judge could not "find" for a conviction of rape. The jury decision prevails. The New York judge's comments were personal observations and contrary to New York Law. This case was brought on "circumstantial evidence" and is on appeal. We Americans have a right to the "presumption of innocence until proven guilty". We also have first amendment rights. Rendering an opinion, on the judge's personal comments despite the jury's verdict given the circumstantial nature of this case, does not constitute a lie.

Fox lied.

“It is not red or blue—it is green,” according to Monday’s court filing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... c6a89e494b

Conservatives will contort themselves to deny the obvious. Rather than admit the truth, they will double down on the lies. I am still curious. What will it take for them to admit truth?

Your recent cite: "At one point, when asked during the deposition, Murdoch suggested the decision to let Lindell run ads for his company, MyPillow, was a strictly financial—rather than political—move, agreeing with the statement: 'It is not red or blue—it is green,'according to Monday’s court filing."

Your quote is not evidence that Fox lied. It is evidence that Murdock told the truth. Furthermore, your quote is disingenuous because it is taken out of context.

[Bob Butler]

A judge speaking from the bench to correct a defendant claim is not simply a personal opinion. If the legal case is upheld on the appeals will you acknowledge its validity?

Murdock said what Murdock said. Will you continue to claim he didn’t say it?

How willing are you to obviously lie and reject the court system?

[jdcpapa]

A judge speaking from the bench to correct a defendant claim is not simply a personal opinion. If the legal case is upheld on the appeals will you acknowledge its validity?

I acknowledge its validity now. If the legal case is upheld: Trump was found guilty of sex abuse. Trump was not found guilty of rape. The judge did not override the jury's verdict or the New York law that defines rape. Period.

Murdock said what Murdock said. Will you continue to claim he didn’t say it?
How willing are you to obviously lie and reject the court system?

i quote him saying it. I did not claim he did not say it. Here is my previous post to you:

Your recent cite: "At one point, when asked during the deposition, Murdoch suggested the decision to let Lindell run ads for his company, MyPillow, was a strictly financial—rather than political—move, agreeing with the statement: 'It is not red or blue—it is green,'according to Monday’s court filing."

Your quote is not evidence that Fox lied. It is evidence that Murdock told the truth. Furthermore, your quote is disingenuous because it is taken out of context.

I accept the court system as is stated in the opening paragraph.

[Bob Butler]

I think it safe to say a progressive and conservative have different ways of reaching truth, that there is a desire to confirm their worldview that is enough to overcome the evidence. From a progressive point of view, it is easy to believe a statement made from the bench is in adherence to state law. It is easy to believe that if you paid $787 million dollars to avoid a conviction in a defamation case, you defamed. This seems to make every bit of sense to this progressive, and likely others. Your willingness to stand on all sorts of illogic to attempt to deny it is telling,

The stolen documents in Florida, the insurrection case in DC, the RICO case in Georgia, the problems with Trump’s business, are all much the same. Logic must be very strange to think this guy is the best choice for the highest office in the land, assuming you believe it is an office. It was only a state court that says so. The typical conservative knows far more about what he wants the law to mean than a judge.

The question is why conservatives need so badly to warp their logic. They wish to impose on other cultures? The want to continue to act on their prejudice? They need to believe in certain lies?

I think it is obvious that we are applying different logic to determine truth. My interpretation of the why is damming. Have you another reason why?

[spottybrowncow]

Poor soul can't seem to find the truth:

Trump raped.

On another point (No offense, jcdpapa, but I think the issue needs clarifying):

If the legal case is upheld: Trump was found guilty of sex abuse.

No one is found "guilty" of anything in a civil lawsuit. It's just a jury deciding to which side, if either, damages will be awarded. The standards of evidence are much lower than in a criminal trial, where one can be found "guilty." It's not a subtle distinction, no matter how many people lie and say it is.

[jdcpapa]

Poor soul can't seem to find the truth:

Trump raped.

On another point (No offense, jcdpapa, but I think the issue needs clarifying):

If the legal case is upheld: Trump was found guilty of sex abuse.

No one is found "guilty" of anything in a civil lawsuit. It's just a jury deciding to which side, if either, damages will be awarded. The standards of evidence are much lower than in a criminal trial, where one can be found "guilty." It's not a subtle distinction, no matter how many people lie and say it is.

No offense taken. Thanks for the clarification. The jury concluded that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll. The jury did not conclude that Trump raped Carroll.

[Higgenbotham]

The case that comes to mind is, in the criminal trial, OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman but, in the civil trial, the jury found Simpson responsible for the deaths and awarded the families $33.5 million.