|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 16, 2024 14:51:30 GMT -5
Then maybe you should share that part, because from where I sit, you're anything but undistorted in your posts. To the contrary, you seem quite biased....and I've not noticed any logic used in any of your responses in this thread. Perhaps you might point them out, as I certainly could have missed something.
|
|
|
Post by One Man Gang on Jul 16, 2024 15:00:00 GMT -5
Then maybe you should share that part, because from where I sit, you're anything but undistorted in your posts. To the contrary, you seem quite biased....and I've not noticed any logic used in any of your responses in this thread. Perhaps you might point them out, as I certainly could have missed something. Cool to see Tarp admitting imperfection!
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Jul 16, 2024 15:00:24 GMT -5
What specifically would you like clarification on? I'm right of center so there is some implied bias.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 16, 2024 15:01:57 GMT -5
I thought it was clear: Since you seem to think you are, which of your posts are undistorted and logical?
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 16, 2024 15:02:54 GMT -5
p.s. that last edit was the right type of thought.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Jul 16, 2024 15:11:03 GMT -5
Well I would say all of them. You may have had a hard time understanding as some lacked full context and other replies fell between other user's replies, further increasing the difficulty to follow along.
But we can take one of the most recent below.
"I dont know...
No evidence presented, no witnesses, no date of the alleged assault just a rough estimate of the Spring of 96', and no report of it from the alleged victim until 2019.
Just her word against Trumps. In what world is that a fair trial."
This was in reference to the Jean E Carroll civil trial in which Bimini stated it was a fair trial. Mrs. Carroll's legal team had no evidence to present and no 3rd party witnesses. The witnesses that were presented were all other women who were friends of Mrs Carroll who stated they were told it occurred by Mrs. Carroll. It's literally one party's word versus the other.
How is that a fair trial? And as I stated in the posts that followed, I would hold this same stance regardless of the accused party.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 16, 2024 15:12:50 GMT -5
Well I would say all of them. You may have had a hard time understanding as some lacked full context and other replies fell between other user's replies, further increasing the difficulty to follow along. But we can take one of the most recent below. "I dont know... No evidence presented, no witnesses, no date of the alleged assault just a rough estimate of the Spring of 96', and no report of it from the alleged victim until 2019. Just her word against Trumps. In what world is that a fair trial." This was in reference to the Jean E Carroll civil trial in which Bimini stated it was a fair trial. Mrs. Carroll's legal team had no evidence to present and no 3rd party witnesses. The witnesses that were presented were all other women who were friends of Mrs Carroll who stated they were told it occurred by Mrs. Carroll. It's literally one party's word versus the other. How is that a fair trial? And as I stated in the posts that followed, I would hold this same stance regardless of the accused party. Was the jury in his criminal trial also unfair?
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Jul 16, 2024 15:14:26 GMT -5
And to clarify, when I say fair trial, I'm not referring to if the legal proceedings were carried out in the proper manner. I'm referring to the fact that the case was heard, and then awarded based on the evidence brought forth.
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Jul 16, 2024 15:23:42 GMT -5
No not the jury. The case in NY regarding the real estate transactions should have also never been heard.
The State of NY claimed the Trump organization over stated property values in order to acquire larger loans against those properties; which ultimately meant they were defrauding the lenders. However those lenders testified they were not defrauded. Anyone who has used any sort of real estate instrument knows that the lender has the property appraised and makes their own determination. I can say my home is worth XYZ but the lender makes that determination ultimately.
To add to the clown court, the 34 counts were all misdemeanors unless the jury thought that there was any secondary crime committed as well. The commission of a secondary crime, upgraded all 34 counts to felonies as a result. However, the jury did not have to identify what the secondary crime was.
Further head scratching
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 16, 2024 15:23:59 GMT -5
And to clarify, when I say fair trial, I'm not referring to if the legal proceedings were carried out in the proper manner. I'm referring to the fact that the case was heard, and then awarded based on the evidence brought forth. If the legal proceeding is improper is that not what appeals are for? It's all part of the system, you win some, you lose some. Unless, of course, one is like Trump and can do no wrong regardless of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 16, 2024 15:24:51 GMT -5
No not the jury. The case in NY regarding the real estate transactions should have also never been heard. The State of NY claimed the Trump organization over stated property values in order to acquire larger loans against those properties; which ultimately meant they were defrauding the lenders. However those lenders testified they were not defrauded. Anyone who has used any sort of real estate instrument know that the lender has the property appraised and makes their own determination. I can say my home is worth XYZ but the lender makes that determination ultimately. To add to the clown court, the 34 counts were all misdemeanors unless the jury thought that there was any secondary crime committed as well. The commission of a secondary crime, upgraded all 34 counts to felonies as a result. However, the jury did not have to identify what the secondary crime was. Further head scratching Oh, I see. Is Georgia another scam too?
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Jul 16, 2024 15:31:56 GMT -5
The document case too?
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jul 16, 2024 15:35:30 GMT -5
Well I would say all of them. You may have had a hard time understanding as some lacked full context and other replies fell between other user's replies, further increasing the difficulty to follow along. But we can take one of the most recent below. "I dont know... No evidence presented, no witnesses, no date of the alleged assault just a rough estimate of the Spring of 96', and no report of it from the alleged victim until 2019. Just her word against Trumps. In what world is that a fair trial." This was in reference to the Jean E Carroll civil trial in which Bimini stated it was a fair trial. Mrs. Carroll's legal team had no evidence to present and no 3rd party witnesses. The witnesses that were presented were all other women who were friends of Mrs Carroll who stated they were told it occurred by Mrs. Carroll. It's literally one party's word versus the other. How is that a fair trial? And as I stated in the posts that followed, I would hold this same stance regardless of the accused party. In the objective world. Although I suppose we should wait for all of the appeals to finalize before conclusively saying that.
There are lots of he-said she-said trials with murky details, and this might come as a surprise, they are not automatically unfair -- and just because you said you would have the same stance doesn't mean it's logical or unbiased.
Again, I have yet to see you apply logic in your reasoning -- this latest example is anything but that -- and only goes to underline your bias as you labeled a trial unfair. Was there another post you'd like me to look at?
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Jul 16, 2024 15:40:47 GMT -5
This is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but I nor anyone else are obligated to acknowledge. The real meter is if I was actually biased, I'd have blocked all the dissenters
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Jul 16, 2024 15:41:17 GMT -5
I don't know the facts of the GA case enough to speak on them. I've heard quite a lot about the Fanni Willis and lead prosecutors conflict of interest which has dominated the case up until it was put on hold per se.
Don't you find it funny how there are multiple cases all levied at the same individual regarding actions that occurred at all different times. All of the cases being heard at election time against the incumbents political front runner? When you see these sort of headlines and the subjects name is Alexei Navalny or something eastern bloc you say to yourself, well that's business as usual in Russia. To be expected.
Why when the same play is run by our team does it not also stink of Pagrus major?
|
|