Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum™]

More election-adjacent but who wants to take bets on how long it takes for the orange dumbfuck to end up back in court because he decided 83.3 million isn't enough for the big stupid baby to keep his fucking mouth shut?

Him: "waaaah I'm a stupid fucking baby and I'm angry I can't just rape women and call them ugly without repercussions!"
His fans: "hell yeah that's our guy and the second coming of jesus prolly, I'm sure this doesn't make me look like a piece of shit by association!"

[hector13]

That’s why he was given such a big fine though, to try to deter him from saying defamatory shit.

He does have to give that amount as a deposit before he can appeal though, otherwise Carrol can start trying to get that amount from his personal holdings.

[Maximum™]

Heh, the funny thing is, we're already seeing WHY the general advice to facing numerous ongoing civil and criminal cases at once is: don't face numerous ongoing civil and criminal cases at once.

His testimony about his vast riches from his business fraud trial? Where he argued he didn't overvalue anything because he is actually worth billions and billions and billions of dollars?

Yeah, they played that for the jury in this one to help them determine what an appropriate amount to prevent him from doing this again would be.

All the shit he has said in these cases is going to be brought up where it may be useful in all of his other cases, and if he was actually possessed of the best brain he would understand his only chance is to shut. the. fuck. up.

Naturally he won't do that, even when it's just money, not his literal orange ass on the line, invest in popcorn stocks folks!

[martinuzz]

Happy to hear that the dirty rapist Trump has to pay 83 million dollars to E.Jean Carroll. Not for raping her, but for the insult of denying he raped her.
Let's just say that anyone voting for Trump in the coming elections, they are not 'deplorables'. They are much worse. They are rapist fans. It can be argued that voting in a rapist for president is worse than being an actual rapist. I hope people that vote for the rapist die in agony. People who are okay with a rapist becoming president need to be taken to the woods and put down.

Save the women!

[Bumber]

Happy to hear that the dirty rapist Trump has to pay 83 million dollars to E.Jean Carroll. Not for raping her, but for the insult of denying he raped her.

That's somewhat concerning. You can't deny you committed a crime without being sued? (Even if Trump's not deserving of the benefit of the doubt, it not like false accusations don't happen, and there aren't exceptions based on who's on trial.) If you're convicted of something, you can't proclaim your innocence to the public during appeal?

The money's supposed to be for harm, not insult. She already got $5 million for the sexual assault case. Did Trump harm her reputation? (She already made herself a public figure with a squicky Anderson Cooper interview involving rape, so the bar's somewhat higher here.) Did he tell people to threaten her?

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you hope ~74 million people die in agony. (And not wish the same on anyone who votes for Tara Reade's alleged assaulter.)

Did you feel threatened and needed a place to take shelter, then someone gave you shelter but demands an ongoing tax in exchange? Were you angry with your inability to just take from others because of "laws", then someone offered you legitimate work allowing you to both take from others, and to threaten and commit violence? Did you manage to take control of or create a group of people that includes a bunch of victims and your close band of enforcers?

Was this intended to be read as a legal commercial? Because I did.

[Starver]

The primary case was about whether Trump defamed her. Which was found to be true in this second case of its kind (which added actual 'physical' claims, too) through due process. The silly idiot, of course, could not help himself from compounding offence by not merely trying to publically deny it but simultaneously doing some more of the actual (legally proven) defamation. At the very least, it opens him to another appearance, but it sounds like this is already being covered by the current judgement to save time (and probably compounding the compounding).

When you're actually being prosecuted for something, you (should[1]) get your time in court to make your actual denials[2], as he did. I really don't know how Contempt Of Court works in a US context, but that's very much the kind of territory he stumbled[3] into here...

(I hope he actually pays his lawyers. They deserve reparation for all the nervous stress he has been piling upon them. If it's not the best-rewarded job in his organisation then it surely is instead the worst.)


[1] The worst exceotions to this are the poor people who don't even get that recourse. Or, from the perspective of others, those rich/powerful people who end up not needing to for other more self-serving reasons.

[2] Ideally, refutations; less ideally, repudiations. But when you're sunk by actual rebuttals then denials is all you're left with.

[3] Or ran!

[Maximum™]

How dare anybody try to argue Mr. grab-em-by-the-pussy, moved-on-her-like-a-bitch, when-you're-famous-they-let-you deserves the benefit of the doubt?

Especially given a case where a woman--who didn't come forward years ago because we're only just now seeing some rapists held accountable and she knew she wouldn't get justice or help back then--describes him grabbing her by the pussy and expecting her to let him do it because he's famous only to get defamed by a guy who confused her for his wife that she isn't his type, is a liar, is crazy, a plant, etc, etc, etc.

She spoke up because she knew how damaging and dangerous a second term would be, she put herself out there to hopefully turn people away from supporting the rapist-in-chief despite him being much more powerful with a larger platform now than ever before.

Now we can cleanly write off everyone who supports/defends/idolizes the orange turd as being totally cool with rape and siding with rapists.
We knew this on some level already but hey, mask off, fuckers!

Unfortunately for them, I don't think any jury is likely to award them anything for repairing their reputational damage suffered as a result of being shitty orange rapist supporters.

[anewaname]

This clip of trump and Epstein (at Mar-a-lago) shows trump saying things about the dancing women they're watching and Epstein is getting red-faced laughing. That moment says a lot, both about trump and about Epstein.

....

Did you feel threatened and needed a place to take shelter, then someone gave you shelter but demands an ongoing tax in exchange? Were you angry with your inability to just take from others because of "laws", then someone offered you legitimate work allowing you to both take from others, and to threaten and commit violence? Did you manage to take control of or create a group of people that includes a bunch of victims and your close band of enforcers?

Was this intended to be read as a legal commercial? Because I did.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Well, it could be...

People end up in groups where they'll say "yes" to questions like:
  Have you been beaten by someone who takes some of your money each week?
  Have you been raped by someone in the place you live because you could not get away?
  Are you a low-paid person who will accept a higher-paying job if it requires that you hurt people?

Legal commercials are selling the idea of the law being something you can use to your benefit... Those questions I asked were selling the idea that the reader's group might have its own laws that are very inequitable.

One story I liked by one of those people who observe primate tribes, was how a primate leader was being a bully with others in the group and then one night a group of the others murdered the leader. Classic curb-side justice enacted for the right reasons.

[nenjin]

Happy to hear that the dirty rapist Trump has to pay 83 million dollars to E.Jean Carroll. Not for raping her, but for the insult of denying he raped her.

That's somewhat concerning. You can't deny you committed a crime without being sued? (Even if Trump's not deserving of the benefit of the doubt, it not like false accusations don't happen, and there aren't exceptions based on who's on trial.) If you're convicted of something, you can't proclaim your innocence to the public during appeal?

The money's supposed to be for harm, not insult. She already got $5 million for the sexual assault case. Did Trump harm her reputation? (She already made herself a public figure with a squicky Anderson Cooper interview involving rape, so the bar's somewhat higher here.) Did he tell people to threaten her?

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you hope ~74 million people die in agony. (And not wish the same on anyone who votes for Tara Reade's alleged assaulter.)

Did you feel threatened and needed a place to take shelter, then someone gave you shelter but demands an ongoing tax in exchange? Were you angry with your inability to just take from others because of "laws", then someone offered you legitimate work allowing you to both take from others, and to threaten and commit violence? Did you manage to take control of or create a group of people that includes a bunch of victims and your close band of enforcers?

Was this intended to be read as a legal commercial? Because I did.

Man that is some S-Tier copium you're huffing. The best part is, you're defending a man who has tried to slience people with NDAs but doesn't seem to understand that keeping his fucking mouth shut is the best course of action, both in the opinion of the entire legal system and his own lawyers, for all his legal woes.

But no. He's a drunken, beaten up Randy Marsh from South Park going "I thought this was Americuh!"

[Folly]

More election-adjacent but who wants to take bets on how long it takes for the orange dumbfuck to end up back in court because he decided 83.3 million isn't enough for the big stupid baby to keep his fucking mouth shut?

I think he's banking on becoming president again and not having to pay anything. The more he is penalized, the more he can make himself look like a victim, and the more pity/anger-votes he will get.

[anewaname]

Yeah... if he gets into power again, there will be a fast track into purges (not murder, but a stripping of power, wealth, and physical freedom from his opposition). He will state the presidential power is all-encompassing and will use it to ensure his followers have power and others do not.

I listened to Edward Luce on The Bulwark and he was talking about trump, capitalism, and monopolies... Where the USA has behaved as if capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, but that there is "contract capitalism" with transparent rules and regulations that are equally applied by a state with a robust court system, and "patronage capitalism" with businesses that are either in or out of favor, leading to business monopolies where the leaders of those businesses can be replaced by "the leader", and that trump would implement "patronage capitalism" (much paraphrasing here, but essentially that...). And he pointed out the examples of how the many Russian oligarchs are all dependent on Putin letting them do business, that Putin could destroy any one of them through executive powers and give the business to another, and how similar things have happened in Hungary. With that picture of how the wealthy would be controlled through loss of wealth, it is a certainty that civilians would destroyed with impunity, including EJ Carrol.

[Maximum Spin]

I listened to Edward Luce on The Bulwark and he was talking about trump, capitalism, and monopolies... Where the USA has behaved as if capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, but that there is "contract capitalism" with transparent rules and regulations that are equally applied by a state with a robust court system, and "patronage capitalism" with businesses that are either in or out of favor, leading to business monopolies where the leaders of those businesses can be replaced by "the leader", and that trump would implement "patronage capitalism" (much paraphrasing here, but essentially that...). And he pointed out the examples of how the many Russian oligarchs are all dependent on Putin letting them do business, that Putin could destroy any one of them through executive powers and give the business to another, and how similar things have happened in Hungary. With that picture of how the wealthy would be controlled through loss of wealth, it is a certainty that civilians would destroyed with impunity, including EJ Carrol.

That would be a form of mercantilism, not capitalism. A lot of people nowadays treat mercantilism as somehow a subtype of capitalism, but that doesn't make any sense and, historically, capitalism was conceived of as the opposite of then-dominant mercantilism. Since it's essentially a kind of command economy, calling it capitalism is just formally wrong.

[McTraveller]

I wonder though - how much complete disregard for the Constitution would the Supreme Court actually need to grant Trump that kind of power though?  I mean the Supreme Court is a bit odd these days, but I don't think they would actually grant the Executive that kind of power.

I think it really would take a violent coup to give the President those kinds of powers, and when push comes to shove, I don't think he has that much support.

Mostly I think what would happen is he will continue to make the EU mad with tariffs, he will further isolate the US and cement the growing view that Americans are selfish idiots, he will let Putin do whatever he wants, will focus on the short term instead of long term especially regarding climate, and will pander to the masses while giving more tax breaks to the rich.

[anewaname]

I listened to Edward Luce on The Bulwark and he was talking about trump, capitalism, and monopolies... Where the USA has behaved as if capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, but that there is "contract capitalism" with transparent rules and regulations that are equally applied by a state with a robust court system, and "patronage capitalism" with businesses that are either in or out of favor, leading to business monopolies where the leaders of those businesses can be replaced by "the leader", and that trump would implement "patronage capitalism" (much paraphrasing here, but essentially that...). And he pointed out the examples of how the many Russian oligarchs are all dependent on Putin letting them do business, that Putin could destroy any one of them through executive powers and give the business to another, and how similar things have happened in Hungary. With that picture of how the wealthy would be controlled through loss of wealth, it is a certainty that civilians would destroyed with impunity, including EJ Carrol.

That would be a form of mercantilism, not capitalism. A lot of people nowadays treat mercantilism as somehow a subtype of capitalism, but that doesn't make any sense and, historically, capitalism was conceived of as the opposite of then-dominant mercantilism. Since it's essentially a kind of command economy, calling it capitalism is just formally wrong.

Formally wrong... sure. I accept the idea that I described mercantilism as a form of capitalism and it is not a form of capitalism, but take a look at how mercantilism as a word shows up in google:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If you poll a large quantity of less-uneducated people with a question like "how is mercantilism different than capitalism", they will not understand the question, and the responses would be a salad of idioms and annoyance. The reality is that they have no definition for "mercantilism" and they use "capitalism" to express both definitions. This is the result of propaganda by those who want to be unrestrained in their attempts to put others in economic slavery... they hide themselves under the "good" definition of "capitalist" when they are actually representatives of mercantilism. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Mercantilism is Capitalism...

So, how do you teach a few million people to differentiate when one word holds two concepts? Start using common adjectives.... Did you notice mainstream media started using "maga republicans" as an phrase to differentiate between types of republicans? And years before, "fiscal conservative" came into use to fix the misuse of "conservative"?

"Contract capitalism" and "patronage capitalism" may be clunky, but "Terms and Conditions" contracts and patronage payments are common concepts now, and the word capitalism needs to be de-fouled. Like you said, "capitalism was conceived of as the opposite of then-dominant mercantilism", and in Orwellian fashion, the mercantilists have DoubleSpoke themselves into being capitalists.

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, I agree about the double-speak point and everything, but I don't think just ceding ground is the right solution. Most people in America, I imagine, have at least a vague memory of "mercantilism" from high school, the idea that it was associated with colonialism and is now considered bad, and some will even remember that the reason it's considered bad is that it places industry in a dependent relationship to the state in order to extract wealth from resource-producers toward a central rich consumer class. The fact that people vaguely know that is why mercantilists have had to fake themselves out as capitalists in order to sound good.

So I think there's enough room to make the distinction rather than just completely give the word up as terminally corrupted and try to tourniquet off the rotten part with adjectives. You can even say "so-called 'patronage capitalism' (or 'crony capitalism', which is a common term), a form of mercantilism" or something like that.