Jump to content

Mr Trump: he's such a nice man!


Jacko51
 Share

Recommended Posts

If anyone wants to see more examples of republican projection, check out the Matt gaetz story that just broke the investigation into trafficking and his subsequent interview on tucker Carlson, who said it was the weirdest interview he’s ever done. Which is a low bar to crawl under. I wonder what Matt’s secret unofficial adopted immigrant son thinks of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andyregs said:

I wonder what Matt’s secret unofficial adopted immigrant son thinks of this?

“Son” 

Lots of middle aged single blokes “adopt” 20 year old Cuban lads. Very legal, very cool. 

Edited by Doha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andyregs said:

Matt gaetz story that just broke the investigation into trafficking

https://m.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/12/29/florida-rep-matt-gaetz-was-literally-the-only-person-to-vote-against-an-anti-human-trafficking-bill

Quote

Gaetz cast the lone 'no' vote on a widely bipartisan human trafficking bill that passed unanimously through the U.S. Senate in September [2017] before sailing through the House by a count of 418 to 1


 

Careful if you’re out and about near the roads in Florida today ladies and gents. Live action Quagmire has previous for drink driving and he’s under quite a lot of stress atm, what with the federal investigation into him supposedly doing a cheeky spot of grooming that’s been secretly going on since Bill Barr was around at the DOJ. 
 

NYT: Matt Gaetz under federal investigation for allegedly trafficking a 17 year old

Edited by Doha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doha said:

https://m.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/12/29/florida-rep-matt-gaetz-was-literally-the-only-person-to-vote-against-an-anti-human-trafficking-bill


 

Careful if you’re out and about near the roads in Florida today ladies and gents. Live action Quagmire has previous for drink driving and he’s under quite a lot of stress atm, what with the federal investigation into him supposedly doing a cheeky spot of grooming that’s been secretly going on since Bill Barr was around at the DOJ. 
 

NYT: Matt Gaetz under federal investigation for allegedly trafficking a 17 year old

Funnily enough he was talking of retiring to be a tv personality on newsmax the day before this broke. And on tucker Carlson he tried to throw tucker under the bus with him lol. And claimed that the photos of him with child prostitutes don’t exist. That’s the photographs no one accused him of until her told everyone on Fox News. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doha said:

Significantly better than one of Trump's biggest election result rejecting sycophants. 

Gaetz Caught On Surveillance Vid With Alleged Sex Trafficker Sifting Through IDs

New Matt Gaetz Bombshell Report Alleges Drugs, Sex, Money... And Receipts

Gaetz communications director resigns

Absolutely peak Republicanism. Projection projection projection. 

But how is the new guy doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Promised 100 million vaccinations by his 100th day in office. On track for 200 million, so pretty well tbf. Nor has he become the subject of multiple ongoing tax fraud investigations like the last guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/03/2021 at 23:20, Doha said:

The link below is literally the Sidney Powell legal motion to dismiss the Dominion Lawsuit.

I have highlighted the relevant part for Paul who is projecting his own gaslit denial onto Jean.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf

fGsQ5qh.png

 

 

 

You really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to see someone. 

 

He is right though, they're not arguing that no reasonable person would believe their claims.

 

They're arguing that reasonable people treat political speech differently and therefore none of it can be treated as statements of fact. That precedent says that there is an assumption that the public will take the political statements and judge for themselves. 

 

Your screenshot cuts off the context, immediately following the part you highlighted:

Quote

With respect to context, it is helpful to consider both broad and specific contexts, as the court did in Adelson, 973 F. Supp. 2d at 489-491. As in that case, the broader societal context of the statements here is a political one: the 2020 election. As the Adelson court noted, While “often decr[ied]” by the media and others, “[t]he ‘low level’ of campaign tactics or rhetoric” in this nation’s national campaigns is, now more than ever, a generally accepted fact of American life. Secrist v. Harkin, 874 F.2d 1244, 1249 (8th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted); see also id. (“There may be no public context more contentious than a political campaign.”) Thus, courts “shelter strong, even outrageous political speech,” on the ground that “the ordinary reader or listener will, in the context of political debate, assume that vituperation is some form of political opinion neither demonstrably true nor demonstrably false.” Sack, Sack on Defamation, at § 4:3:1, 4-43; see also id., at § 4:3:1[A], 4-31 (“Potentially defamatory statements in the guise of statements of fact uttered during a bitter political debate are particularly likely to be understood as rhetorical opinion.”).

 

I obviously have to explicitly list the things I'm not saying in my posts now otherwise all the replies will be as if I've logged in, in full defence of powell and started windmilling in an attempt to say that her claims are correct. I've not said that. I'm just saying that if you are trying to claim that Powell/her legal team are trying to say that he claims themselves were not believable, then that is incorrect.

 

For balance, they do later say in the motion that because Dominion's original complaint said that the claims were so outrageous, then how can they be saying that on the otherhand they were potentially believable and therefore damaged their reputation. Not necessarily accepting that the claims were unbelievable, but it's much closer to that than the part you highlighted.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Regal Beagle
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

 

He is right though, they're not arguing that no reasonable person would believe their claims.

 

They're arguing that reasonable people treat political speech differently and therefore none of it can be treated as statements of fact. That precedent says that there is an assumption that the public will take the political statements and judge for themselves. 

 

Your screenshot cuts off the context, immediately following the part you highlighted:

 

I obviously have to explicitly list the things I'm not saying in my posts now otherwise all the replies will be as if I've logged in, in full defence of powell and started windmilling in an attempt to say that her claims are correct. I've not said that. I'm just saying that if you are trying to claim that Powell/her legal team are trying to say that he claims themselves were not believable, then that is incorrect.

 

For balance, they do later say in the motion that because Dominion's original complaint said that the claims were so outrageous, then how can they be saying that on the otherhand they were potentially believable and therefore damaged their reputation. Not necessarily accepting that the claims were unbelievable, but it's much closer to that than the part you highlighted.

 

 

 

 

 

They are saying no reasonable person would be believe it’s fact. They are just arguing that the reason for that is because it’s in the political sphere. No one is arguing about the ins and outs of the legal process, but whether what she claimed is true or not. And this argument, whichever way it’s read, suggests that it shouldn’t be taken as fact.
To win a defamation case dont you need to prove what was said was untrue, prove harm was done, and prove the person knew it was incorrect. She has just pretty much admitted the last part. She continuously claimed to want to go to court to make her evidence available. The likes of Paul argued that the only reason we don’t see the evidence is because they won’t look at it. All she has to do to win this case, and also become the most famous lawyer in America and win back her respect, is prove what she said was true. Bring her evidence to court. She is trying to get the case dismissed instead, which again speaks volumes of her actual belief in her ‘evidence’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/04/2021 at 13:12, Regal Beagle said:

 

He is right though, they're not arguing that no reasonable person would believe their claims.

 

They're arguing that reasonable people treat political speech differently and therefore none of it can be treated as statements of fact. That precedent says that there is an assumption that the public will take the political statements and judge for themselves. 

 

Your screenshot cuts off the context, immediately following the part you highlighted:

 

I obviously have to explicitly list the things I'm not saying in my posts now otherwise all the replies will be as if I've logged in, in full defence of powell and started windmilling in an attempt to say that her claims are correct. I've not said that. I'm just saying that if you are trying to claim that Powell/her legal team are trying to say that he claims themselves were not believable, then that is incorrect.

 

For balance, they do later say in the motion that because Dominion's original complaint said that the claims were so outrageous, then how can they be saying that on the otherhand they were potentially believable and therefore damaged their reputation. Not necessarily accepting that the claims were unbelievable, but it's much closer to that than the part you highlighted.

 

 

 

 

Couldn't have put it better myself Regal.  Also, these frivolous defamatory law suits are attempts at intimidation and to shut people down. Dominion have picked on the wrong people in this case. 

Others have seriously questioned Dominion's claim that their machines and software are infallible.

I've said before the only method to prove or not whether there was significant election fraud is to carry out a full, forensic audit of votes cast, signatures, addresses etc, machines and software to determine the legal votes cast from illegal ones. There is extensive suspicion and evidence to suggest there may have been extensive fraud and until it's been proven or not this issue will continue to persist and get worse in the future.

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/04/2021 at 15:26, Jacko51 said:

So are we to understand that all the claims made about the election being stolen are actually rubbish because they were political speak and therefore, completely unbelievable?

Wait until the results of forensic audit(s) are known in the swing states, hopefully one or more will not be too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

Wait until the results of forensic audit(s) are known in the swing states, hopefully one or more will not be too long.

Seriously Paul, are you expecting the outcome of the election to be changed, Biden to be kicked out and Trump inaugurated?  If not, what exactly is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

Seriously Paul, are you expecting the outcome of the election to be changed, Biden to be kicked out and Trump inaugurated?  If not, what exactly is the point?

It would be up to the courts what to do. Restoration of voter confidence in the US election system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

Couldn't have put it better myself Regal.  Also, these frivolous defamatory law suits are attempts at intimidation and to shut people down. Dominion have picked on the wrong people in this case. 

Others have seriously questioned Dominion's claim that their machines and software are infallible.

I've said before the only method to prove or not whether there was significant election fraud is to carry out a full, forensic audit of votes cast, signatures, addresses etc, machines and software to determine the legal votes cast from illegal ones. There is extensive suspicion and evidence to suggest there may have been extensive fraud and until it's been proven or not this issue will continue to persist and get worse in the future.

An easy way to prove it and to win the case against her would be to provide all the evidence she has to the court. Now is her chance. The easiest way to win a defamation case against you is to show you were telling the truth. I’m willing to bet that she doesn’t have evidence of a conspiracy involving Hugo chavez to use the machines to flip millions of votes. What do you reckon? 
But you say there is evidence. Just show it and we can be done with this debate and you can get Sidney Powell off the hook. Why wouldn’t you? You’d be a hero to the Q crowd.

11 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

Wait until the results of forensic audit(s) are known in the swing states, hopefully one or more will not be too long.

You were going on about maricopa county and their audit a while back. You seem to be ignoring that they have released their results.

https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/maricopa-county-releases-forensic-audit-of-elections-equipment-no-irregularities-found

The hand counts would have shown discrepancies if the voting machines were compromised, but they didn’t.  And you have your audit. I’m sure you’ve moved on to another argument, or other county now where there will definitely be evidence this time. 
I can’t decide if you’re in denial, trying to save face or just completely lost right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

It would be up to the courts what to do. Restoration of voter confidence in the US election system.

You haven't answered my question.  What do you expect to happen?  Do you seriously expect the courts to overturn the result of the election?  And what confidence can there be in a US election system in which one party considers voter suppression to be an acceptable tactic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...