Jump to content

Mr Trump: he's such a nice man!


Jacko51
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Paul6754 said:

Voter suppression is a myth propagated by democrats/left. The change in the voter laws in Georgia claimed by Stacey Abrams and Joe Biden are out and out lies and bear no resemblance to the truth, they are yet again a flagrant attempt to introduce racism into the voting process in the USA.

Even the BBC counters their claims of voter suppression in Georgia by pointing out that voting hours will not be restricted, there will still be drop boxes, voters will be able to vote on a Sunday and election officials can still give water to voters standing in line.

The issue about voter id is preposterous. Are these democrats/lefties saying minorities can't get or don't have government issued id or some form of a utility bill etc proving/giving their name/address. If so what a bigoted, condescending stance to take. The facts show that requiring official id to vote does not reduce voter turnout amongst minorities. 

Again, what you've posted are not facts but the American left wing media manipulating the truth and perpetrating lies. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56650565

https://www.wsj.com/articles/data-disprove-the-voter-suppression-myth-11557268819

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgipa2cdbVk

 

It’s funny because despite ignoring all the sources provided, you turn to two sources that you have called, on this very thread, biased left wing rags. PragerU isn’t a legitimate source though.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/prageru/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

What was the point of that post?  I’m done with this. 

The point was your hypocrisy in questioning others of doing the same as you were doing.

I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 04/04/2021 at 19:24, Andyregs said:

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’.

No, this motion was basically saying the last element of a defamation case doesn't apply in this case because it was in the political sphere. It's the same reason why Trump probably hasn't sued prominent news anchors and democrat politicians for their comments about insurrections, nazis, racism etc. There's a fairly good chance that he could file motions against them if this Powell one gets through, it will set a precedent and I feel like democrat supports don't really realise that their new rules will apply to them as well, eventually.

 

Paul was accused of gaslighting for pointing out the facts of this motion. What he said was right. I don't think you can really gaslight people by posting facts which is why I wanted to back him up. 

 

It had been misunderstood on here that the "no reasonable person would believe them" thing was Powell admitting her claims were so outlandish that no one would believe them, this is not true, as I've posted.

 

Pretty spectacular argument to try and claim that someone should not try and win a legal case against them early so that they can win it even better later on. I can't agree with your logic at all on that one.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 09/04/2021 at 20:34, Jacko51 said:

As opposed to the American right wing media perpetrating lies about a stolen election. 

Yeah because questioning the validity of a democratic vote with zero evidence was invented by republicans in 2020 wasn't it?

 

 

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

No, this motion was basically saying the last element of a defamation case doesn't apply in this case because it was in the political sphere. It's the same reason why Trump probably hasn't sued prominent news anchors and democrat politicians for their comments about insurrections, nazis, racism etc. There's a fairly good chance that he could file motions against them if this Powell one gets through, it will set a precedent and I feel like democrat supports don't really realise that their new rules will apply to them as well, eventually.

 

Paul was accused of gaslighting for pointing out the facts of this motion. What he said was right. I don't think you can really gaslight people by posting facts which is why I wanted to back him up. 

 

It had been misunderstood on here that the "no reasonable person would believe them" thing was Powell admitting her claims were so outlandish that no one would believe them, this is not true, as I've posted.

 

Pretty spectacular argument to try and claim that someone should not try and win a legal case against them early so that they can win it even better later on. I can't agree with your logic at all on that one.

 

There is some nuance that has been missed here.

The "I can say what I want in a political context" defence, albeit mental, is true in this case.

However... Paul clearly stated "Sidney Powel did NOT claim that ‘no reasonable person would believe her claims’."

The "I can say what I want in a political context" has within it some interesting nuance. If Powel has simply put forward her view and then used this argument, then your defence of Paul would be correct RB.

But WITHIN that context, as quoted within the court findings... 

Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

So Sidney Powel DID say that no reasonable person would believe her, she actively used those statements to actually build her defence and ACKNOWLEDGES that they were Wild", "Outlandish" "Impossible" ... the fact that she knew it would help her in court with the "I can say what I want in a political context" is one thing. But to deny she said it is wrong.

 

Edited by Iron Curtain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The timeline of this "voter suppression" garbage is absolutely hilarious really if you think about it.

 

We've spent 5 years talking about how the 2016 election was rigged by Russia, then we've spent 3 months talking about how there's absolutely no way an election can be rigged. And now we're back to republicans trying to rig elections again because somehow minorities are 'suppressed' by a lack of early voting or by having to have photo ID?

 

A 3-4 month window where it was that egregious to talk about rigging elections that the president was banned from Twitter and the democrats tried to ban him from ever running from office again. 

 

Should we impeach Biden for lying about Georgia's new electoral laws? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

And now we're back to republicans trying to rig elections again because somehow minorities are 'suppressed' by a lack of early voting or by having to have photo ID?

 

And the years and years of Gerrymandering,.. dont forget that.

You use slippery language in your post... "Because somehow" minorities are 'supressed' by a lack of early voting or by having to have photo id" making it sound like you dont believe that statement.

The need for a photo ID absolutely supresses the vote of those that don't have a photo ID. Now if you figure out which communities have a higher proportion of people who don't have have photo ID then you can use that as an advantage.

Its been stated and fact checked that minorities have a higher proportion of their population that don't have government issued ID.

There are many countries in the world that recognise this and dont demand photo id because the very low level of fraud is significantly outweighed by the notion that people should get a vote. 

I see my prediction that Boris will start to copy the US tactics is already coming true with him expected to expected to introduce a bill in the spring to make photo ID mandatory from 2023 

Edited by Iron Curtain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

There is some nuance that has been missed here.

The "I can say what I want in a political context" defence, albeit mental, is true in this case.

However... Paul clearly stated "Sidney Powel did NOT claim that ‘no reasonable person would believe her claims’."

The "I can say what I want in a political context" has within it some interesting nuance. If Powel has simply put forward her view and then used this argument, then your defence of Paul would be correct RB.

But WITHIN that context, as quoted within the court findings... 

Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

So Sidney Powel DID say that no reasonable person would believe her, she actively used those statements to actually build her defence and ACKNOWLEDGES that they were Wild", "Outlandish" "Impossible" ... the fact that she knew it would help her in court with the "I can say what I want in a political context" is one thing. But to deny she said it is wrong.

 

 

Yeah I made that point in my first post:

 

Quote

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.

 

But like I say, Powell isn't saying that her claims were outlandish, she is saying that Dominion (the plaintiff) is saying that.

 

The whole point of defamation is to claim for damaged reputation. Dominion will need to show that their reputation has suffered, and so Powell is saying "well if you yourselves are saying that my claims were so wild, then how has your reputation suffered".

 

It's poor from Dominion really as they'll need to concede that they're not SO outlandish that no one would believe the claims, in order to show that they've suffered financially. they should have used more neutral language. It won't make or break the case in my opinion, but it is a bit sloppy.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

And the years and years of Gerrymandering,.. dont forget that.

You use slippery language in your post... "Because somehow" minorities are 'supressed' by a lack of early voting or by having to have photo id" making it sound like you dont believe that statement.

The need for a photo ID absolutely supresses the vote of those that don't have a photo ID. Now if you figure out which communities have a higher proportion of people who don't have have photo ID then you can use that as an advantage.

Its been stated and fact checked that minorities have a higher proportion of their population that don't have government issued ID.

There are many countries in the world that recognise this and dont demand photo id because the very low level of fraud is significantly outweighed by the notion that people should get a vote. 

I see my prediction that Boris will start to copy the US tactics is already coming true with him expected to expected to introduce a bill in the spring to make photo ID mandatory from 2023 

I absolutely do not believe that they're suppressing minorities with the call for Photo ID, it wasn't meant to be slippery language. I fully believe that this is a lie.

 

There's an easy solution for the democrats to show that they're committed to free and fair elections and 'protecting' minorities. They should just provide photographic ID for free to anyone who wants one. 

 

The colour of your skin has absolutely no impact on whether you can obtain photographic ID. 

 

Notice how no one has ever said that showing ID for alcohol/driving/cigs/renting/employment/flying is racist because it oppresses black people? That's because it doesn't. I've not seen anyone engage with the Tory backbenchers who used black people as a pawn in their opposition to covid passports (when they said that black people are less likely to get the vaccine and so if we make passports a requirement for pubs or leisure activities then it would be racist). It's just people using black people for political leverage, time and time again.

 

There is clearly another reason for the democrats opposing this, and I suspect it has a lot to do with their current (lack of) border policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

No, this motion was basically saying the last element of a defamation case doesn't apply in this case because it was in the political sphere. It's the same reason why Trump probably hasn't sued prominent news anchors and democrat politicians for their comments about insurrections, nazis, racism etc. There's a fairly good chance that he could file motions against them if this Powell one gets through, it will set a precedent and I feel like democrat supports don't really realise that their new rules will apply to them as well, eventually.

 

Paul was accused of gaslighting for pointing out the facts of this motion. What he said was right. I don't think you can really gaslight people by posting facts which is why I wanted to back him up. 

 

It had been misunderstood on here that the "no reasonable person would believe them" thing was Powell admitting her claims were so outlandish that no one would believe them, this is not true, as I've posted.

 

Pretty spectacular argument to try and claim that someone should not try and win a legal case against them early so that they can win it even better later on. I can't agree with your logic at all on that one.

 

She did say that ‘no reasonable person would believe the statement as fact’ it’s in the court documents. The reason is because it’s in the political sphere.

Trump tried at least three times to sue the media. And you can, if you can prove what was said has malice and they knew what they said to be untrue. So all she has to do is show the evidence of these algorithms she knows about and the links to Hugo Chavez and she wins. 

1 hour ago, Regal Beagle said:

The timeline of this "voter suppression" garbage is absolutely hilarious really if you think about it.

 

We've spent 5 years talking about how the 2016 election was rigged by Russia, then we've spent 3 months talking about how there's absolutely no way an election can be rigged. And now we're back to republicans trying to rig elections again because somehow minorities are 'suppressed' by a lack of early voting or by having to have photo ID?

 

A 3-4 month window where it was that egregious to talk about rigging elections that the president was banned from Twitter and the democrats tried to ban him from ever running from office again. 

 

Should we impeach Biden for lying about Georgia's new electoral laws? 

 

 

 Russia did interfere with the 2016 election. That’s an established fact. 
We didn’t talk about how it wasn’t possible to interfere, we talked about what republicans claim was not possible. It’s like making out that individual cases of fraud shows that the election needs investigating. And there are sources posted where republicans have been shown to, and talked about, using voter suppression. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

There's an easy solution for the democrats to show that they're committed to free and fair elections and 'protecting' minorities. They should just provide photographic ID for free to anyone who wants one. 

Do we not have free and fair elections? Are the current government not a legitimate government? Should we have photo ID for voting? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

I absolutely do not believe that they're suppressing minorities with the call for Photo ID, it wasn't meant to be slippery language. I fully believe that this is a lie.

 

There's an easy solution for the democrats to show that they're committed to free and fair elections and 'protecting' minorities. They should just provide photographic ID for free to anyone who wants one. 

 

The colour of your skin has absolutely no impact on whether you can obtain photographic ID. 

 

Notice how no one has ever said that showing ID for alcohol/driving/cigs/renting/employment/flying is racist because it oppresses black people? That's because it doesn't. I've not seen anyone engage with the Tory backbenchers who used black people as a pawn in their opposition to covid passports (when they said that black people are less likely to get the vaccine and so if we make passports a requirement for pubs or leisure activities then it would be racist). It's just people using black people for political leverage, time and time again.

 

There is clearly another reason for the democrats opposing this, and I suspect it has a lot to do with their current (lack of) border policy.

I'm not surprised at your view.

Your solution of Democrats providing free ID is only a short term solution though isnt it... because when Rebublicans win an election they will stop doing it, supressing 4 years worth of new voters who wouldn't be given a free ID. Then we can consider the cost of your proposal for something that's not required in lots and lots of democracies around the world.

The need for a ID to drive supresses the ability of those without an ID to drive.. and Quite rightly because the way to obtain that ID is to prove you can drive.

Ethnic minority groups in the US have a higher proportion of citizens that don't have a government issued ID... Demanding you have one supresses that vote whether you believe it or not.

Now we have a boarder policy... why would Boris be trying to implement the voter ID if this was the reason when fraud here certainly hasnt been an issue without ID?

Edited by Iron Curtain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

She did say that ‘no reasonable person would believe the statement as fact’ it’s in the court documents. The reason is because it’s in the political sphere.

Trump tried at least three times to sue the media. And you can, if you can prove what was said has malice and they knew what they said to be untrue. So all she has to do is show the evidence of these algorithms she knows about and the links to Hugo Chavez and she wins. 

 Russia did interfere with the 2016 election. That’s an established fact. 
We didn’t talk about how it wasn’t possible to interfere, we talked about what republicans claim was not possible. It’s like making out that individual cases of fraud shows that the election needs investigating. And there are sources posted where republicans have been shown to, and talked about, using voter suppression. 
 

How do you know russia interfered with the 2016 election?

 

Is it because of some sort of investigation which was not shut down as a conspiracy theory before it even started? "EHRERES THER EVISENFISEN?"£$"£$"?!"£"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

I'm not surprised at your view.

Your solution of Democrats providing free ID is only a short term solution though isnt it... because when Republicans win an election they will stop doing it, supressing 4 years worth of new voters who wouldn't be given a free ID. Then we can consider the cost of your proposal for something that's not required in lots and lots of democracies around the world.

The need for a ID to drive supresses the ability of those without an ID to drive.. and Quite rightly because the way to obtain that ID is to prove you can drive.

Ethnic minority groups in the US have a higher proportion of citizens that don't have a government issued ID... Demanding you have one supresses that vote whether you believe it or not.

Now we have a boarder policy... why would Boris be trying to implement the voter ID if this was the reason when fraud here certainly hasnt been an issue without ID?

 

Requiring photo ID is either racist or it isn't.

 

You seem to be suggesting that it's not racist if the ends justify the means when it comes to driving. I'd say that photo ID would benefit US elections being more transparent and fair. 

 

Plus, there is no legal barrier to black people getting ID. If they want to vote and the law requires ID, get an ID. My 'solution' was a way for the democrats to keep up this act of caring for minorities.

 

Only one political party in America benefits from the continued oppression of minorities. I think it's about time the democrats started getting called out for their racism.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

How do you know russia interfered with the 2016 election?

 

Is it because of some sort of investigation which was not shut down as a conspiracy theory before it even started? "EHRERES THER EVISENFISEN?"£$"£$"?!"£"

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.amp.html%3f0p19G=2103

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25E2OY

go on tell me it’s fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

 

Requiring photo ID is either racist or it isn't.

 

You seem to be suggesting that it's not racist if the ends justify the means when it comes to driving. I'd say that photo ID would benefit US elections being more transparent and fair. 

 

Plus, there is no legal barrier to black people getting ID. If they want to vote and the law requires ID, get an ID. My 'solution' was a way for the democrats to keep up this act of caring for minorities.

 

Only one political party in America benefits from the continued oppression of minorities. I think it's about time the democrats started getting called out for their racism.

 

 

You have brought racism into this as some way to get around the fact that demanding photo ID to vote supresses the vote of people without ID.

Demanding people have a beard to vote supresses the vote of people who cant grow a beard

Demanding you eat a peanut before you vote supresses the vote of people with nut allergies

Demanding you perform a card trick before you can vote supresses the vote of people that card do a card trick

Demanding you can fit into a size medium football shirt or smaller supresses the vote of stoke fans

 

If ethnic minorities or lower socio economic groups didn't have a higher proportion of their population that didnt have a ID Republicans wouldn't be pushing this so hard. They are doing so because it works for them.

 

Your solution would fall over as soon as the Republicans won an election... because they wouldnt continue to give out free ID would they? No, no they wouldnt. And therefore its not a solution. 

 

There may not be a "Legal" barrier to lower socio economic people getting an ID... but there is a barrier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

The timeline of this "voter suppression" garbage is absolutely hilarious really if you think about it.

 

We've spent 5 years talking about how the 2016 election was rigged by Russia, then we've spent 3 months talking about how there's absolutely no way an election can be rigged. And now we're back to republicans trying to rig elections again because somehow minorities are 'suppressed' by a lack of early voting or by having to have photo ID?

 

A 3-4 month window where it was that egregious to talk about rigging elections that the president was banned from Twitter and the democrats tried to ban him from ever running from office again. 

 

Should we impeach Biden for lying about Georgia's new electoral laws? 

 

 

I think you are confusing the terms rigged and interfered.

You are claiming that democrats rigged (fraudulently manipulated to get a desired outcome) the current election. The Russians interfered (intervene in a situation without invitation or necessity) by spreading misinformation which potentially altered the way people used their legitimate votes.

No one has said that the Russians rigged the previous election but you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Arguments drag out because one is too stubborn to forgive and the other is too proud to apologize.”
“Conflict cannot survive without your participation.”
– Wayne Dyer

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...