Can someone explain what she said?

Ah yes, the patented jerking two guys off at once dance that Trump loves to do. I wonder if he was thinking of Arnold Palmer’s junk while doing it.

 

I shall try.

 

That's Dr. Lawyer to you. Hey, if it works for Jill Biden, us lawyers might as well claim it also. .

 

And the scare quotes didn't alert you to the distinction being made? Again, not a criminal proceeding or adjudication of any crime. Happy to have a much longer discussion about the intricacies of defamation law and how it has no reflection on findings of actual crimes. However, declarations/accusations of criminal convictions against persons not so convicted are defamation per se.

BTW, to all the others who screech that this type of response is indicative of persons who support the evil-doer Trump blindly and without merit, I refer you to Prof. Dershowitz. Yeah, that guy. A life-time leftie who is considered by all serious legal scholars as being at the top of the game. That is, of course, until his legal opinions were no longer convenient to the left.

 

Well I disagree. Just like Billy Napier isn't qualified to be our HC just because he has a decent resume and got hired. Her disapproval rating has been near 55% at one time. She didnt even get voted into this, shes in this position by default. Lets not pretend she is a good choice just because of Trump, thats all Im saying.

 

You’re a good poster.
Sorry I hit you with the negative ratings.
I’ll try to be less judgmental lol.

 

I accept clever or funny. Come on dude this is spectacularly lame.

Maybe "that's how I pictured your living room"... or something like that... but "Im not trash you are"... is pretty lame.

 

That is a whole lot of words meaning nothing. You said somebody implied a criminal conviction when pointing out that a jury found that he had committed the act of sexual abuse/rape. You claimed that this was defamation. The case was brought before a court. It was dismissed very quickly and with the statement that it was dismissed due to the fact that declaring that Donald Trump is a rapist is true by common definition of the word and is, thus, not defamation.

So why are you trying to claim that a poster on here defamed him when a court has explicitly ruled that what the poster did is okay because it is fundamentally true?

You realize that he actually worked for Trump, right? And I'm not sure that you are going to sell everybody on Epstein's attorney and friend and massage receiver as an authoritative source of sexual morality.

 

No party in the history of America has overruled/ignored their primary voters
and dumped their winning candidate in place of someone nobody voted for.

 

Well, that isn't true. Primaries were not originally part of the process at all and then were largely ignored until about the 1970s.

 

Every line i typed was a 100% fact. No opinion in there at all. Your one line you typed is 100% unequivocally false. Read up: A brief history of presidential primaries | Constitution Center


Mine:

No one in the history of America has mobilized a Presidential Election in 90 days (FACT). Harris has (FACT). She’s gone from an underwater favorability number as VP to over 50% favorability which no Presidential candidate has seen in a decade (FACT). She’s a coin flip from being President (FACT). Your guy has been running for 3+ years and has half the country thinking the economy sucks and STILL is a coin flip from losing to a 90 day campaign (FACT).

 

Dude, you’re not following.
Try to keep up.

 

I disagree that she mobilized a campaign in 90 days. The Democratic Party machine was already geared up and moving to build support for Biden’s reelection. When he dropped out and they plugged in Harris, they merely had to reprint new signs. The apparatus was still in place. She did not have to build a campaign from scratch, she just inherited Biden‘s campaign.

I will say that if she wins, it will probably be the greatest turnaround in American political history. There were Democrats at the beginning of this year wanting to replace Harris as Biden‘s VP on the ticket because she was so incredibly unpopular. Without winning a single primary vote, she is about to become the president of the United States.

If she is such a qualified candidate, why did she do so poorly in 2020 in the Democratic primaries? Out of the millions of votes cast in Democratic primaries, she received I think 844. That’s it. Compared to other Democrats at that time, she was rejected out of hand. Now she’s some kind of wonderful.

I think this Harris love is really the Emperor‘s new clothes. People are projecting onto her what they want to see, and not what she really is. This is critical because the Democrats do not want to lose the White House.

 

She wasn't running when the votes started. So that stat seems misleading at best, even if it were true, which I don't think it is.

 

Not that hard to comprehend. In 2019-20, she hadn't been VP yet. Dems got more comfortable with the idea of her as an executive since then.

 

Even an engineer can appreciate Bill Murray.

 

Do you always lie?

 

Mission accomplished!

 

Except at the beginning of 2024, after three years as vice president, there were Democrats wanting to replace her on the Biden ticket. That doesn’t look like comfortable with her.

I think it would be more honest for people to say she’s what they’ve got and she’s better than Trump and so they’re going to support her 100%.