Hodad

Oh, Fark off. You've been dishonest in many threads in your short tenure here, but this one takes the "gay cake." Butker is a piece of crap, but at least he has the courage to plainly say the shitty things he thinks, instead of pretending his message is anything other than it is.

Yes, exactly. It's NOT a coded message. There is nothing to decipher. Every woman sitting in the audience heard him loud and clear.

100%. What a jackass to poop on their special day. Fark that guy.

Again, Biden doesn't have any power over prosecutions in Manhattan. And, frankly, I'd be willing to bet that Biden wishes this case weren't happening. It's by far the worst of any of the indictments. If Biden were steering the ship, Trump would be in court for the airtight indictments like the documents.

Trump's attorneys did try to have the case dismissed based on the statute of limitations, but that effort failed. So that ship has sailed. This is a real trial and playing for keeps. As I said, it's not, in my view, a great case. The others are much better--strong to airtight. I don't actually think this one will end with Trump in an orange jumpsuit. But a guy can dream. Even if the jury finds him guilty, I expect probation. This poor judge is in an impossible position. He's trying hard not to put Trump in jail or Trump would be there already for the MANY violations of the gag order.

Oh, look, another uninformed foreigner eager to opine about US domestic politics. What a weird hobby. This "question" is just an excuse for an ignorant rant. If you have any actual questions, feel free to let us know.

Oh, so you're making up more of your "alternative facts" imagine a whole scenario beyond what is in the journal. You're imagining the age. You're imagining what Joe Biden was or wasn't wearing. Where and how these things happened. Maybe stop fantasizing about the scenario and stick to the facts. Including the fact that Ashley Biden has specifically addressed how hurtful these false accusations are, and how gross it is that you people turn her healing process into a weapon to do more harm.

Oh, so you believe in quantum justice and "Schroedinger's indictment." And OJ is innocent. 🙄 Look, there's no question they falsified the record to hide the payments to Daniels. Trump signed the personal checks to reimburse Cohen. It's not a quantum proposition. What happened happened. The questions are whether a jury will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew (of course he did) and whether a jury will vote to hold him accountable. As before, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. -- If you don't want to defend yourself in court against falsifying business records, keep your books on the level. You don't just want him to be acquitted. You literally think that he shouldn't even have to stand trial--that he should be above the legal system altogether.

Indeed, that may be a crime. Perhaps if anyone could find evidence to support that unsupported allegation they could bring charges... And I agree, since you think that bathing children is titillating your idea of pron would be very different from most "leftists."

He's charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Why don't you know this prior to commenting on the case? Is it because it doesn't really matter what he's accused of, because Trump shouldn't be accountable to the law, so why bother to learn the facts? You're welcome to read the indictment for yourself. IMO, this is by far the least compelling case against Trump, but it doesn't mean it's without merit.

Goodness, you've cracked it! A lawyer who used to work in NY did a tour in D.C. and then went back to NY. Scandal!

I'm sure. As the old saying goes, “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubts." The problem with that advice is that the fool rarely knows it's meant for him.

Again, Garland is in no way involved in or related to this case. It's an NY DA. You apparently want to put people in jail without even understanding the basic facts of the case. Par.🙄

OMG, the "party of law and order" is just chock full of whiners mewling about Trump being called to account for his actions. Remember when y'all used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Oh, right, that was back in the days before you joined a cult of personality where Tump>country.

And of course you'd be here here making lascivious implications, exploiting this poor woman's personal pain for political gain. Politics > people for you. Do you know when behavioral counselors say to stop bathing with your children or stop bathing them together? When the child feels uncomfortable. That's the cue. You're taking a person's personal stream-of-consciousness thoughts--an exploration--as she tries to figure out why she is the way she is and turning it into a scandalous accusation. It's gross and cruel. -- Do you know what Ashley Biden said explicitly? "Repeatedly, I hear others grossly misinterpret my once-private writings and lob false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love." <-- That's you. You're the people doing that. And I don't shower with my kids on the daily, but certainly have in situations where I can't keep them safe tubside. Cruise ships, campgrounds, pool locker rooms, etc. I have also bathed them day after day, year after year. Hundreds of times. And I never thought there was anything sexual about basic hygiene. The fact that you do think it's sexual is a huge red flag. Get help.

You are, as always, a shameless liar. Nowhere does it say she was a "teen" at the time. It's common for parents to bathe or shower with children. As always, if you think that's sexual, that's on you, perv.

We invest more in research after a crisis is established, not for the sake of establishing a crisis. In the 1970s and '80s --and even the '90s-- there was no galvanized response to climate change. There was just research, the same as every other field of science. That they discovered and proved out a crisis is as accidental as entomologists discovering the pollinator collapse. The science proved out in spite of not having any funding focus and in spite of being opposed by moneyed interests. Facts are stubborn things that way.

Lol. Despite many examples of science not needing a crisis to exist. Entomologists are just entomologists. They don't exist because of the pollinator collapse crisis, and there is no non-industry buying their conclusions. I suppose you think they're funded by "big honey" taking a run at "big sugar."🙄 Again, as to the other poster, your premise is demonstrably false. There was never any money to follow. AGW was a purely scientific discovery that became mainstream in spite of moneyed opposition. There is no "anti-oil" industry set up to oppose "big oil." Nobody was positioned to profit by getting off fossil fuels. Businesses (small by comparison) have spun up around it now that the science is settled, but there was no green energy industry at the time. They're abundant and relatively cheap and we all wish they weren't a problem so we didn't have to change our lifestyles, but alas, facts are facts.

Lol. So I'll take that as a hard yes from you on refusing to learn and quadrupling down. In no way, shape or form does pointing out an overwhelming--nearly unanimous--scientific consensus constitute an appeal to authority fallacy. In no way does pointing out that 99.9% of published research acknowledges AGW constitute an appeal to authority. This a "fact" as much as evolution and gravity. And there is nothing fallacious about pointing it out. Internet kooks who say "Nah, this is a hoax," are as ignorant and unqualified to contradict the scientific consensus as ridiculous as children who think they disappear when they cover their own eyes. I don't "run away" from your bad arguments. They simply run their course. As this one has. I provided you multiple authoritative sources for a definition and you can't manage to acknowledge a straightforward definition? Not really anywhere to go from here. If you're going to create your own "alternative facts" there's not much point in debating matters of opinion or policy. Your true colors are showing, and they aren't pretty.

First, the implication that there is no such thing as objective science--that all science is driven by delivering sponsored outcomes--is both wrong and incredibly rude. And stupid. Second, it's demonstrably untrue. When AGW was initially identified over 40 years ago, there was no politics attached to it, no dedicated funding, and no controversy. The studies clawed their way through conventional thinking the same way that most truths inevitably force their way to the top. And to get there the ideas had to fight through massively moneyed, vested interests. It's actually a beat-for-beat remake of the tobacco industry. Scientists who had no financial stake and no vested interests discovered an inconvenient truth about an incredibly powerful industry. Time after time and study after study independent scientists confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer (or fossil fuels and warming) and at each step they were met with well funded disinformation campaigns from greedy industries--industries who sometimes actually funded pet scientists to muddy the waters. And still the science persevered. And the whole time, both the tobacco companies and the oil companies had their own scientists confirm the harmful effects. They knew the consequences of what they were doing, and still tried to convince people to keep consuming. Were you even aware that companies like Exxon and BP did their own climate research and confirmed AGW ages ago? Scientific American Yes, science requires funding. No, science does not require a crisis.

That's nonsense. Studying the climate is the job, whatever it's doing and whyever it's happening. Do geologists need a crisis? Nope. Biologists? Nope. Archaeologists? Nope. The same is true of climatologists. The study is the job, not the findings.

Your response is dishonest twaddle. You want to play it both ways. You pretend to respect expertise when it's convenient, but when it contradicts your politics you pretend that we shouldn't put stock in the science. Pick a lane. Or better yet, let information dictate your politics rather than trying to have your politics dictate information. The latter doesn't work and you jus tend up looking foolish in the process. And, again, relying on actual authority is not fallacious. Since you apparently refuse to educate yourself, here comes the airplane... Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ^^Oh noes! Authoritative sources that explicitly contradict your argument! What will you choose? A. Learn something and STFU about "appeal to authority" B. Pretend we can't trust these authoritative sources, quadruple down on your misapplication of the term and dishonestly keep at it Based on the past few pages, I have my guess, but every now and then someone surprises me by being decent.

The barrier to holding an intelligent conversation here is posts like that. The barrier is going back and forth for several pages about a misapplied logical fallacy--the misunderstanding of which you could resolve just by opening a book or authoritative website. But oh noes, those things are written by authorities and you can't be bothered to believe them! And there's no such thing as truth or knowledge outside of the self so everyone's opinion about facts are equally valid and we can all drown in the pit of solipsism together! The only thing you can know for sure is that your wife--if she isn't a manifestation of your subconscious--shouldn't receive a lobotomy. And for once, I agree--if I'm not a manifestation of your subconscious--because it's so gross when couples get all matchy-matchy. 😵‍💫

If markets were perfectly and linear and always had competitive domestic options, that would be true. Many trade goods don't have ANY practical competition from US manufacturers. And manufacturers won't be able to start up until they have some expectation of profitability. And even in cases where we do have domestic production, a US widget priced at $10 doesn't get more competitive if identical widgets produced abroad are $7 rather than $5. It's still just plain not competitive. You could argue that some sentimentalists at the margin would spend $3 more fore an identical widget if it had a USA label on it, but they weren't willing to spend $5 more for the same label. But then you're talking about extreme, hypothetical margin cases. We still get far more harm than help.

Lol. The "chess with a pigeon" admonition has come home to roost. I should have known better. You are as far from being able to sufficiently understand climate science as you are from doing your own bloodwork or monitoring your own food supply. I don't mean that you'd be incapable of learning those things, but no one can become expert in all things, so we rely on the expertise of others--on knowledge gathered and shared--to make better decisions. We trust our doctors to help us make better decisions because they have training and expertise and specific knowledge. We trust engineers and our FDA monitors for the same reasons. Relying on that expertise is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy. That's a misapplication of the term. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it's an attempt to use an authoritative endorsement in lieu of a logical argument. It does not apply to invoking actual experts sharing actual knowledge of a subject. And it's certainly not fallacious when proposed actions are backed by an overwhelming scientific consensus. Now you can stick with your bogus claim--and ignore the FDA warnings about contaminated lettuce, or take up smoking, or drive a car with a recalled fuel pump because "Whadda those experts know?!?"? Or you can crack open a philosophy reference and brush up on what an appeal to authority actually means, and why it's a logically sound to rely on expert information and recommendations to make more informed decisions.