╌>

Activist spaceshot Judge Arthur Engoron

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  5 months ago  •  105 comments

 Activist spaceshot Judge Arthur Engoron
If juries get it wrong, I can overrule them based on my emotions about the case

Link to Quote: Activist Judge in Trump trial says he can overrule a jury based on “my own emotions” : r/walkaway (reddit.com)

As everyone should know, former President Donald Trump is running for president and is ahead both in primary polls as well as some polls vs Joe Biden. His campaign is constantly interrupted by trials going on just about everywhere. All of this was orchestrated by his opponents on the left who have become experts at interfering with elections. What is really shocking involves one of the ridiculous cases playing out in New York City. There we have a very unique judge, who blatantly says he can overrule juries based upon his emotions.

I want everyone to take a good look at him:



Aside from him being the goofiest thing you'd ever expect to see, this would indicate that the standards for being a judge in New York must be very low. He was very proud of his anti-Vietnam War activism in his youth. He also bragged about speeding and getting away with it as a cab driver. As the trial began the other day, he gave the camera a big smile. He is enforcing a law that has never been used against a businessman in New York. This is the fulfillment of a promise made by Letitia James to "get Trump."

Rational people are seeing this for what it is. The radicals on the left seem to think everyone is stupid.

We shall see.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

James filed suit against Trump in September, following a three-year investigation into whether he and his company manipulated property values to obtain investments and tax and loan benefits.

Judge sets Trump’s New York fraud trial date for October 2023 | The Hill

Anyone else who inflated personal value/earnings to get a loan?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 months ago
the left seem to think everyone is stupid

an untrue and hyperbolic comment. speaking for myself, I only think that about trump supporters. much worse actually...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    5 months ago

Let me think for a minute. If I say the same about Biden supporters, something happens...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    5 months ago

my generic advice for all trump supporters in the foreseeable future would be FAFO...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    5 months ago

We don't want to confuse the important people. Spell it out for them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    5 months ago

trump supporters aren't important.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    5 months ago

What should be done with them?

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @1.1    5 months ago

[Deleted]    Biden is single-handedly destroying their pocketbooks and their cities with his policy failures but all they can manage is Trump, Trump, Trump …. Doh! ….

Biden does like his useful idiots though …. Bigly!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 months ago

Trump is facing multiple charges because he is a serial criminal.

These charges have nothing to do with democrats playing politics.

Trump is running for president so he can pardon himself.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 months ago

state indictments, federal indictments, in court now for fraud, sedition trial up next, probable espionage later... yeah, I guess nothing to see there...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 months ago
Trump is facing multiple charges because he is a serial criminal.

Do you have any proof that he is a habitual offender?


These charges have nothing to do with democrats playing politics.

Logic indicates otherwise.


Trump is running for president so he can pardon himself.

Is that really what you believe?  He can't pardon himself from state crimes. Maybe you should reconsider.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2.1    5 months ago
yeah, I guess nothing to see there...

Like the Russia hoax?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    5 months ago

is that the hoax where the report was revised and rewritten by AG barr to gloss over the multiple obstruction attempts by the POTUS, erase his other possible criminal activities, and then classify the rest away from public view? that hoax?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    5 months ago

That was the collusion hoax that was hatched by the Clinton campaign, with help from the FBI, DOJ, CIA and the msm. The very one that got a 22-month special counsel investigation that knew from day 1 that there was no collusion yet waited for a democrat House majority to hand in a report saying we have nothing, and we can't do anything because of DOJ policy. We had two members stop posting here when the final report was released.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    5 months ago
ere the report was revised and rewritten by AG barr to gloss over the multiple obstruction attempts by the POTUS, erase his other possible criminal activities, and then classify the rest from public view? that hoax?

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    5 months ago

that's too far down the maga rabbit hole for me to see it...

explain why part of the mueller report, that you call a hoax, had to be classified.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    5 months ago

They act as though they are still pissed the whole Russia thingy was proven to be a hoax.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    5 months ago

Liberals remain pissed that The Great Mueller struck out.

LOL!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.10  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.6    5 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2.10    5 months ago

looks like another word that needs defining for a select few.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    5 months ago

You mean the report that failed its mission?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.13  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.12    5 months ago

saving the mallet and stakes for the end...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 months ago
Trump is facing multiple charges because he is a serial criminal.

Odd that none of this started until after he beat the Democrats at their own game.

These charges have nothing to do with democrats playing politics.

And Biden can speak coherently.

Trump is running for president so he can pardon himself.

There has to be a conviction for a pardon.  So far, despite the lefts pathetic attempts (fictional accusations, indictments, stacked courts, frivolous civil suits), there have been no convictions to pardon.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 months ago
Trump is facing multiple charges because he is a serial criminal.

They aren't criminal charges.

These charges have nothing to do with democrats playing politics.

The charges may be valid (or not), but the prosecutor was elected on her promise to get Donald Trump.  That's political.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 months ago

Ya!  He's a lifelong thug would be gangster grifter thief criminal scum and you're asked for proof that he is a habitual offender!   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    5 months ago

Logic does?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    5 months ago

The resume for the former 'presidents' consigliere, that hoax?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.5    5 months ago

That sounds like the impeachment 'hearing' for President Biden where they say there's no evidence but maybe someday we'll find something?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.19    5 months ago
where they say there's no evidence but maybe someday we'll find something?

Dejavu hey?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.2.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.16    5 months ago
lifelong thug would be gangster grifter thief criminal scum and you're asked for proof that he is a habitual offender! 

Sounds eerily like one Hunter Biden the drugster.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 months ago

Yeah, but they don't have any evidence, at all. . . jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.22    5 months ago

That's why they investigate.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.2.24  Snuffy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.14    5 months ago
There has to be a conviction for a pardon.

Actually no, a pardon can be issued at any time.  Case in point when Ford pardoned Nixon.

A federal pardon can be issued prior to the start of a legal case or inquiry, prior to any indictments being issued, for unspecified offenses, and prior to or after a conviction for a federal crime.  Federal pardons in the United States - Wikipedia

But what a constitutional can of worms a pardon in this case would bring...   oy!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.25  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.23    5 months ago

One of the gqp scum representatives said they didn't have any evidence whatsoever but maybe they would find some, someday.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.23    5 months ago

pedophile Matt Gaetz said there was no evidence, that it was political.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    5 months ago
His campaign is constantly interrupted by trials going on just about everywhere.

Can we say "election tampering" boys and girls?

There we have a very unique judge, who blatantly says he can overrule juries based upon his emotions.

So in typical liberal fashion, emotions are more important than facts.  It's not like we haven't seen this for the past 7 years. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    5 months ago

I wonder if the judge is a member here?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    5 months ago

We could speculate...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.1    5 months ago

We sure could.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    5 months ago
 His campaign is constantly interrupted by trials going on just about everywhere. All of this was orchestrated by his opponents on the left who have become experts at interfering with elections. 

Let me straighten this misperception out. His trials are constantly interrupted by his campaign, which he began earlier than almost any candidate ever has in order to lay groundwork for the claim that the justice system was engaging in election interference. Using this ridiculous line of reasoning , as long as he keeps campaigning for something no one can ever prosecute him without it being unfair. He can run for president, for four years at a time, for the rest of his life and under that logic he should be home free and clear. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    5 months ago

You had two years to do this. The NYC DAs RAN ON DOING THIS.

Speaking for the entire universe, WHY DID YOU SCHEDULE ALL THESE TRIALS DURING THE ELECTION?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 months ago
WHY DID YOU SCHEDULE ALL THESE TRIALS DURING THE ELECTION?

Maximum television exposure.

Trying to bolster her resume to run for higher office.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    5 months ago

Oh, you mean Letitia fucking James?   That's for sure.

All of these bogus trials, from every pro Biden district, are scheduled for the election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 months ago

It was widely anticipated by people from all political persuasions that sometime in the relatively near future Trump would be indicted for multiple crimes. And I'm talking about since he left the White House. 

So why is he running for president?  And if he feels he has to run why didnt he wait until all his legal problems were resolved to announce his candidacy. With speedy trials he would have been done by next spring, more than enough time to get the nomination if the party really wanted him. He announced his formal candidacy in 2022, two years before the election , solely to try and ward off prosecutions. 

Fuck him and his whining now. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    5 months ago
It was widely anticipated by people from all political persuasions that sometime in the relatively near future Trump would be indicted for multiple crimes. And I'm talking about since he left the White House. 

Widely anticipated?  Where at UC Berkeley?  Getting an assessment wrong is the crime?


So why is he running for president?  

To stop the injury to the people of America.


And if he feels he has to run why didnt he wait until all his legal problems were resolved to announce his candidacy. 

I guarantee you that if Trump had decided not to run, there wouldn't have been all of these allegations.


With speedy trials he would have been done by next spring, more than enough time to get the nomination if the party really wanted him. He announced his formal candidacy in 2022, two years before the election , solely to try and ward off prosecutions. 

The trials are only speedy when the judges want them to be.


Fuck him and his whining now. 

Fuck the democrats and their chances now.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    5 months ago

You know Biden will win reelection by an even wider margin, Democrats will regain the House and retain the Senate?

Am I right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    5 months ago

I'll credit that prediction as much as I do your claim of successful Bidenomics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    5 months ago

Of course you are, I guarantee it, the whole universe agrees with you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    5 months ago
You know Biden will win reelection by an even wider margin, Democrats will regain the House and retain the Senate?

I'm not so sure of that.


Am I right?

Stay away from that bet.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.9  Drakkonis  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 months ago
Speaking for the entire universe, WHY DID YOU SCHEDULE ALL THESE TRIALS DURING THE ELECTION?

Probably the same reason the Democrats held Christine Blasey Ford back until right before the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.9    5 months ago

Good point.

They always plan it out.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.10    5 months ago

Yep, there is definitely some evil shit afoot in politics these days.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.11    5 months ago

They may have overdone it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    5 months ago

Hope you’re right.    I look at the blanket acceptance Biden receives from these useful idiots and hope fades ……

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.13    5 months ago

Ronna McDaniel is telling Republicans to bank their vote.

VOTE RIGHT AWAY!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.14    5 months ago

Might not matter.    

There seems to be more and more piggies feeding off the government trough than ever.    Completely oblivious to the debt that’s being racked up as long as they keep getting their free shit.    That favors the dimbulb in office right now.

Ignorant as hell but there you go.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.15    5 months ago
Might not matter.  

We may be wishing we had DeSantis.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3    5 months ago

The revenge and retribution fundraising 'campaign' is never ending

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4  Jasper2529    5 months ago
If juries get it wrong, I can overrule them based on my emotions about the case

Spoken like a true Marxist Commie. Arthur Engoron apparently has never understood or appreciated the words enshrined on the US Supreme Court building:

Equal justice under law  is a phrase engraved on the West Pediment, above the front entrance of the  United States Supreme Court building  in  Washington D.C.  It is also a societal ideal that has influenced  the American legal system .

The phrase was proposed by the building's architects, and then approved by judges of the Court in 1932. It is based upon  Fourteenth Amendment  jurisprudence, and has historical antecedents dating back to  ancient Greece .

The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court. [7] [8]  In the case of  Caldwell v. Texas , Chief Justice  Melville Fuller  wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the  Fourteenth Amendment : "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." [9]  The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building. [7]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @4    5 months ago

What is a marxist commie?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    5 months ago

The judge used the word emotions instead of the word judgment .   I disagree with a judge taking action based on their emotions , but am not against a judge having the right to take actions based on their judgment .   No way to ask the judge if he meant judgment / legal-opinion rather than emotions but we do have more than that one word to consider.   Given he is a judge and recognizes the importance of being an " impartial referee ", it seems likely that he does not believe that judges should operate (literally) on emotion .

Here is the relevant portion of the transcript of the seed video:

Juries get it wrong a lot.  That's my own opinion.  I do only civil trials personal injury cases, contract disputes but I've had situations where like Oh My My Heaven's Sake how could they have thought that?  Well, I have a um I have a tool that I can deal with that it's called jury not withstanding the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  I can say there is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion.  And all right am I following the law or am I making law?  Okay I'm I'm I'm following law I'm I'm an impartial referee but it's hard to factor out my own emotions

Here is the legal tool the judge was referring to:    

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a  judgment by the trial judge after a jury has issued a verdict , setting aside the jury's verdict and entering a judgment in favor of the losing party without a new trial. A JNOV is very similar to a directed verdict except for the timing within a trial. A judge will issue a JNOV if he or she determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the jury’s verdict based on the evidence presented at trial, or if the jury incorrectly applied the law in reaching its verdict. 
 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
5.1  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5    5 months ago

Well, that doesn't make for good theatrics like using 1 word (emotions) and writing in something that one knows will piss off trumpets around it. Kind of like anti-paraphrasing...

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6  Thomas    5 months ago

Trump is reducing trust in America's traditional bureaucratic infrastructure not to protect the people, but to entrench stooges and make the "party"(aka Trump, RINOs) ubiquitous.

And his stooges attempt to help this transformation from representative to abusive by snatching misleading headlines and quotes by someone else than the person you think. 

The quote at the top of the article is not attributed in order to make us think those were the judges words: 

If juries get it wrong, I can overrule them based on my emotions about the case

This phrase is not attributed on the page to anyone, but from the layout of the page, one gets the impression that is a quote from the judge when it is not. It is a quote of someone else saying those words. This is not merely misattribution, but virtually a total reversal of the judges actual quote. 

Yet again this contributor has attempted to lead his readers astray. I wonder why?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @6    5 months ago

That is an absolute lie.  I am the only one here who gives links to quotes. I'm going to give you a video of the Judge saying that he uses his own emotions. He said it at CUNY in front of a class that didn't even know who John Roberts was.



Start listening at about 14.10 (three quarters into the tape)


Yet again this contributor has attempted to lead his readers astray. I wonder why?

That is quite a serious and slanderous claim and I am now taking it to management.


 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    5 months ago

Well,you get kudos for trying, but that is about it. 

If juries get it wrong, I can overrule them based on my emotions about the case

It is your claim that the judge actually uttered the above phrase.  It is my claim that the judge did not utter the phrase above. I think that the person who made the post to whatever social media in the original link said that he said that.

At no point in the talk did the judge say that sentence.

It is effectively misleading. 

In fact at several points during the talk he mentions decisions of fact and says they are better left to a jury. I only listened from 9 minutes till the end, but you claim it is at 14 minutes. There is no there there. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @6.1.1    5 months ago

And he called it "judgement nothwistanding the verdict."

It would be unconscionably dishonest to defend Hitler by saying that he never said he'd kill the Jews, but we can be certain that those on the left would try it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 months ago

More pure partisan Trump defense.

You spend all this time trying to discredit Trump's judge because of one word he used (a word that contradicts, by the way, the balance of his speech and contradicts the very core of jurisprudence).

This is an example of how those who claim they do not want Trump as their nominee have enabled Trump.   Millions like you are bending over backwards to defend Trump and to discredit those who are not supporting Trump.

In result, the collective efforts have resulted in almost certain Trump nominee (thus all the better candidates provided by the GOP are eliminated) and a very likely loss in the general election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 months ago
And he called it "judgement nothwistanding [sic] the verdict."

Yes, that is the legal name for this legal tool.   The judge did not invent the term, he used the term properly.

It would be unconscionably dishonest to defend Hitler by saying that he never said he'd kill the Jews, but we can be certain that those on the left would try it.

'The left' all operates this way?    Seems like a very distorted understanding of those to your political left.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.3    5 months ago
(a word that contradicts, by the way, the balance of his speech and contradicts the very core of jurisprudence).

Then why did he use it?  A Freudian slip perhaps?  If one watches the entire video of his little lecture at CUNY, one gets a sense of what he is. I notice that Thomas admitted that he only watched the tail end.


This is an example of how those who claim they do not want Trump as their nominee have enabled Trump. 

I disagree. These allegations and trials, obviously coordinated, have enabled Trump to get enormous support. Do you really think the American people are stupid?


Millions like you are bending over backwards to defend Trump and to discredit those who are not supporting Trump.

I will always defend those who are right.


In result, the collective efforts have resulted in almost certain Trump nominee (thus all the better candidates provided by the GOP are eliminated) and a very likely loss in the general election.

If the American people are disposed to ignore everything Joe Biden and the deep state have done because they have become drunk on Kool aide, we really do have a problem. At that point we can Join China, North Korea and Iran as a rogue state.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 months ago
It would be unconscionably dishonest to defend Hitler by saying that he never said he'd kill the Jews, but we can be certain that those on the left would try it.

This is irresponsible, inflammatory , extremist language and the moderators should delete it immediately.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    5 months ago

Says the guy who routinely posts articles demonizing Trump supporters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.5    5 months ago
Then why did he use it?  A Freudian slip perhaps? 

I think he made a mistake.   Human beings have been known to use the wrong word in real time speech.   We do not have a chance to reread what we speak and recognize poor or incorrect word choice.

To me it is far more likely that the judge made a mistake than that he believes that it is okay for a judge to violate the very core of jurisprudence — that which is taught in law school and practiced daily by jurists — and disregard objective analysis (critical thinking) based on his emotions at the moment.

These allegations and trials, obviously coordinated, have enabled Trump to get enormous support.

Do you think the above, in some way, rebuts my statement that: " This is an example of how those who claim they do not want Trump as their nominee have enabled Trump. "?     jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

I will always defend those who are right.

A demonstrably false claim.   Although I am not doubting that you actually believe this is what you do.

If the American people are disposed to ignore everything Joe Biden and the deep state have done because they have become drunk on Kool aide, we really do have a problem.

Again, a total non sequitur in response to my:  " In result, the collective efforts have resulted in almost certain Trump nominee (thus all the better candidates provided by the GOP are eliminated) and a very likely loss in the general election. "

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    5 months ago
Seems like a very distorted understanding of those to your political left.

They have always been so, going back to the days when Gore Vidal called William F Buckley a "crypto Nazi."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.9    5 months ago

The term "sweeping generalization" applies here.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    5 months ago
" In result, the collective efforts have resulted in almost certain Trump nominee (thus all the better candidates provided by the GOP are eliminated) and a very likely loss in the general election. "

I think you may have also used the wrong word.

Substitute more electable for better candidate.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.10    5 months ago

Do you deny that the left has always referred to those on the right as "Fascists" and "Racist?"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.7    5 months ago

Trump is a traitor to the United States of America. No one should be supporting him. Find another horse to back. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    5 months ago
Trump is a traitor to the United States of America.

Explain that statement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.11    5 months ago

No, what I wrote is exactly what I mean.   Every GOP candidate seeking the nomination is better than Trump.   Any of them would be a better choice in terms of character, stability, honesty, patriotism, and ethics.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.12    5 months ago
Do you deny that the left has always referred to those on the right as "Fascists" and "Racist?"

Just stop with the tangents.   You made a sweeping generalization of everyone to your left.   I am not going to now engage in a totally off topic discussion on emotive terms people use.   It should be obvious to you that the Ds have their pet terms and the Rs have theirs.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.15    5 months ago

So, you think people should only vote for candidates based on persona/character?

I stand with Brutus. I love Rome more.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    5 months ago

Did you miss Trump's attempt to violate the CotUS by stealing a US presidential election through lies, fraud, coercion, inciting supporters, and even suborning his own V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act in an official capacity?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.17    5 months ago
So, you think people should only vote for candidates based on persona/character?

Is it possible for you to NOT put words in my mouth and just read what I wrote?

All of the GOP candidates are supporting GOP policies.   (Although Vivek might be out there.)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.17    5 months ago

Trump is a known traitor. It is not a legitimate matter of opinion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.19    5 months ago

I read what you wrote. In what way is Chis Cristie or Vivek Ramaswamy a better candidate than Donald Trump?

Certainly, they could be more electable in a general election, but how would they be better for the country than the 45th President?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    5 months ago

He tried to overthrow the government. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.20    5 months ago
Trump is a known traitor.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.24  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.22    5 months ago

PROVE IT

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 months ago
but we can be certain that those on the left would try it.

Vic,

I want you to know that I have been asked to remove this, but I won't since it is your opinion. 

That being said, there are those on the right, that would say the same thing. Extremist always point to Jews as the problem.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.24    5 months ago

Vic, you know nothing. You did not follow J6 committee and you know nothing. 

You know you love Trump and thats all you know. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @6.1.1    5 months ago

There never is Thomas, especially on 'articles' like these.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.17    5 months ago

sounds like Caligula

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.23    5 months ago

It's the truth and everyone knows it.  A universal truth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.19    5 months ago
Is it possible for you to NOT put words in my mouth and just read what I wrote?

He simply asked a question, something you do often as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.23    5 months ago

I don't think you are going to ever write the words that some need to see.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.21    5 months ago
In what way is Chis Cristie or Vivek Ramaswamy a better candidate than Donald Trump?

None of the GOP candidates have demonstrated that they care more about their egos than they do for this nation.   None have demonstrated a willingness to throw the CotUS under the bus.

I should not have to explain to someone why a traitor should not be nominated for PotUS.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.30    5 months ago

He implied that I argued that the ONLY reason to vote for a candidate is persona / character.

There is nothing in my comment that even remotely suggests that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.33    5 months ago
He implied that I argued that the ONLY reason to vote for a candidate is persona / character.

He asked a question, just like you do daily multiple times.

Maybe you didn't like the question, but it remains a question nevertheless.

There is nothing in my comment that even remotely suggests that.

I realize at times that can be frustrating.

Perhaps he was merely looking for affirmation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.35  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    5 months ago
I should not have to explain to someone why a traitor should not be nominated for PotUS.

You have the traitor.

We have the patriot.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.36  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.33    5 months ago
There is nothing in my comment that even remotely suggests that.

You said exactly that.  You are concerned with everything but substance. What is worse is that you are so blind to evil.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.36    5 months ago

Projection Vic.  All you got.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.36    5 months ago

That is a flat out lie.   I told you why every other candidate is better for the nation than Trump.   

I did not speak of policies because they (and Trump) are all basically following GOP policies.   We are comparing Rs to Rs, not Rs to Ds.

In other words, put any of the candidates (possibly Vivek being the exception) as PotUS and we are going to get very similar policies that all would fall under the general umbrella of GOP-style policies.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.1.39  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.12    5 months ago
Do you deny that the left has always referred to those on the right as "Fascists" and "Racist?"

Yes, and whole heartedly. I haven't, for one. My philosophies are decidedly liberal, so the blanket statement is false. 

When you find yourself about to use a phrase with "always" or "the left",  read it carefully to make sure that you aren't putting your foot in your mouth. Absolutes are seldom absolute.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.1.40  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.5    5 months ago

I watched the rest along with reading the transcript. There is still no "there" there.

If you watched the whole thing you would absolutely realize that TiG's analysis is sound. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.1.41  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    5 months ago
It would be unconscionably dishonest to defend Hitler by saying that he never said he'd kill the Jews, but we can be certain that those on the left would try it.

Yet you sit here and excuse the behavior of Trump. That is unconscionably dishonest to yourself and others. 

 
 

Who is online






cjcold


64 visitors