Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[A2SG]

No I'm saying public opinion in certain quarters is that the justice system is broken.

And that public opinion is based on....what, exactly? What specific problems are there in our justice system? How, exactly, is it broken?

Oh, by the way, "Trump lost" doesn't count as a valid reason.

I personally might think the judge is a an alien in disguise or whatever. But that doesn't reflect public opinion. My position is what one side of the public is arguing. Or at least my opinion based on that.

Neither of those opinions are based on any actual facts, so they have exactly the same amount of validity.

You're trying to boil public opinion down to one person. As if the whole topic and all the public controversy that surrounds it hinges on one person's personal viewpoint. Like I said, threads usually end up getting locked when public debates turn into personal arguments.

In this case, the public opinion you cite is nothing more than some people not liking the fact that Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts by a jury of his peers. And, based on that, and that alone, they seem to believe the entire justice system is broken. All because one rich guy got caught, and was found guilty.

Nothing else.

Now, if you want to claim there is a legitimate case to be made for judicial irregularities, or procedural errors in this case, feel free to present them. So far, no one's offered anything like that. At best, we get some people who can't seem to understand the basic charges, even when they're given, in plain English, over and over again.

Unless you can cite an actual judicial irregularity or procedural error, your sour grapes will be treated as such.

-- A2SG, otherwise, all you're gonna get is a very, very small violin.....

 

[Bradskii]

You're trying to boil public opinion down to one person. As if the whole topic and all the public controversy that surrounds it hinges on one person's personal viewpoint. Like I said, threads usually end up getting locked when public debates turn into personal arguments.

I know pretty much what public opinion is on this. But the public at large isn't involved in the discussion. It's just a couple of dozen forum members. Including you. And 'the whole topic and all the public controversy that surrounds it' most definitely doesn't 'hinge on one person's personal viewpoint.' Don't be ridiculous.

What does depend on personal viewpoints is personal credibility. And I'm sure that you'd agree that credibility is important in forum discussions. So it is certainly worth finding out if, in this matter, someone was to make a decision on whether the judicial system is broken solely based on the decisions it makes.

So maybe you could give us a hint if you're likely to accept the appeal decision or not.

 

[childeye 2]

But it's not just one word. There's plenty of proof Biden is a narcissist. Here's a video by a channel that specializes in narcissism. It talks about several examples of Biden's narcissism.

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. Opinions are not facts, and the grace of positive prejudice is not the same as the cynicism of negative prejudice. To WANT to believe bad things about others is a form of wickedness.

Hence, the pure of heart project their purity onto others, and the defiled project their impurity onto others. That is to say, that the defiled mind finds fault where there is no fault. That is why scripture says, “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

I watched the video that you posted saying Biden is a narcissist. And I listened to the narrator's reasons for thinking Biden is a narcissist and they were all assertions based on conjecture without any factual proof. The video is just accusation and slander, and whoever made this video is projecting their own narcissism onto Joe Biden. Here is a video about Joe that shows he is just a regular Joe.

 

[MrMoe]

That's you projecting your opinion. There is a difference between knowledge/facts and opinions/beliefs. I'm going to say this up front about positive and negative prejudice. There is a form of wickedness that can be described as wanting to believe bad things about other people, as opposed to wanting to believe good things about other people. The pure of heart project their purity onto others and the defiled conscience projects it's impurity onto others. This is the contrast between grace through faith, and cynicism.

The fact is some people know more than other people as a matter of circumstance and they are smarter, wiser and better at some things than others. It's no one's fault that this occurs, and it should not be taken personal so as to get lifted up or put down. That is carnal vanity.

Suppose you had more experience and more knowledge about a job than the others next to you who were applying for the same job. Then as a matter of circumstance you would be able to answer some questions about how to go about doing the job better than they could simply because they did not have as much knowledge and experience as you. You could teach them a thing or two because it would be obvious to you that which they didn't know. Therefore. it would not be narcissistic to honestly state that you feel you could do a better job. It would not be meant to brag or to offend anyone.

Ironically this is you projecting your opinion.

Do you apply all this you've said when talking about Trump?

Of course. As I said some people are better at what they do than others as a matter of circumstance.

Both Hilary and Biden have been in politics for decades. Neither had ever been president before. Being vice president isn't the same as being president and requires different duties. Hilary was the wife of a president and followed him around during most of his duties, so she would be able to learn first hand what being a president is like.

So of all people, Hilary seems was better suited than others as a matter of circumstance.

As I explained, if you know more about the job than they do because you have had more experience, you will also know it's not a matter of inflated ego or carnal vanity.

How do you know Biden knew more about the job than Hilary?

First off, this isn't about being good at politics or involved in politics. The issue here is who has more experience about governing and how government works.

How do you know Hilary didn't have the experience of governing or knew how government works?

I've seen no candidates better than Joe in this election, despite his decline.

Just about any other democrat that isn't Biden.

And as you yourself said: "He actually would be stupid to run for President if he thought the other candidate would make a better President."

As this video on narcissism explains, clinging to power is a trait of a narcissist.

Your own words condemn him.

The posted video only shows that old people become forgetful. The word stupid however implies low intelligence (NOT the same thing). The video proves he had forgotten why she couldn't be there, and his quick witted self-defamatory joke shows he is still an intelligent person.

Him being stupid is reference to your own comment about Biden stupid to run for president if he thought other candidates would make a better President.

Him being a forgetful, frail old man should be enough for him to step down. The self-defamatory joke could also be seen as deflection.

I can't say I've seen Joe say anything that shows a false humility.

Constantly evoking his dead son's name to garner sympathy.

Well, you're correct about discerning that Biden does not mean to offend anyone by saying he thinks he would be a better president.

How do you know that's what he was thinking when he said that?

I think we all have lied in some degree and insulted someone in some degree, and said things from a negative prejudice in some degree. The issue of them being negative traits is more complicated, because pride works to manifest both feeling lifted up and feeling put down. Sometimes what people perceive to be lies are simply honest mistakes and sometimes they are misunderstandings. Some people are easily insulted. Cynicism is self-fulfilling for the cynic. If you told someone who was easily insulted that they were easily insulted, guess what? They would be insulted. It's the intentions of the heart that show the difference between the wheat and tares.

Do you apply this same level of grace and understanding to Trump?

This also doesn't explain Biden's insults and racist comments, which appropriately demonstrates one of my points about Biden supporters. They just ignore it.

There's nothing immoral about clearing up misunderstandings. But one cannot justify wickedness.

Could you give an example that you've seen regarding Biden?

Therefore, I must disagree. I know a lie intends to pose as the truth so as to deceive, but there are nuances that reveal what is true and what is false. A misinformed person can accuse the honest man of being dishonest. The slanderer can also accuse those pointing out their slander; by claiming they are the ones slandering him. Similarly, my insistence that convincing proof be given to support any accusations against Biden is not wrong, even if you prefer to call it trying to justify Biden.

I've already provided "convincing proof" to you in regards to Biden. You must have missed the post or ignored it.

It's not immoral to justify Biden in the face of slander, because slander is wrong. I would not try to justify slander from anyone because it's immoral. It's wrong to want to believe bad about anyone, which is why we shouldn't believe or repeat bad things said about others without any proof. This is why I said up front, "There is a form of wickedness that can be described as wanting to believe bad things about other people, as opposed to wanting to believe good things about other people".

Could you point out the slander regarding Biden? Because pointing out Joe Biden's lies, insults and racism isn't slander, it's exposing evil.

 

[MrMoe]

Narcissism is an excessive and obsessive self-adoration.

That's not the only trait of narcissism.

 

[MrMoe]

He's a narcissist because he thinks he thinks he's capable of the presidency? Good grief, that should be one of the requirements. To compare Biden with Trump on this matter and to consider them equal is...bizarre. Any argument of that sort automatically loses credibility points for whoever is proposing it.

It's narcissistic because he's clinging on to power. A trait of a narcissist.

Incidentally, the video is by H G Tudor...'Mr. Tudor writes from his own perspective as a narcissist psychopath'. Ohhh Kay....

Poisoning the well fallacy.

 

[ozso]

I know pretty much what public opinion is on this. But the public at large isn't involved in the discussion. It's just a couple of dozen forum members. Including you. And 'the whole topic and all the public controversy that surrounds it' most definitely doesn't 'hinge on one person's personal viewpoint.' Don't be ridiculous.

What does depend on personal viewpoints is personal credibility. And I'm sure that you'd agree that credibility is important in forum discussions. So it is certainly worth finding out if, in this matter, someone was to make a decision on whether the judicial system is broken solely based on the decisions it makes.

So maybe you could give us a hint if you're likely to accept the appeal decision or not.

Okay, so you refuse to debate properly and would rather derail threads and get them locked by starting personal arguments. Got it.

 

[MrMoe]

This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. To want to believe bad about others is a form of wickedness. The pure of heart project their purity onto others, and the defiled project their impurity onto others.

Are you say I'm projecting my "impurity" onto Biden?

That is to say, that the defiled mind finds fault where there is no fault.

Did Trump call white supremacists "very fine people"?

That is why scripture says, “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Are you accusing me of projection?

I watched the video and listened to the narrator's reasons for thinking Biden is a narcissist and they were all assertions based on conjecture without any factual proof.

Okay, what proof would you need?

It's just accusation and slander and whoever made this video is projecting their own narcissism onto Joe Biden.

I'm going to need proof for that.

 

[Bradskii]

Constantly evoking his dead son's name to garner sympathy.

What a disgraceful comment. Absolutely shameful.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, so you refuse to...

I refuse to grant your views about the judicial process any credibility whatsoever.

 

[MrMoe]

What a disgraceful comment. Absolutely shameful.

Why? It's true. He did it when he called out and mispronounced Laken Riley's name at this year's state of the union speech. His son wasn't murdered by an illegal, Laken Riley was. Now THAT'S shameful.

 

[Bradskii]

Why? It's true.

Doubling down is doubly disgraceful. Don't expect a reply. I've no interest in prompting further examples from you.

 

[MrMoe]

Doubling down is doubly disgraceful.

Double down on not answering the question is doubly disgraceful.

Don't expect a reply. I've no interest in prompting further examples from you.

Then why reply in the first place?

I've noticed this is a common trait of yours. Making a comment on a thread then refusing to elaborate when questioned.

 

[childeye 2]

Incidentally, the video is by H G Tudor...'Mr. Tudor writes from his own perspective as a narcissist psychopath'. Ohhh Kay....

To be clear, are you saying the person who made the video is a known narcissist?

 

[ozso]

I refuse to grant your views about the judicial process any credibility whatsoever.

Thanks for sharing what goes on in your own little world.

 

[Bradskii]

To be clear, are you saying the person who made the video is a known narcissist?

Seems he's a self confessed narcissist who writes and videos about...narcissism. Must be an expert I guess. Not sure about his psychopathy.

 

[ozso]

I watched the video that you posted saying Biden is a narcissist. And I listened to the narrator's reasons for thinking Biden is a narcissist and they were all assertions based on conjecture without any factual proof. The video is just accusation and slander, and whoever made this video is projecting their own narcissism onto Joe Biden. Here is a video about Joe that shows he is just a regular Joe.

 

[MrMoe]

Seems he's a self confessed narcissist who writes and videos about...narcissism. Must be an expert I guess. Not sure about his psychopathy.

"Must be an expert I guess".

So, basically he knows what he's talking about regarding Biden's narcissism.

 

[ozso]

And that public opinion is based on....what, exactly? What specific problems are there in our justice system? How, exactly, is it broken?

Oh, by the way, "Trump lost" doesn't count as a valid reason.


Neither of those opinions are based on any actual facts, so they have exactly the same amount of validity.


In this case, the public opinion you cite is nothing more than some people not liking the fact that Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts by a jury of his peers. And, based on that, and that alone, they seem to believe the entire justice system is broken. All because one rich guy got caught, and was found guilty.

Nothing else.

Now, if you want to claim there is a legitimate case to be made for judicial irregularities, or procedural errors in this case, feel free to present them. So far, no one's offered anything like that. At best, we get some people who can't seem to understand the basic charges, even when they're given, in plain English, over and over again.

Unless you can cite an actual judicial irregularity or procedural error, your sour grapes will be treated as such.

-- A2SG, otherwise, all you're gonna get is a very, very small violin.....

Someone posted lots of points made by a Harvard law professor who was in the courtroom during the trial, and the response was basically 'lies all lies'.

I'll post more knowing it will automatically be rejected.

 

[A2SG]

Someone posted lots of points made by a Harvard law professor who was in the courtroom during the trial, and the response was basically 'lies all lies'.

I'll post more knowing it will automatically be rejected.

Here's the thing: Alan Dershowitz is very biased. I don't mean regarding his politics or his political party (I hear people say he's liberal and a democrat, I have no idea if these are true or not). He's a defense attorney. He's always been a defense attorney. He looks at a case, and he automatically picks holes in the prosecution's case. It's what he does, it's how he thinks.

As to some of the specific things he mentioned: the crime was not made up. NY law 175.10 (Falsifying business records in the first degree) is a real, existing Class E felony. As to his characterizing the jury or the judge as "Get Trump" partisans, well, there's no evidence for that, and none has been offered by anyone. If there were any irregularities on the part of either the judge or jury, that will come out in the appeal, so we'll have to see what Trump's legal team comes up with. Same for Dershowitz' suggestion that the prosecution was "overzealous."

We've heard everything before, and none of it comes with any actual proof or any actual evidence, so all we can do is see if Trump's legal team will find some they can present to the appeals court when the time comes. Unless they've got some other theories to base an appeal on...who knows?

As to Dershowitz, it sounds to me like he's trying to make a strong case for Trump to hire him as his appeals counsel. I make nothing more of his analysis than that, truthfully.

-- A2SG, hey, can't blame a guy for trying to get a job, though.....