🤦‍♂️No bob, they are not. THE FACTS WERE NOT DISPUTED BY TRUMP OR THE TRUMP ORG AT ALL, not in court…he submitted most of them.
Trump disputes the facts on camera, but not in court under oath. He can’t. The documents are what they are. He was too cowardly and guilty to take the stand…his smartest move yet.
Trump valued Maralago at $18 million for taxes, not the DA. He also valued it at 100 times that value to get good loan terms that saved him hundreds of millions the banks and county were then deprived of because of his fraud. Understand? I’m sure not.
I did the math, if his stated bank values are truthful, he defrauded the government out of well over $700 million in decades of unpaid taxes for one property.

What was presented during the prosecution “side” of the “hearing” bob? Nothing…because there was no prosecution phase, it was summary judgement based on what was presented by both parties during DISCOVERY. There has only been a “damages” phase of trial since the prima facie case made at discovery necessitated a sumary judgement…not a “prosecution side”.

Bob. This is civil court, not a criminal trial. Please stop trying to explain things you are wholly ignorant about.

In your example, a criminal trial with different rules, the defense could be you didn’t see them, or they dove in front of your moving car, or you were having a medical issue….or one of a thousand mitigating factors. Trump presented no mitigating factors explaining the frauds, the differing values that changed 10000% in value on paper with his signature swearing to the truthfulness of the values he presented, values he knew were fantasy, so was found guilty.
(Side note- in your example the victim’s heirs would also get a civil trial where prima facie guilt would be established by the witnesses and your admission you hit them and you would need to have evidence supporting your affirmative defense that it was under duress to evade liability, just as they would need to prove malicious intent or recklessness to get punitive damages, IMO).

😂 “Property values can’t be fraud in any way”. 😂 hilarious since submitting fraudulent values is exactly what he was found guilty of! 😂

The banks indicated massive fraud, who told you they didn’t? Trump? The banks lost over $180 million in interest they should have received if the collateral values had been correct. Yes, they made some money, but lost out on $180 million plus.
When you get a loan based on fraud like this, even if you pay it back you still comitted a crime and any penny you made from that crime can be recovered from you, exactly what’s happening.
It’s as if Trump submitted documents “proving” his credit rating was 800 but in fact it was below 400, then saying it’s no crime because he paid his low interest credit card bills, pay no attention to the lower rates and perks he received because of his fraud, they’re nothingburgers…$180 million nothing burgers.

This is a BS showman disgraced ex president caught red handed. You know it, he knows it. No one is blinded, you are simply dishonest.

What of me statement are bullshit or not in this hearing/case?
The disclaimers don’t mean Trump can just make up the numbers, like he did. I know he claims that, he already lost that point in court. He gave fraudulent numbers, values, square footage, claimed unpermitted unbuilt rentals were filled and collecting rent, claims he didn’t add “brand value” but it’s there listed on the documents.

lol. You get your “information” from crack heads, failed comedians turned pundits, and con men like rapist Trump. I get mine directly from the courts, then verify, then look at what nonsense MAGA is saying about it, then debunk your nonsense. Stop projecting. I’m not stupid. I’m no dick. I have almost no ego. I simply hate stupid lies and the stupid lying liars who lie them stupidly and I have the testicular fortitude and perspicacity to factually contradict them with facts, figures, and references.

You don’t ever look for shit, you liar. You take what the MAGA machine hands you and you say what they said to say. You haven’t had an individual thought since you’ve been posting here, not one. Every word you post can be found in the MAGAsphere written by someone else who makes money by telling you lies to repeat.

Yes, Trump was found guilty during discovery before the courtroom trial began, which is perfectly normal and reasonable in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible like this one. That’s the United States legal system, no surprise you don’t understand it….you don’t understand thing about my country.

Now whine that he couldn’t have a jury trial just because he didn’t ask for one until after his trial had started. So unfair! 😂

Ok Bob. I explained summary judgement and prima facie cases in small easy to understand words.
You still post this unmitigated stupidity as if you don’t understand.
Are you honestly so dumb, so incapable of learning the simplest of legal doctrines, that when undisputed evidence proves the case during discovery no trial is needed.
The business records from the Trump organization are incontrovertible, for taxes he listed one value, for collateral he listed another value that was 3-10000 times the assessed value.
Maralago is the prime example, because he went to court disputing the $18 million evaluation for taxes AS TOO HIGH! Now he claims he was committing massive tax fraud because it’s really worth $1.8 BILLION. That is known as banking fraud, tax fraud, wire fraud, and business fraud. He cannot dispute those facts, so he was found guilty before a trial started, as usual in the American justice system.
Also, in a civil trial you only need to prove it’s more likely than not, not prove beyond doubt the accusations are true…but they have proven beyond any doubt that the accusations are true in discovery…when the admissibility of evidence is argued BEFORE a trial starts.
Just like Giuliani who didn’t dispute the slander before trial so was found guilty without trial, he couldn’t dispute the evidence without committing perjury so he didn’t take the stand to defend himself at all…just what he said guilty people do. 😂

Either you know this and are just lying like an idiot because you are frustrated at being such a constant loser or you are actually just too stupid to understand that when you’re caught red handed with your hand in the cookie jar and your dick in the little boy, you’re caught and you’re guilty.

You just love to look like a braying moron, don’t you? Congratulations traitor, you do.

You know the new MAGA slogan, right?

“Day One Dictator!”

I think you do considering how many times you used the phrase “day one” in your post (now erased) where you didn’t understand the concept of a prima facie case.

Yes, this is what they chant at MAGA rallies now. This is the phrase that gets the crowd excited, cheering and waiving their arms in jubilation at the idea of making America a dictatorship where the Trumps are the undisputed dictators for eternity.
And you see nothing wrong with that….because laws, civility, freedoms, you don’t care one bit about any of these unless they’re helping you be a nasty little shit stirrer, then you think they’re a great cudgel (look it up).

Trumps new favorite quote is “they’re poisoning the blood of our country”, a racist fascist quote direct from his hero and absolute favorite writer, Adolf Hitler.

Still waiting to know if you understand the concept of summary judgement based on a prima facie case yet. It’s a simple concept, but has so far eluded your comprehension. Did dumbing it down for you help?

Woohoo! The courts just ruled that Mark Meadows, and by extension all Trump officials including Trump, cannot move their state cases to federal court using the supremacy clause because 1) he is not a current federal employee and 2) his actions were not within the scope of his office but were campaign activities (and another Hatch act violation) so not covered by the law anyway. Another total loss in court, this one far reaching for all Trumpist defendants hoping to escape the charges.

Hmmmm….did you think better about this post and remove it @bobknight33? It’s disappeared. I’ll put it back here where it’s safe……


You are way beyond ignorant.

Trump was found guilty on day one because the evidence that was 100% undisputed by Trump proved his guilt absolutely, not even a requirement for guilt in civil court. Evidence, and supporting facts had absolutely been presented by both parties, litigated, and stipulated to…years and years of contradictory and fraudulent business records filed with the state under penalty of perjury….it’s what’s known as a prima facie case,
“ A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.”
The evidence was not rebutted, Trump blatantly minimized value beyond reason for tax purposes and inflated it beyond reason for loan purposes…both in writing with his and his children swearing to the veracity of the numbers.

There was absolutely no rebuttal to the fact that the Trump organization committed repeated and massive frauds in New York. I know Trump has gone on tv and made claims that he disputed the evidence , but the facts are he did not dispute it in court under oath, only on camera where he can lie freely.

There was a bench trial not a jury trial because Trump did not request a jury until after the penalty phase of trial had started, well beyond the legal deadline. Are you saying he should get special treatment because his chosen lawyers are incompetent? I and the courts think not! I think you would insist on the bench trial with an unfavorable judge if this were a Democrat in court…in fact I know so. 😂

😂 Yes I DO find these type of court actions OK in America, they are absolutely normal legal procedure that any competent attorney could have avoided at every turn, but Trumps are too busy giving interviews and fundraising for him to actually do the trial work, you get the lawyers you deserve, and Star fucking camera chasers are the only ones who will work for a debt welcher and insane and dangerous client like Trump.

I don't know enough about the situation in Palestine, or what kinds of laws are imposed from outside there, but just hypothetically, I wonder: what if they renounced all initiation of violence altogether, and just dropped the push to set up their own state? What if, instead they declared their territories to be "state-free" and "tax free havens?" Maybe they could open some casinos a la Native Americans; and provide some tax-free banking; let tech giants set up tax-free research centers there without all of the immigration restrictions that seem to impose so many unnecessary challenges.. And what if, instead of waging war or attacking Israel, they simply used any military capabilities they had to set up private security firms, and secure their banking system, maybe provide some safe gold depositories? In a generation or two, the Israelis would see that they are the ones living in a prison/tax farm, not the Palestinians. I wonder if they could get away with it...


It's interesting to me how some folks tend to (more or less) "take sides" in defense of states (or would-be states) in conflicts like this one. As if states somehow had "rights" or as if states somehow represented "the people" within each state. That is simply, prima facie, false: For one thing, I think armed conflict on any sort of large scale inflicts violence against innocent parties on both sides; who, in their own rights, have reason to see the other side's violent acts as aggression (or at least as material threats to their human rights).

So I certainly agree that Israelis have a right not to have rockets coming at them, but it also seems to me that individual Palestinians have a right not to be collateral damage in Israel's bombings. Surely the hundreds who've lost family in Gaza have reason to be angry at Hamas, but you could see why they too would want to defend themselves.

The logic of war often leads to a situation where if you can defend one side fighting, you have to see why the other side would fight as well. And so we can condemn both sides, or sympathize with the innocent victims of both sides, but I don't see any simple formulation that shows why people who happen to live on one side of an arbitrary line have more of a "right" to respond violently to attacks that threaten their lives than the other side has.

The United States commits many forms of aggression quite frequently. In revenge, terrorists murdered innocent Americans on 9/11. Those Americans had a right not to be attacked and as Americans, we have a right to defend ourselves. But if tactics our government employs hurt third parties, doesn't it seem that the logic of collective self defense could easily be used to justify perpetual war?

None of what I say relies on any assumption that Hamas is any less criminal than the Israeli state. Even if it's much more criminal than the Israeli state, it seems to me that collective defense = perpetual war, because of the innocents on both sides who seem to have no way of striking against belligerents without violence that itself puts innocent people in harm's way.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ktla, Henry DiCarlo, news, weather, live, hissy fit, premadonna' to 'ktla, Henry DiCarlo, news, weather, live, hissy fit, prima donna' - edited by Boise_Lib

>> ^zor:

We could speed this up with a "prima nocta" law for astrophysicists and other smarties. This idea might make a good SF story now that I think of it.


Gattaca?

We could speed this up with a "prima nocta" law for astrophysicists and other smarties. This idea might make a good SF story now that I think of it.

A "right" implies that you need permission. There is no "right to learn", it is a biological construct. You learn, because your brain works that way. Our society does not infringe on that ability, but you are not granted a right - it just is. You may argue that by not forbidding it, we are indirectly setting up a right, but it's still misleading.

Your right to negotiate your rights is internal to the society - we have politicians elected to determine rights, judges to uphold them. Other societies might have had Chieftains determining right and wrong, and rights for the people.

From an outside perspective a given society's rights might be seen as barbaric, given our own society's standpoint. Examples: Prima Nocte or the death penalty.

The important thing is that rights are determined on a societal level, not an individual level. Morality, might be entirely different, but that's another discussion.
>> ^Pantalones:

@GeeSussFreeK
Ah, so the argument is any natural right is only as legitimate as it's subjective and relative foundation, and therefore simply a misnomer for negotiated right. That's an interesting standard for "natural". That's an interesting concept. As a counter argument, I ask, can I negotiate my right (not capacity or ability) to learn? How about my right to negotiate?
Seriously, if there is an author I can read up on, I'd enjoy reading a more in depth exploration of this idea.

A rich Prima Donna that's been fawned over for decades has opinions about absolutely pointless things?! Well I NEVER!

They're flowers...she doesn't like them...she was polite to the person that gave them. Big Fat Hairy Deal.

>> ^marbles:

You’re trying to argue semantics now. Liberty is always going to be liberty;

No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

The result is that people usually find out that the concept they were absolutely positively certain they understood is actually a lot more fuzzy and ill-defined than they originally thought.

Well, at least if they're open minded enough to actually set aside preconceptions and conceits, and try to apply some critical thinking to the topic...

>> ^marbles:
And like I previously mentioned, modern “conceptions” of liberty only serve to advance a statist agenda. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

As for ignorance is strength, you seem pretty ignorant of the philosophy of the left, and you seem to think this gives you some sort of strength. I guess it keeps your mind uncluttered with ideas you "know" are wrong, even though you don't know what they actually are...

>> ^marbles:
Re: What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?
For there to be a crime, there has to be victim. There is a list called statutory laws. Statutes are supposed to be grounded in violations of natural rights.

Why should there have to be a victim? Who decides what natural rights are?

Personally my favorite natural right is the divine right of kings. My second favorite is primae noctis.

For some reason, the ACLU doesn't help me get those recognized in law, the statist fuckers. Always trying to keep me from exercising my freedom.

>> ^marbles:
Re: For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?
Are you suggesting you can change the way people think, by making certain thoughts illegal?

I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".

Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

>> ^marbles:
Re: Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.
Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.
You gave the bank authority over your house as a security on your mortgage. You also entered into an agreement with your city/county concerning taxes/laws and what services you would receive from the city/county. This is a property system that can be rife with fraud and corruption.


Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

>> ^blutruth:

I think I enjoyed the audio more than the visual...and that's saying something!


I believe that's Louis Prima... boozy boozy bop, siddy bop.

All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers

Jewish ethical philosophy was existant before the Mycenaean age, let alone the Classical or Hellenistic. Christ was Jewish, and there is no record of him receiving secret ethical training from Greek philosophers. This statement is absurd prima facie.

But – as I said before – I never claimed that religions (the organizations) were perfect or ideal. I merely stated that they provide ethical training to people in an organized fashion, and that is beneficial to the concept of “making better people”. I even predicted your hostility (or at least its potential) because I know there are those who are hostile towards “churches” for a variety of reasons.

communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved

No one is saying that religion is the sole originator of societal good. I merely stated it is AN important source of societal good and should be fostered rather than treated with hostility. Or if “fostered” is impossible for some to whom religion is not acceptable, then it should at least be treated with deference rather than anger.

Of course there are lots of places people can do good things. However, it must be said that churches have one of the most organized and systematic approaches. For example - let’s say you volunteer at a soup kitchen. Cool – you’re ‘doing good’. But in what way does a soup kitchen train you to understand WHY you’re doing something? You are pouring soup. A monkey could do that. Just as important is the moral philosophy behind why you’re doing it. You do not get that sort of training from soup kitchens, book clubs, softball league, art house, chat groups, or even most actual charities. I participate in a lot of state & municipal groups, and not once have I ever received “moral training”. But every Sunday in church I get some.

Again – I’m not trying to tell you such things are not possible. Of course they are. However, church is just one of those places where “morality” is taught as a matter of necessity rather than as an incidental suggestion or inference. Isn’t that something we should be supporting rather than attacking?

You cannot speak for all churches no matter how much you would like to.

If you go around the country and eat at a bunch of diners, you are then able to report certain facts about them without claiming that you are “speaking for all diners”. And thus it is here. You’re complaining about something that doesn’t matter here.

Their point is not to make people moral, it is to teach their religion.

I’ve been in a lot of them, and I’d say your characterization is inaccurate. I would say that their first objective is teach a morality system, and that their second objective is to obtain converts to THEIR specific organization.

The first thing that happens when I sit down in any particular denomination is I get a belly-full of moral instruction. They talk about faith, good works, Christ, love, sacrifice, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan, and that sort of thing. If you keep showing up at their building, then they will start inquiring about whether or not you are a ‘member’ of their denomination. It is at THIS point that people like yourself & Enoch start parting ways with them.

And it is true that a lot of religions place more importance on being a ‘member’ than on learning the morality. Which is really too bad. I don’t disagree that this kind of “join us” pressure is distasteful. Ideally, religions would do nothing more than teach their morality beliefs and “invite” those who wish to join them at their own pleasure. Quite a lot of them do this. But there are those who are much more insistent, and it is a bad thing. Totally on your page in that regard. But I disagree when you say that their only purpose is to push a specific denomination. I’ve seen dozens of churches that have sermons, help people, teach gospel – and ask nothing in return.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the purpose of a church and acting like the unquestioning following of a supposed supernatural entity isn't the entire point of the organization.

I disagree with your opinion that the purpose of a church is to foster unquestioning belief because I’ve seen otherwise. Many good religions encourage seeking and questioning – so your premise here is false.

This is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

No, it’s a great example that has everything to do with what you’re saying. You just don’t like how effective it is, which is why you entirely ignored the substance of the argument.

Religion isn't needed for people to do good.

Of course not. I never said so. But religion does lead people to do good things. Even if you don’t agree with “religion”, isn’t that beneficial? Why stop it?

And in what way am I hassling you or your religion?

I didn’t say you were. If you’re feeling guilty on this point, then it is entirely from your own conscience that this is originating.

You brought it up and suggested that everyone should be religious

No. I never said that. Again, you’re using absolutes to imply meaning that does not exist. All I said is that churches teach morality, and that morality instruction is what a lot of people above said was necessary to “make better people”. I went on to suggest that such a thing should be encouraged, rather than treated with hostility. And I also predicted that some people would react hostilely to the suggestion. As usual, I was 100% correct. It is a burden to me sometimes to be so prescient, but such is my lot.

Finally, I think there is definitely a need to distinguish atheists (i.e. people who don't believe in a deity or deities) from people like Sam Harris and the other "new atheists" who are on a crusade to destroy religion. The term militant atheism is not an attempt to subvert Sam's argument; it's a practical necessity to differentiate his ideas and the people who share them from those atheists who aren't hostile to religion.



What a blatant strawman of a loaded argument. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. You might want to demonstrate that they are on a "crusade" to "destroy" religion before assuming it, prima facie. If you had read anything from Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Grayling, Dawkins, Hitchens, and so on, you would know this, that they do not want to "destroy" religion. You're being totally unfair and/or unintentionally using imprecise, inflammatory language or playing semantic games, which does a great disservice to your original point.

No, "militant" is not a fit descriptor. The common usage of Militancy implies the willingness to do violence to achieve one's ends, which you already know is patently false of . I ask you to stop spreading misinformation and false equivalences, please. You're helping to water down the actual meaning of the word "militancy" by including an essentially peaceful and non-violent movement under that umbrella. There are plenty of other words which fit the bill in a far more practical and truthful, less ideologically loaded way. Cut it out.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'klemen slakonja, Just Gigolo, live, Louis Prima David Lee Roth Lou Bega Slovenia' to 'klemen slakonja, Just Gigolo, live, Louis Prima, David Lee Roth, Lou Bega, Slovenia' - edited by eric3579