What will impact be with voters if Trump is forced to take a mug shot?

[Dill]

(08-28-2023, 12:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have my flaws, that unlike yourself I acknowledge.  Being inconsistent is not among them.  Feel free to prove otherwise, but please actually stay on topic for a change.  Also, I didn't personally disagree with the judge, I pointed out the very real and significant differences between the civil and criminal justice system.  You know the kind of substantive facts you pretend to care about, but ignore when they don't serve your purpose.  Stay consistent though, love you.  

?? Thought I had proven otherwise, on numerous occasions. E.g., unless someone else regularly hijacks your computer, you are the same guy who defends ideals of absolute free speech, but also calls for the mods to take down threads he doesn't like, or wants people stop making Nazi analogies while making them himself. The same guy who is easily triggered into angry, thread stopping personal attacks, but grouses that others are "thin-skinned" or overly sensitive to his personal attacks.  I cannot think of a time you've ever admitted to your "flaws" which was not immediately followed by your leveraging this purported "self-honesty" into a claim that others aren't.  When that becomes the point of such admissions, then they are just rationalizations for bad behavior, not offered in good faith, from someone who regularly and unnecessarily accuses others of "bad faith." You just brought up a magistrate's decision from another thread, addressing me as "you guys" (??) but now want ME to "stay on topic for a change" after YOU've veered us off.  It's the accusation that makes for the inconsistency here, not the reference to another thread.

You know I could go on with all new examples since the last time I did this, but why not just leave off the moral policing? It's fine to address flaws in arguments, if you can actually demonstrate them, but it's not fine if your real target, thread after thread, is others' imputed insincerity or "inconsistency," and you end up doing what you accuse others of doing while accusing them of doing it.  

So which is it: "prove otherwise" or "stay on topic--which, I guess, is not the issue of "inconsistency" that YOU  introduced? 

If on topic, then I'd remind you that SOMEONE said the judge's explanation was "blindingly inaccurate." That sounds like a disagreement for sure. Are you going to say that was not disagreement, or that it was not a "personal" disagreement, since you were only pointing out "the very real and significant differences between civil and criminal justice"? A "professional" disagreement then. Judge just got the law wrong, or forgot the difference.

Unless the height of the evidentiary bar, which I presume the judge knows very well, was not at issue in his explanation. Perhaps his point was that the jury found for defamation because they were convinced that Trump had raped Carroll, in "the common understanding of the term." Otherwise the finding would make no sense. If so, then the judge's explanation was "blindingly accurate" and your legal "correction" just beside the point. 

My statements are only "inaccurate" if I claim that Trump was convicted of rape. But I did not claim that. I labeled him a "rapist" just as the jury did; like them, I believe Carroll, and with the defamation judgment, I won't continue regarding the matter as if it were just "he said/she said."
I guess you want to argue that the label is only "accurate" in cases of criminal conviction.