The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

The problem with masks, is that people think it stops them from contracting the virus. Only the N-95 does that (NOT the paper surgical or cloth masks, which are essentially worthless,) and some studies that even an N-95 wont protect you from picking up the virus through the air. A paper surgical mask will cut down on the spread from your nasal droplets if you are infected. So, a lot of people (who are misguided) think they are superman running around thinking they are protected and not social distancing, they get a false sense of security.

True.  But to have one is better than not.  I look at it more  as a courtesy to others so that I don’t give them whatever i

might have. 

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

He is, and certainly this recent interaction doesn't help his case.  I just hoped he had more to offer other than accusing a fine poster like @3rdnlng of misunderstanding a direct quote. Deep fake, editing etc.  I think what Joe said was pretty clear. 

 

 

I also asked a while back about a comment he made where hurling insults was indicative of losing an argument.  I was hoping maybe I misunderstood that as well, or maybe I attributed the post to the wrong poster.  I am pretty sure he wrote that, and has gone about tossing insults and name calling, indicating lost arguments.  No reply.

 

Then again, to be fair, he was all over the Flynn case being over and there is nothing going on there at all.  I think Flynn is learning a new trade at Leavenworth as we speak.

Hoax. I said the issue of Flynn’s guilt has been decided.  It has. Flynn is trying to reopen the issue.  We will see if he succeeds.  
 

update: as of Wednesday afternoon, Mike Flynn still is guilty.  Enjoy! 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think just about anyone on this board would say they don't need any further proof.

 

But I will make you a deal. You previously stated, based on your legal experience and experience working on sexual assault cases that you believed Dr. Ford's testimony. But you refused to provide anything specific.

 

So, for eveyone here, that you love chastizing because they dare weigh in on legal matters with no "expertise", please share the specific things you saw, based on your vast experience, that made her testimony credible. You made the claims. Back them up.

 

If you do, then I will show you where else you are wrong as well.

 

Cheers

Still nothing to back up your contention that I’m always wrong.  If it’s so easy to prove why can’t you provide any specifics?  
 

 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Still nothing to back up your contention that I’m always wrong.  If it’s so easy to prove why can’t you provide any specifics?  

 

 

Still can't answer a question that should be simple with you incrediblly vast "experience"

 

So sad

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

True.  But to have one is better than not.  I look at it more  as a courtesy to others so that I don’t give them whatever i

might have. 

Hoax. I said the issue of Flynn’s guilt has been decided.  It has. Flynn is trying to reopen the issue.  We will see if he succeeds.  
 

update: as of Wednesday afternoon, Mike Flynn still is guilty.  Enjoy! 

Delightful.  That's not all you said, but if you prefer to mix things up, that's ok.  He was "convicted", you said, and your interpretation is that filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is the same as not filing a motion at all.  The Flynn case is resolved, pending the resolution that comes once the case is finalized. 

 

When does he get out?  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

14 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

 

Still can't answer a question that should be simple with you incrediblly vast "experience"

 

So sad

 

 

careful...you're up against Matlock.......

[billsfan1959]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

careful...you're up against Matlock.......

 

A legend in his own mind....

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Oh that media ................no wonder we love them..........

 

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY:

 

 

 

 

 

 

In their defense, in the time where it was truly the highest they probably were not recorded as crimes.

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

careful...you're up against Matlock.......

More like Hamilton Burger. 

 

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Oh that media ................no wonder we love them..........

 

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What in the name of all that's good & holy is that nonsense?

 

Don't English majors have to take at least ONE ####ing history class?

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

More like Hamilton Burger. 

 

No. Burger was good he was just no match for Mason. 

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Delightful.  That's not all you said, but if you prefer to mix things up, that's ok.  He was "convicted", you said, and your interpretation is that filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is the same as not filing a motion at all.  The Flynn case is resolved, pending the resolution that comes once the case is finalized. 

 

When does he get out?  

 

There you go again with your alternative facts.  I said nothing of the sort.  The issue of Flynn's guilt is resolved.  Like it or not, he's guilty.  And he'll be guilty again tomorrow, too.  Maybe he gets to reopen that question, but as of this moment in time the issue of his guilt has been determined. 

 

Update:  Just checked.  He's still guilty.  And the issue of his guilt has been resolved.  Enjoy!

 

7 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

 

Still can't answer a question that should be simple with you incrediblly vast "experience"

 

So sad

 

I realize that you have a lot of notebooks to fill up with information about crackpot conspiracy theories, so time is short.  Any chance you can fill me in on how I'm "always wrong" on legal matters?

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

More like Hamilton Burger. 

 

 

Solid post.  You kept it short.  Exactly your style!

[SectionC3]

8 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

He is, and certainly this recent interaction doesn't help his case.  I just hoped he had more to offer other than accusing a fine poster like @3rdnlng of misunderstanding a direct quote. Deep fake, editing etc.  I think what Joe said was pretty clear. 

 

 

I also asked a while back about a comment he made where hurling insults was indicative of losing an argument.  I was hoping maybe I misunderstood that as well, or maybe I attributed the post to the wrong poster.  I am pretty sure he wrote that, and has gone about tossing insults and name calling, indicating lost arguments.  No reply.

 

Then again, to be fair, he was all over the Flynn case being over and there is nothing going on there at all.  I think Flynn is learning a new trade at Leavenworth as we speak.

 

At whom have I "hurl[ed] insults?"

[SectionC3]

7 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

 

Still can't answer a question that should be simple with you incrediblly vast "experience"

 

So sad

 

There you go again with your fake news.  In point of fact I answered your question:

 

 

[billsfan1959]

8 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

There you go again with your fake news.  In point of fact I answered your question:

 

 

 

Actually you didn't answer the question of why you found Ford's testimony credible. This is a perfect example of how you provide "answers" that don't really say anything - and then run around saying "I already answered that."

 

You touted your legal "experience" as a basis, your "experience" working on sexual assault cases as a basis, watching her speak as a basis, and considering the circumstances of her disclosure as a basis. However, you never actually said what it was, specifically, about any of those things that brought you to the conclusion that she was credible. 

 

So, I am just asking you to articulate what specific factors from your legal experience, what specific factors from your experience with sexual assault cases, what specific factors from watching her testimony, and what specific factors from consideration of the circumstances of her disclosure are the basis for finding her accusation credible.

 

See the difference? I know you do.

 

I'll give you a hint: Focus on things like actual evidence, contemporaneous disclosures, corroboration from other witnesses, consisitency/accuracy of facts and details within her own testimony, consisitency/accuracy of facts and details in relation to the testimony/statements of others, etc. You know, those kinds of things you would actually have to argue to a jury? 

 

This could be a fun discussion. Based on your posts, I'm sure I don't have anywhere near the experience you do in the criminal justice field and sexual assault cases. Who could? 

 

However, I have spent a fair amount of time over the last 35+ years in courtrooms assisting in the prosecution of violent crimes, working on violent crime cases,  analyzing volent crime and criminal/victim behaviors, and conducting training on violent crime. As I said, probably not anywhere near the amount of experience you have. But, I think, enough to hold my own in this specific discussion.

 

So, list your specific factors, as outlined above, and we can have an honest discussion about them. 

 

Just pretend you are doing your closing argument and we are the jury. Here is your chance to shine Hamilton Burger.

 

EDIT: It is ok to admit you believed her simply because you wanted to. We all know it anyway. 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by billsfan1959

[3rdnlng]

8 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

At whom have I "hurl[ed] insults?"

You have to ask that question? If you asked that in court you could certainly be embarrassed, eh? 

8 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

No. Burger was good he was just no match for Mason. 

Yes, he was Washington Generals  good. Can you show me any evidence that he ever won a case?

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You have to ask that question? If you asked that in court you could certainly be embarrassed, eh? 

Yes, he was Washington Generals  good. Can you show me any evidence that he ever won a case?

 

Non-responsive.  You’ve answered a question with a question.  

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Actually you didn't answer the question of why you found Ford's testimony credible. This is a perfect example of how you provide "answers" that don't really say anything - and then run around saying "I already answered that."

 

You touted your legal "experience" as a basis, your "experience" working on sexual assault cases as a basis, watching her speak as a basis, and considering the circumstances of her disclosure as a basis. However, you never actually said what it was, specifically, about any of those things that brought you to the conclusion that she was credible. 

 

So, I am just asking you to articulate what specific factors from your legal experience, what specific factors from your experience with sexual assault cases, what specific factors from watching her testimony, and what specific factors from consideration of the circumstances of her disclosure are the basis for finding her accusation credible.

 

See the difference? I know you do.

 

I'll give you a hint: Focus on things like actual evidence, contemporaneous disclosures, corroboration from other witnesses, consisitency/accuracy of facts and details within her own testimony, consisitency/accuracy of facts and details in relation to the testimony/statements of others, etc. You know, those kinds of things you would actually have to argue to a jury? 

 

This could be a fun discussion. Based on your posts, I'm sure I don't have anywhere near the experience you do in the criminal justice field and sexual assault cases. Who could? 

 

However, I have spent a fair amount of time over the last 35+ years in courtrooms assisting in the prosecution of violent crimes, working on violent crime cases,  analyzing volent crime and criminal/victim behaviors, and conducting training on violent crime. As I said, probably not anywhere near the amount of experience you have. But, I think, enough to hold my own in this specific discussion.

 

So, list your specific factors, as outlined above, and we can have an honest discussion about them. 

 

Just pretend you are doing your closing argument and we are the jury. Here is your chance to shine Hamilton Burger.

 

EDIT: It is ok to admit you believed her simply because you wanted to. We all know it anyway. 

 

 

It’s impressive that you spent 35 years in and around a courtroom.  It doesn’t seem that you paid much attention during that time. 

 

1.  Your actual evidence point is patently wrong.  Her testimony is “actual evidence.”

 

2.  Your point about corroboration is misplaced.  Typically corroboration is required only where the only evidence against a defendant is accomplice testimony.  The absence of corroboration frankly is common in matters involving attempted (but unachieved) sexual assault and delayed disclosure.

 

3.  Your point about contemporaneous disclosures also is misleading.  Such disclosures are not essential to a finding of credibility.  Moreover, as I’m sure you know based on your decades of sitting in a courtroom and apparently paying little attention to what occurred there, sexual assaults — particularly those involving minors — often are not promptly disclosed given the shame and humiliation attached to those incidents.  

 

4.  I don’t owe you or anyone else an explanation for a matter of opinion.  As noted, I indicated that I watched and/or listened to the entirety of the hearings.  I heard her speak.  I heard him speak.  I thought about Bart, Squiggy, and the crew.  And I drew a conclusion accordingly. As I’m sure you’re aware given your 3.5 decades of apparently blithely sitting in a courtroom, an ultimate finder of fact doesn’t have to explain its conclusion.  But I’ll give you a thumbnail sketch of factors relevant to a determination like mine: plausibility, absence of bias, imbalance of shame/humiliation versus any possible personal benefit to be gained from testimony, sound recall, and manner of testimony.  

 

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s hear about how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law.  The floor is yours, big boy.  

Edited May 28, 2020 by SectionC3

[3rdnlng]

23 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Non-responsive.  You’ve answered a question with a question.  

 

 

So, you have continually referred to my "junk" as being short for some odd reason. As I can assure you and others that you have never seen or felt my "junk" you have no basis for coming to that conclusion. It would appear that you are just insulting me with no basis for doing so or are trying to goad me into proving otherwise. Guess what 3rd Chair, you've backed yourself into a corner. You've proven before a group here that you have been insulting people or you're just trying to find a short dick for whatever personal reasons you have in mind. Just so you know, PPP is not a Pee Pee club where you can drum up business. Stick to ambulance chasing. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by 3rdnlng

[Chef Jim]

30 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

 

Yes, he was Washington Generals  good. Can you show me any evidence that he ever won a case?

Yes 
 

Case of the Terrified Typist 

Case of the Deadly Verdict. 
 

And those were just against Mason who must have learned his courtroom tactics from Bill Belichick. 

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s impressive that you spent 35 years in and around a courtroom.  It doesn’t seem that you paid much attention during that time. 

 

1.  Your actual evidence point is patently wrong.  Her testimony is “actual evidence.”

 

2.  Your point about corroboration is misplaced.  Typically corroboration is required only where the only evidence against a defendant is accomplice testimony.  The absence of corroboration frankly is common in matters involving attempted (but unachieved) sexual assault and delayed disclosure.

 

3.  Your point about contemporaneous disclosures also is misleading.  Such disclosures are not essential to a finding of credibility.  Moreover, as I’m sure you know based on your decades of sitting in a courtroom and apparently paying little attention to what occurred there, sexual assaults — particularly those involving minors — often are not promptly disclosed given the shame and humiliation attached to those incidents.  

 

4.  I don’t owe you or anyone else an explanation for a matter of opinion.  As noted, I indicated that I watched and/or listened to the entirety of the hearings.  I heard her speak.  I heard him speak.  I thought about Bart, Squiggy, and the crew.  And I drew a conclusion accordingly. As I’m sure you’re aware given your 3.5 decades of apparently blithely sitting in a courtroom, an ultimate finder of fact doesn’t have to explain its conclusion.  But I’ll give you a thumbnail sketch of factors relevant to a determination like mine: plausibility, absence of bias, imbalance of shame/humiliation versus any possible personal benefit to be gained from testimony, sound recall, and manner of testimony.  

 

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s hear about how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law.  The floor is yours, big boy.  

OMG, you went all through that and didn't even mention that good old Dr. Ford was/is an expert in "repressed memories". How convenient for her but inconvenient for you.