edit: Apparently this was originally reported on HuffPo yesterday, so possibly old news by now.
...Well, he's not wrong about the pandering part.
My money remains on Anne Coulter.
Not. Cool.
I read it as a "Trump Lies" post, didn't occur to me until this moment that might have been a joke in poor taste. If so, I agree, not cool, but I guess I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt?
Considering the history of transphobic attacks leveled at Coulter online, I find it harder to do so.
Trump has a case of just saying random things with no intention on following through with any of them. It is one of the things that makes him most scary as a candidate nobody can tell what insane thing he just comes out with he is kidding about and which ones he means and it changes moment by moment. That is no way to run the country with the largest military in the world.
I read an interesting idea the other day about Trump being slander proof. Ya see, comments are evaluated for slander in the context they're made and as if you were somebody familiar with the source. (Super important for parody.) Donald lies all the fucking time. In that context and being familiar with that, can he even legally slander somebody?
The lesson is lie early, lie often, lie obviously.
Like, as in he'd be hard to sue for slander? Hardly, when his reputation is LYING and to defend against slander he would have to assert that the statement is truthful. Slander is false statements about another person that are published to others and cause actual harm to the person's reputation. He's probably doing that every single day right now.
I'd argue the opposite - it's hard for HIM to sue someone else for slander because his reputation is shit, so how can he show harm?
Trump has a case of just saying random things with no intention on following through with any of them. It is one of the things that makes him most scary as a candidate nobody can tell what insane thing he just comes out with he is kidding about and which ones he means and it changes moment by moment. That is no way to run the country with the largest military in the world.
I read an interesting idea the other day about Trump being slander proof. Ya see, comments are evaluated for slander in the context they're made and as if you were somebody familiar with the source. (Super important for parody.) Donald lies all the fucking time. In that context and being familiar with that, can he even legally slander somebody?
The lesson is lie early, lie often, lie obviously.
Like, as in he'd be hard to sue for slander? Hardly, when his reputation is LYING and to defend against slander he would have to assert that the statement is truthful. Slander is false statements about another person that are published to others and cause actual harm to their reputation. He's probably doing that every single day right now.
I'd argue the opposite - it's hard for HIM to sue someone else for slander because his reputation is shit, so how can he show harm?
Truth is an absolute defense against slander, but to win a slander case you have to prove more than just that the person was lying and did harm. Especially in the case of a public figure, the standard they would have to prove is "actual malice" which is one of those legal terms that sounds a lot easier to prove than it actually is.
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
It has to be pandering because they obviously don't believe a woman or non white man could do the job as well as a white guy.
Trump has a case of just saying random things with no intention on following through with any of them. It is one of the things that makes him most scary as a candidate nobody can tell what insane thing he just comes out with he is kidding about and which ones he means and it changes moment by moment. That is no way to run the country with the largest military in the world.
I read an interesting idea the other day about Trump being slander proof. Ya see, comments are evaluated for slander in the context they're made and as if you were somebody familiar with the source. (Super important for parody.) Donald lies all the fucking time. In that context and being familiar with that, can he even legally slander somebody?
The lesson is lie early, lie often, lie obviously.
Like, as in he'd be hard to sue for slander? Hardly, when his reputation is LYING and to defend against slander he would have to assert that the statement is truthful. Slander is false statements about another person that are published to others and cause actual harm to their reputation. He's probably doing that every single day right now.
I'd argue the opposite - it's hard for HIM to sue someone else for slander because his reputation is shit, so how can he show harm?
Truth is an absolute defense against slander, but to win a slander case you have to prove more than just that the person was lying and did harm. Especially in the case of a public figure, the standard they would have to prove is "actual malice" which is one of those legal terms that sounds a lot easier to prove than it actually is.
I just think his reputation (and proven record) of lying about literally anything and everything is not going to make him slander proof. He can still legally slander someone else, for sure.
I don't think this is lying so much as dissent in the ranks, though - especially if Manafort was the original source.
I am guessing Trump is lying when he says that Manafort was misquoted. That seems to be Trump's go to lie for when an underling says something Trump wants to contradict.
How would it not be pandering if they seem to be looking for a woman or minority VP specifically instead of taking them into consideration like other potential VPs?
Trump has a case of just saying random things with no intention on following through with any of them. It is one of the things that makes him most scary as a candidate nobody can tell what insane thing he just comes out with he is kidding about and which ones he means and it changes moment by moment. That is no way to run the country with the largest military in the world.
I read an interesting idea the other day about Trump being slander proof. Ya see, comments are evaluated for slander in the context they're made and as if you were somebody familiar with the source. (Super important for parody.) Donald lies all the fucking time. In that context and being familiar with that, can he even legally slander somebody?
The lesson is lie early, lie often, lie obviously.
Like, as in he'd be hard to sue for slander? Hardly, when his reputation is LYING and to defend against slander he would have to assert that the statement is truthful. Slander is false statements about another person that are published to others and cause actual harm to their reputation. He's probably doing that every single day right now.
I'd argue the opposite - it's hard for HIM to sue someone else for slander because his reputation is shit, so how can he show harm?
I think the argument goes that much like the Onion a reader aware of the context of Trump would be aware that the statements are hyperbole/rhetorical flourishes/false.
I'm not seriously asserting this makes him okay or legally sound or anything but more as an amusing concept. If all your statements are false it's hard to assert that the force of them is such it can do any damage to a person's reputation.
I don't think this is lying so much as dissent in the ranks, though - especially if Manafort was the original source.
I am guessing Trump is lying when he says that Manafort was misquoted. That seems to be Trump's go to lie for when an underling says something Trump wants to contradict.
How would it not be pandering if they seem to be looking for a woman or minority VP specifically instead of taking them into consideration like other potential VPs?
It's off topic, so I'll just say fuck this shit and leave it at that.
On topic: Trump press conference just now: "absolutely we will build the keystone pipeline, but America will get some of the profits as a part of the deal. That's just part of how we'll make America rich again."
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
It seems pretty obvious that Trump does not want the Native American vote.
He keeps leaning into the Pocahontas bit.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The state is using the 3 reddest counties in wisconsin, which are 95%+ white, to defend their policies against claims of disproportional impact along racial lines. They also claimed that because the counties get all their local news from Milwaukee (They ring around Milwaukee, white flight at its best) based tv channels, it would confuse their voters (reality: make them angry that their representatives are actively screwing them over and not the blacks) if Milwaukee county was open on weekends with multiple locations to vote early and their counties didn't.
If the courts ultimately buys this defense I think I will officially be done with this state.
edit: Apparently this was originally reported on HuffPo yesterday, so possibly old news by now.
...Well, he's not wrong about the pandering part.
My money remains on Anne Coulter.
Not. Cool.
I read it as a "Trump Lies" post, didn't occur to me until this moment that might have been a joke in poor taste. If so, I agree, not cool, but I guess I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt?
Considering the history of transphobic attacks leveled at Coulter online, I find it harder to do so.
I apologize; it was not intended as transphobic. I have said for a long time that I thought Trump would nominate Anne Coulter, based on her support for him. That isn't a joke or a jab.
I don't think his campaign is being honest about the nomination vetting process.
Posts
Considering the history of transphobic attacks leveled at Coulter online, I find it harder to do so.
Because they suffer nothing for it? Especially with a 4-4 SCOTUS, they can flat out admit "We don't want democrats voting" and nothing can be done.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Like, as in he'd be hard to sue for slander? Hardly, when his reputation is LYING and to defend against slander he would have to assert that the statement is truthful. Slander is false statements about another person that are published to others and cause actual harm to the person's reputation. He's probably doing that every single day right now.
I'd argue the opposite - it's hard for HIM to sue someone else for slander because his reputation is shit, so how can he show harm?
Though he helped gut VRA, i'd have a time believing Kennedy would go for naked partisanship of quite that level.
The campaign that can never stop lying.
Truth is an absolute defense against slander, but to win a slander case you have to prove more than just that the person was lying and did harm. Especially in the case of a public figure, the standard they would have to prove is "actual malice" which is one of those legal terms that sounds a lot easier to prove than it actually is.
Only way to interpret that.
I just think his reputation (and proven record) of lying about literally anything and everything is not going to make him slander proof. He can still legally slander someone else, for sure.
I don't think this is lying so much as dissent in the ranks, though - especially if Manafort was the original source.
I am guessing Trump is lying when he says that Manafort was misquoted. That seems to be Trump's go to lie for when an underling says something Trump wants to contradict.
Edit:
How would it not be pandering if they seem to be looking for a woman or minority VP specifically instead of taking them into consideration like other potential VPs?
Edit: And the WWE event/debate might be back on!
I think the argument goes that much like the Onion a reader aware of the context of Trump would be aware that the statements are hyperbole/rhetorical flourishes/false.
Third to the last paragraph here specifically where he talks about "The Batshit Crazy" rule:
https://popehat.com/2016/04/19/a-brief-review-of-cheryl-jacobus-defamation-suit-against-donald-trump-and-corey-lewandowski/
I'm not seriously asserting this makes him okay or legally sound or anything but more as an amusing concept. If all your statements are false it's hard to assert that the force of them is such it can do any damage to a person's reputation.
Someone needs to dig up that "BY GAWD, HE'S GOT A CHAIR" image.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Anyone dealing with Trump should get the money up front.
It's off topic, so I'll just say fuck this shit and leave it at that.
On topic: Trump press conference just now: "absolutely we will build the keystone pipeline, but America will get some of the profits as a part of the deal. That's just part of how we'll make America rich again."
He keeps leaning into the Pocahontas bit.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
He is in North Dakota. North Dakota is 5.4% Native American compared to 1.2% nationally. He really can't help himself when it comes to being a bully.
tl;dr: they kill pretty few birds.
He also slagged on the NM Governor for daring to miss his event. Man is just an asshole who can't stand anyone not bowing to him.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Everyone stand back, I got this!
...I can't help myself, I guess.
The state is using the 3 reddest counties in wisconsin, which are 95%+ white, to defend their policies against claims of disproportional impact along racial lines. They also claimed that because the counties get all their local news from Milwaukee (They ring around Milwaukee, white flight at its best) based tv channels, it would confuse their voters (reality: make them angry that their representatives are actively screwing them over and not the blacks) if Milwaukee county was open on weekends with multiple locations to vote early and their counties didn't.
If the courts ultimately buys this defense I think I will officially be done with this state.
It's actually worse than you described it:
He actually thinks that being told he's offensive is validation.
I apologize; it was not intended as transphobic. I have said for a long time that I thought Trump would nominate Anne Coulter, based on her support for him. That isn't a joke or a jab.
I don't think his campaign is being honest about the nomination vetting process.
At this point, why wouldn't he?