|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case.
The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money.
|
On August 31 2016 03:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. even if it's not strictly disproportionate relative to the currency itself, it's often disproportionate relative to networth and in terms of personal emotional investment, etc
You'd have to look at it on a case by case basis. If the case goes all the way through discovery and into a summary judgment phase, then yes, both sides very clearly will have spent a considerable amount of resources. However, the very fact that the claim got that far means that Trump had a claim worth litigating if he wants to stop people from spreading bullshit about him (and keep in mind that it is incredibly difficult for public figures such as Trump to win their defamation lawsuits).
|
On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money.
If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement.
|
On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement.
No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer?
|
I doubt Rule 12(B)6 motions would be a sure thing in a defamation case. Most of them are going to have to go through discovery for the news organization to prove they didn't knowingly print false information.
|
I dunno why Trump would want to take a bunch of people to court anyway. Not like he has had a lot of success in that realm.
|
On August 31 2016 03:45 Slaughter wrote:
I dunno why Trump would want to take a bunch of people to court anyway. Not like he has had a lot of success in that realm.
he just told you, he likes costing them time and money
thats success enough for him
|
On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer?
Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it.
|
On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics.
Not one that gets you elected president though. People are not fond of a potential candidate using the threat of legal costs as leverage against the press. Especially public and with justifiable limited cause to do so.
|
On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace.
He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead.
I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already.
|
On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already.
Which was the 2012 election...
|
On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it.
My misconstruction? He literally said that in the thing that was posted... How else am I supposed to interpret it?
|
Sorry, but you're straight up wrong Danglars; the American people already had their say when they voted Obama, and they shouldn't be stalling the court with the unsound nonsense they're doing. It's just a failure to do their job, and a failure to govern.
It's also not in the self-interest of conservatives to stall, as the expected value is against them; though the politicians may feel it is in their best interest to do so.
|
On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it.
the part of the attitude that involves publicly relishing in the questionable methods used for vindication is the issue here
|
On August 31 2016 03:56 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it. My misconstruction? He literally said that in the thing that was posted... How else am I supposed to interpret it?
It's not like he's using his wealth to make random people suffer just for shits and giggles. He's bringing his force to bear upon people who have actually wronged him.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already.
I disagree. Obama has the authority to nominate the next Supreme Court justice because it's part of his job as POTUS. He nominated someone who is by all means a pretty neutral and highly qualified judge. Congress should vote on him, and oppose the nomination if he is bad for the country. But what is actually happening is that the Republican leadership is upset that one of their favorite and most partisan judges died at an inopportune time. In the context of what actually went down this is explicit sour grapes and not any form of "let the people choose" concern.
|
On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election...
Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today.
On August 31 2016 04:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. I disagree. Obama has the authority to nominate the next Supreme Court justice because it's part of his job as POTUS. He nominated someone who is by all means a pretty neutral and highly qualified judge. Congress should vote on him, and oppose the nomination if he is bad for the country. But what is actually happening is that the Republican leadership is upset that one of their favorite and most partisan judges died at an inopportune time. In the context of what actually went down this is explicit sour grapes and not any form of "let the people choose" concern.
Oh Obama nominated his choice under his authority. He wants his partisan choice that's qualified but not neutral. You'll have to look up Robert Bork if you think I'll ever consider these proceedings to be some preserved workings of government. Nominees must be confirmed by the Senate, and whether they do it with a vote or do it by never bringing up the vote is no matter to me. Secondly, Reid suspended the philibuster rule when he was confirming some of Obama's appointments and didn't have the votes. You pretend this is functioning as normal, either ignorantly or otherwise, but the whole book's been thrown out. Some voices want to bring back antiquated notions just because today it suits them, never mind how they brush aside these considerations in the past. If you want change, vote in different representatives and/or push to amend the constitution. You have no appeal here.
|
On August 31 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:56 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it. My misconstruction? He literally said that in the thing that was posted... How else am I supposed to interpret it? It's not like he's using his wealth to make random people suffer just for shits and giggles. He's bringing his force to bear upon people who have actually wronged him.
but if he loses the suit, doesn't that indicate that the person did not in fact wrong him?
|
On August 31 2016 03:59 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it. the part of the attitude that involves publicly relishing in the questionable methods used for vindication is the issue here
I get how its questionable to the uninformed, but anyone with any sophistication in these matters understands exactly what Trump is doing and why. Of course, the perception of the uninformed masses is what matters politically.
|
On August 31 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:59 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:43 a_flayer wrote:On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. No matter how many cases are valid or invalid, he said he "liked it because it cost [the person he sued] a lot of money". That is the kind of attitude you're looking for in a president? Someone who -likes- to use his wealth to cause other people to suffer? Don't be naive. It's a smart attitude and one that's employed all of the time in business and politics. EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about Trump's actual attitude -- not your misconstruction of it. the part of the attitude that involves publicly relishing in the questionable methods used for vindication is the issue here I get how its questionable to the uninformed, but anyone with any sophistication in these matters understands exactly what Trump is doing and why. Of course, the perception of the uninformed masses is what matters politically.
i think you're attributing too much principle to trump but sure call it lack of sophistication to not give him the benefit of the doubt beyond his words
as it happens ive spent 2 years around people in the legal field and im relatively certain your opinion about trumps motivations in particular wouldnt be held up in consensus by these people
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
