|
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 04:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote: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?
It depends upon how you define "wronged." The problem for Trump is that it is almost impossible for him to ever win a defamation suit given the legal standard that has been created by the Supreme Court for people like him. Because Trump is a public figure, you can say all sorts of shit about him and get away with it when you could say the very same things about someone else (who is not a public figure) and get your ass handed to you in court.
|
On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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.
it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters.
|
On August 31 2016 04:03 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote: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
I have had many clients tell me the exact same thing that Trump says in that transcript. Hell, ask anyone who is high up in an insurance company and they'll tell you the exact same thing. There's nothing shocking about what Trump said for anyone who knows the game.
|
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.
So Secret Trump isn't abusing the process by taking advantage of the "very good deals" he has with his lawyers. In fact Secret Trump is sophisticated and does this all the time in business and only those with sophistication can understand the truth of Secret Trump. The plebes see Trump suing journalists with cases that never ever go to trial, but sophisticated Constitutional Conservatives know the hidden secret Trump truth.
This is some seriously bad faith spin. I am quite satisfied that you went there.
EDIT: you know Trump isn't in a business deal with these journalists he sues and threatens to sue right? Your exculpatory hypothetical has nothing to do with suing journalists who say things you don't like.
EDIT2: here is the case in question.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431575/donald-trump-tim-obrien-courtroom-story
|
On August 31 2016 04:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:02 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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? It depends upon how you define "wronged." The problem for Trump is that it is almost impossible for him to ever win a defamation suit given the legal standard that has been created by the Supreme Court for people like him. Because Trump is a public figure, you can say all sorts of shit about him and get away with it when you could say the very same things about someone else (who is not a public figure) and get your ass handed to you in court.
could be; do you have any handy sources that describe the standard required?
or that describe the differential?
Another question would be whether the public at large would reasonably consider such to be an instance of being wronged.
|
A new HuffPost/YouGov poll released Monday found that 54 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning voters believe Trump isn’t the best choice as the party’s nominee, while 35 percent are satisfied with the real estate mogul as the party's standard-bearer.
There’s a jump in dissatisfaction since the same poll in June, which at the time found that 44 percent believed Trump was the best option, while another 44 percent didn’t.
Trump was one of 17 Republican candidates running for president. When asked whom they’d like to win in a primary do-over, 29 percent of those selected Trump, 15 percent picked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and 14 percent chose Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Several other names received less than 10 percent each.
On the other side of aisle, 56 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are content with Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, while 32 percent believe there is a better option. This is up by 3 percentage points since the same poll in June.
Forty-seven percent of those voters would still pick Clinton if the primary was held again, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was close, at 42 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley trailed far behind, at 3 percent.
The poll was conducted Aug. 24–25, and 1,000 adults completed interviews.
Source
|
On August 31 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:04 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:02 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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? It depends upon how you define "wronged." The problem for Trump is that it is almost impossible for him to ever win a defamation suit given the legal standard that has been created by the Supreme Court for people like him. Because Trump is a public figure, you can say all sorts of shit about him and get away with it when you could say the very same things about someone else (who is not a public figure) and get your ass handed to you in court. could be; do you have any handy sources that describe the standard required? or that describe the differential? Another question would be whether the public at large would reasonably consider such to be an instance of being wronged.
Go read New York Times v. Sullivan if you want the nitty gritty, but the basic rule is this: public figures have to show actual malice by the defendant in the making of the defamatory statement to succeed.
|
We need whoever it was with the xDaunt quote sig about the responsibility of lawyers to report on other lawyers doing illegal actions.
Just because something is legal or 'normal' doesn't make it ethical or 'right'.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:03 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I have had many clients tell me the exact same thing that Trump says in that transcript. Hell, ask anyone who is high up in an insurance company and they'll tell you the exact same thing. There's nothing shocking about what Trump said for anyone who knows the game.
Just because it's not shocking or just because it's done by other people doesn't make it any less immoral from my perspective.
Also, it fits perfectly with my picture of donald trump that he gets enjoyment out of causing pain ('to those who have wronged him'), and even with that qualifier (and this is not my misconstruction, it's what he says) I think that is a terrible quality in a person, and a great reason to keep that person out of any position of power (even if I also realize and agree that people with this quality are probably more likely to seek out, and hold, positions of power).
|
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though?
|
On August 31 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:
We need whoever it was with the xDaunt quote sig about the responsibility of lawyers to report on other lawyers doing illegal actions.
Just because something is legal or 'normal' doesn't make it ethical or 'right'.
he's arguing with the same logic though
he thinks punitively suing people is right when legal defamation of public figures is wrong
On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though?
sometimes
|
On August 31 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:
We need whoever it was with the xDaunt quote sig about the responsibility of lawyers to report on other lawyers doing illegal actions.
Just because something is legal or 'normal' doesn't make it ethical or 'right'.
So where do you draw the line? People have a constitutional right to have their claims heard in court. Restricting access to the court system isn't the answer. That's what courts are for anyway: ruling on what's bullshit and what's not.
|
On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though?
Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too.
|
United States43526 Posts
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...
This. The democratic mandate for the President to choose who to nominate as a Supreme Court Justice is the election in which the sitting President when the seat became vacant is elected.
|
On August 31 2016 04:12 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:
We need whoever it was with the xDaunt quote sig about the responsibility of lawyers to report on other lawyers doing illegal actions.
Just because something is legal or 'normal' doesn't make it ethical or 'right'. he's arguing with the same logic though he thinks punitively suing people is right when legal defamation of public figures is wrong Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? sometimes
If I was a public figure who had a lot of money, and if lots of dumbass journalists were publishing false shit about me that I found offensive, I absolutely would sue them when possible to deter further defamatory statements.
|
On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though?
Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot.
|
On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too.
On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot.
gonna need someone to put up a source now
important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs"
|
On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now
Listen to the attorney, not the paralegal.
|
That sullivan case is interesting; though it does seem a bit of an overreach to me; I don't think such an extreme standard is necessary to have healthy criticism of public officials and a sound free press. It mostly seems to encourage trash reporting which goes too far.
|
On August 31 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now Listen to the attorney, not the paralegal.
ad hominem yo i just want any sort of evidence and im assuming your accumulated expertise will help you locate such a thing faster than my generalized google-fu
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
