@Nine_Ender Look, at this point, I feel a moral obligation to stop. It just isn't a fair debate. Devastating blow after devastating blow, that was an epic ass-kicking of monumental proportions.
You don't seem to have the slightest ability to stay on topic or think in a critical manner. There is no point to this shit other than you ignorantly supporting Trump no matter how immoral, impractical, or legal it is. That was a very early point I made. The man should be in jail period. That ADHD brain of yours can bounce around all you want like a video gamer on crack who the fuck cares. You aren't getting any smarter and these topics are way abo0ve your pay grade. Bye bye.
@Frederick Foresight, I think at this point you should lend @Nine_Ender a helping hand and send him a DM. I feel sorry for @Nine_Ender at this point.
Hey, I have to hand it to you. That is some grade A combo gaslighting/red herring fallacy. Nice one. At least I got to witness an attempted failed deployment of the insidious Quantum Red Herring Maneuver! You presented a false assertion as a factual claim. This claim was offered as justification or support for an argument or position. The factual claim was subsequently demonstrated to be misinformation. When requested to substantiate the claim with evidence, you provided none. Despite the evidence contradicting the claim, you continue to make the claim. You still have absolutely no that you were wrong. You are spreading and basing your beliefs/opinions on misinformation. Desperate to save face, you deployed a tactic to divert.
So I'm at the big island as the little island didn't have a adequate refrigerator for my wife's meds. One is coming in on a boat later from the mainland. Then peace. Hey, just a note of caution before you split legal hairs on "guilty" versus "liable" in front of Canadians. This is an internationally used forum. You're speaking to people whose legal framework isn’t purely Anglo-American common law like yours. In Canada, especially Quebec, they have a blended system, part Napoleonic civil law, part British common law. That means concepts like responsabilité, culpabilité, and faute map differently onto the English terms you're using. In French, coupable can mean morally or legally guilty, and responsable might carry legal, administrative, or even emotional weight depending on the context. So when an also French culturally Canadian blurs “guilty” and “liable,” it’s not a mistake, it’s a reflection of a different philosophical and legal lineage. One where moral culpability, civil responsibility, and criminal guilt are understood less as neatly boxed legal terms and more as overlapping parts of a social and ethical spectrum. So sure, you can make a technical correction, but just know that from the Canadian side, it may not be wrong, just a different dialect of responsibility.
I completely agree with you. I was more than happy to have a civil discussion. It doesn't seem as though @Nine_Ender is capable of that. Also, I did provide pictures. If only a 51% and a 99% test store on a college exam were the same....
Look, I’m just saying that an educated person arguing in good faith takes into account context, legal, cultural, and linguistic and doesn’t try to plant a flag on very, very tiny hills. When the defendant is a former POTUS, someone who has received more due process, more legal scrutiny, and more procedural deference than perhaps any private citizen ever.... then dismissing a civil jury’s finding of sexual assault as somehow morally inconsequential because it wasn't a criminal conviction is... weak tea. The jury was unanimous. They were convinced. And by all reasonable standards, so should any rational person be. If the facts support civil liability for sexual assault, then morally, we're in the territory of criminal rape, just without the prosecution’s burden of proof. You're free to retreat to technical distinctions if you like. But don’t mistake that for the high ground.
One to ponder is the brush painting by Trump's goons that all undocumented migrants are inherently "criminal". As I understand it: Ones that came in via a port of entry without previously being expelled but overstay commit a civil infraction (I should correct that to violation for @echopulse because infraction is mostly for traffic offences in Amercian culture). Undocumented that crossed between legal crossings are doing so illegally, just, a misdemeanor (8 U.S. Code § 1325) however there is a statute of limitation of five years for prosecution. So where is that then? Trump has been credibly accused of numerous acts, some civil, many criminal and in many cases statutes of limitations have run out, particularly for older business and sexual misconduct cases. Seems if the Trump admin gets to call migrants illegals broadly, we can call anything Trump escaped by statute of limitations illegal too?