Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,584
Well now, let me tell you something, darlin'. I used to be a Trump voter, I sure did. I'm an Evangelical Christian, and I thought Mr. Trump was the best candidate for us. But then I started to see some things that made me change my mind. First of all, I didn't like the way he talked about women. I have two daughters, and I don't want them to grow up thinking it's okay for a man to treat them like that. And I didn't like the way he talked about immigrants, either. We're all God's children, and we should treat each other with love and respect.
But the thing that really made me change my mind was the way he handled the pandemic. I lost my job because of it, and it's been really tough for my family. I don't think Mr. Trump took it seriously enough at first, and I think a lot of people got sick and died because of that. So I did some soul-searching, and I prayed a lot about it. And I decided that I couldn't vote for Mr. Trump again. I know some people might not understand, but I have to follow my conscience and do what I think is right. And what I think is right is to vote for someone who will stand up for all of us, not just some of us, thanks.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,611
@1,232,602 (H)
1. The judge (appointed by Bill Clinton) frequently shut down Tacopina's arguments when he attempted to highlight discrepancies between various statements Caroll had made in interviews, testimonies and in her book.
2. I would place a large bet that every single one of those jurors vote democrat.
3. Guilty of what exactly? She claimed he raped her, and the jury did not accept that, but they HAD to find him guilty of something because orange man bad. Instead they found him guilty of "battery". How on earth you prove that beyond reasonable doubt 30 years later, when all you have is she said, he said, is beyond me.
The whole thing is farcical. Do you really believe you'd get the same guilty verdict from the same court if it were Hillary Clinton, Obama or Biden on trial for their various war crimes?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,618
@1,232,611 (I)
Civil trials are a preponderance of the evidence standard, not reasonable doubt; and they determine liability, not guilt. You should watch Jury Duty, this is conveniently explained in the first episode!
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 57 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,622
@1,232,618 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > and they determine liability, not guilt.
They determine both. This is literally covered in the first semester of law school.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,624
@previous (J)
If you attended a law school that taught you civil trials can determine whether someone is guilty of a crime, I strongly urge you to inform the ABA so they can investigate and revoke its accreditation.