- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Have we reached any kind of definition in here yet?
1
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
She said the word "malicious"? LINK?
Definition of malicious:
quote:
having or showing a desire to cause harm to another person
quote:
intentionally harmful
quote:
intending to cause harm, esp. by hurting someone’s feelings or reputation:
Campaign quote
quote:
“I believe that this president is incompetent. I believe that this president is ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land. And I believe that he is an embarrassment to all that we stand for.” She went on to say Trump should be indicted on criminal charges and charged with obstruction of justice.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:56 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Have we reached any kind of definition in here yet?
No. At least 10 definitions and 3-5 "I know it when I see it" definitions.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:57 am to OceanMan
quote:
Definition of malicious:
Those apply to pretty much any litigation, criminal or civil, except the random emotional-based one (which I imagine we all agree doesn't apply ITT).
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
The actions against Trump are partisan and political. That’s the entire motivation for these legal proceedings against Trump. You know this, but you support the actions. If you didn’t support it you wouldn’t spend hours on end trying to convince the board that these actions are all in good faith and the people leading these actions are doing so in the pursuit of justice.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:03 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
The actions against Trump are partisan and political. That’s the entire motivation for these legal proceedings against Trump. You know this, but you support the actions. If you didn’t support it you wouldn’t spend hours on end trying to convince the board that these actions are all in good faith and the people leading these actions are doing so in the pursuit of justice.
Correct. He is a shitty human being.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We are trying. We're up to like 12-13 different definitions...from people who believe in it, no less. Only 1 can be correct.
This is where the premise of your position and thread is incredibly flawed. Most words have multiple definitions and connotations. Being able to appropriately apply definitions in context is a skill. A skill you are going out of your way to demonstrate you don’t possess.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
where making legitimacy arguments effectively opens up the door to revisit all sorts of things that they did not intend to do.
No you tried to gotcha posters and your attempts were fruitless.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:05 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
The actions against Trump are partisan and political. That’s the entire motivation for these legal proceedings against Trump.
If he committed the crimes, does this matter?
And if you think motivation invalidates criminal behavior, I imagine you draw the line at Trump and won't extend that universally, correct?
Because that's BLM territory if you do extend it universally.
quote:
If you didn’t support it you wouldn’t spend hours on end trying to convince the board that these actions are all in good faith and the people leading these actions are doing so in the pursuit of justice.
Straw man. Stop projecting or find another thread.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:05 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
No you tried to gotcha posters and your attempts were fruitless.
I'm not "gotcha"ing anyone. Just explaining the final result of their definitions and allowing them to revise them.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Those apply to pretty much any litigation, criminal or civil, except the random emotional-based one (which I imagine we all agree doesn't apply ITT).
Wtf are you now trying to say?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:07 am to OceanMan
quote:
A skill you are going out of your way to demonstrate you don’t possess.
We haven't even established if legitimacy of the litigation invalidates a designation of "lawfare". People keep changing and shifting and relying on concepts like whataboutism instead of establishing first principles.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:08 am to OceanMan
quote:
Wtf are you now trying to say?
I've sued a lot of people on behalf of clients in my life. The defendant always felt like they were being harmed intentionally by the suit.
I've represented a lot of criminal defendants. Pretty universal they felt the state was intentionally trying to harm them with the prosecution.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:11 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:Right.
charges against Trump are all acting in good faith and seeking nothing other than justice.
I wonder how many people actually believe E Jean's "rape" story ... locked dressing room, but somehow she got in WITH Trump, her supposed outfit was not manufactured until two years after the date of her supposed assault, she ran from the dressing room with her tights pulled down, but no one on the entire floor noticed, no security cam footage, the identical story appeared on a Law and Order episode, even down to the actual store, Bergdorf Goodman's.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
I define lawfare as a dog whistle type of phrase used to signal between maga supporters that something is unfair to them or someone they are required to support.
How does that definition hold up?
How does that definition hold up?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:16 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I wonder how many people actually believe E Jean's "rape" story
Again, are we talking criminal or civil?
I would suggest y'all keep the definition of lawfare to criminal only.
quote:
locked dressing room, but somehow she got in WITH Trump, her supposed outfit was not manufactured until two years after the date of her supposed assault, she ran from the dressing room with her tights pulled down, but no one on the entire floor noticed, no security cam footage, the identical story appeared on a Law and Order episode, even down to the actual store, Bergdorf Goodman's.
That's up to the jury to decide.
Again, be careful how you propose a universal definition (and solution).
Imagine if NY had "loser pays". Trump would have to deal with the judgment AND her attorney's fees.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:19 am to oklahogjr
quote:
I define lawfare as a dog whistle type of phrase used to signal between maga supporters that something is unfair to them or someone they are required to support.
There is more to it than that, but within the political rhetoric context, that is largely correct right now.
The fact they don't include the bogus lawsuits after the 2020 election in "lawfare" and didn't gasp in horror after the Thiel-Gawker lawsuit make me question their objectivity in the assessment, however.
If we can't call a clearly political-partisan based lawsuit that relied on fraudulent accusations, "lawfare", then the drawing board is going to get real big, real quick.
The bigger issue is that including legitimate convictions/suits as "lawfare" opens the door to a lot of territory they reject (the "BLM argument" stuff)
The larger issue is the "we need to make the conspiracy bigger and add another layer" reliance to group together actors who are essentially independent, in order to permit the whataboutism (to loop in legitimate suits and prosecutions).
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:22 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I appreciate the 'suggestion.'
I would suggest y'all keep the definition of lawfare to criminal only.
The answer is "no."
Sorry.
There may be no better, more obvious example of lawfare than lawyers conspiring with an extremist legislature to change a law for just one year to accommodate a bullshite charge which was then brought into an absurdly partisan Kangaroo Court in order to gain a desirable verdict.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
an absurdly partisan Kangaroo Court
Well now all civil lawsuits are potential "lawfare" b/c the juries are always the first complaint by the loser
This board is about to get real big.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:27 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh FFS
Well now all civil lawsuits are potential "lawfare"
Name the ones which were enabled by a special one-year waiver of the statute of limitations and we'll address it.
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News