Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:30 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:30 am

No..

That's NOT what he's arguing.


Until you have some clue what you are talking about, don't talk.
 

 

That was not an answer to your questions, Askholio.

It was in response to this:

As a condition, he had to put up more money.

 

Huey » Yesterday, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:34 am

That was not an answer to your questions, Askholio.

It was in response to this:

Of course not...

You always run from those, Quimmie...


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:35 am

Of course not...

You always run from those, Quimmie...

**** YOU, YOU CHINK COCKSUCKER, YOU NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:35 am

Of course not...

You always run from those, Quimmie...


 

 

Run?  No.  Refuse to answer yours until you start answering?  Yes.  

Huey » Yesterday, 7:37 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:37 am

Run?  No.  Refuse to answer yours until you start answering?  Yes.

Yes..

Always run.

until you start answering?  Yes

No...you are a chronic liar, Quimmie.

BV IS THE FASTEST RUNNER HERE

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:39 am

Yes..

Always run.


No...you are a chronic liar, Quimmie.

 

This isn't about me, or you.  It is about the appeals court temporarily blocking the payment.  
 

Huey » Yesterday, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:41 am

This isn't about me, or you.  It is about the appeals court temporarily blocking the payment.

No...it wouldn't block itself.

It stays its order.


This is why Stupid People can't have nice things...
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:50 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:50 am

No...it wouldn't block itself.

It stays its order.


This is why Stupid People can't have nice things...
 


 

Semantics.  Go argue with the media.
 

Huey » Yesterday, 7:51 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:51 am

Semantics,  Go argue with the media.

Words have meaning....English has many....it allows for precision.

The court wouldn't "block" itself.

There's no need for blocking if both parties agree. There's no debate of "merits"....in fact, there's no assurance SCOTUS will hear it.


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:01 am

Words have meaning....English has many....it allows for precision.

The court wouldn't "block" itself.

There's no need for blocking if both parties agree. There's no debate of "merits"....in fact, there's no assurance SCOTUS will hear it.

E. Jean Carroll, will not see a **** penney

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:29 am

How about the 2nd paragraph of your citation, *******.

Trump is heading to the justices after the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected his presidential immunity claims and other efforts to avoid paying the sum late last month.

NO LINK to YOUR claim, right COCKBREATH!!

So if they DENIED issuing a STAY, you MIGHT have something, but that's not what happened!! THE STAY WAS ISSUED, PAYMENT DELAYED AND THE CASE SHOT UP THE LADDER TO THE SCOTUS!! So OBLVIOUSLY they court felt SOME MERIT TO THE APPEAL CASE EXISTED or they would have BLATANTLY DENIED THE MOTION!!

Sucks for you that you have NO **** CLUE how the courts operate now doesn't it DICKSUCK!!

         

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:23 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:23 am

These are jury verdicts...

You're a slack jawed rube.

A jury of queers doesn't persuade me, try something else.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:01 am

Words have meaning....English has many....it allows for precision.

The court wouldn't "block" itself.

There's no need for blocking if both parties agree. There's no debate of "merits"....in fact, there's no assurance SCOTUS will hear it.
 

Semantics,  Go argue with the media.

Blackvegetable » 16 May 2026, 7:41 pm » wrote: ↑

16 May 2026, 7:41 pm

Once the jury is sent home, it's done.

Exactly as they had the final say in BOTH the verdict AND award…the judge had NOTHING to do with either, therefore interjecting his stupid **** opinion was based solely on his snowflakey feefees…

How do you find the strength to go on being this **** stupid?
No really, HOW DO YOU???
 
 

ROG62 » Yesterday, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:50 am

Exactly as they had the final say in BOTH the verdict AND award…

Both can be appealed.

When they are appealed, the jury is not reconvened. 

The judge speaks for the Court, which is why Team Grifty directed the petition you insist on ignoring to Judge Kaplan for response.

When so doing, it must provide a reason why The Rapist shouldn't have to pay what the jury awarded.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:58 am

Both can be appealed.

When they are appealed, the jury is not reconvened. 

The judge speaks for the Court, which is why Team Grifty directed the petition you insist on ignoring to Judge Kaplan for response.

When so doing, it must provide a reason why The Rapist shouldn't have to pay what the jury awarded.

Trump was NEVER convicted of rape... keep lying and crying you liberal **** shill

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:39 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:39 am

Yes..

Always run.

 

No...you are a chronic liar, Quimmie.

No...you are a chronic moron, Quimmie.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 8:58 am

Both can be appealed.

When they are appealed, the jury is not reconvened. 

The judge speaks for the Court, which is why Team Grifty directed the petition you insist on ignoring to Judge Kaplan for response.

When so doing, it must provide a reason why The Rapist shouldn't have to pay what the jury awarded.

Did the “appeal” change the verdict?
Did the “appeal” change the basis for the award?

Did the prosecution or defense “appeal”?
 
 

ROG62 » Yesterday, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:35 am

Did the “appeal” change the verdict?
Did the “appeal” change the basis for the award?

Did the prosecution or defense “appeal”?

You do realize... BV will not answer a single one of those questions.