I fell like I’ve been invited to step into a trap.
Well next time don’t step into the trap.
This matches my sentiment. As well as that they’re not really any distraction to him, he will have a legion of lawyers to run interference and he might get a five minute summary once a week.
Trump nuisance suits are like Trump pit threads. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
LOL, exactly. Poor Trump. It must feel exactly like Benghazi did to Hillary Clinton. Only this time, with merit.
A nuisance suit is one that has no merit. I would not support them for the same reason I don’t support them generally. And because of the reasons above about making all suits against Trump seem frivolous.
But these aren’t nuisance suits. A nuisance suit has no possible substance. These do. And, yes, I do 100% support these even if it turns out that the suit fails. It needs to be tried.
And, yes, I do in fact hope that doing so will continue to distract Trump, and make him less dangerous. We have to watch out for it distracting the people from Congress, but I still think distracting Trump is a good thing.
But I don’t support them because of that, and am fine with a Twitter feud or something similar instead. There are so many ways to distract Trump besides lawsuits.
I thought this was going to be the harder question of whether I want him found against (or whatever the terminology is) if a normal person would not be. Because, I kinda do, even though I recognize this is the same thing they tried to do to Clinton.
I mean, I’ve said before that I don’t consider the law absolute, but merely a tool. The correct thing to do is the right thing while following the law, rather than using the law to figure out the right thing.
I disagree with nuisance suits. I approve of legitimate suits.
Personally I see the wording of the question to so much require implicit acceptance of a leading hypothetical that I refuse to play.
I would however like to ask a related question.
A boxer gets into a fight with street fighter that was billed as boxing match but the street fighter kicks and gouges and hits shall we say “under the belt” … and gets away with it. No actual rules to this match that are being violated, its being billed and by previous tradition fought one way one way notwithstanding. Should the boxer continue to do that which he thinks is “fighting fair”? Two wrongs don’t make a right, when they go low … and all that. Or should he do his best to give back as he received and maybe even then some? Which is more likely to not end with him in a coma?
As you’ve phrased it, I disagree. However…
-
We don’t know that they’re baseless. Seems to me that the issues raised around Trump do merit further scrutiny.
-
While I think such baseless suits would be bad for the country, I would shed no tears for Trump the man. He’s ducked and weaved his way through the legal system when it suited him, if it now becomes a problem for him, so be it.
Disagree. To bring a lawsuit that is baseless is a waste of energy that would better be applied investigating further.
The idea (hypothetically, assuming every case was frivolous and the bringers knew it) isn’t that Trump will spend six hours a day in a courtroom sipping water, it’s to maintain a negative narrative. Never let Trump have a good day in the news. Drag down his ratings and those of the GOP who support him. It doesn’t matter how stupid or improbable it is so long as you can cause the news to pivot from “Trump signs the Use Kittens For Oil Act” to “Lawsuits continue to swirl around the administration alleging that Trump used the bones of children in his bread…”
Does it work? Of course it does. See: Clinton, Hillary.
Conceeded. Though I don’t really see any news outlets changing the headlines they’re running now. Liberal sites already spin negative on everything he does and conservatives spin positive. Everything that doesn’t fit their chosen narratives just gets lost on the editing floor.
One of the goals of these suits is to get to the discovery process and gain access to Trump’s tax returns and this could open the door to Trump’s Pandora’s Box.
Take them down legitimately, permanently, humiliatingly, and without mercy. Not with frivolous distractions or stupid dangerous kneejerk behaviour like tragic massacres at baseball games.
You don’t fool me, B. You set up a trick question so that all the poll answers come out couched in your bias.
And for that matter I never started beating my wife in the first place.
Poll invalid, as the polling question is based on an unsupported and obviously biased assessment of the facts.
I oppose frivolous lawsuits, baseless accusations, fruitless endeavors, unfair practices, inappropriate behavior, unsound methodology and ill-founded premises, but appreciate your providing a forum for the opposing view.
Yes they are, although it’s a civil tort. It’s called malicious proseution.
Not going to answer the survey as it is not possible to answer it outside the biases created in the OP.
He is being sued by people over his businesses. This is a man with > 3,000 lawsuits filed against him in his lifetime. He has a history of not paying his debts, of breaching contracts, of generally not giving a shit about the law and this is the consequence of that. No part of that is conflated with his Presidency in my mind.
He is being sued by people over the things he does in office. Frankly, I don’t care if he is distracted by them or not. If some of those lawsuits are dismissed or proven baseless, then so be it. I doubt they all will be.
I’d be interested to hear from Bricker how he feels about the results so far.
Bricker: Is the fact that a solid 2/3 of respondents either disagree or strongly disagree in line with what you expected the Dope denizens to say? Or did you think that overall we’d be more of the mindset, “Bring it on, because Trump is such an asshole he deserves any grief we can fling at him, fair or not?”
Bricker, and many other conservative posters/commentators, likes to paint any opposition as strictly partisan in nature, rather than a principled and practical objection.
Whether it’s consciously meant to trivialize opposition (“you’re just mad because your guy lost”) or not, that is the entire meat of it.