Jump to content

Note to self: No dinner parties at Herschel’s


Recommended Posts





In another thread I commented that Senator Rick Scott was responsible for leading the search for good quality candidates.  I read the biographies of three other candidates.  One was a car dealership owner, one a Navy SEAL, the third I have forgotten.  The SEAL is the one I would have chosen, but...........  This  video shows a dim bulb moment.  Not good. 

The reason HW was chosen was because of his Jawja popularity and success in the NFL.  He's well-known and well-liked.

Warnock isn't a shining star either.   I don't understand why the Dems would choose a man who had a claim of assault against him by his wife. 

This Senate race is between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

  • Facepalm 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

In another thread I commented that Senator Rick Scott was responsible for leading the search for good quality candidates.  I read the biographies of three other candidates.  One was a car dealership owner, one a Navy SEAL, the third I have forgotten.  The SEAL is the one I would have chosen, but...........  This  video shows a dim bulb moment.  Not good. 

The reason HW was chosen was because of his Jawja popularity and success in the NFL.  He's well-known and well-liked.

Warnock isn't a shining star either.   I don't understand why the Dems would choose a man who had a claim of assault against him by his wife. 

This Senate race is between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

He didn’t have a claim of assault filed by his wife, he was never charged nor was a civil suit filed. However, she did allege that he ran over her foot.
Apologies, “claim of assault” is a legal term of art implying she filed a suit or charge. Just wanted to clarify. Not trying to be pedantic. 
 

Paramedics that responded found no injuries to her foot after she alleged he ran over it with a car. 
 

further, the ex-wife and Warnock are involved in child custody litigation.
 

I normally don’t like to marginalize women’s claims but as an attorney when divorce or child custody are the grounds for the suit things become very heated very quickly and you have to be very dubious of any outlandish claims either side makes. Especially, when child support is involved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/sep/08/fact-checking-herschel-walker-attack-ad-about-raph/

‘Warnock hit his wife with his car after an argument’

Police found no evidence that Warnock ran over his then-estranged wife’s foot with his car.

The claim relates to a March 2, 2020, incident, in which Warnock called the police  to Ndoye’s home shortly before 8:30 a.m. 

Warnock told police that Ndoye accused him of running over her left foot with his 2014 Tesla while they were arguing in her driveway. Ndoye was reluctant to show her foot to an officer, who wrote in a report: "I did not see any signs that Ms. Ouleye’s foot was ran over." Medical personnel arrived, according to the police report, and were "not able to locate any swelling, redness, or bruising or broken bones on Ms. Ouleye’s left foot."

The Atlanta Police Department gave PolitiFact a copy of the police report.

To back up this claim, Walker’s campaign cited a Dec. 23, 2020, story from WABC radio in New York on Ndoye’s allegations. The police footage first aired on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News talk show on the previous day. Two months after the incident, Warnock and Ndoye divorced.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Didba said:

He didn’t have a claim of assault filed by his wife, he was never charged nor was a civil suit filed. However, she did allege that he ran over her foot.
Apologies, “claim of assault” is a legal term of art implying she filed a suit or charge. Just wanted to clarify. Not trying to be pedantic. 
 

Paramedics that responded found no injuries to her foot after she alleged he ran over it with a car. 
 

further, the ex-wife and Warnock are involved in child custody litigation.
 

I normally don’t like to marginalize women’s claims but as an attorney when divorce or child custody are the grounds for the suit things become very heated very quickly and you have to be very dubious of any outlandish claims either side makes. Especially, when child support is involved.

Be like Tucker and never spoil a good story with facts.

 

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Didba said:

He didn’t have a claim of assault filed by his wife, he was never charged nor was a civil suit filed. However, she did allege that he ran over her foot.
Apologies, “claim of assault” is a legal term of art implying she filed a suit or charge. Just wanted to clarify. Not trying to be pedantic. 
 

Paramedics that responded found no injuries to her foot after she alleged he ran over it with a car. 
 

further, the ex-wife and Warnock are involved in child custody litigation.
 

I normally don’t like to marginalize women’s claims but as an attorney when divorce or child custody are the grounds for the suit things become very heated very quickly and you have to be very dubious of any outlandish claims either side makes. Especially, when child support is involved.

You've drifted far from the thrust of my comment and, instead, focused totally on the aside.  To reiterate, NEITHER Warnock or Walker is a stellar candidate for the US Senate.  The Jawja Senate race is actually a contest between Dweedledumb and Dweedledumber, and has essentially been, Your candidate sucks more than mine.

To address the claim of assault, both Warnock and his wife admit his car was in motion and she simultaneously made the claim that he drove over her foot.  Her claim was not an afterthought; RW also simultaneously disputed her claim.  Having a tire roll over one's foot without visible damage is common, although it hurts like the dickens and sometimes it doesn't.  Did she file charges against RW ?  No, but her claim that he drove over her foot is viewed as an assault, intended or not, true or not.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

You've drifted far from the thrust of my comment and, instead, focused totally on the aside. 

To address the claim of assault, both Warnock and his wife admit his car was in motion and she simultaneously made the claim that he drove over her foot.  Her claim was not an afterthought; RW also simultaneously disputed her claim.  Having a tire roll over one's foot without visible damage is common, although it hurts like the dickens and sometimes it doesn't.  Did she file charges against RW ?  No, but her claim that he drove over her foot is viewed as an assault, intended or not, true or not.

No, I haven't I just correct your erroneous claims about the case and the law. Chilleth out.

Again, she alleged it, your use of "claim" is incorrect in the legal realm.

Further, "Ndoye was reluctant to show her foot to the officer, the officer wrote: "I did not see any signs that Ms. Ouleye’s foot was ran over." Medical personnel arrived and were "not able to locate any swelling, redness, or bruising or broken bones on Ms. Ouleye’s left foot." 

Cite: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/16/erick-erickson/no-proof-warnock-ran-over-wife-obstruction-case-dr/

Further, even if it's conceded that he ran over her foot, to meet domestic violence standards, she would have to prove he had the specific intent to run over her foot.  Which would be very hard to do. 

Moreover, if we get into torts law on the civil side and discuss assault it would likely fail as she would struggle to prove specific intent.  She could probably succeed on battery, if we conceded that he ran over her foot, but that is because battery does not require specific intent. You can accidentally commit battery by swatting a bug away from your face and accidentally hitting the person next to you.

As for all the other crap you stated, I couldn't care less "who the worse candidate is".  I am just here to correct you on the law, people incorrectly stating the law like they are an expert is a pet peeve of mine.

However, since I don't think you and I have interacted on this forum before I'll let it slide this once. 😉

Edited by Didba
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Didba said:

No, I haven't I just correct your erroneous claims about the case and the law. Chilleth out.

Again, she alleged it, your use of "claim" is incorrect in the legal realm.

Further, "Ndoye was reluctant to show her foot to the officer, the officer wrote: "I did not see any signs that Ms. Ouleye’s foot was ran over." Medical personnel arrived and were "not able to locate any swelling, redness, or bruising or broken bones on Ms. Ouleye’s left foot." 

Cite: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/16/erick-erickson/no-proof-warnock-ran-over-wife-obstruction-case-dr/

Further, even if its conceded that he ran over her foot for it

As for all the other crap you stated, I couldn't care less "who the worse candidate is".  I am just here to correct you on the law, people incorrectly stating the law like they are an expert is a pet peeve of mine.

However, since I don't think you and I have interacted on this forum before I'll let it slide this once. 😉

Again, you are focusing on the minutia, not the bigger picture, which is, both candidates are mediocre, the essence of this threadYou should actually care, because this is the future of selecting potential lawmakers and their credentials are becoming less noteworthy as shown between RW and HW.

My comment wasn't about legal terminology, which is what you're trying to do, by putting words into my mouth.  Using the word "claim" as I did, is the simple English vernacular for what Ms. Ouleye did.  From Merriam-Webster: "to assert in the face of possible contradiction".  She "claimed" (asserted) that RW drove over her foot.  You then extrapolated into your legal terminology.  To explain it very simply for you, Did Ms. Ouleye "claim" (assert) that RW drove over her foot, or not ?  The answer is "yes", Ms. Ouleye did "claim" (assert) that RW drove over her foot.  That's the proper use of the English vernacular.

You should learn that there is a use of words separate from just legal definitions.  Take your head out of the books.

Do me a favor, go snake away like lawyers do.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Again, you are focusing on the minutia, not the bigger picture, which is, both candidates are mediocre, the essence of this threadYou should actually care, because this is the future of selecting potential lawmakers and their credentials are becoming less noteworthy as shown between RW and HW.

My comment wasn't about legal terminology, which is what you're trying to do, by putting words into my mouth.  Using the word "claim" as I did, is the simple English vernacular for what Ms. Ouleye did.  From Merriam-Webster: "to assert in the face of possible contradiction".  She "claimed" (asserted) that RW drove over her foot.  You then extrapolated into your legal terminology.  To explain it very simply for you, Did Ms. Ouleye "claim" (assert) that RW drove over her foot, or not ?  The answer is "yes", Ms. Ouleye did "claim" (assert) that RW drove over her foot.  That's the proper use of the English vernacular.

You should learn that there is a use of words separate from just legal definitions.  Take your head out of the books.

Do me a favor, go snake away like lawyers do.

 

I know I’m focusing on the minutia. I made that very clear.

Further, I was just clarifying terms for you, as it appeared you may have been using a legal term incorrectly as many on here do. However, I am glad it spurred you to use a dictionary so you could brush up on your vocabulary.

Hold on, there is a use of words separate from just legal definitions? Oh my god! I would have never known that had you not just informed me. Wow, what a truly, remarkable epiphany. Without you I would have never pulled my head out of the books. 

Nice, personal insult, it’s funny how you guys always get frustrated and lash out with words like children i.e. go snake away like lawyers do. Luckily, I don’t have to snake away as I actually help ordinary people make home-builders fix the defective homes they built and fraudulently sold to homeowners. 

Have a great thanksgiving, my friend! I hope the best for you and yours!

Edited by Didba
*using a legal term*
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Again, you are focusing on the minutia, not the bigger picture, which is, both candidates are mediocre, the essence of this threadYou should actually care, because this is the future of selecting potential lawmakers and their credentials are becoming less noteworthy as shown between RW and HW.

My comment wasn't about legal terminology, which is what you're trying to do, by putting words into my mouth.  Using the word "claim" as I did, is the simple English vernacular for what Ms. Ouleye did.  From Merriam-Webster: "to assert in the face of possible contradiction".  She "claimed" (asserted) that RW drove over her foot.  You then extrapolated into your legal terminology.  To explain it very simply for you, Did Ms. Ouleye "claim" (assert) that RW drove over her foot, or not ?  The answer is "yes", Ms. Ouleye did "claim" (assert) that RW drove over her foot.  That's the proper use of the English vernacular.

You should learn that there is a use of words separate from just legal definitions.  Take your head out of the books.

Do me a favor, go snake away like lawyers do.

 

 

 

Hershel Walker is legitimately a bad political candidate. Even many Republicans, such as yourself, admit that.  

But what is it that makes Warnock equally mediocre though? He's got experience, is articulate, and seems to be well liked by many of his supporters. You've mentioned the one incident with the foot/car which police don't believe happened. What else makes Warnock a mediocre/stupid candidate like Walker is? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Didba said:

I know I’m focusing on the minutia. I made that very clear.

Further, I was just clarifying terms for you, as it appeared you may have been using the incorrectly as many on here do. However, I am glad it spurred you to use a dictionary so you could brush up on your vocabulary.

Hold on, there is a use of words separate from just legal definitions? Oh my god! I would have never known that had you not just informed me. Wow, what a truly, remarkable epiphany. Without you I would have never pulled my head out of the books. 

Nice, personal insult, it’s funny how you guys always get frustrated and lash out with words like children i.e. go snake away like lawyers do. Luckily, I don’t have to snake away as I actually help ordinary people make home-builders fix the defective homes they built and fraudulently sold to homeowners. 

Have a great thanksgiving, my friend! I hope the best for you and yours!

I'm not using any terms incorrectly.  You're ignoring the fact that there is a non-legal use of the word "claim".

I'll put the simple question to you, Did Ms. Ouleye claim that RW drove over her foot ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

Hershel Walker is legitimately a bad political candidate. Even many Republicans, such as yourself, admit that.  

But what is it that makes Warnock equally mediocre though? He's got experience, is articulate, and seems to be well liked by many of his supporters. You've mentioned the one incident with the foot/car which police don't believe happened. What else makes Warnock a mediocre/stupid candidate like Walker is? 

Here are the two most recent former Democrat US Senators, prior to JO and RW, from Jawja.  Both were stellar men.  How does RW even compare with them ?  HE DOESN'T.  RW is a radical nitwit.

Sam Nunn - Wikipedia ; Max Cleland - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

 

Blessed? SMH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have a moron in congress, because he will just vote party line, no matter what the issue is.

Hershel + Tuberville = minus Zero IQ politicians,

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AURex said:

It's good to have a moron in congress, because he will just vote party line, no matter what the issue is.

Hershel + Tuberville = minus Zero IQ politicians,

 

+ K Harris, Ossoff, Warnock

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

+ K Harris, Ossoff, Warnock

Tip of the proverbial iceberg. Don't make me use references. lol

Edited by AUFAN78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

I'm not using any terms incorrectly.  You're ignoring the fact that there is a non-legal use of the word "claim".

I'll put the simple question to you, Did Ms. Ouleye claim that RW drove over her foot ?

Oof, that's my bad, spelling error. I'll fix it, I didn't mean to claim you were using terms incorrectly.

Clown moment

zxcxcx.gif.519695f52af546928f2fc333b19b3514.gif

Edited by Didba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Didba said:

Oof, that's my bad, spelling error. I'll fix it, I didn't mean to claim you were using terms incorrectly.

Clown moment

zxcxcx.gif.519695f52af546928f2fc333b19b3514.gif

That's EXACTLY how I've pictured you.  Where's your little clown diploma ?  You should post that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...