Trump "suing Maher for charity"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Huh, two people I can't stand in a ridiculous lawsuit. Whoever loses, we win.
I very much doubt Trump has anything to go on here, though. Maher will just say it's part of his being a comedian to make over-the-top offers like that and that there was never any sort of actual agreement.

On Jay Leno? Is Trump sure that Maher wasn't just kidding?

Skeleon:
Huh, two people I can't stand in a ridiculous lawsuit. Whoever loses, we win.
I very much doubt Trump has anything to go on here, though. Maher will just say it's part of his being a comedian to make over-the-top offers like that and that there was never any sort of actual agreement.

he might also make the argument he thought Trump was also a satirical comedian...like Herman Cain...

Trump is a) a RL troll, and b) a fortune-in-waiting to the right psychoanalyst because the guy doesn't just have issues, he's got an entire encyclopedia set.

FreedomofInformation:

ClockworkPenguin:

If I could take a class action suit against Nick Clegg, I would squeeze the bugger until I had enough money to pay 9 grand a year in uni fees for everyone in the country.

Nick Clegg and the Liberal democrats didn't win the majority and thanks to the electoral system had far lower number of seats despite the proportion of votes plus Labour suck.

They signed a pledge saying they would oppose any increase in tuition fees, whether they were in government or not.
They did not honour this pledge. That's about as clear cut as it gets in politics.
So I don't see your point.

Can't make a binding legal agreement if you are not of sound mind. Questioning whether or not a man was the offspring of an orangutan clearly rules you out. If they insist on treating Maher's "bet" as a real thing, he can just cop to being completely out of his mind at the time. Perfectly reasonable defense given the case brought against him.

Real?

How frivolous can you get.

generals3:
Maher bluffed, Trump called it and now Maher is trying to flee from his bet. Despite my hatred towards Trump i actually support him in this case.

Now whether a court will take it seriously is different. Despite the fact technically verbal agreements are just as binding as written ones. Whether such a bet on TV can count as an agreement/contract though is a totally different question.

You grasp the concept of satire, yes? Apparently not.

Magichead:

generals3:
Maher bluffed, Trump called it and now Maher is trying to flee from his bet. Despite my hatred towards Trump i actually support him in this case.

Now whether a court will take it seriously is different. Despite the fact technically verbal agreements are just as binding as written ones. Whether such a bet on TV can count as an agreement/contract though is a totally different question.

You grasp the concept of satire, yes? Apparently not.

Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

GunsmithKitten:
Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

In this case however it's pretty clearly applicable.

I wonder if Trump will have to release his tax records, if he goes to court over this.

Trump is an out of touch swindler either way.

GunsmithKitten:

Magichead:

generals3:
Maher bluffed, Trump called it and now Maher is trying to flee from his bet. Despite my hatred towards Trump i actually support him in this case.

Now whether a court will take it seriously is different. Despite the fact technically verbal agreements are just as binding as written ones. Whether such a bet on TV can count as an agreement/contract though is a totally different question.

You grasp the concept of satire, yes? Apparently not.

Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

In this case it was very obviously not a real bet. You don't offer up a ton of money asking someone to disprove something that we all know is false.

GunsmithKitten:

Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

Uh, mocking a person's claims by mirroring them with far more ridiculous criteria is pretty par for the course as far as recognized satire goes and that definitely looks to be what happened here.

I would like to direct your attention to the videos shown on the first page that provide some much needed context for this. To hear Trump say it, one might think that this was a gentleman's wager, but by all indications that is not the case. No formal bet was ever made. Trump's claim of it being such is based on an attempt to forge a unilateral contract regarding a comment Maher made on the Tonight Show referencing a joke he'd made at Trump's expense to parody Trump's birther stance. That joke had been that "the american people deserve some real proof" that Trump was not the love child of a human and orangutan (cracking up while making the claim for good measure). He cited this to Leno as the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for Trump's dislike of him. The 'bet' was - by all appearances - Maher extending the scope of the parody by using it to mock Trump's offer to Obama for the release of his college transcripts.

GunsmithKitten:

Magichead:

generals3:
Maher bluffed, Trump called it and now Maher is trying to flee from his bet. Despite my hatred towards Trump i actually support him in this case.

Now whether a court will take it seriously is different. Despite the fact technically verbal agreements are just as binding as written ones. Whether such a bet on TV can count as an agreement/contract though is a totally different question.

You grasp the concept of satire, yes? Apparently not.

Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

Ugh actually I'd disagree. Along with the link below parody also protects people from unreasonable copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

" because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims"

This I think is important, are the circumstances the same all the way? No however if it can be proved he was being satirical then it starts to look a lot like the above case with Hustler.

image
Everything that is Donald Trump can be summed up into three words.

Jayemsal:
image
Everything that is Donald Trump can be summed up into three words.

lol. yeah, he's basically the American version of Richard Branson with a lot less class.

generals3:
Maher bluffed, Trump called it and now Maher is trying to flee from his bet. Despite my hatred towards Trump i actually support him in this case.

Now whether a court will take it seriously is different. Despite the fact technically verbal agreements are just as binding as written ones. Whether such a bet on TV can count as an agreement/contract though is a totally different question.

Verbatim:
You do know that a verbal agreement is just as valid as a signed one right?

Indeed, but contract law has certain steps. Simply, there would have to be a serious offer, due consideration, and then clear agreement. That Maher made an offhand comment to an unconnected third party makes it very unlikely it is serious a offer - that is a substantial problem. The even bigger problem is that Trump may respond to the terms, but both would still need to "shake on it", as the saying goes: a final agreement to seal the deal that the terms offered and accepted by both parties will be upheld.

What this is really about is that Donald Trump is obviously colossally narcissistic, and has time and money to waste on frivolous legal actions to gratify his ego.

dmase:

GunsmithKitten:

Magichead:

You grasp the concept of satire, yes? Apparently not.

Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

Ugh actually I'd disagree. Along with the link below parody also protects people from unreasonable copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

" because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims"

This I think is important, are the circumstances the same all the way? No however if it can be proved he was being satirical then it starts to look a lot like the above case with Hustler.

Glad you actually brought up that case, can't believe I forgot about it.

Yea, viewing it through that precident, I'm starting to see this different and realize he's got no real case. But as said, Trump is rich enough to stroke his ego with frivolous lawsuits so it'll likely happen anyway.

I'm pretty sure you can't just sue people for not fulfilling bets they made in a joking context to someone who wasn't you. If Maher had signed some form of contract, then maybe. But it was just a joke, I really don't see how Trump can seriously expect any court to really think he's somehow entitled to claim this money.

If you could sue people for reneging on joke-bets they made to a 3rd party, I'd have been sued more times than I can count.

Personally I don't like either person. Hopefully Trump is able to sue Mahr and donate to a conservative religious organization. Then hopefully Maher later becomes able to sue Trump and donates the money to an organization that helps out immigrants from Kenya who also happen to be devout Muslims. Oh how I would love to see the faces of the both of them after they found out where their money was going.

Realitycrash:

Verbatim:

Lilani:
I don't see how Trump has any traction, here. Maher didn't sign anything, as far as I know so he doesn't have any legal obligation to do it.

In my opinion, no matter what happens this is still going to make Trump look bad. If he wins he just bullied $5 million out of another man because he couldn't take a joke, if he loses it just proves how much of an idiot he was to pursue the matter in the first place. Maybe it was a bit asshole-ish of Maher to bring a charity into it, but that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. Make you forget how stupid it is by playing the "Oh it's for the CHARITY!" card.

You do know that a verbal agreement is just as valid as a signed one right?

It is questionable that if one man says one thing on television without the other partner present it is to be taken as a 'verbal agreement'. If so, all Politicians who claim things come election should be held legally bound to these claims, as they say it out loud on TV, while addressing the nation.

Not to mention that in the history of fucking nowhere would or should any sane grown ass adult believe they have a case for some obvious bullshit exaggeration. The whole of the population would owe the whole of it billions of dollars if every time somebody said something like "I bet you this won't happened" was considered a legally binding contract.

Holy shit this sort of thought that every fucking exaggerated brain fart is a legal threat or promise has to goddamn stop. I feel like we're living in the goddamn Giver or some shit.

It's gotten to the point where any upset person says something mundane that everybody else has said since time immemorial like "I wish I could kill my boss" or whatever is suddenly considered in conspiracy.

If you and your friends are playing basketball and you utter "I bet you a million dollars you can't make that shot", your friend isn't becoming a millionaire because he scores the points. Nobody fucking rational acting like an adult would even consider that a legal contract.

This sort of over litigation of our society absolutely has to stop.

dmase:

GunsmithKitten:

Magichead:

You grasp the concept of satire, yes? Apparently not.

Satire is not a "get out of the consequences of anything you say" card. Really tired of people treating it as such.

Ugh actually I'd disagree. Along with the link below parody also protects people from unreasonable copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

" because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims"

This I think is important, are the circumstances the same all the way? No however if it can be proved he was being satirical then it starts to look a lot like the above case with Hustler.

Apparently 'reasonable people' anymore is 'nobody' because this sort of thing has gotten out of control lately, with people getting jail time for posting to twitter shit like "I'm gonna murder my wife" or something when they get pissy about something, despite the fact that 100% of everybody says shit like this without meaning it.

God, I don't get it. Why is it that everyone in the world is trying to piss me off lately? Seriously guys, this is kind of pathetic. No, this isn't a legitimate reason for Bill Maher to be sued. If he were being serious, then you'd basically be implying that he actually thinks that Donald Trump is an ape. And you know, I think it's incredibly transparent that he's just joking. This is the kind of pathetic desperate logic I'd expect from fox news or from other shallow opportunistic news network.

'It's an agreement!' Because lord knows, there's no way in the world a comedian (like, say, Bill Maher?) could just be joking. Come to think of it, I also made jokes that were completely based around insane and impossible bets. By your delusional logic, you're basically saying that I should be sued. Because lord knows, in this political correct nation we have to examine every single joke and take them at face value. 'Derp, Bill Maher made an agreement!' Yeah, clearly that's the part that matters. Totally not actual context or anything. Some of you are probably being sarcastic, but given how much it's been repeated I'm afraid I can't say that anyone parroting this is even half as clever as they think they are. Oh, and the next time I go on a bitchy rant about how humans aren't superior over animals, I do believe this'll make good proof of my case. Here we are with our skyscrapers and our libraries in our pockets, and yet we stoop low, very low, to this kind of rubbish. I don't care if animals eat their own shit, at least they have an excuse for being intellectually bankrupt. So, yeah, where is ours? I think it shows just how pathetic we all are when we're given these wonderful privileges and we just throw them away and blurt out nonsense. Like, you know, that a comedian has to actually pay up for a stupid bet that clearly was just a joke.

Everytime someone defends stupid nonsense like this, they're just paving a bumpy road to where comedians have to be more careful with what they say. Because fuck developing a sense of humor, instead lets take everything a Comedian has to say literally. I wouldn't even be surprised if we end up living in a future where the only comedians around are Bill Crosby and his seven clones.

But you know what the best part is? If bet if someone were to dig in their past, they'd probably dig up something you said that was probably not actually a bet, and sue you for it. No matter how insane the claims were. Whelp, I'm done talking down to you. I'm off weep about the future for humanity. Really, the only way we'll ever be able to save our selves is by destroying society - completely.

Fuck, did I say that society should be destroyed? Gosh, I guess we should take that at face value too! Someone, please, alert the FBI before I magically find a way to completely destroy the fabric of society! :O

Skeleon:
Whoever loses, we win.

...but whoever wins, we lose! This is quite the conundrum.

Skeleon:

I very much doubt Trump has anything to go on here, though. Maher will just say it's part of his being a comedian to make over-the-top offers like that and that there was never any sort of actual agreement.

And really, he'd have a point saying so. I mean, it's not that he's particularly funny, but he is being a comedian...

lSHaDoW-FoXl:
God, I don't get it. Why is it that everyone in the world is trying to piss me off lately? Seriously guys, this is kind of pathetic. No, this isn't a legitimate reason for Bill Maher to be sued. If he were being serious, then you'd basically be implying that he actually thinks that Donald Trump is an ape. And you know, I think it's incredibly transparent that he's just joking. This is the kind of pathetic desperate logic I'd expect from fox news or from other shallow opportunistic news network.

Funnily enough, Fox appears to actually be suggesting that the case has little ground, noting that[1] the legal standard was based on the objective reasonable observer (emphasis hers). Full clip seen here:

[1] in direct contrast to the claims of Brian Claypool who - on the show - was saying that Trump had the power to determine if it was a serious offer

Asita:

lSHaDoW-FoXl:
God, I don't get it. Why is it that everyone in the world is trying to piss me off lately? Seriously guys, this is kind of pathetic. No, this isn't a legitimate reason for Bill Maher to be sued. If he were being serious, then you'd basically be implying that he actually thinks that Donald Trump is an ape. And you know, I think it's incredibly transparent that he's just joking. This is the kind of pathetic desperate logic I'd expect from fox news or from other shallow opportunistic news network.

Funnily enough, Fox appears to actually be suggesting that the case has little ground, noting that[1] the legal standard was based on the objective reasonable observer (emphasis hers). Full clip seen here:

:< What is going on? I don't get it, when has the world gone completely insane? I don't want to be on this planet anymore. I watched the video, so I'm going to go ahead and make it official:

Fox news has managed to be more intelligible, sane, and mature than (from what I can tell) quite a few escapists.

[1] in direct contrast to the claims of Brian Claypool who - on the show - was saying that Trump had the power to determine if it was a serious offer

Damien Granz:
Apparently 'reasonable people' anymore is 'nobody' because this sort of thing has gotten out of control lately, with people getting jail time for posting to twitter shit like "I'm gonna murder my wife" or something when they get pissy about something, despite the fact that 100% of everybody says shit like this without meaning it.

Threatening people has always been a crime. It's just internet as a new avenue of such threats, and a new grounds for punishment which is new.

If you walk up to someone and promise you'll murder them, you can also expect a visit from the police if it's reported you know, that's not internet-specific.

And in most cases I can't help but grin when shit suddenly gets real for an internet troll like that. Like that time some kid described in detail on the internet how he'd perpetrate an American-styled school shooting, only to have a swat team blow open his door and arrest him in the middle of the night, because they thought it might happen. News reports detailed how he 'confessed to making the threats while still in bed'. Plus the phrase 'internet courtesy delivered through entry explosives' has a certain poetic quality about it.

Trolling and insults are an internet phenomenon. Like bad language the best way to go about it is to ignore them. Threats however are a different story. They intend to cause fear and in many cases too. Obviously nobody's getting jailed if they type on here 'gosh, I'd love to kill [insert unloved forum member]', but if it goes overboard and gets specific and more believable it makes sense to treat it like any other threat.

Trump's just going for brownie points with the right-wingers. That's all it is. 100% song and dance for the viewers of Fox Noise.

Vegosiux:

Skeleon:
Whoever loses, we win.

...but whoever wins, we lose! This is quite the conundrum.

Well, hopefully they both lose money but neither of them actually achieves anyhting.

EDIT:

Sleekit:
he might also make the argument he thought Trump was also a satirical comedian...like Herman Cain...

Hehe, right. The abode of the extremist. Like how Glenn Beck is a comedian and Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer.

Asita:
Funnily enough, Fox appears to actually be suggesting that the case has little ground, noting that in direct contrast to the claims of Brian Claypool who - on the show - was saying that Trump had the power to determine if it was a serious offer the legal standard was based on the objective reasonable observer (emphasis hers).

I wonder how long it took FOX to find a lawyer will to support Trump's position on national TV, and willing to have his entire argument shot down by the interviewer (and not the opposing lawyer).

TechNoFear:

Asita:
Funnily enough, Fox appears to actually be suggesting that the case has little ground, noting that in direct contrast to the claims of Brian Claypool who - on the show - was saying that Trump had the power to determine if it was a serious offer the legal standard was based on the objective reasonable observer (emphasis hers).

I wonder how long it took FOX to find a lawyer will to support Trump's position on national TV, and willing to have his entire argument shot down by the interviewer (and not the opposing lawyer).

That is the five million dollar question, isn't it? :P

That said, based what I've seen of people's reactions in person on this topic, I suspect it might have been easier than we'd tend to believe...provided we assume that Eiglarsh (the opposing lawyer) was right in guessing that Campbell hadn't actually seen the clip and thus was working largely from secondhand characterizations[1], which may have been a contributing factor here.

And apparently, Maher fired back the other night that Trump "must learn two things; what a joke is and what a contract is":

[1] And let's be honest, Fox has kinda used sources/experts like that before (Mass Effect 'sex scandal', anyone?)

Trump can fuck off, he had no intention of donating money to charity if obama produced a birth certificate. He's just a racist cunt. Beside's he's gone bankrupt enough times, i'm surprised he even has money

Asita:

This is the greatest thing in the history of forever.
I am now an Ape-er XD

I demand Donald Trump's longform birth certificate! I refuse to believe that he was born on this planet!

Asita:
[snip]

LOL! Thanks for that.

Clearly there are more questions to be asked about Trump's parentape...

Slow clap for Bill Maher.

I don't agree with all his positions, but, damn, sometimes they just make it sooooo easy.

Turning around the "long form birth certificate" point on The Donald was very clever.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here