US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5325

On October 22 2025 05:58 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
The only thing they maybe get is maybe having the government tell trans people to go fuck themselves or arrest 10 year old children from school classes

On October 22 2025 14:24 xM(Z wrote:
trump said his ballroom costs 230mil so it seems he found financing.

On October 22 2025 14:24 xM(Z wrote:
trump said his ballroom costs 230mil so it seems he found financing.

On October 22 2025 15:43 Acrofales wrote:

At least we know it's private funding, because the construction workers aren't furloughed. Any oversight and planning committee probably is, though, so it's the perfect time to smash a wrecking ball into the White House.

On October 22 2025 18:50 micronesia wrote:
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think Trump refusing to meet with Democrats until they cave to his demands is going to blow back enough to give the democrats and overall edge in this shutdown showdown. The pressure will build when the air traffic controllers aren't working enough to support air travel. Every other news item will be about major air travel delays as we approach the holiday season. The Democrats' message will be "This ends as soon as Trump, Johnson, and Thune actually meet with us to work out a few details. Until then, the GOP shutdown continues."

I remember the partial shutdown in 2018-2019 and how things obviously hadn't totally collapsed yet. I think 5 weeks is manageable based on that case study, but 6 weeks is where the snowball gets out of control with essential government workers departing their job, putting more strain on the ones left behind, who in turn depart as well. Things will go from "not that bad" to "oh crap" pretty quickly, and the blowback will generally be on the party in control of the government. However, the damage to the American people will be considerable, so that's not much consolation to me.

On October 22 2025 05:10 Doublemint wrote:
nah this one is a very special kind of stupid. the same lawyers who brought the suit for private citizen Trump against the government will be the ones overlooking the case as top DOJ lawyers for POTUS Trump.

in a long list of POTUS Maximus Griftus' œuvre, I have a hunch like this might take the cake(so far!).

the legal variant of him dropping shit from up high all over a place called the rule of law. and its so obvious even generally shameless and unapologetic Trump somehow feels conflicted about it.

On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:

You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do.

On October 21 2025 09:17 LightSpectra wrote:


Have you read your own link to find out why they were false yet? Patiently waiting for an update.

On October 23 2025 01:54 Razyda wrote:





Bloody hell you guys made me waste time on researching this thing.

Here are some of the links which will source probably all of the stuff I have to say about it:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html#footnote_ref_6

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998

also wiki link in quoted post.

First of all it was civil trial and as such dint require "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof, but only preponderance of the evidence which basically means that chances that he did it, are bigger than he did not. Funnily enough it is often described as a 51% certainty (lol)

Now lets look at the evidence:

Carroll testimony - kinda obvious, but surely not enough.

2 of her friends testimony, that she told them about it. How was that even allowed? thats basically hearsay, and there is no way to proof whether she told them or not.

Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stoynoff - those are unproven allegations as far as I was able to find out. If they were proven they would carry some weight.

Picture of Trump and Carroll from 1987 supposed to prove that Trump lied when he said he doesnt know who she is.

First thing - I was with my wife on quite few weddings of her friends, I bet i have some pictures talking with people which now I would have no clue who they are.

Second thing and more important is Carroll friend testimony itself. Picture is from 1987, her testimony regarding events in 1996:

Q. What did she say after she said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what just happened?

A. E. Jean said that she had, after work that day, she had gone to Bergdorf's to look around, and she was on her way out -- and I believe it was a revolving door -- and she said on the other side of the glass from her going in, as she was going out, Donald Trump said to her, Hey, you're the advice lady. And she said, You're the real estate guy. And he said, You're so good at advice, you are so smart, why don't you help me pick out a present for a friend? So she thought she would, it sounded like a funny thing, this guy, who is famous.

Does that sounds like people who know each other?

Trump saying she is not his type - like really? what does that prove? I did that few times, seems nicer than saying I dont like her.

"Access Hollywood tape" that proves that Trump is horrible human being, not that he raped Carroll. That one at least carry some weight, but it is rather that it is not impossible he did it, than that it is likely he did it.

Security detail and Trump not being able to name anyone from his security from 1996, 23 years later. Also mistaking Carroll for his wife:

"Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids)."

Second trial:

"Earlier this month, Kaplan ruled that Trump's legal team is not allowed to present the interview to the jury. He also said ahead of the trial that Trump's attorneys are not permitted to argue to the jury that he did not rape or sexually assault Carroll, as this was not relevant to her current defamation case.

"This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote.

He continued: "The introduction of the Anderson Cooper 360 video needlessly and confusingly would invite the jury to decide this case on the basis of defendant's view that those issues are open to discussion or reconsideration. They are not." "

Now to be very clear: I am not saying he didnt rape her, because I dont know if he did or not. What I am saying is that nothing about this "trial" convinced me he did.

Timing of the case however and the fact that Carroll lawyers were paid by Trump political opponent:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/10/what-was-reid-hoffmans-role-in-funding-e-jean-carrolls-case/

"While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn."

leads me to believe that it was political hitjob rather than any sort of reasonable trial.

On October 23 2025 01:54 Razyda wrote:





Bloody hell you guys made me waste time on researching this thing.

Here are some of the links which will source probably all of the stuff I have to say about it:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html#footnote_ref_6

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998

also wiki link in quoted post.

First of all it was civil trial and as such dint require "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof, but only preponderance of the evidence which basically means that chances that he did it, are bigger than he did not. Funnily enough it is often described as a 51% certainty (lol)

Now lets look at the evidence:

Carroll testimony - kinda obvious, but surely not enough.

2 of her friends testimony, that she told them about it. How was that even allowed? thats basically hearsay, and there is no way to proof whether she told them or not.

Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stoynoff - those are unproven allegations as far as I was able to find out. If they were proven they would carry some weight.

Picture of Trump and Carroll from 1987 supposed to prove that Trump lied when he said he doesnt know who she is.

First thing - I was with my wife on quite few weddings of her friends, I bet i have some pictures talking with people which now I would have no clue who they are.

Second thing and more important is Carroll friend testimony itself. Picture is from 1987, her testimony regarding events in 1996:

Q. What did she say after she said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what just happened?

A. E. Jean said that she had, after work that day, she had gone to Bergdorf's to look around, and she was on her way out -- and I believe it was a revolving door -- and she said on the other side of the glass from her going in, as she was going out, Donald Trump said to her, Hey, you're the advice lady. And she said, You're the real estate guy. And he said, You're so good at advice, you are so smart, why don't you help me pick out a present for a friend? So she thought she would, it sounded like a funny thing, this guy, who is famous.

Does that sounds like people who know each other?

Trump saying she is not his type - like really? what does that prove? I did that few times, seems nicer than saying I dont like her.

"Access Hollywood tape" that proves that Trump is horrible human being, not that he raped Carroll. That one at least carry some weight, but it is rather that it is not impossible he did it, than that it is likely he did it.

Security detail and Trump not being able to name anyone from his security from 1996, 23 years later. Also mistaking Carroll for his wife:

"Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids)."

Second trial:

"Earlier this month, Kaplan ruled that Trump's legal team is not allowed to present the interview to the jury. He also said ahead of the trial that Trump's attorneys are not permitted to argue to the jury that he did not rape or sexually assault Carroll, as this was not relevant to her current defamation case.

"This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote.

He continued: "The introduction of the Anderson Cooper 360 video needlessly and confusingly would invite the jury to decide this case on the basis of defendant's view that those issues are open to discussion or reconsideration. They are not." "

Now to be very clear: I am not saying he didnt rape her, because I dont know if he did or not. What I am saying is that nothing about this "trial" convinced me he did.

Timing of the case however and the fact that Carroll lawyers were paid by Trump political opponent:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/10/what-was-reid-hoffmans-role-in-funding-e-jean-carrolls-case/

"While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn."

leads me to believe that it was political hitjob rather than any sort of reasonable trial.

On October 23 2025 02:31 KwarK wrote:

Got it. Court ruled he did it but you still doubt.

So we have two possible scenarios. He’s either in court a lot because of persecution or because he does a lot of crime. The fact that the court found that he did it is, to you, proof of just how extensive the persecution gets.

It’s weird that they keep finding that he did the kind of things he brags about doing though.

I don’t think you’re understanding the restrictions on the second trial either. The second trial was about whether he was lying about the outcome of the first trial, it was not relitigating the matter resolved by the first trial. The outcome of the first trial was already decided. Of course he wasn’t allowed to go in and argue that he wasn’t defaming her because it was all made up and reopen that question, that’d be absurd.

On October 23 2025 02:56 Doublemint wrote:


well in his own words he is a true believer that it was a political hit job. who is gonna argue beliefs, especially with someone prone to growing up Homo Sovieticus?

it is fascinating that Trump is able to deconstruct western foundations like the independence of the judiciary for his own gains & shits and giggles way more effectively than any foreign adversary ever could through propaganda.

again... a championship class proven liar, cheating scumbag is more to be believed than the courts and a group of his peers looking at the evidence and judging him accordingly...

hyper partisanship did a number on people.

On October 23 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote:

I also really like his characterization that he was being made to "waste time" learning about a subject to respond to people who had a problem with his assertions on that subject.

To him the problem wasn't that he didn't learn about it before making the assertions.
To him the waste of time wasn't the time he spent posting assertions before having done any research about the subject.

No, to him that was all fine, that was time well spent. It was all stuff that he felt to be true, despite not yet having wasted his time looking into it. It was only after people who knew more about the issue than him told him that he was wrong about the issue that he was forced to "waste time" learning about it.

It's one of those classic telling on yourself moments.