|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
This is exactly like the Elon Musk is not a Nazi arguments from conservatives all over again. Yeah OK he’s not a card carrying member of the Nazi Party so everyone calling him a Nazi is wrong. Nevermind that this is a man who spends 15 hours a day being a reply guy to self admitted fascists and white nationalists who very much do support the actions of the Third Reich. Is there a real functional difference beyond people being huge losers arguing over very specific terms that really doesn’t change the fact that the person in question is still a fascist?
To any reasonable person, who gives a fuck. Donald Trump is a 1980s New York socialite who has been previously accused of rape by his ex-wife, has bragged about sexually harassing beauty pageant contestants, and was very good friends with notorious sex pests like Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein. Like is the argument “Donald Trump can’t be legally called a rapist…he’s just a self admitted serial sexual harasser with numerous allegations of rape so lay off him”?
What’s next, Jeffrey Epstein can’t be called a pedophile because he’s actually an ephebophile?
|
Does this point on Trump and Carroll also mean it would be fair to say US government agencies conspired to kill MLK Jr. based on the verdict in the Loyd Jowers trial?
The jury required only one hour of deliberations to reach a unanimous verdict that King was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They found Jowers responsible, and also found that "government agencies" were among the co-conspirators.
en.wikipedia.org
|
On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting.
I don't get your argument here. You are just saying that he shouldn't have been found guilty of sexual assault, but presumably you agree that the statement "trump was found guilty of sexual assault by that particular jury" is correct? What's the contention?
|
On October 23 2025 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Does this point on Trump and Carroll also mean it would be fair to say US government agencies conspired to kill MLK Jr. based on the verdict in the Loyd Jowers trial? Show nested quote +The jury required only one hour of deliberations to reach a unanimous verdict that King was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They found Jowers responsible, and also found that "government agencies" were among the co-conspirators. en.wikipedia.org
IIRC that was a case in which both the defendant and the plaintiffs were accusing the government, and nobody present was actually representing the “no they didn’t” position? Not to say I think “the FBI had MLK killed” is *implausible* but it’s a bit of a peculiar court case to draw many conclusions from.
|
On October 23 2025 14:21 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. I don't get your argument here. You are just saying that he shouldn't have been found guilty of sexual assault, but presumably you agree that the statement "trump was found guilty of sexual assault by that particular jury" is correct? What's the contention?
I am afraid the answer is much simpler.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
So, funny story: Apparently the US government employs about 12000 Germans in Germany with German contracts. Due to big oranges shutdown, you are now just not paying those people. This is illegal in Germany. The US is also just not taking the calls of the German government agency that usually handles those payouts.
Sadly, apparently Germany has decided to just pay them for now out of concern for those Germans and their rights in a country with actual workers rights, and hope we get the money back. We have reached then point where i don't even trust the US to eventually pay us back.
Imo we should just start insolvency proceedings for the US military if they no longer pay their bills. This would also be really funny.
Source (Sadly in German, but you can probably google translate it)
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/arbeitsmarkt/shutdown-haushaltssperre-usa-gehaelter-100.html
https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/deutschland/verdi-shutdown-usa-gehaelter-deutschland-100.html
I should probably mention that this is banana republic level of silly.
On October 23 2025 16:59 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 14:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. I don't get your argument here. You are just saying that he shouldn't have been found guilty of sexual assault, but presumably you agree that the statement "trump was found guilty of sexual assault by that particular jury" is correct? What's the contention? I am afraid the answer is much simpler. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A7BLMA1LIw
Hey, that was my hypothesis long ago!
|
"Imo we should just start insolvency proceedings for the US military if they no longer pay their bills. This would also be really funny."
You should do this, It's a great idea. Please lead the charge. I mean it's not like the US base in Germany is a big deal for the German people or that the Government of Germany or the EU overlords want them there or anything. I'm being serious, start the movement to remove the US military presence from Germany and you've got my vote.
Also maybe Germans shouldn't be calling Balls and Strikes for the world(or on this forum), Cause ya know bit of a(semi-recent) sorted past.
|
I really don't understand why we (germany) is not openly stealing the civil/military personal from the US bases.
It's 60-70k US Soldiers on german bases. Bundeswehr lacks 100.000 Soldiers and civil workers.
Not familiar enough with the ability to drop your US-Service employment.. but accepting a fast road to german citizenship and a solid government job with Bundeswehr should at least be a legal option for civil contractors.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/Loss-US-Nationality-Service-in-Armed-Forces-of-a-Foreign-State.html
This to me says: If you drop out legaly, and persue a career in a foreign armed force that is NOT hostile to the United States, it's also not illegal, especially when you do it outside of the US.
But if left to the DOJ to interpret your intend of losing your american citizenship... it's still a risk factor.
|
On October 23 2025 20:28 Taelshin wrote:
"Imo we should just start insolvency proceedings for the US military if they no longer pay their bills. This would also be really funny."
You should do this, It's a great idea. Please lead the charge. I mean it's not like the US base in Germany is a big deal for the German people or that the Government of Germany or the EU overlords want them there or anything. I'm being serious, start the movement to remove the US military presence from Germany and you've got my vote.
Also maybe Germans shouldn't be calling Balls and Strikes for the world(or on this forum), Cause ya know bit of a(semi-recent) sorted past. Hey Germany was happy not having a strong army and relying on the US for protection.
Then a certain orange man started yelling that they needed to take care of themselves and Germany was like "really? are you sure?"
|
United States43860 Posts
Germany is famously unable to defend itself.
|
On October 23 2025 21:36 KwarK wrote:
Germany is famously unable to defend itself.
To be fair, we did lose the last big wars we were in.
|
On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting.
Dear god, how does someone with a conscience type all of this out and not feel an inkling of shame? You're defending someone found overwhelmingly guilty of sexually assaulting a woman's genitals because one state's law doesn't classify it as "rape" unless it's PIV intercourse.
Congratulations debatelord, you've proved that nobody who knows you should leave their daughters around without at least three law enforcement officers to supervise.
|
On October 23 2025 21:53 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. Dear god, how does someone with a conscience type all of this out and not feel an inkling of shame? Think you answered your own question :p
|
On October 23 2025 21:36 KwarK wrote:
Germany is famously unable to defend itself.
Well the deal was to hand over all Nazi scientists and generals who fought against Soviets (OSS: OP "Paperclip") and have de-nazified market based export-focussed capitalist society.
You got Saturn V rockets... Mercedes-Benz and (pathologic liars) like Heinz Guderian telling you how to fight russians.
We got into what later be NATO, and basicly unchallenged rule of American social, cultural and economic hegemony displacing lederhosen, lebertran and graupensuppe with Levis-Jeans, Coca-Cola and BigMacs.
And I, for one , welcome our new (insect)overlords.
The correct reaction towards the isolationist tendencies of Trump I would have been to shut the fucking door for US-Tech and Services, demanding joint ventures that would be able to operate independently of their US (part) owners.
Like "Yep, we need to do this business ourselfes, so we generate tax revenue to pay for our military *yoink*" - Thanks Donald!
|
On October 23 2025 14:21 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. I don't get your argument here. You are just saying that he shouldn't have been found guilty of sexual assault, but presumably you agree that the statement "trump was found guilty of sexual assault by that particular jury" is correct? What's the contention?
Civil courts do not find guilt or innocence. That is what criminal courts do. The overlap is they both have juries. The standards and results are completely different.
What happened in the Trump/Jean case is NY State passed a law allowing a 1 year window for people to sue for sexual assault with no statute of limitations. The first day it went into effect, Jean Carroll sued Trump alleging complete penile rape by Trump.
She couldn't remember the year, and there remains no physical evidence of any rape, penile or digital. There is hearsay evidence that she told people previously. That is not admissible in criminal court, because if that were the case, you would be convicting people of felonies and sending them to prison, removing their gun and voting rights, over accusations from 30 years ago with no physical evidence that were made against an especially famous target on the first day that a law passed by his opposition went into effect. Especially if you used a 51% standard of proof, which civil liability does as our colleague Razyda pointed out.
It's not that there's physical evidence of digital rape but not penile rape. There's just no physical evidence. This is why the judgment reeks of jury compromise, and combined with the lesser standard of proof, why judgments by civil courts are called "liable" and not "guilty." When the police arrest you for a criminal charge of raping someone, the punishment isn't pay them millions of dollars.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On October 23 2025 22:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 21:53 LightSpectra wrote:On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. Dear god, how does someone with a conscience type all of this out and not feel an inkling of shame? Think you answered your own question :p
But what about the left?
It’s such an odd phenomenon. We’re not talking like, Mother Theresa who people don’t want to hear bad things about, but a guy who is actively proud to tell you he’s a piece of shit. At every opportunity.
You end up with this weird Venn Diagram intersection of ‘worst people around’ and ‘most vociferously defended’ that is genuinely bizarre to me. Throw Elon Musk in while we’re at it.
I couldn’t be arsed arguing as much online, but formerly I had a fun wee question, ‘would you like Donald Trump as your immediate superior in work and why?’
It was quite instructive how, many even big supporters would say no, and list his many flaws and foibles. They just consider them assets if he’s President, but they’d consider him a net negative in other capacities.
They know fine rightly what he is, so long as he’s hurting the right people that’s absolutely A-OK
|
Here’s a simple set of two questions:
1) Do you think Trump has ever raped anyone in his life?
2) If yes to 1), do you think he should be punished for it?
|
On October 23 2025 22:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 14:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. I don't get your argument here. You are just saying that he shouldn't have been found guilty of sexual assault, but presumably you agree that the statement "trump was found guilty of sexual assault by that particular jury" is correct? What's the contention? Civil courts do not find guilt or innocence. That is what criminal courts do. The overlap is they both have juries. The standards and results are completely different. What happened in the Trump/Jean case is NY State passed a law allowing a 1 year window for people to sue for sexual assault with no statute of limitations. The first day it went into effect, Jean Carroll sued Trump alleging complete penile rape by Trump. She couldn't remember the year, and there remains no physical evidence of any rape, penile or digital. There is hearsay evidence that she told people previously. That is not admissible in criminal court, because if that were the case, you would be convicting people of felonies and sending them to prison, removing their gun and voting rights, over accusations from 30 years ago with no physical evidence that were made against an especially famous target on the first day that a law passed by his opposition went into effect. Especially if you used a 51% standard of proof, which civil liability does as our colleague Razyda pointed out. It's not that there's physical evidence of digital rape but not penile rape. There's just no physical evidence. This is why the judgment reeks of jury compromise, and combined with the lesser standard of proof, why judgments by civil courts are called "liable" and not "guilty." When the police arrest you for a criminal charge of raping someone, the punishment isn't pay them millions of dollars. I'm sure arguing with people that he wasn't found guilty of rape but liable for sexual abuse really does wonders for your perceived character.
rofl.
|
On October 23 2025 22:19 oBlade wrote:
She couldn't remember the year, and there remains no physical evidence of any rape, penile or digital.
These claims are lies, for anyone else keeping track. She not only won the trial but won an appeal as well; it turns out Trump's defense of only raping people prettier than her didn't hold up.
|
On October 23 2025 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 22:19 oBlade wrote:On October 23 2025 14:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 23 2025 12:23 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 11:09 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 11:01 Razyda wrote:On October 23 2025 10:52 KwarK wrote:
Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. Was he ever convicted of rape? Yes. The court found that he sexually penetrated a woman’s vagina without her consent. The name for that is rape. Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter. Your counter argument that it was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change what the court found he did. Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist. For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit. I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good. Quite literally he was never found guilty of rape. Your "legally speaking" statement is provably false, unless you are able to provide criminal case where Trump was found guilty of rape??? You are going full MP route now where you decided to find indefensible hill to die on. " Your counter argument, that he didn’t use his penis to penetrate her, doesn’t matter." - WTF?? this was not my counter argument, my counter argument was that trial was lacking in evidence? "Trump is, legally speaking, a rapist." - he is literally not, unless you are able to provide the case where he is charged with rape and found guilty. "For what it’s worth he also stole money from children’s cancer charities. He’s just an all round piece of shit." - no argument here. "I also don't see how you got from being upset about the lawfare being used against Trump to learning that he actually did the things he was found to have done to I don't give a damn. Well, I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good." Kwark you sort of melting. I literally just explained how I dont think he should be found guilty in this particular case. I think that it is worth mentioning that you never challanged single issue I had with the trial, but merely my conclusion? "I do see how you got there, you know what I think about you, but yeah, it's not good" - I do and it makes me happy, it literally makes my life easier. You are doing the very thing you shat on MP for, choosing indefensible hill to die on. Trump was never convicted of rape, hence you cant say he is "legally speaking" a rapist. Worlld doesnt work this way. I must say I find your arguments wanting. I don't get your argument here. You are just saying that he shouldn't have been found guilty of sexual assault, but presumably you agree that the statement "trump was found guilty of sexual assault by that particular jury" is correct? What's the contention? Civil courts do not find guilt or innocence. That is what criminal courts do. The overlap is they both have juries. The standards and results are completely different. What happened in the Trump/Jean case is NY State passed a law allowing a 1 year window for people to sue for sexual assault with no statute of limitations. The first day it went into effect, Jean Carroll sued Trump alleging complete penile rape by Trump. She couldn't remember the year, and there remains no physical evidence of any rape, penile or digital. There is hearsay evidence that she told people previously. That is not admissible in criminal court, because if that were the case, you would be convicting people of felonies and sending them to prison, removing their gun and voting rights, over accusations from 30 years ago with no physical evidence that were made against an especially famous target on the first day that a law passed by his opposition went into effect. Especially if you used a 51% standard of proof, which civil liability does as our colleague Razyda pointed out. It's not that there's physical evidence of digital rape but not penile rape. There's just no physical evidence. This is why the judgment reeks of jury compromise, and combined with the lesser standard of proof, why judgments by civil courts are called "liable" and not "guilty." When the police arrest you for a criminal charge of raping someone, the punishment isn't pay them millions of dollars. I'm sure arguing with people that he wasn't found guilty of rape but liable for sexual abuse really does wonders for your perceived character. rofl.
Major "It wasn't pedophilia, that only deals with prepubescent children, and she was 13 years old, so it was technically hebephilia" energy there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
