|
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 |
On October 23 2025 22:26 Ryzel wrote:
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?
Yes and yes.
That was easy.
|
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit.
|
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.
Yes, the truth will set you free. Your ROFLs would quickly turn to WTFs if you or someone you knew were dragged through the mud under similar circumstances. 49% qualifies as reasonable doubt which is why it's important to know the difference between civil and criminal law.
I have no problem with people thinking someone is guilty or not guilty of anything regardless of any civil or criminal case. Appending it to almost every mention of him is a case of protesting too much, methinks. It would be equally suspicious if someone constantly referred to, for example, the "Not-Guilty-of-Murder OJ Simpson."
On October 23 2025 22:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +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.
She thought it was anywhere from 1994 to 1996 and only agreed it was 1996 by process of elimination.
Physical evidence like forensic evidence, the point being it's not like there was no semen but there was a smoking gun of a fingernail or something that causes digital rape to have "more" evidence for it than penile rape, just that digital rape sounds lesser, and sounds like it would be first, or happen anyway or be included with penile rape, so a jury inclined to say "I don't know but with all this smoke he must be liable for something, but gee, 4 of us think he raped her, 4 don't, 4 are in the middle, rape rape seems harsh, let's go with this one" would gravitate to that to award a compromise judgment, thinking if they were right, they helped tilt the scales of justice a little for a victim, and if they were wrong, anyway it's not that much skin off of Trump's back. Which I suspect often happens.
|
On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit.
I'm reminded of when Roy Moore, failed 2017 Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, claimed the child predation he was accused of was a smear campaign by Democrats. It was later revealed that a local shopping mall banned him from the premises in the 1980s for sexually harassing pubescent girls there. He said Democrats were responsible for that too.
|
On October 23 2025 23:22 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm reminded of when Roy Moore, failed 2017 Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, claimed the child predation he was accused of was a smear campaign by Democrats. It was later revealed that a local shopping mall banned him from the premises in the 1980s for sexually harassing pubescent girls there. He said Democrats were responsible for that too.
And despite all that coming out before the elections, he only lost by a little more then 1 %.
That should tell you all you need about how much Republicans actually care about children.
I also find it fascinating how the guy who is still super insulted over people reacting to Charlie Kirk's death doesn't understand how his whole political movement reacting to all these horrific things Trump did completely invalidates anything they have to say.
|
|
|
On October 23 2025 23:33 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:22 LightSpectra wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm reminded of when Roy Moore, failed 2017 Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, claimed the child predation he was accused of was a smear campaign by Democrats. It was later revealed that a local shopping mall banned him from the premises in the 1980s for sexually harassing pubescent girls there. He said Democrats were responsible for that too. And despite all that coming out before the elections, he only lost by a little more then 1 %. That should tell you all you need about how much Republicans actually care about children. I also find it fascinating how the guy who is still super insulted over people reacting to Charlie Kirk's death doesn't understand how his whole political movement reacting to all these horrific things Trump did completely invalidates anything they have to say.
Yeah its really enlightening to see that they're capable of doing research and presenting the facts of a case when its defending someone they consider worth defending. The "You'll change your mind when it happens to someone you know" effect is a well-worn conservative trait of not showing empathy until it involves someone they know.
If someone I knew raped someone, I would break off contact with them. It wouldn't be hard to keep my morals consistent.
You have a legal right to say that trump raped someone and is a rapist beacuse he was found to be one in a court of law. You can support, defend, and show as much sympathy for the rapist but that doesn't change what he did.
|
On October 24 2025 01:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:33 Jankisa wrote:On October 23 2025 23:22 LightSpectra wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm reminded of when Roy Moore, failed 2017 Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, claimed the child predation he was accused of was a smear campaign by Democrats. It was later revealed that a local shopping mall banned him from the premises in the 1980s for sexually harassing pubescent girls there. He said Democrats were responsible for that too. And despite all that coming out before the elections, he only lost by a little more then 1 %. That should tell you all you need about how much Republicans actually care about children. I also find it fascinating how the guy who is still super insulted over people reacting to Charlie Kirk's death doesn't understand how his whole political movement reacting to all these horrific things Trump did completely invalidates anything they have to say. Yeah its really enlightening to see that they're capable of doing research and presenting the facts of a case when its defending someone they consider worth defending. The "You'll change your mind when it happens to someone you know" effect is a well-worn conservative trait of not showing empathy until it involves someone they know. If someone I knew raped someone, I would break off contact with them. It wouldn't be hard to keep my morals consistent. You have a legal right to say that trump raped someone and is a rapist beacuse he was found to be one in a court of law. You can support, defend, and show as much sympathy for the rapist but that doesn't change what he did.
Potato, tomotato. You know what I'm saying?
|
On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit.
I'm still not a progressive, but since no one else mentioned the race I figured I'd mention the Democrat primary in Maine to go up against Susan Collins for a crucial senate seat.
Democratic leadership in D.C. is currently trying to prove they can stand up to Trump as part of a standoff over government funding. But there is still deep resentment toward Democratic leaders.
This is extremely evident in Maine, where Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee back the state’s governor, Janet Mills, over anti-establishment progressive Graham Platner.
“If D.C. knew how to beat Susan Collins, I wouldn’t be running in this race,” Platner told NOTUS.
Platner’s primary in Maine is arguably already the most contentious, pitting the newcomer against Mills and former congressional aide Jordan Wood.
Mills is considered the front-runner, but some liberal leaders have pushed back on her candidacy, saying Platner represents a necessary new model for how Democratic candidates can look and talk.
“It’s very clear that I’m anti-establishment,” Platner said. “I’m against the system, a system that they represent that gives them a lot of power. I can see why they might not be happy about that. At the same time, if we want to win this seat and turn it blue, which I think we really do, and we need to, we can’t just do the same thing over and over and over again and pick the same kinds of candidates. So I’m not sure what they’re missing.”
themainemonitor.org
|
On October 24 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm still not a progressive, but since no one else mentioned the race I figured I'd mention the Democrat primary in Maine to go up against Susan Collins for a crucial senate seat. Show nested quote +Democratic leadership in D.C. is currently trying to prove they can stand up to Trump as part of a standoff over government funding. But there is still deep resentment toward Democratic leaders.
This is extremely evident in Maine, where Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee back the state’s governor, Janet Mills, over anti-establishment progressive Graham Platner.
“If D.C. knew how to beat Susan Collins, I wouldn’t be running in this race,” Platner told NOTUS.
Platner’s primary in Maine is arguably already the most contentious, pitting the newcomer against Mills and former congressional aide Jordan Wood.
Mills is considered the front-runner, but some liberal leaders have pushed back on her candidacy, saying Platner represents a necessary new model for how Democratic candidates can look and talk.
“It’s very clear that I’m anti-establishment,” Platner said. “I’m against the system, a system that they represent that gives them a lot of power. I can see why they might not be happy about that. At the same time, if we want to win this seat and turn it blue, which I think we really do, and we need to, we can’t just do the same thing over and over and over again and pick the same kinds of candidates. So I’m not sure what they’re missing.” themainemonitor.org
Thanks for pointing this out. That article says that the establishment candidate Mills is the front-runner, but the first article I found on Google says the opposite (that Platner is favored):
"A new poll shows Maine oyster farmer Graham Platner holds a wide lead over Gov. Janet Mills (D) in polling ahead of the state’s Democratic primary for Senate, which is set to take place in June. Platner received support of 58 percent of Pine Tree State Democratic primary voters, while 24 percent said they would cast their ballot for Mills, who officially launched her campaign last week. Another 14 percent are undecided, and 2 percent back other candidates, according to poll results from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released Wednesday." https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5569260-graham-platner-janet-mills-maine-senate-poll/
|
On October 24 2025 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm still not a progressive, but since no one else mentioned the race I figured I'd mention the Democrat primary in Maine to go up against Susan Collins for a crucial senate seat. Democratic leadership in D.C. is currently trying to prove they can stand up to Trump as part of a standoff over government funding. But there is still deep resentment toward Democratic leaders.
This is extremely evident in Maine, where Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee back the state’s governor, Janet Mills, over anti-establishment progressive Graham Platner.
“If D.C. knew how to beat Susan Collins, I wouldn’t be running in this race,” Platner told NOTUS.
Platner’s primary in Maine is arguably already the most contentious, pitting the newcomer against Mills and former congressional aide Jordan Wood.
Mills is considered the front-runner, but some liberal leaders have pushed back on her candidacy, saying Platner represents a necessary new model for how Democratic candidates can look and talk.
“It’s very clear that I’m anti-establishment,” Platner said. “I’m against the system, a system that they represent that gives them a lot of power. I can see why they might not be happy about that. At the same time, if we want to win this seat and turn it blue, which I think we really do, and we need to, we can’t just do the same thing over and over and over again and pick the same kinds of candidates. So I’m not sure what they’re missing.” themainemonitor.org Thanks for pointing this out. That article says that the establishment candidate Mills is the front-runner, but the first article I found on Google says the opposite (that Platner is favored): "A new poll shows Maine oyster farmer Graham Platner holds a wide lead over Gov. Janet Mills (D) in polling ahead of the state’s Democratic primary for Senate, which is set to take place in June. Platner received support of 58 percent of Pine Tree State Democratic primary voters, while 24 percent said they would cast their ballot for Mills, who officially launched her campaign last week. Another 14 percent are undecided, and 2 percent back other candidates, according to poll results from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released Wednesday." https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5569260-graham-platner-janet-mills-maine-senate-poll/
I believe "front-runner" in that context means the establishment pick with Democrat's Senate leader Schumer and the DSCC backing Mills against the clearly more popular Platner, who also has better politics.
It's races like this one that will be absolutely essential for Democrats to gain back any power during midterm elections.
|
On October 24 2025 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm still not a progressive, but since no one else mentioned the race I figured I'd mention the Democrat primary in Maine to go up against Susan Collins for a crucial senate seat. Democratic leadership in D.C. is currently trying to prove they can stand up to Trump as part of a standoff over government funding. But there is still deep resentment toward Democratic leaders.
This is extremely evident in Maine, where Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee back the state’s governor, Janet Mills, over anti-establishment progressive Graham Platner.
“If D.C. knew how to beat Susan Collins, I wouldn’t be running in this race,” Platner told NOTUS.
Platner’s primary in Maine is arguably already the most contentious, pitting the newcomer against Mills and former congressional aide Jordan Wood.
Mills is considered the front-runner, but some liberal leaders have pushed back on her candidacy, saying Platner represents a necessary new model for how Democratic candidates can look and talk.
“It’s very clear that I’m anti-establishment,” Platner said. “I’m against the system, a system that they represent that gives them a lot of power. I can see why they might not be happy about that. At the same time, if we want to win this seat and turn it blue, which I think we really do, and we need to, we can’t just do the same thing over and over and over again and pick the same kinds of candidates. So I’m not sure what they’re missing.” themainemonitor.org Thanks for pointing this out. That article says that the establishment candidate Mills is the front-runner, but the first article I found on Google says the opposite (that Platner is favored): "A new poll shows Maine oyster farmer Graham Platner holds a wide lead over Gov. Janet Mills (D) in polling ahead of the state’s Democratic primary for Senate, which is set to take place in June. Platner received support of 58 percent of Pine Tree State Democratic primary voters, while 24 percent said they would cast their ballot for Mills, who officially launched her campaign last week. Another 14 percent are undecided, and 2 percent back other candidates, according to poll results from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released Wednesday." https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5569260-graham-platner-janet-mills-maine-senate-poll/ I believe "front-runner" in that context means the establishment pick with Democrat's Senate leader Schumer and the DSCC backing Mills against the clearly more popular Platner, who also has better politics. It's races like this one that will be absolutely essential for Democrats to gain back any power during midterm elections.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. We definitely need popular candidates who can rally bases, to flip some seats during the general elections.
|
On October 24 2025 02:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2025 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm still not a progressive, but since no one else mentioned the race I figured I'd mention the Democrat primary in Maine to go up against Susan Collins for a crucial senate seat. Democratic leadership in D.C. is currently trying to prove they can stand up to Trump as part of a standoff over government funding. But there is still deep resentment toward Democratic leaders.
This is extremely evident in Maine, where Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee back the state’s governor, Janet Mills, over anti-establishment progressive Graham Platner.
“If D.C. knew how to beat Susan Collins, I wouldn’t be running in this race,” Platner told NOTUS.
Platner’s primary in Maine is arguably already the most contentious, pitting the newcomer against Mills and former congressional aide Jordan Wood.
Mills is considered the front-runner, but some liberal leaders have pushed back on her candidacy, saying Platner represents a necessary new model for how Democratic candidates can look and talk.
“It’s very clear that I’m anti-establishment,” Platner said. “I’m against the system, a system that they represent that gives them a lot of power. I can see why they might not be happy about that. At the same time, if we want to win this seat and turn it blue, which I think we really do, and we need to, we can’t just do the same thing over and over and over again and pick the same kinds of candidates. So I’m not sure what they’re missing.” themainemonitor.org Thanks for pointing this out. That article says that the establishment candidate Mills is the front-runner, but the first article I found on Google says the opposite (that Platner is favored): "A new poll shows Maine oyster farmer Graham Platner holds a wide lead over Gov. Janet Mills (D) in polling ahead of the state’s Democratic primary for Senate, which is set to take place in June. Platner received support of 58 percent of Pine Tree State Democratic primary voters, while 24 percent said they would cast their ballot for Mills, who officially launched her campaign last week. Another 14 percent are undecided, and 2 percent back other candidates, according to poll results from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released Wednesday." https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5569260-graham-platner-janet-mills-maine-senate-poll/ I believe "front-runner" in that context means the establishment pick with Democrat's Senate leader Schumer and the DSCC backing Mills against the clearly more popular Platner, who also has better politics. It's races like this one that will be absolutely essential for Democrats to gain back any power during midterm elections. Ah, thanks for the clarification. We definitely need popular candidates who can rally bases, to flip some seats during the general elections.
It's important to recognize that means opposing Democrat party leadership and the problems that poses.
|
On October 23 2025 23:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 22:30 Gorsameth wrote: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. Yes, the truth will set you free. Your ROFLs would quickly turn to WTFs if you or someone you knew were dragged through the mud under similar circumstances. 49% qualifies as reasonable doubt which is why it's important to know the difference between civil and criminal law. No, if someone I knew was found 'liable for sexual abuse' I wouldn't want a fucking thing to do with them. and I wouldn't run around telling people how its totally ok, "because it wasn't the precise legal definition of rape in certain states."
That's a you problem, not an 'everyone else' problem.
|
On October 24 2025 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 02:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2025 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 24 2025 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 24 2025 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm still not a progressive, but since no one else mentioned the race I figured I'd mention the Democrat primary in Maine to go up against Susan Collins for a crucial senate seat. Democratic leadership in D.C. is currently trying to prove they can stand up to Trump as part of a standoff over government funding. But there is still deep resentment toward Democratic leaders.
This is extremely evident in Maine, where Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee back the state’s governor, Janet Mills, over anti-establishment progressive Graham Platner.
“If D.C. knew how to beat Susan Collins, I wouldn’t be running in this race,” Platner told NOTUS.
Platner’s primary in Maine is arguably already the most contentious, pitting the newcomer against Mills and former congressional aide Jordan Wood.
Mills is considered the front-runner, but some liberal leaders have pushed back on her candidacy, saying Platner represents a necessary new model for how Democratic candidates can look and talk.
“It’s very clear that I’m anti-establishment,” Platner said. “I’m against the system, a system that they represent that gives them a lot of power. I can see why they might not be happy about that. At the same time, if we want to win this seat and turn it blue, which I think we really do, and we need to, we can’t just do the same thing over and over and over again and pick the same kinds of candidates. So I’m not sure what they’re missing.” themainemonitor.org Thanks for pointing this out. That article says that the establishment candidate Mills is the front-runner, but the first article I found on Google says the opposite (that Platner is favored): "A new poll shows Maine oyster farmer Graham Platner holds a wide lead over Gov. Janet Mills (D) in polling ahead of the state’s Democratic primary for Senate, which is set to take place in June. Platner received support of 58 percent of Pine Tree State Democratic primary voters, while 24 percent said they would cast their ballot for Mills, who officially launched her campaign last week. Another 14 percent are undecided, and 2 percent back other candidates, according to poll results from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released Wednesday." https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5569260-graham-platner-janet-mills-maine-senate-poll/ I believe "front-runner" in that context means the establishment pick with Democrat's Senate leader Schumer and the DSCC backing Mills against the clearly more popular Platner, who also has better politics. It's races like this one that will be absolutely essential for Democrats to gain back any power during midterm elections. Ah, thanks for the clarification. We definitely need popular candidates who can rally bases, to flip some seats during the general elections. It's important to recognize that means opposing Democrat party leadership and the problems that poses.
it is the Trump scenario without the unfortunate deplorable angle.
the energy of the base is "left". people - across ALL demographics and party affiliations - are yearning for authentic candidates fighting for causes even MAGA would happily chant for.
affordability, broken health care, and yes the boogeyman underlying most of it - crony capitalism and lack of social justice.
party leadership is widely hated and in disarray -> think the Republican primaries before Trump. Trump pushed relentlessly and shame free in all directions whatever fit the room he was in to win it over, and it worked. up until about a couple months ago as it became way too clear that what he said and enacted are very different things. or plain horrible with ICE running amok.
now there is a window of opportunity the size of a barn door for Democrats, if they so choose to use it.
and Mamdani I feel is key. if he is able to get it over the line there is no holding back a reshuffling of Democrat leadership across the board. and positions in power through elections... hopefully.
On October 24 2025 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:13 oBlade wrote:On October 23 2025 22:30 Gorsameth wrote: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. Yes, the truth will set you free. Your ROFLs would quickly turn to WTFs if you or someone you knew were dragged through the mud under similar circumstances. 49% qualifies as reasonable doubt which is why it's important to know the difference between civil and criminal law. No, if someone I knew was found 'liable for sexual abuse' I wouldn't want a fucking thing to do with them. and I wouldn't run around telling people how its totally ok, "because it wasn't the precise legal definition of rape in certain states." That's a you problem, not an 'everyone else' problem.
for everyone else I would say yes, those cases are not unproblematic. it is a - long, long overdue - culture shift relatively quickly happening and lawmakers/jurisprudence is trying to catch up.
mistakes are bound to happen(more than usual, that's why there are higher courts thankfully), women being believed that maybe don't deserve it and men going free that definitely should go to jail.
but for Trump, someone we know too well let me ROFLCOPTER. the benefit of the doubt starts at -10 for him. as befits a scumbag liar and career criminal.
being trapped in tribalism does not change that.
|
|
|
On October 24 2025 01:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:33 Jankisa wrote:On October 23 2025 23:22 LightSpectra wrote:On October 23 2025 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It must be a slow day in the news cycle, if we're back to arguing over how many times Trump has officially raped people over the decades that he's been sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and raping adults and possibly children.
But at least he's not wearing a tan suit. I'm reminded of when Roy Moore, failed 2017 Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, claimed the child predation he was accused of was a smear campaign by Democrats. It was later revealed that a local shopping mall banned him from the premises in the 1980s for sexually harassing pubescent girls there. He said Democrats were responsible for that too. And despite all that coming out before the elections, he only lost by a little more then 1 %. That should tell you all you need about how much Republicans actually care about children. I also find it fascinating how the guy who is still super insulted over people reacting to Charlie Kirk's death doesn't understand how his whole political movement reacting to all these horrific things Trump did completely invalidates anything they have to say. Yeah its really enlightening to see that they're capable of doing research and presenting the facts of a case when its defending someone they consider worth defending. The "You'll change your mind when it happens to someone you know" effect is a well-worn conservative trait of not showing empathy until it involves someone they know. If someone I knew raped someone, I would break off contact with them. It wouldn't be hard to keep my morals consistent. You have a legal right to say that trump raped someone and is a rapist beacuse he was found to be one in a court of law. You can support, defend, and show as much sympathy for the rapist but that doesn't change what he did.
Yes, if you know they raped someone, it's not a difficult decision obviously. People don't defend Trump for being a rapist, they defend him because they think he's not a rapist. This is key. If my least favorite food is octopus and someone serves it at their party, it doesn't make sense for me to ascribe my own motives/opinion to their action and conclude they're trying to hold the worst, least delicious party ever that they are ruining intentionally. They just started from a different premise.
On October 24 2025 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 23:13 oBlade wrote:On October 23 2025 22:30 Gorsameth wrote: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. Yes, the truth will set you free. Your ROFLs would quickly turn to WTFs if you or someone you knew were dragged through the mud under similar circumstances. 49% qualifies as reasonable doubt which is why it's important to know the difference between civil and criminal law. No, if someone I knew was found 'liable for sexual abuse' I wouldn't want a fucking thing to do with them. and I wouldn't run around telling people how its totally ok, "because it wasn't the precise legal definition of rape in certain states." That's a you problem, not an 'everyone else' problem.
Right, it's not about what kind of alleged rape or sexual assault. There's not a big cohort that thinks sexual assault is good but rape is over the line - is there? The civil standard is still preponderance of evidence, which means more than 50% chance only. So imagine courts civilly found 100 people liable for the most brutal rape imaginable, but at a confidence of 51% (in reality the confidence of something can vary, maybe one jury is 80% sure and gives larger damages, maybe another is 51% sure and lower damages, etc.). The frequentist interpretation of that is that you expect an average of 51 of them to have actually done it and 49 percent not to have done it (or with 80% certainty, you expect an average of 80 to have done it and 20 not to have).
So clarify, do you not "want a fucking thing to do with them" because they sexually abused someone, or because they were found liable for it in a lawsuit? There is a difference. You could think they didn't do it and still not want the trouble that person invites in your circle.
If you're immediately sure the person you know is in the 51 bucket and not the 49 bucket, you're probably throwing them under the bus too fast, or something else is influencing your view, just like something sways many to come to different conclusions than you about events that were the subject of a Trump civil lawsuit. I think nobody anywhere (almost) says "rape is OK when Trump does it." The people you disagree with simply don't think he is a rapist or sexual assaulter.
|
lol CZ of Binance fame just got pardoned because of course he did.
|
On October 24 2025 04:45 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
lol CZ of Binance fame just got pardoned because of course he did.
I gotta say. Trump is really a massive innovator in the realm of corrupt grift. He constantly invents new ways to personally profit from his position as president that no other person has come up with before.
(I will assume that Trump somehow got paid for this)
|
On October 24 2025 04:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 04:45 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
lol CZ of Binance fame just got pardoned because of course he did. I gotta say. Trump is really a massive innovator in the realm of corrupt grift. He constantly invents new ways to personally profit from his position as president that no other person has come up with before. (I will assume that Trump somehow got paid for this)
CZ and Binance is involved with that whole World Liberty Financial stable coin bullshit. Unsurprisingly, the Trump sons and other upstanding individuals like Saudi Arabia are directly involved.
But yeah gotta respect the grift even if the American people are largely eating shit. Even the Argentinian beef import deal to help alleviate domestic beef prices is an all time grift because Argentinian beef is tariffed lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
