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.
On February 02 2026 20:57 MJG wrote: If something looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it lost a civil suit confirming that it's a duck, and there are thousands of classified documents accusing it of being a duck, and there are thousands of photos of it hanging out with other ducks, then it's probably a duck.
What's your take on why the jury in the civil suit didn't find him liable for rape of the adult who accused him of raping her? Is it because... there wasn't even a preponderance of the evidence?
Or some other explanation?
Glad you asked.
"New York’s legal definition of “rape” [...] requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But [Judge Lewis A. Kaplan] said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape."
You are not following. You are giving me the shtick of why you still get to call Drumpf an adjudicated "rapist" even though they only came back on sexual assault or sexual abuse or whatever it was. That's not the question. I know that shtick already and it's not interesting to me because you would call him a rapist even if there was never any case just like you call him a child rapist and pedo when there's no court case of that.
She accused him in court, in the civil trial, in the case, of raping her with his penis. She testified to it. The jury came back, "No."
In your world: Why?
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll" is exactly as clear and decisive as it needs to be. I'm sorry* it inconveniently makes it harder for you to write apologia for your rapist president but he was indeed found in a court of law to have met the burden of proof of committing rape.
*I'm not actually sorry, you're actually just a shitty person.
Just imagine oBlade's sister or niece tearfully telling them that a man sexually assaulted them and they reply "oh so it's not technically rape. Any chance they're running for office? What's their stance on illegal immigrants? "
On February 02 2026 20:57 MJG wrote: If something looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it lost a civil suit confirming that it's a duck, and there are thousands of classified documents accusing it of being a duck, and there are thousands of photos of it hanging out with other ducks, then it's probably a duck.
What's your take on why the jury in the civil suit didn't find him liable for rape of the adult who accused him of raping her? Is it because... there wasn't even a preponderance of the evidence?
Or some other explanation?
Glad you asked.
"New York’s legal definition of “rape” [...] requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But [Judge Lewis A. Kaplan] said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape."
You are not following. You are giving me the shtick of why you still get to call Drumpf an adjudicated "rapist" even though they only came back on sexual assault or sexual abuse or whatever it was. That's not the question. I know that shtick already and it's not interesting to me because you would call him a rapist even if there was never any case just like you call him a child rapist and pedo when there's no court case of that.
She accused him in court, in the civil trial, in the case, of raping her with his penis. She testified to it. The jury came back, "No."
In your world: Why?
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll" is exactly as clear and decisive as it needs to be. I'm sorry* it inconveniently makes it harder for you to write apologia for your rapist president but he was indeed found in a court of law to have met the burden of proof of committing rape.
*I'm not actually sorry, you're actually just a shitty person.
Just imagine oBlade's sister or niece tearfully telling them that a man sexually assaulted them and they reply "oh so it's not technically rape. Any chance they're running for office? What's their stance on illegal immigrants? "
It‘s also a cultural issue. Democracy is supposed to be flexible to the needs of the population. If the majority of the population at a moment decides that they want a right wing leader, which they did, and Trump‘s the only alternative they are given, it‘s an issue with the entire party.
In this particular case there‘s so much wrong at once that the perception of a singular wrongdoing becomes deflated. He can just keep piling it on and nobody even knows what to attack anymore.
On February 02 2026 20:57 MJG wrote: If something looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it lost a civil suit confirming that it's a duck, and there are thousands of classified documents accusing it of being a duck, and there are thousands of photos of it hanging out with other ducks, then it's probably a duck.
What's your take on why the jury in the civil suit didn't find him liable for rape of the adult who accused him of raping her? Is it because... there wasn't even a preponderance of the evidence?
Or some other explanation?
Glad you asked.
"New York’s legal definition of “rape” [...] requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But [Judge Lewis A. Kaplan] said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape."
You are not following. You are giving me the shtick of why you still get to call Drumpf an adjudicated "rapist" even though they only came back on sexual assault or sexual abuse or whatever it was. That's not the question. I know that shtick already and it's not interesting to me because you would call him a rapist even if there was never any case just like you call him a child rapist and pedo when there's no court case of that.
She accused him in court, in the civil trial, in the case, of raping her with his penis. She testified to it. The jury came back, "No."
In your world: Why?
The bigger question is why this is an important distinction to you? We know for a fact that he has done many many creepy things. We know he has many sex related NDAs that he paid big money to keep. We know he loves law fare and threats. We know he was great friends for 15 years with the worlds most famous sex trafficker, who’s plane was called what again?
Great friends, you can know, but I don't know. They both have many thousands of acquaintances. Epstein seemed more obsessed with Trump than the reverse. Epstein, while the world's now most infamous sex trafficker, does not appear to have been a notably prolific one, especially as involves minors. I think that's fortunate. But some people seem to want more children to have been raped, because it allows them to get more elite scalps.
Having secret or public affairs with adults is different than raping kids. Your vibe or ick of Trump's creepiness is an emotional state and it's not evidence that you can show someone else. The last page used the term "adjacent to" but I don't find that the activity of sex between adults, even for money or gain, is "adjacent to" the crime of raping children and I would support a law checking the harddrives of anyone who does think that.
On February 03 2026 12:21 Billyboy wrote: I find it absolutely hilarious and also absurd how people like you gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy’s that lead you to Trump and MAGA but then all the sudden completely flip to people who need absolute proof when it comes to anything about your saviour.
People like me, meaning not me, because you can't name two conspiracies in my rabbit hole. You're just doing nonspecific venting.
On February 03 2026 12:21 Billyboy wrote: No one outside your cult will ever take you seriously and history is going to look at you with massive amount of shame and disbelief about how stupid you are.
I'm going to make it in the history books, nice.
On February 03 2026 12:21 Billyboy wrote: Like do you think the guy getting 500m from the UAE personally and then approves sales of AI chips has your interest at heart? This is an absolutely awful person, who has been a spoiled brat his whole life, throws twitter tantrums like a child regularly and you love him as your personal saviour.
I don't have a saviour because I'm an American. I don't have a savior because I'm an atheist. You appear to have a devil and have confused him for my savior just because we don't share him as a devil. What are we doing here? We're talking about one of the worst crimes imaginable and okay even if I don't believe he did that, I have to at least say his... tweets are mean, suddenly? People attack Trump constantly, why would I lose sleep that he also responds, on the internet? And nor would corruption lead to child rape. Trump largely has US interests in mind. Sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he does, but happens to be wrong. Obviously nobody shares 100% the same interests.
On February 02 2026 20:57 MJG wrote: If something looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it lost a civil suit confirming that it's a duck, and there are thousands of classified documents accusing it of being a duck, and there are thousands of photos of it hanging out with other ducks, then it's probably a duck.
What's your take on why the jury in the civil suit didn't find him liable for rape of the adult who accused him of raping her? Is it because... there wasn't even a preponderance of the evidence?
Or some other explanation?
Glad you asked.
"New York’s legal definition of “rape” [...] requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But [Judge Lewis A. Kaplan] said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape."
You are not following. You are giving me the shtick of why you still get to call Drumpf an adjudicated "rapist" even though they only came back on sexual assault or sexual abuse or whatever it was. That's not the question. I know that shtick already and it's not interesting to me because you would call him a rapist even if there was never any case just like you call him a child rapist and pedo when there's no court case of that.
She accused him in court, in the civil trial, in the case, of raping her with his penis. She testified to it. The jury came back, "No."
In your world: Why?
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll" is exactly as clear and decisive as it needs to be. I'm sorry* it inconveniently makes it harder for you to write apologia for your rapist president but he was indeed found in a court of law to have met the burden of proof of committing rape.
*I'm not actually sorry, you're actually just a shitty person.
We appear to be hitting the limits of your deflection. I'm going to ask one more time. Why did the civil jury return a negative verdict on #1, which is the penile rape that she accused him of in court and testified that he did? I'm asking you a specific thing here. The answer isn't "but he's still a rapist." The question is not about whether digital rape and penile rape are both rape or not. Your point is that digital rape, in #2, is also "rape." We understand. Everybody understands. Why did the jury not find him liable for the penile rape that she also specifically accused him of and testified to having happened?
On February 03 2026 13:01 LightSpectra wrote: Just imagine oBlade's sister or niece tearfully telling them that a man sexually assaulted them and they reply "oh so it's not technically rape. Any chance they're running for office? What's their stance on illegal immigrants? "
They said Pete Buttigieg raped them in October 2009, April 2011, and January 2013. Also they said he raped a friend of theirs who may or may not exist.
On February 02 2026 20:57 MJG wrote: If something looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it lost a civil suit confirming that it's a duck, and there are thousands of classified documents accusing it of being a duck, and there are thousands of photos of it hanging out with other ducks, then it's probably a duck.
What's your take on why the jury in the civil suit didn't find him liable for rape of the adult who accused him of raping her? Is it because... there wasn't even a preponderance of the evidence?
Or some other explanation?
Glad you asked.
"New York’s legal definition of “rape” [...] requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But [Judge Lewis A. Kaplan] said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape."
You are not following. You are giving me the shtick of why you still get to call Drumpf an adjudicated "rapist" even though they only came back on sexual assault or sexual abuse or whatever it was. That's not the question. I know that shtick already and it's not interesting to me because you would call him a rapist even if there was never any case just like you call him a child rapist and pedo when there's no court case of that.
She accused him in court, in the civil trial, in the case, of raping her with his penis. She testified to it. The jury came back, "No."
In your world: Why?
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll" is exactly as clear and decisive as it needs to be. I'm sorry* it inconveniently makes it harder for you to write apologia for your rapist president but he was indeed found in a court of law to have met the burden of proof of committing rape.
*I'm not actually sorry, you're actually just a shitty person.
Just imagine oBlade's sister or niece tearfully telling them that a man sexually assaulted them and they reply "oh so it's not technically rape. Any chance they're running for office? What's their stance on illegal immigrants? "
It‘s also a cultural issue. Democracy is supposed to be flexible to the needs of the population. If the majority of the population at a moment decides that they want a right wing leader, which they did, and Trump‘s the only alternative they are given, it‘s an issue with the entire party.
In this particular case there‘s so much wrong at once that the perception of a singular wrongdoing becomes deflated. He can just keep piling it on and nobody even knows what to attack anymore.
Yeah, there seems to be some weird brainhack where if you do enough heinous shit every day, no one can focus on a single thing long enough for it to actually hurt you. It is strange.
And in this case, Trump was proven in court to have raped a woman using his fingers. In any sane country, this would enough to disqualify him.
It also seems very likely that this was a habitual thing for him, given the whole Epstein situation.
But in the US, instead of booting the guy from politics, we have our resident debatelord conservative somehow making the whole point about if he also raped her using his penis, which seems to be a really important point for him for inexplicable reasons.
And then three days later the whole thing is forgotten again, because Trump shat out of a white house window, or threatened to invade Azkaban, or whatever new stupid shit happens.
At this point Occam's Razor would dictate that we don't assume incompetence as the reason for the seemingly endless list of institutions and people, ranging from Special Investigators, AGs to Judges, Majority Leaders, Senators, to Supreme Courts who failed to defend the republic over the last decade, for the miraculous emergence of single deciding votes or faction switching.
It also stands to reason that this isn't the only operation of it's kind and that the seemingly endless failures in Europe, especially in Germany, to defend the Republic, to activate legitimate constitutional defenses, to effectively counter the increasing push by Russia funded parties to undermine democracy can be explained by more than "party politics' and 'stupidity'.
No, I don't think it's reasonable to assume incompetence, party/ideology driven tactical thinking or "special friendship with Russia" as the most likely explanation for what is going on.
Given how pervasive the rot in the US has shown itself to be, it is much more likely that vast parts of western and middle eastern political and economic establishment has kompromat dangled over their head and that the ever increasing push to reduce individual freedoms and increase control (see Chatkontrolle), is the result of an ever increasingly desperate group of people who know they are toast when control slips from their fingers.
And given that the same people, Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon are more or less openly messing around in German politics, unleashing the same playbooks to the point where Springer's "Bild Zeitung" made the insane headline of "It's tragic what's happening with protesters being executed in the US, but it's the Left's fault for being wrong about immigration" [1] ... no, no, I think it's 5 minutes to midnight in Europe too.
I don't even know how one would begin to unwind this mess though, it feels that if it eventually unwinds, it'll happen via French legacy technology being reintroduced, which is not great for a number of reaons.
What little hope there is rests on people somehow rising about the identity politics/tribal instincts they are constantly being whipped on these toxic platforms and realizing they are being played. And that seems unlikely, seeing how sizable part of the US got played by QAnon's Pizza Palor conspiracy on 4Chan, which, oh well, also originated on the damn island [2]
It seem prudent to put much more suspicion on Politicians for failing to act in the best interest of their country, the weird hesitance on Russia and certain other countries to set limits, the weird leniency they are extending to Elon peddling CSAM compared to their full throated declarations how everyone's Chats need to be read to safe the children.
It seems prudent to ask why there is not a public inquiry in every European country analyzing the total failure mode of the US Republic and it's institutions and to take the necessary steps to prevent these things locally.
On February 02 2026 20:57 MJG wrote: If something looks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it lost a civil suit confirming that it's a duck, and there are thousands of classified documents accusing it of being a duck, and there are thousands of photos of it hanging out with other ducks, then it's probably a duck.
What's your take on why the jury in the civil suit didn't find him liable for rape of the adult who accused him of raping her? Is it because... there wasn't even a preponderance of the evidence?
Or some other explanation?
Glad you asked.
"New York’s legal definition of “rape” [...] requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But [Judge Lewis A. Kaplan] said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape."
You are not following. You are giving me the shtick of why you still get to call Drumpf an adjudicated "rapist" even though they only came back on sexual assault or sexual abuse or whatever it was. That's not the question. I know that shtick already and it's not interesting to me because you would call him a rapist even if there was never any case just like you call him a child rapist and pedo when there's no court case of that.
She accused him in court, in the civil trial, in the case, of raping her with his penis. She testified to it. The jury came back, "No."
In your world: Why?
"Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll" is exactly as clear and decisive as it needs to be. I'm sorry* it inconveniently makes it harder for you to write apologia for your rapist president but he was indeed found in a court of law to have met the burden of proof of committing rape.
*I'm not actually sorry, you're actually just a shitty person.
We appear to be hitting the limits of your deflection. I'm going to ask one more time. Why did the civil jury return a negative verdict on #1, which is the penile rape that she accused him of in court and testified that he did? I'm asking you a specific thing here. The answer isn't "but he's still a rapist." The question is not about whether digital rape and penile rape are both rape or not. Your point is that digital rape, in #2, is also "rape." We understand. Everybody understands. Why did the jury not find him liable for the penile rape that she also specifically accused him of and testified to having happened?
Your argument appears to be, "well actually he's a Muscovy duck rather than a Venetian duck".
EPT![[image loading]](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/4239d8b617ef0fc5/1/output-1.png)
