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.
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".
Guess what?
Still a duck.
Then you have to ask yourself why the person is telling a lie that he knows is a lie, and then blaming the other person when that person points out the truth.
Is it because he feels powerful doing it? Is it some kind of boast to be able to get away with it? Is it an in-group signal, like “Me and my friends are allowed to lie, because our targets are vile, and you are the outcast in our group for rejecting this.”
I’m of the opinion that the scummy people of society, and I’d include Trump in that generally, don’t need a basket of pretty lies to dress up the facts. The facts speak up just fine for themselves when you point them out. If you find yourself incapable of attesting to the facts, you might be a troll or promoting trolls that agree with you politically.
If you find yourself incapable of attesting to that fact, you might be a troll or promoting trolls that agree with you politically.
EDIT:
Attempting to obfuscate Trump's behaviour behind New York's narrow definition of rape are the "pretty lies to dress up the facts" that you claim to dislike.
A New York jury in found he was civilly liable for having forcibly touched or fingered a woman back in 1995 or 1996 according to a preponderance of evidence. Thats rape as commonly understood today. As adjudicated, it’s sexual abuse and that was the law, despite whatever a judge wants to write about after the jury decides.
Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
On February 03 2026 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I do not think Mamdani is going to be successful as NYC mayor. That said, blaming him for every person freezing to death is off base. Even when Toronto has the leftiest of lefty mayors ... bums freeze to death every cold week. Now, if Mamdani promised zero people would freeze to death when he became mayor... that is the naivete of a 34 year old who has never had a real job. Here is an interesting look at the issue.
Mamdani is not breaking up the homeless encampments. It is going to be interesting to see how long he'll maintain this policy platform pillar. Kudos to Eric Adams who predicted this would happen.
It is funny that Toronto mayors dodge this whole "bums are freezing to death" issue by not keeping stats on it. LOL If Mamdani could pull a Justin Trudeau and fuck with the stats... that'd be the ultimate move.
I had no idea Justin Trudeau was the mayor of Toronto. Things you "learn" reading JJR posts. His posts are a cornucopia of misinformation and unrelated topics that do not make his point.
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".
Guess what?
Still a duck.
Then you have to ask yourself why the person is telling a lie that he knows is a lie, and then blaming the other person when that person points out the truth.
Is it because he feels powerful doing it? Is it some kind of boast to be able to get away with it? Is it an in-group signal, like “Me and my friends are allowed to lie, because our targets are vile, and you are the outcast in our group for rejecting this.”
I’m of the opinion that the scummy people of society, and I’d include Trump in that generally, don’t need a basket of pretty lies to dress up the facts. The facts speak up just fine for themselves when you point them out. If you find yourself incapable of attesting to the facts, you might be a troll or promoting trolls that agree with you politically.
If you find yourself incapable of attesting to that fact, you might be a troll or promoting trolls that agree with you politically.
EDIT:
Attempting to obfuscate Trump's behaviour behind New York's narrow definition of rape are the "pretty lies to dress up the facts" that you claim to dislike.
A New York jury in found he was civilly liable for having forcibly touched or fingered a woman back in 1995 or 1996 according to a preponderance of evidence. Thats rape as commonly understood today. As adjudicated, it’s sexual abuse and that was the law, despite whatever a judge wants to write about after the jury decides.
Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
Can you finish this sentence below because I'm having trouble following your point. No one here cares about the technicalities when judging someone morals. Like if this was your daughter would you call him not a rapist, but if he did it to your grand daughter last year you would? And when he had only done it to your daughter would you still think he is awesome? Since he didn't technically rape her?
Well it is true that by common terminology now, Trump raped at least this one woman. By by technical terminology at the time he did not, there for Trump is ....
On February 03 2026 23:22 dyhb wrote: Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
Yes, Trump was not found guilty of every charge that E. Jean Carroll made in her suit. Anyone can find that out by reading the article I linked to repeatedly, which I'll provide once again for convenience: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
I'm not sure why being repulsed by the bad faith bikeshedding is "helping Trump", but rape apologists don't think like normal people so I won't inquire any further into that depraved line of thought.
On February 03 2026 19:25 Gorsameth wrote: "Trump was only found liable for raping a women with his fingers, not his penis. Therefor it ok"
Bro...
Not anywhere close to the point.
The verdict in the Jean Caroll case (under the 51%+ preponderance of the evidence standard) was not her full allegation. This gives no pause whatsoever to the Trump-is-a-rapist picketers.
The verdict has to be perplexing. Was she lying, making it up, remembering wrong - but only that part? Obviously it's not that the penile part was consensual. Perhaps there wasn't enough evidence? Yet what evidence was there of digital rape 30 years ago that there isn't of penile rape? If he attacked her it ought to be the way she said. It ought to be both or neither.
My own explanation is very simple. It is a hedged verdict. The jury would've said even if we're wrong it's not too much skin off Trump's back to pay a few millions, and even if he didn't do this sexual assault maybe he did something else instead so we have this chance for karmic justice also. So that, plus the low standard and seeing her public appearances, I find her to lack credibility.
Why the mixed verdict? Why the negative on #1? This is a legitimate question. I know what I think already. But I don't know how people who think he raped her can square away how they came back with guilty for digital but not penile when she accused and testified both. Can't imagine what they think of the facts of the case re:the jury's decision not to find him liable for the penile rape. Unfortunately, my assumption since none have answered is they also don't know, which sucks because I'd like to find out.
Also it's perfectly fine to believe Trump is a rapist without any court case. Verdicts can certainly differ from reality. I believe OJ and Casey Anthony both did it. But I have enough theory of mind or basic maturity to realize when people "defend" OJ it's not because they are defending a killer, or killers themselves, it's specifically because they believe he's not a killer.
And there's potential value in crowdsourcing investigations but it's not enough to just post lists of vague allegations already found not credible by LEO and go this plus a civil verdict of liability for sexual assault 30 years ago means he must have raped a kid at some point. These are the most serious accusations in our civilization. They are worse than murder, and amazingly the Clinton body count people seem more grounded.
It's stretching to take the only civil case we actually have, where the verdict didn't totally match the allegations the accuser made, and say this means these random and usually anonymous, already investigated accusations in a documents dump are credible as-is.
to summarize. You think a jury found Trump guilty 'for the lolz' and that an appeal court also went along with that reasoning, because otherwise you have to come to terms with him actually being a rapist.
On February 03 2026 19:25 Gorsameth wrote: "Trump was only found liable for raping a women with his fingers, not his penis. Therefor it ok"
Bro...
Not anywhere close to the point.
The verdict in the Jean Caroll case (under the 51%+ preponderance of the evidence standard) was not her full allegation. This gives no pause whatsoever to the Trump-is-a-rapist picketers.
The verdict has to be perplexing. Was she lying, making it up, remembering wrong - but only that part? Obviously it's not that the penile part was consensual. Perhaps there wasn't enough evidence? Yet what evidence was there of digital rape 30 years ago that there isn't of penile rape? If he attacked her it ought to be the way she said. It ought to be both or neither.
My own explanation is very simple. It is a hedged verdict. The jury would've said even if we're wrong it's not too much skin off Trump's back to pay a few millions, and even if he didn't do this sexual assault maybe he did something else instead so we have this chance for karmic justice also. So that, plus the low standard and seeing her public appearances, I find her to lack credibility.
Why the mixed verdict? Why the negative on #1? This is a legitimate question. I know what I think already. But I don't know how people who think he raped her can square away how they came back with guilty for digital but not penile when she accused and testified both. Can't imagine what they think of the facts of the case re:the jury's decision not to find him liable for the penile rape. Unfortunately, my assumption since none have answered is they also don't know, which sucks because I'd like to find out.
Also it's perfectly fine to believe Trump is a rapist without any court case. Verdicts can certainly differ from reality. I believe OJ and Casey Anthony both did it. But I have enough theory of mind or basic maturity to realize when people "defend" OJ it's not because they are defending a killer, or killers themselves, it's specifically because they believe he's not a killer.
And there's potential value in crowdsourcing investigations but it's not enough to just post lists of vague allegations already found not credible by LEO and go this plus a civil verdict of liability for sexual assault 30 years ago means he must have raped a kid at some point. These are the most serious accusations in our civilization. They are worse than murder, and amazingly the Clinton body count people seem more grounded.
It's stretching to take the only civil case we actually have, where the verdict didn't totally match the allegations the accuser made, and say this means these random and usually anonymous, already investigated accusations in a documents dump are credible as-is.
to summarize. You think a jury found Trump guilty 'for the lolz' and that an appeal court also went along with that reasoning, because otherwise you have to come to terms with him actually being a rapist.
Bro...
A few pages ago he was drawing attention to an undocumented immigrant that was found guilty of rape, you know, in the same American legal system that Trump went through. It's almost as if conservatives have no morals or shame whatsoever and relish in their blatant hypocrisy.
On February 03 2026 23:22 dyhb wrote: Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
Yes, Trump was not found guilty of every charge that E. Jean Carroll made in her suit. Anyone can find that out by reading the article I linked to repeatedly, which I'll provide once again for convenience: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
I'm not sure why being repulsed by the bad faith bikeshedding is "helping Trump", but rape apologists don't think like normal people so I won't inquire any further into that depraved line of thought.
You can’t be found guilty in civil suits. That’s reserved for criminal trials where the accuser must prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. This jury found for just a preponderance of evidence, a lower hurdle and not the way we decide guilt.
So tell me whether Trump was also accused of having raped Carroll in the civil suit, and was he found civilly liable for rape in that charge? No vague “not every charge,” like I’m asking for the defamation one (Carroll has had multiple suits). Clear and for the record. And don’t use guilty, since this was a civil trial. He wasn’t found guilty of shit in this trial, and you’ll have to go to other trials for that.
On February 03 2026 23:22 dyhb wrote: Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
Yes, Trump was not found guilty of every charge that E. Jean Carroll made in her suit. Anyone can find that out by reading the article I linked to repeatedly, which I'll provide once again for convenience: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
I'm not sure why being repulsed by the bad faith bikeshedding is "helping Trump", but rape apologists don't think like normal people so I won't inquire any further into that depraved line of thought.
You can’t be found guilty in civil suits. That’s reserved for criminal trials where the accuser must prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. This jury found for just a preponderance of evidence, a lower hurdle and not the way we decide guilt.
So tell me whether Trump was also accused of having raped Carroll in the civil suit, and was he found civilly liable for rape in that charge? No vague “not every charge,” like I’m asking for the defamation one (Carroll has had multiple suits). Clear and for the record. And don’t use guilty, since this was a civil trial. He wasn’t found guilty of shit in this trial, and you’ll have to go to other trials for that.
Lmfao, if a Democrat were found liable for sexual assault in a civil trial you shameless, stupid fucks would be calling them a rapist even more than I'm calling Trump a rapist.
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".
Guess what?
Still a duck.
Then you have to ask yourself why the person is telling a lie that he knows is a lie, and then blaming the other person when that person points out the truth.
Is it because he feels powerful doing it? Is it some kind of boast to be able to get away with it? Is it an in-group signal, like “Me and my friends are allowed to lie, because our targets are vile, and you are the outcast in our group for rejecting this.”
I’m of the opinion that the scummy people of society, and I’d include Trump in that generally, don’t need a basket of pretty lies to dress up the facts. The facts speak up just fine for themselves when you point them out. If you find yourself incapable of attesting to the facts, you might be a troll or promoting trolls that agree with you politically.
If you find yourself incapable of attesting to that fact, you might be a troll or promoting trolls that agree with you politically.
EDIT:
Attempting to obfuscate Trump's behaviour behind New York's narrow definition of rape are the "pretty lies to dress up the facts" that you claim to dislike.
A New York jury in found he was civilly liable for having forcibly touched or fingered a woman back in 1995 or 1996 according to a preponderance of evidence. Thats rape as commonly understood today. As adjudicated, it’s sexual abuse and that was the law, despite whatever a judge wants to write about after the jury decides.
Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
I simply stated that he's a rapist, which he is.
Everything else is window dressing, which you said you dislike and yet you continue doing.
On February 03 2026 22:52 WombaT wrote: Shit like this is the reason folks like Mamdani can never succeed.
You’re in situ what a few months and you haven’t fixed huge systemic issues, ergo you suck. It’s ridiculous
uhh no, Eric Adams solutions were dismantled. Now, the bums are freezing to death in homeless encampments that would've been broken up by the Adams administration a year ago. Eric Adams is older, more experienced, and 1000X more street smart than Mamdani. And, it shows already.
Mamdani looks good in a suit though.
again, here is the ultimate move .... It is funny that Toronto mayors dodge this whole "bums are freezing to death" issue by not keeping stats on it. LOL If Mamdani could pull a Justin Trudeau and stop collecting stats... that'd be the ultimate move.
Here is the speech here: "i know we hear about anecdotal cases of people freezing to death in NYC.. .but really ... no one knows for sure if they really died of hypothermia or not because our medical examiner data collection system is no longer able to tabulate that information. We're working on the database issue with a team of IT consultants though.. .but we don't think its a big issue. Next Question! ! !"
This is what Justin Trudeau did with MAID when it became too popular. He stopped counting the dead bodies.
What solutions? From the video you linked those sheltering programs are extremely short term and aren’t really going to do shit. You don’t fix homelessness and the plight of those so afflicted with a few days of respite
Why do you intersperse all your posts no matter how grim the subject with smiley faces? Odd.
On February 03 2026 19:25 Gorsameth wrote: "Trump was only found liable for raping a women with his fingers, not his penis. Therefor it ok"
Bro...
Not anywhere close to the point.
The verdict in the Jean Caroll case (under the 51%+ preponderance of the evidence standard) was not her full allegation. This gives no pause whatsoever to the Trump-is-a-rapist picketers.
The verdict has to be perplexing. Was she lying, making it up, remembering wrong - but only that part? Obviously it's not that the penile part was consensual. Perhaps there wasn't enough evidence? Yet what evidence was there of digital rape 30 years ago that there isn't of penile rape? If he attacked her it ought to be the way she said. It ought to be both or neither.
My own explanation is very simple. It is a hedged verdict. The jury would've said even if we're wrong it's not too much skin off Trump's back to pay a few millions, and even if he didn't do this sexual assault maybe he did something else instead so we have this chance for karmic justice also. So that, plus the low standard and seeing her public appearances, I find her to lack credibility.
Why the mixed verdict? Why the negative on #1? This is a legitimate question. I know what I think already. But I don't know how people who think he raped her can square away how they came back with guilty for digital but not penile when she accused and testified both. Can't imagine what they think of the facts of the case re:the jury's decision not to find him liable for the penile rape. Unfortunately, my assumption since none have answered is they also don't know, which sucks because I'd like to find out.
Also it's perfectly fine to believe Trump is a rapist without any court case. Verdicts can certainly differ from reality. I believe OJ and Casey Anthony both did it. But I have enough theory of mind or basic maturity to realize when people "defend" OJ it's not because they are defending a killer, or killers themselves, it's specifically because they believe he's not a killer.
And there's potential value in crowdsourcing investigations but it's not enough to just post lists of vague allegations already found not credible by LEO and go this plus a civil verdict of liability for sexual assault 30 years ago means he must have raped a kid at some point. These are the most serious accusations in our civilization. They are worse than murder, and amazingly the Clinton body count people seem more grounded.
It's stretching to take the only civil case we actually have, where the verdict didn't totally match the allegations the accuser made, and say this means these random and usually anonymous, already investigated accusations in a documents dump are credible as-is.
to summarize. You think a jury found Trump guilty 'for the lolz' and that an appeal court also went along with that reasoning, because otherwise you have to come to terms with him actually being a rapist.
Bro...
I think they partly believed what you probably do, that he's vaguely guilty of things somewhere sometime but can't really pin it down exactly with hard evidence? Why did the jury return not liable on the first count? Were they plain wrong, and why?
Answer the question or you don't have any credible faith whatsoever. There isn't a right or wrong answer. Literally just opine. I have no idea how you're supposed to interpret it into your worldview and I want to know since so much rests on this. There is no reason to continue dodging, this is not a trap, it's a question. Tell me Trump bribed the jury to at least get them to find him not liable for penile rape. Tell me anything.
On February 03 2026 23:22 dyhb wrote: Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
Yes, Trump was not found guilty of every charge that E. Jean Carroll made in her suit. Anyone can find that out by reading the article I linked to repeatedly, which I'll provide once again for convenience: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
I'm not sure why being repulsed by the bad faith bikeshedding is "helping Trump", but rape apologists don't think like normal people so I won't inquire any further into that depraved line of thought.
You can’t be found guilty in civil suits. That’s reserved for criminal trials where the accuser must prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. This jury found for just a preponderance of evidence, a lower hurdle and not the way we decide guilt.
So tell me whether Trump was also accused of having raped Carroll in the civil suit, and was he found civilly liable for rape in that charge? No vague “not every charge,” like I’m asking for the defamation one (Carroll has had multiple suits). Clear and for the record. And don’t use guilty, since this was a civil trial. He wasn’t found guilty of shit in this trial, and you’ll have to go to other trials for that.
Lmfao, if a Democrat were found liable for sexual assault in a civil trial you shameless, stupid fucks would be calling them a rapist even more than I'm calling Trump a rapist.
Well, I tried and I’m zero for two. The vague and wrong “not found guilty of every charge” was getting close (civil suits don’t establish guilt, and Carroll has charged Trump with more than the two mentioned), and everybody just reaffirmed stuff they already liked saying.
So I could say and did say what’s commonly understood to be rape, but zero of two could not plainly and clearly state the specific civil complaint and its result.
You can see just how valuable it was for me to state clearly, in response to a request, to what’s commonly understood as rape, since nobody was willing to do the same for me in return. The offer still stands to both, in the interest of showing that you ask questions in good faith, and are ultimately willing to answer questions in good faith.
On February 03 2026 19:25 Gorsameth wrote: "Trump was only found liable for raping a women with his fingers, not his penis. Therefor it ok"
Bro...
Not anywhere close to the point.
The verdict in the Jean Caroll case (under the 51%+ preponderance of the evidence standard) was not her full allegation. This gives no pause whatsoever to the Trump-is-a-rapist picketers.
The verdict has to be perplexing. Was she lying, making it up, remembering wrong - but only that part? Obviously it's not that the penile part was consensual. Perhaps there wasn't enough evidence? Yet what evidence was there of digital rape 30 years ago that there isn't of penile rape? If he attacked her it ought to be the way she said. It ought to be both or neither.
My own explanation is very simple. It is a hedged verdict. The jury would've said even if we're wrong it's not too much skin off Trump's back to pay a few millions, and even if he didn't do this sexual assault maybe he did something else instead so we have this chance for karmic justice also. So that, plus the low standard and seeing her public appearances, I find her to lack credibility.
Why the mixed verdict? Why the negative on #1? This is a legitimate question. I know what I think already. But I don't know how people who think he raped her can square away how they came back with guilty for digital but not penile when she accused and testified both. Can't imagine what they think of the facts of the case re:the jury's decision not to find him liable for the penile rape. Unfortunately, my assumption since none have answered is they also don't know, which sucks because I'd like to find out.
Also it's perfectly fine to believe Trump is a rapist without any court case. Verdicts can certainly differ from reality. I believe OJ and Casey Anthony both did it. But I have enough theory of mind or basic maturity to realize when people "defend" OJ it's not because they are defending a killer, or killers themselves, it's specifically because they believe he's not a killer.
And there's potential value in crowdsourcing investigations but it's not enough to just post lists of vague allegations already found not credible by LEO and go this plus a civil verdict of liability for sexual assault 30 years ago means he must have raped a kid at some point. These are the most serious accusations in our civilization. They are worse than murder, and amazingly the Clinton body count people seem more grounded.
It's stretching to take the only civil case we actually have, where the verdict didn't totally match the allegations the accuser made, and say this means these random and usually anonymous, already investigated accusations in a documents dump are credible as-is.
to summarize. You think a jury found Trump guilty 'for the lolz' and that an appeal court also went along with that reasoning, because otherwise you have to come to terms with him actually being a rapist.
Bro...
I think they partly believed what you probably do, that he's vaguely guilty of things somewhere sometime but can't really pin it down exactly with hard evidence? Why did the jury return not liable on the first count? Were they plain wrong, and why?
Answer the question or you don't have any credible faith whatsoever. There isn't a right or wrong answer. Literally just opine. I have no idea how you're supposed to interpret it into your worldview and I want to know since so much rests on this. There is no reason to continue dodging, this is not a trap, it's a question. Tell me Trump bribed the jury to at least get them to find him not liable for penile rape. Tell me anything.
On February 03 2026 23:22 dyhb wrote: Now that the common understanding of rape is out of the way, you can answer to the other facts of the civil trial. Was Trump also accused by Carroll of having raped her in the civil suit, and did the jury find that there was a preponderance of evidence for that charge as well? I’m well below 50% confidence that you or LightSpectra can state that individually and clearly. I’m more than happy to be surprised.
There’s something (apparently) very difficult to state that she had allegations that failed to convince a New York jury at a preponderance of evidence standard, since it feels like you’re helping Trump by stating the facts clearly. But they’re just facts. And whether you refuse to state them or not does not change them. I won’t accuse you of “defending Trump” if you do this.
Yes, Trump was not found guilty of every charge that E. Jean Carroll made in her suit. Anyone can find that out by reading the article I linked to repeatedly, which I'll provide once again for convenience: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
I'm not sure why being repulsed by the bad faith bikeshedding is "helping Trump", but rape apologists don't think like normal people so I won't inquire any further into that depraved line of thought.
You can’t be found guilty in civil suits. That’s reserved for criminal trials where the accuser must prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. This jury found for just a preponderance of evidence, a lower hurdle and not the way we decide guilt.
So tell me whether Trump was also accused of having raped Carroll in the civil suit, and was he found civilly liable for rape in that charge? No vague “not every charge,” like I’m asking for the defamation one (Carroll has had multiple suits). Clear and for the record. And don’t use guilty, since this was a civil trial. He wasn’t found guilty of shit in this trial, and you’ll have to go to other trials for that.
Lmfao, if a Democrat were found liable for sexual assault in a civil trial you shameless, stupid fucks would be calling them a rapist even more than I'm calling Trump a rapist.
Btw, he's also a child molester.
Al Franken did nothing wrong. Anthony Wiener did.
Fortunately I don't give a shit about whether you find me credible. I just enjoy watching you twist yourself in a pretzel trying to excuse a rapist. (sorry, someone found liable for sexual abuse*. Because arguing that distinction in public really is going to make you look like even more of a piece of shit)
Remember when we were talking about empeaching a President for having had a blowjob performed on him by a consenting adult (and lying about it). You know because we couldn’t have an adulterer ready to lie to the face of the nation in the White House and all of that.
Also, seems like they really like talking about someone who got away with rape and instigating an insurrection and human trafficking etc. Simply because a court didn't find him guilty from all those thing, that magicly absolves him from all his wrongdoings. Fuck that. Guy's a scumbag, a bad actor, a puppet, a senile pantsshitting clown, a flim flam even! Dude was born into wealth, acted like he was king of the world and somehow his daddy issue riddled base ate it up and crowned him king. It's ridiculous to see to what end they'll defend his abhorrent behavior.
@oBlade: do you find Trump a respectable, respectful human being? If so, please elaborate. If not, why and why do you defend him? Same question to @dyhb
On February 04 2026 00:34 Uldridge wrote: Times change.
Also, seems like they really like talking about someone who got away with rape and instigating an insurrection and human trafficking etc. Simply because a court didn't find him guilty from all those thing, that magicly absolves him from all his wrongdoings. Fuck that. Guy's a scumbag, a bad actor, a puppet, a senile pantsshitting clown, a flim flam even! Dude was born into wealth, acted like he was king of the world and somehow his daddy issue riddled base ate it up and crowned him king. It's ridiculous to see to what end they'll defend his abhorrent behavior.
@oBlade: do you find Trump a respectable, respectful human being? If so, please elaborate. If not, why and why do you defend him? Same question to @dyhb
I also like how with Bill Clinton, he was doing scummy lawyer shit (not technically a lie because i didn't technically have sex according to the exact definition used here), people said he was a scummy lying lawyer nonetheless.
Now with Trump, we get into details like "not technically found guilty of penis rape in a court of law" as if that is what is relevant here.
The technical details are just that, details. A court decided that Trump fingerraped a woman. Why are we splitting hairs on if the court could say "guilty", or if fingerrape is maybe slightly less rapey than penis rape? It is so fucking absurd.
It is utterly obvious to anyone with half an eye that Trump is a digusting, vile being.
But, as it turns out, the only time in his life when he wasn't lying was when he said he could shoot a guy on video in broad daylight on fifth avenue (or whereever), and he would get away with it. Not only would he get away with it, his cultists would claim that technically it wasn't murder, it was bullet theft by the other guy, and also he was coming right at him!
On February 04 2026 00:23 Biff The Understudy wrote: Remember when we were talking about empeaching a President for having had a blowjob performed on him by a consenting adult (and lying about it). You know because we couldn’t have an adulterer ready to lie to the face of the nation in the White House and all of that.
Those were the days.
I remember when there was bipartisan outrage at people who were blatant pieces of shit. It was FOX News that changed that. John Edwards and Newt Gingrich did approximately the same thing IIRC (having affairs while their wife was dying of cancer), the former was quietly exiled from politics, and the latter went on to become the MAGA mouthpiece that's still going on talk shows saying we should execute people for possessing two ounces of weed and other wild garbage.
In some ways Republicans have always been like this (you ever heard of a conservative that doesn't like Reagan because he willfully let thousands of people die of AIDS?) since the party realignment in the '60s, but they used to at least pretend to care. George H.W. Bush told people to vote for the Democrat in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election because David Duke, the Republican who won the nomination, is a KKK grand wizard. Fast forward to 2017, the Republican candidate in the U.S. Senate race in Alabama, Roy Moore, is a sexual predator; Trump shamelessly campaigned for him.
On February 04 2026 00:23 Biff The Understudy wrote: Remember when we were talking about empeaching a President for having had a blowjob performed on him by a consenting adult (and lying about it). You know because we couldn’t have an adulterer ready to lie to the face of the nation in the White House and all of that.
Those were the days.
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, but your characterization is exactly the one given in his defense. For the more self-reflective it's Clinton and the shameless defenses of him and his behavior that have led to a steep decline in moral expectations for presidents. Not that thete haven't been awful people in office, but so much of the way Clinton was defended reappears now with Trump. People made excuses for him all day long, pointed to the things they liked that he did, and closed ranks without giving a single inch. Clinton was a moderate dem policy wise and could be forced to work with Congress, but he was disastrous in other respects.
Well, Clinton, in my opinion, should have been removed, not on the basis of adultery but on the basis of using his position as a president of the USA to get a 22 year old intern (when he was 49) to have sex with him.
That, in any other job would be grounds for termination, in fact, during the #METOO many such cases bubbled up to the surface, in fact, many people who have been exposed in various situations over this era were in Epstein's emails seeking advice on how to handle it (see Lawrence Krauss who our buddy oBlade mentioned and then never addressed again after I pointed out how much of a fucking creep he is).
Of course, all that is basically nothing as compared to Trump, who, just to get away from the Carrol case has had many, many women accuse him of sexual assault, including his ex-wife who gave a sworn statement about this and spoke of it to her friends at the time, you guys can feel free to read that disgusting shit.
He also openly bragged about sexual assault, and in the context of his visits to the Miss Teen USA its very safe to assume he sexually assaulted underage girls as well, this is all based on things he said.
To deny any of this is stupid because it came straight from the horses mouth, and speaking of "the times", when the Ivana rape story came up again in 2015 Trump's lawyer (Cohen, remember that character who disappeared from the face of the earth) said that you can't rape a spouse.
Thankfully, now we live in times where all this shit is insane, unfortunately, not insane enough for Trump's cult who want to go back to the times when all this shit was a-OK, oBlade first amongst them.
I have my theories about why, he always gave me incel vibes and everything he keeps spewing here seems to confirm it.
EPT
Kudos to Eric Adams who predicted this would happen.
