America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,689 comments
- 1,585,938 views
Keef
Premium
- 24,893
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Lol, he was literally found guilty of rape this month by a judge.
Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Jurors awarded her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on...apnews.com
To clarify @McLaren, the "sexual assault" (Carroll's words) verdict and $5m award was from earlier in 2023. The most recent one, literally less than two weeks ago in January, was for...Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Jurors awarded her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on...
Jury verdict. Or were you talking about the fraud verdict. That's real too.
Also, I have no idea why you think my vote is for sale just because yours is. Promising me a bigger bank account is not going to get me to vote for a rapist traitor.
Edit:
On June 8, Trump's team requested the award to be reduced to under $1 million or that a new trial should be held regarding damages, citing the jury's supposed rejection of the rape claim.[134][135] Carroll's lawyers said that Trump mischaracterized the verdict (that he sexually abused Carroll) as supporting his contention that he did not rape her.[136] On July 19, Judge Kaplan affirmed that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common meaning of the word[c] and ruled against altering the award amount.[137][138][139][140]
It's worth noting that while the act was rape, Carroll didn't like the word and used "sexual abuse" to describe the rape.
...a whopping $83.3 million. A jury from New York state awarded Carroll $83.3 million in a defamation case against Trump. Here's a Breitbart article about it if you don't believe any other sources.
Trump has lost two jury trials against Carroll in the past year. These aren't judges, these are jurys. I assume you know how jurys work.
Last edited:
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,607
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
I want to point out that Breitbart News (as cited by the user who sparked off the discussion over the past two pages) is well documented as being a low-credibility news source with an extreme right bias that has posted conspiracy theories and propaganda.
Additional source on Breitbart's bias.
Additional source on Breitbart's bias.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,410
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
According to the article he posted, the Republican special counsel who investigated Biden for retaining official documents after his vice-presidency ended speculated that in a jury trial he would present himself as prone to memory loss, not that he couldn't mentally process anything.
I'm pretty sure this statement doesn't constitute a legal verdict and sounds more to me to have the makings of a hit job designed to damage Biden's campaign for reelection.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,531
- Mile High City
@sturk0167 and whoever is interested.
Why am I calling Trump a rapist when he's not in jail?
E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of "Sexual Abuse", which included acts which are described here, which I think we would all consider "rape". Carroll came forward with this accusation 20 years after it occurred, and there are many reasons why victims of such a crime wait that long to come forward - including cultural shifts. She claims she was worried about retaliation, and that fear has been shown to be well founded. The statute of limitations is passed on the criminal charge of rape, and so we'll never know if a jury would have found Trump guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" and convicted him criminally. She was able to file a civil suit beyond the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. The standard for finding liability an civil suit is a "preponderance of the evidence". The jury found trump liable for sexual abuse. The jury did not find Trump guilty of rape because he was not accused of that in the suit. The particular suit that Carroll brought was for sexual battery, and there are any number of reasons why she might have chosen to bring that particular suit. But the incident she describes includes, as I mentioned before, acts which any of us would consider "rape" and he was found liable for those acts. The judge in the case even explained that the jury found that he had raped her according to the common definition of the word.
The defamation suit was the claim by trump that she was a liar and had made the whole thing up. The jury found that Trump had defamed her specifically because he actually had committed the acts that she accused him of. The most technically accurate description according to new york law is that Trump is liable for sexual battery and defamation. Based on exactly what that sexual battery entailed, it was rape, and he is a rapist.
This is not me holding trump to some higher standard, like because he's a public figure or was president or something like that. I would call my neighbor a rapist if he were found liable of sexual battery in exactly the same way. The same way meaning in a civil trial after the statute of limitations expired on any criminal prosecution.
TL;DR Donald "grab 'em" Trump is a rapist.
Why am I calling Trump a rapist when he's not in jail?
E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of "Sexual Abuse", which included acts which are described here, which I think we would all consider "rape". Carroll came forward with this accusation 20 years after it occurred, and there are many reasons why victims of such a crime wait that long to come forward - including cultural shifts. She claims she was worried about retaliation, and that fear has been shown to be well founded. The statute of limitations is passed on the criminal charge of rape, and so we'll never know if a jury would have found Trump guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" and convicted him criminally. She was able to file a civil suit beyond the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. The standard for finding liability an civil suit is a "preponderance of the evidence". The jury found trump liable for sexual abuse. The jury did not find Trump guilty of rape because he was not accused of that in the suit. The particular suit that Carroll brought was for sexual battery, and there are any number of reasons why she might have chosen to bring that particular suit. But the incident she describes includes, as I mentioned before, acts which any of us would consider "rape" and he was found liable for those acts. The judge in the case even explained that the jury found that he had raped her according to the common definition of the word.
The defamation suit was the claim by trump that she was a liar and had made the whole thing up. The jury found that Trump had defamed her specifically because he actually had committed the acts that she accused him of. The most technically accurate description according to new york law is that Trump is liable for sexual battery and defamation. Based on exactly what that sexual battery entailed, it was rape, and he is a rapist.
This is not me holding trump to some higher standard, like because he's a public figure or was president or something like that. I would call my neighbor a rapist if he were found liable of sexual battery in exactly the same way. The same way meaning in a civil trial after the statute of limitations expired on any criminal prosecution.
TL;DR Donald "grab 'em" Trump is a rapist.
Last edited:
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
Question to the floor.
Acknowledging that this audience was in loose agreement that it’s ethically ok for people to change their registration to cast a vote for a candidate that’s not of their preferred political party, then why isn’t ok for people not to vote their own priorities first and foremost, be it financial or social issues?
While Sturk might not have been the most eloquent in his approach, I don’t disagree with his assessment and right to vote for issues as he sees fit. Same way I will always support those who vote social issues as their highest priority, whether I’m in agreement or not.
And the thought that a vote isn’t at least partially “for sale” is humorous. Let’s not pretend that Bernie Sanders (and later Biden) were largely propped up by droves of young-ish people under the guise of (at the minimum) college debt would be greatly reduced.
Not to mention, every politician regardless of their affiliation, are always trying to court their respective constituency on how voting for THEM will benefit the prospective voter financially, be it schooling, taxes, housing, healthcare, energy costs ect.
So yes, for the majority of voters, their respective vote is at least partially for sale
Acknowledging that this audience was in loose agreement that it’s ethically ok for people to change their registration to cast a vote for a candidate that’s not of their preferred political party, then why isn’t ok for people not to vote their own priorities first and foremost, be it financial or social issues?
While Sturk might not have been the most eloquent in his approach, I don’t disagree with his assessment and right to vote for issues as he sees fit. Same way I will always support those who vote social issues as their highest priority, whether I’m in agreement or not.
And the thought that a vote isn’t at least partially “for sale” is humorous. Let’s not pretend that Bernie Sanders (and later Biden) were largely propped up by droves of young-ish people under the guise of (at the minimum) college debt would be greatly reduced.
Not to mention, every politician regardless of their affiliation, are always trying to court their respective constituency on how voting for THEM will benefit the prospective voter financially, be it schooling, taxes, housing, healthcare, energy costs ect.
So yes, for the majority of voters, their respective vote is at least partially for sale
- 29,392
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Huh.
www.abc4.com
They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Central Utah firefighter arrested for alleged child sexual exploitation
A firefighter for the Aurora Fire Department in central Utah was arrested on Monday for allegedly obtaining and taking sexual photos of minors.
www.abc4.com
They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,531
- Mile High City
I'm not sure how those are related.
I agree that many voters essentially sell their vote and advocate that others do so as well. You're assuming I was only directing that at right wingers. I don't think your vote should be for sale regardless of whether that's student loan forgiveness or gas prices. The idea that you should just vote based on your wallet is fairly absurd.
I do understand people being motivated by someone's economic approach, or balanced budget approach. But based on whether you personally will benefit financially? That's not the point, and it is essentially selling your vote.
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
It’s a matter of perspective. Not trying to put words in your mouth, because I honestly don’t think this of you. But I find it curious how a lot of people declare others morally bankrupt because they vote their personal interests as it pertains to them, first.
It’s like some middle-of-the-road-politically parents whom are generally pro-choice…but choose to vote for someone that might benefit them financially now, so they can start saving money to put their kids through school in a decade’s time. Or a small/medium business owner whom employs other people that have families of their own - so they choose to support a candidate that benefits them from a variety of business-related costs (energy, taxes, materials, immigration, tariffs, ect.) so themselves, and the people they employ can prosper.
Of course Republicans do the exact same thing with their version of the culture wars, and they’re very successful in doing so.
Which relates back to what I said in the other thread - that I find people who are on the far ends of the political spectrum amusing, because they’re so (morally/emotionslly/idealogically/whatever) invested in a certain political stance, that they have a hard time seeing the bigger picture, or realize that there are people who just prioritize their interests differently. Be it liberals or conservatives, it doesn’t matter. They’re both equally blinded, in my opinion
Last edited:
- 40,622
Cool story bro glad you got everyone else all figured out.
What relevance does that have with Trump sexually assaulting women (something he openly bragged about during his first campaign trail), defrauding business out of hundreds of millions of dollars (something he also liked to brag about until it became expensive for him), stealing government secrets and refusing to turn them over, attempting to blackmail foreign allies, promising to exchange promotions for favorable court judgements and conspiring to overthrow the United States government?
In the time since Biden took the presidency, I've made almost $130,000 more than I made at any given 3 year period during the Trump presidency. I fully paid off a nicer car than the one you likely have 2 years sooner than the note was due, replaced it with a second car that was likely nicer than the one you probably have, paid that off two years sooner than that note was due and am now on my third car (probably nicer than the one you likely have) and after 4 months of car payments am already on track to paying it off a year sooner than the note is due. I'm so overwhelmingly better off financially despite doing the same job that I was doing during the entirety of the Trump presidency that my salary has nearly doubled despite moving to a place with a much lower cost of living. The spitting image of the poor Registered Republican white boy, pulling himself by his bootstraps from his minimum wage job right after college into upper middle class. And it didn't start to really happen until after Biden was elected, if the implication is supposed to be that whoever happens to be President at the time is personally responsible.
What relevance does that have with Trump sexually assaulting women (something he openly bragged about during his first campaign trail), defrauding business out of hundreds of millions of dollars (something he also liked to brag about until it became expensive for him), stealing government secrets and refusing to turn them over, attempting to blackmail foreign allies, promising to exchange promotions for favorable court judgements and conspiring to overthrow the United States government?
Last edited:
- 29,392
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I'd put money on that one supporting abortion prohibitions and believing democracy is only good if their side wins.
Edit: Right
Also, abortion is responsibility and accountability. If you don't want to carry out a pregnancy to birth, you terminate it. Responsibility and accountability.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,531
- Mile High City
You can find people who are equally blind on both of those sides (not that "conservative" is a thing anymore, it's liberals vs. authoritarians now conservatives don't want anything to do with being conservative). But that doesn't mean both sides are equally blinded. Today conservatives are ready to throw away the entire concept of America, from representative government to human rights. I suppose if you consider it going back to a monarchy, it's ultra-conservative, meaning pre-1776. Meanwhile liberals are advocating for things like raised minimum wage, universal healthcare, environmental regulation... pretty normal stuff. Stuff they've been talking about for decades. That doesn't strike me as "equally blinded" by a long shot. Right wingers are trying to burn down the very institutions the country was founded on, and left wingers are still trying to help the poor a little more.
It's not wisdom to falsely equivocate.
Last edited:
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
Explain to me in (cliff note) detail, how the quick rise of minimum wage mandates, universal healthcare, and environmental regulations don’t have the potential to cause harm to BOTH the lower and middle class.
Edit:
This isn’t an “American-exclusive” problem by any means, but a 1st world problem that’s been manifesting
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,410
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Before you call for others to somehow prove a negative that they didn't even argue for in the first place, perhaps you should try answering the question before you first. You seem to be equating the real and proven threat of authoritarianism (which by its nature is designed only to benefit the authoritarians) with the potential harm from social and environmental programmes which are intended to benefit a majority of people.
So... equal harm or not? And if they're not equal, then what's wrong with addressing the more imminent threat to everyone on the planet first?
Last edited:
- 3,706
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,410
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
You're asking us to prove something which nobody on this thread has claimed. This is known as a strawman.
Nobody said they don't have potential to cause harm if they go wrong. What Trump likely has in store for us judging by his previous character and disregard for democracy has a lot more potential to cause harm if done right. Again, which is the more likely and immediate threat?
- 85,962
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No. You made the claim, you prove the claim.
And you mean "repudiated". If it'd been refuted you would have been proven incorrect and wouldn't continue to seek the proof from others that you should be providing for your own claim.
I too would like to know what the speed sweet-spot for the various social changes is before it becomes more harmful than someone who has stated intent, and indeed already attempted, to overthrow the protections afforded the American people by the Constitution and its Amendments.
- 2,384
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
And like I was musing in a post that you chose to quote, I was talking about reasons why normal people decide to vote the way they do for personal priority reasons, “disregard to democracy” aside.
The floor is yours if you want to take a stab at what you quoted. No judgment on my side. Just curious to see where your coming from
You’re a smart guy. You can take a stab at how there’s potential for expedient minimum wage, environmental and healthcare changes can do harm to both the lower and middle class in first world countries.
Just asking people to play devils advocate, that’s all.
And yes, you’re correct. I did mean “repudiated”.
