Donald Trump is Officially a Sexual Abuser

[Diogenes]

Finally, Trump is officially a sexual abuser must pay nearly $5 Million for his sexual attack and then lying about it and defaming E. Jean Carroll.
The jury was unanimous in its verdict.

NEW YORK, May 9 (Reuters) - Donald Trump sexually abused magazine writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her by branding her a liar, jurors decided on Tuesday, dealing the former U.S. president a legal setback as he campaigns to retake office in 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/jurors-se ... 023-05-09/

But of course this will not deter millions of Republican 'Christian' evangelicals from supporting and voting for him... and sending him money.

[Purple Knight]

Have you ever noticed how some humans defend their favored president like some defend their favored god concept? I'm guessing the same parts of the brain are being used in both cases.

Definitely. I absolutely agree with this. It's like they're hardwired not to consider anything but what is already presupposed to be edible. I can't think of a better way to phrase it.

And in my case I don't like Trump at all. But I will defend him on the OT because I think convicting people of rape for grabbing a boob is disgusting - almost as disgusting as genuine rape because it devalues and thus encourages, genuine rape. It seems to be down to me missing the same part of my brain that makes me an atheist.

Sometimes I wish I got it, but I just don't.

The jury did not find Carroll was raped, but sexually abused. Her testimony was that he sexually assaulted her for three (3) minutes as she fought him off. Trump did not testify in his defense. This was not just 'boob grabbing', tho' that is an assault as well. Picture your wife, girl friend, mother or sister having a man twice their size, aggressively fondling her of three full minutes., most likely attempting to do more, including raping her. A simple 1 second 'boob grab' was not the evidence. Carroll's testimony was not refuted. This was a civil case and the gravamen was Trump lying about Carroll, defaming her repeatedly. Proving the sexual abuse (not rape, which requires "penetration"), which was a fact necessary to prove he defamed her.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics ... index.html

Maybe I'm a simpleton but if someone touches you and you don't want it, that's assault. Why they did it, isn't that important. Assault should be enough. No need to specify that the motivation was sexual, though I am glad rape requires penetration.

If someone does something that could give you a sexual disease or get you pregnant, that's rape, and that's a big deal.

And I defended Clinton too. Making a case out of what he did harmed him much more than what he did harmed Lewinski.

I have a very bad opinion of these women, because I figure they know who the gropers are. They know who the horndogs are. And they also know that if they let these men do things to them, they will be elevated beyond what they deserve on merit. Then, once they are elevated, they want to cry about it. Meanwhile the women who worked harder than them and did not get elevated, not only have nothing, but society acts like nobody wronged them.

[boatsnguitars]

Wow, you're blaming the Dems for Putin invading Ukraine?! That's spectacular.

I guess I'll blame you for the war Somalia.

But, honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a post so abjectly weird. Maybe you are joking?

No, not me, Somalia was a Bush/Obama operation.



Here is the story of who started the war. It was made in 2016, so the US had plenty of warning and they just kept pushing for war.

The film was regarded as presenting "a Kremlin-friendly version of the events".[9][14] According to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, "“Ukraine on Fire was derided for advancing the Russian narrative about Ukraine’s 2014 Euromaidan revolution, portraying it as a nationalist coup orchestrated by the United States".[10]

Rod Dreher, writing for the American Conservative, said: "I expected 'Ukraine On Fire' to be propaganda, and indeed it was. But that doesn't mean it is entirely a lie, and in any case, it's important to know how the other side regards a conflict, if only to understand how they are likely thinking."[15]

Andrew Roth, writing from Moscow for The Guardian, said that Ukraine on Fire is part of "a series of documentary projects featuring Stone about Russia and Ukraine that reflect a strongly pro-Kremlin worldview", remarking further that "Stone has noted that the films, which are strongly critical of the 2014 maidan revolution and have been attacked as propaganda vehicles, are very popular in Russia."[16]

Stephen Velychenko [uk], the University of Toronto's Chair of Ukrainian Studies, strongly criticized Stone's pro-Russian bias. While Velychenko accepts the possible involvement of the CIA, he allocates only a minor role to it compared to domestic political forces and argues that the film's focus on external forces only will lead to apologetics or conspiracy theories.[17]

Writing in Collectible Dry, Antonio Armano criticized that the film does not mention either Stalin's dekulakization or the Holodomor, a man-made famine organized by the Soviet regime, events which he argues may explain why the Nazi occupation during World War II was seen by some Ukrainians as welcomed liberation. Comparing Ukraine on Fire with the documentary Winter on Fire released one year earlier (and portrayed the 2014 revolution positively), he stated that Ukraine on Fire is a "less narrative and emotional" journalistic product. According to Armano, the film's main message is to avoid a new Cold War between the United States and Russia with the potential for nuclear confrontation.[18]

James Kirchick of The Daily Beast called the film a "dictator suckup",[7] noting that "Yanukovych ceased being president on 22 February 2014 because he fled Kiev, rendering himself incapable of performing his presidential duties under the Ukrainian constitution. Over three-quarters of the country’s parliament, including many members of Yanukovych’s own party, voted effectively to impeach him that day", and "It is astoundingly patronizing for Stone to lecture Ukrainians—thousands of whom have fought and died defending their dismembered country from an all-out invasion by their much more powerful neighbor—about what they do and do not know about Viktor Yanukovych, Russia and the potential for a new Cold War".

Pavel Shekhtman [ru], a Russian dissident persecuted by Russian authorities for alleged extremism, writing for the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, also called the documentary "undistilled Kremlin propaganda", arguing that, of the main Ukrainian political figures described as neo-Nazis by Stone, only Oleh Tyahnybok resorted to xenophobia and antisemitic rhetoric.[19]

[otseng]

are Republican voters this evil/stupid?

The face of evil/stupid?

Moderator Comment

Please cease from the accusations of others as evil/stupid.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Diogenes]

Have you ever noticed how some humans defend their favored president like some defend their favored god concept? I'm guessing the same parts of the brain are being used in both cases.

Definitely. I absolutely agree with this. It's like they're hardwired not to consider anything but what is already presupposed to be edible. I can't think of a better way to phrase it.

And in my case I don't like Trump at all. But I will defend him on the OT because I think convicting people of rape for grabbing a boob is disgusting - almost as disgusting as genuine rape because it devalues and thus encourages, genuine rape. It seems to be down to me missing the same part of my brain that makes me an atheist.

Sometimes I wish I got it, but I just don't.

The jury did not find Carroll was raped, but sexually abused. Her testimony was that he sexually assaulted her for three (3) minutes as she fought him off. Trump did not testify in his defense. This was not just 'boob grabbing', tho' that is an assault as well. Picture your wife, girl friend, mother or sister having a man twice their size, aggressively fondling her of three full minutes., most likely attempting to do more, including raping her. A simple 1 second 'boob grab' was not the evidence. Carroll's testimony was not refuted. This was a civil case and the gravamen was Trump lying about Carroll, defaming her repeatedly. Proving the sexual abuse (not rape, which requires "penetration"), which was a fact necessary to prove he defamed her.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics ... index.html

Maybe I'm a simpleton but if someone touches you and you don't want it, that's assault. Why they did it, isn't that important. Assault should be enough. No need to specify that the motivation was sexual, though I am glad rape requires penetration.
....

The law is quite clear on this point. Intent and motive matter VERY MUCH under the law.
You're in a crowd and your elbow accidentally brushes against a woman's breast, there is no intent and no sexual motive, and not crime.
If you put a protective salve on a baby's private parts, it is not a crime. But if you touch the baby there for sexual gratification, it is a serious sex offense.
If a physician inserts a speculum or finger into a woman's vagina for the purpose of a health examination, he earns a reasonable fee and commits no crime. If he does it to gratify either his or her sexual desire, it is a rape. That is the law. And if you reflect upon this law you may understand why we have these distinctions.

If a man drives carelessly on a rainy night, skids and kills another he may be sentenced to 2-4 years for negligent driving. If he purposely, intentionally, and with premeditation kills someone with his car, he's guilty of 1st degree murder and likely to be sentenced to 20 years or up to life in prison. Intent and motive matter.

[Daedalus X]

The film was regarded as presenting "a Kremlin-friendly version of the events".[9][14] According to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, "“Ukraine on Fire was derided for advancing the Russian narrative about Ukraine’s 2014 Euromaidan revolution, portraying it as a nationalist coup orchestrated by the United States".[10]

Notice how they smuggle in the idea that "Kremlin-friendly" is automatically bad. Do we even have any evidence to show that the Kremlin (Putin) is actually bad (or worse than the NATO and America)?
I think that it is more likely that America is the great Satan as the leaders of many nations have said (Venezuela, Iran, Russia and many others).

I too used to believe the narrative about Russia being bad, but most of my prejudice was just a left over hangover from the USSR, but the more I have looked into the conduct of the USA, the more I have come to believe that we are the problem.

As for the character of Stone and Putin, it is a long watch (read) but I found it necessary to hear for myself what the tone and demeanor of Putin was. And I now trust Putin more than just about any American or European politician. If you have the time, I provide the 4 part links here.

[Purple Knight]

The law is quite clear on this point. Intent and motive matter VERY MUCH under the law.
You're in a crowd and your elbow accidentally brushes against a woman's breast, there is no intent and no sexual motive, and not crime.

It seems to me that the law already acknowledges that having your boob touched doesn't harm you.

[Diogenes]

The law is quite clear on this point. Intent and motive matter VERY MUCH under the law.
You're in a crowd and your elbow accidentally brushes against a woman's breast, there is no intent and no sexual motive, and not crime.

It seems to me that the law already acknowledges that having your boob touched doesn't harm you.

You are correct only in the same way being raped does not harm a person in that the penetration of sexual intercourse does not in and of itself harm a person.

[Purple Knight]

The law is quite clear on this point. Intent and motive matter VERY MUCH under the law.
You're in a crowd and your elbow accidentally brushes against a woman's breast, there is no intent and no sexual motive, and not crime.

It seems to me that the law already acknowledges that having your boob touched doesn't harm you.

You are correct only in the same way being raped does not harm a person in that the penetration of sexual intercourse does not in and of itself harm a person.

Rape has (at least potentially) actual consequences like giving someone an STD, or getting them pregnant. If a small child is raped it can destroy their reproductive system, rendering them unable to have children.

[Diogenes]

The law is quite clear on this point. Intent and motive matter VERY MUCH under the law.
You're in a crowd and your elbow accidentally brushes against a woman's breast, there is no intent and no sexual motive, and not crime.

It seems to me that the law already acknowledges that having your boob touched doesn't harm you.

You are correct only in the same way being raped does not harm a person in that the penetration of sexual intercourse does not in and of itself harm a person.

Rape has (at least potentially) actual consequences like giving someone an STD, or getting them pregnant. If a small child is raped it can destroy their reproductive system, rendering them unable to have children.

Surely do do not believe that little children getting raped as long as they can still reproduce and don't acquire an STD should be legal? The Child Molesters of America disagree and make the same argument, that as long as children are not physically damaged by the rape, rape is OK and should be legal.

Can we not agree that the law is correct, that sticking your penis into a child or anyone who does not want it there is and should be a crime even if no physical damage is done? Or do you believe child molesting should be legal if it is done without violence?

Child sexual abuse can affect psychological and physical well-being, family and intimate relationships, faith, and education and career. Victims and survivors can also be two to four times more likely to become victims of sexual, physical or emotional abuse again in their lifetime.

One of the most profound effects of child sexual abuse is the damaging impact it can have on the ability to form and maintain close, loving relationships ‒ both intimate and platonic. It can affect the relationships that victims and survivors have at the time of the sexual abuse and for the rest of their lives.

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recomm ... abuse.html

[Daedalus X]

Who is the victim?

I have already demonstrated, with citations, how lying hurts people.

If lying hurts people and deserves to be prosecuted, then how often has New York prosecuted people who lie. Or is Trump the first person in NY to lie in business?

If you can't name anyone, then it is rational to assume that this is just political persecution?

If this is the first time this is happened, then it would set precedent. As CBS reported.

She said the case is "setting a very dangerous precedent for all business owners in New York."