Trump Guilty of Sexual Abuse.

[SkepticThinker]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I find the linked analysis
to be lacking. Less than 200 perps & victims were interviewed.
And how were they selected? It appears that the authors
excluded some common types of rape that are primarily sexually
motivated, eg, sex with an intoxicated partner, sex with an under
age partner, sex where consent was questionable, & later revoked.

I agree. I was trying to find some material that would provide some information about the motivations behind rape for the poster who seems rather confused about it.

I note that Trump's sexual assaults appear to
be more of the aggressive & violent kind.
He'd fit with the types in the study you cited.

It sure seems like it.

 

[fantome profane]

The central issue in the upcoming election will be the freedom to kill unwanted children in the womb. The Left will raise lots of money off of that.

And win a lot of seats, not to mention the Presidency.

When DeSantis signed that six week abortion ban he signing away his chance to every be President.

 

[Heyo]

And win a lot of seats, not to mention the Presidency.

When DeSantis signed that six week abortion ban he signing away his chance to every be President.

ptimistic:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it's true...there is a feminist lobby that targets the heterosexual WASP in the US.

Other than the name of the President do you know anything about America that is actually true?

 

[The Hammer]

But it's true...there is a feminist lobby that targets the heterosexual WASP in the US.

Lmao. Not really no.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And win a lot of seats, not to mention the Presidency.

When DeSantis signed that six week abortion ban he signing away his chance to every be President.

That's what makes the EC a right and proper *****. We the People rejected Trump in 2016, but the EC did not.
For the foreseeable futue America may have a bout of Republican presidents who do not win a mandate from the masses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that he married the most beautiful actresses and models show that he could have all the women in the world.
He didn't need to "assault" a 53 year old woman.

That's my point.

And you still do not understand that rape is not due to need. It is usually just a desire to demonstrate one's dominance.

 

[Estro Felino]

And you still do not understand that rape is not due to need. It is usually just a desire to demonstrate one's dominance.

Judicially and juridically this is a dangerous precedent.

A woman can get revenge on a boyfriend that dumped her...by claiming he raped her.
Even if the sex was consensual.
So the man will be jailed ...based on a lie.

Because the court will always believe the woman, no matter what.

If men are okay with that...well... good for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Judicially and juridically this is a dangerous precedent.

A woman can get revenge on a boyfriend that dumped her...by claiming he raped her.
Even if the sex was consensual.
So the man will be jailed ...based on a lie.

Because the court will always believe the woman, no matter what.

If men are okay with that...well... good for them.

But that is not what happened here. You are now making a strawman argument. Carroll was able to bring friends that she told about this event long before Trump became a politician. Other women testified that Trump has attacked them in a similar manner. Trump himself was shown to be a liar in his deposition. How do you keep forgetting all of those facts?

 

[SomeRandom]

Judicially and juridically this is a dangerous precedent.

A woman can get revenge on a boyfriend that dumped her...by claiming he raped her.
Even if the sex was consensual.
So the man will be jailed ...based on a lie.

Because the court will always believe the woman, no matter what.

If men are okay with that...well... good for them.

That is just the kind of disgusting mindset that allows actual rapists to avoid justice. For shame!

Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers. He has an awful track record already regarding his (lack of) respect for sexual boundaries.
The evidence was compelling enough to get a guilty verdict.
I won’t pretend that the US legal system is flawless. But this does seem to be a case that was “beyond reasonable doubt.”
You’re going to have to join reality and deal with it

 

[Estro Felino]

But that is not what happened here. You are now making a strawman argument. Carroll was able to bring friends that she told about this event long before Trump became a politician. Other women testified that Trump has attacked them in a similar manner. Trump himself was shown to be a liar in his deposition. How do you keep forgetting all of those facts?

We are speaking of law, here.
In law there is no such a thing as "strawman argument" because the law is equal for all.

So there is no such a thing as applying the law just in the case A and not in the case B, even if the two cases are identical.
I kindly asked you to address my observation. Thank you.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is just the kind of disgusting mindset that allows actual rapists to avoid justice. For shame!

Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers. He has an awful track record already regarding his (lack of) respect for sexual boundaries.
The evidence was compelling enough to get a guilty verdict.
I won’t pretend that the US legal system is flawless. But this does seem to be a case that was “beyond reasonable doubt.”
You’re going to have to join reality and deal with it

I gave an example of how this law can enable liars and deceivers to get away with it.

Please...address my argument.
Thank you in advance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are speaking of law, here.
In law there is no such a thing as "strawman argument" because the law is equal for all.

So there is no such a thing as applying the law just in the case A and not in the case B, even if the two cases are identical.
I kindly asked you to address my observation. Thank you.

LOL!! Your argument was a strawman of what actually happened. That means that foolish argument failed. You need to deal with this case. Not a weak made up one of your own.

When you make weak comebacks like this you add evidence to the claims that you are not a jurist. In the US a lawyer would know far better to keep pushing a strawman once caught. They might try it to see if they can get away with it, but it is a very bad lawyer that keeps banging out the same old lost argument. They know that they would lose cases arguing that way.

 

[Estro Felino]

LOL!! Your argument was a strawman of what actually happened. That means that foolish argument failed. You need to deal with this case. Not a weak made up one of your own.

When you make weak comebacks like this you add evidence to the claims that you are not a jurist. In the US a lawyer would know far better to keep pushing a strawman once caught. They might try it to see if they can get away with it, but it is a very bad lawyer that keeps banging out the same old lost argument. They know that they would lose cases arguing that way.

I am a jurist.
The fact is that our law is much more rational, refined and fair than the Common Law systems.
For instance, in my country someone like OJ Simpson would have never been acquitted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave an example of how this law can enable liars and deceivers to get away with it.

Please...address my argument.
Thank you in advance.

No, you made a strawman argument since that is now what happened in this case. Yes, this would be a travesty if it is was just a "He said, she said" case. But we have corroboration of her rape by friends. Corroboration of this behavior by others that met him. And we have Trump shooting himself in the foot and admitting that Carroll was his type. He got caught lying under oath. In a court room they could have kept pressing and forced him to commit perjury or own up to the truth. That is why it was a wise move on Trump's lawyers part not to have him even in the courtroom.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, you made a strawman argument since that is now what happened in this case. Yes, this would be a travesty if it is was just a "He said, she said" case. But we have corroboration of her rape by friends.

Who can guarantee they are telling the truth?
You know...I can say that I slept with Leonardo Di Caprio on the day X of many years ago. My best friends will confirm, of course.
Does that make it true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a jurist.
The fact is that our law is much more rational, refined and fair than the Common Law systems.
For instance, in my country someone like OJ Simpson would have never been acquitted.

You keep contradicting that claim when you make irrational arguments. Nor is the US under a Common Law system. We are under legislative law. Our system grew out of Common Law but that has not been the case for well over a hundred years. In fact the Constitution pretty much ended Common Law. It is not to be found in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who can guarantee they are telling the truth?
You know...I can say that I slept with Leonardo Di Caprio on the day X of many years ago. My best friends will confirm, of course.
Does that make it true?

That is why one uses multiple witnesses. The accounts of three other woman that were attacked by Trump were used. There were even more, but those three were enough. Carroll's claims of telling friends was corroborated. Trump himself shot himself in the foot and showed that he was NOT honest. You keep trying to limit the claims to just Carroll and Trump and that is not the case. That is why your argument was a strawman argument. If it was just those two then you might be right. I almost said "would" but you cannot ignore the fact that Trump showed that he lied when he described Carroll.

Tell me, was there only testimony from Trump and Carroll in this trial?

 

[Nakosis]

With all due respect...wouldn't it better if he moved to Europe?

Since he is a fascist and a pig...the American politics would be better without him...

You want him for a neighbor?

 

[SomeRandom]

I gave an example of how this law can enable liars and deceivers to get away with it.

Please...address my argument.
Thank you in advance.

You mean apart from the fact that I don’t think the US court system relies exclusively on testament in legal cases of not just rape trials but even cases involving murder, theft etc. But okay whatever. Let’s say that’s all that’s needed. He said she said, right.
You do realise that if that were the case we’d have to throw out other legal cases based on your rather shallow objections, right?
Say someone wants revenge against their former boss. All they have to do is go up to a judge and tell them that said boss committed defamation of character. Bam! The boss is now faced with a criminal record for no other reason. At least according to how the US courts work in your example.

Should we just make defamation of character legal too? I mean just think of all those innocent folks with criminal records, apparently