• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Waltz family members are supporting Trump.

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Its relevant because she claimed it was.


Here's the deal sport.

I have never had anything stuck up my butt so its irrelevant for me to say what would etc if you had something stuck up your butt.

For some reason you find it relevant so I am guessing you are speaking from experience. But who knows.
Its not the first time you brought this up plus your times you brought up porn and masterbation.

Keep it to yourself.

This isn't rocket science, dude.

SZ was asking you about having someone put their fingers inside of you for a reason - because that is one of the details in the E. Jean Carroll case - Trump stuck his fingers inside her vagina.

The question is, do you think that's rape? Why or why not?
In order to try to make it relatable to you, it was asked of you, what would you think if someone stuck their fingers inside of you - as in, a similar thing happened to you that happened to E. Jean Carroll - what would you call it?

It's not that complicated.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
This was in response to, "That a group of people Walz has never seen, never spoken to, never met, and in fact never knew even existed until they try riding his coat tails for some news time is going to vote for Trump....

But hey, you keep grasping those straws.
It's really all you got."


Yes, really. Notice how you didn't address the facts of the matter,, like, at all, and instead brushed the poster off and called it a "desperate attempt at dismissal" instead?
It would seem you're the only one involved in "desperate dismissals" here.
Nope. They are his family members and that's the fact. Keep dismissing the facts of the matter. Doing great.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Nope. She said she couldn't remember or wasn't exactly sure if he actually put his penis inside of her - that's the point of contention. Not whether or not he pulled her dress up and her tights down. There is no lie there.

That part happened. He then inserted his fingers inside of her. I.e. He penetrated her vagina with his fingers.
What do you call that, if not rape?

"He penetrated her vagina with his fingers"

You don't know that. Only two people know what actually happened, her and Trump.
The jury took her word. That's that.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
"He penetrated her vagina with his fingers"

You don't know that. Only two people know what actually happened, her and Trump.
The jury took her word. That's that.

Not true. She had testimony from two friends, proof that Trump knew her quite well despite his current lies about it, and evidence of a pattern of behavior (other women's testimony of similar experiences and the Access Hollywood description of the behavior). Additionally, since it was a civil trial, the jury was not able to take into account his own sworn testimony in court. He didn't have a 5th amendment defense in a civil trial, but his refusal to defend against the charges counted against him. He did take the stand briefly after he had been found liable, but nobody found his testimony credible at that point.

Trump testifies in the E. Jean Carroll trial

 

We Never Know

No Slack
Not true. She had testimony from two friends, proof that Trump knew her quite well despite his current lies about it, and evidence of a pattern of behavior (other women's testimony of similar experiences and the Access Hollywood description of the behavior). Additionally, since it was a civil trial, the jury was not able to take into account his own sworn testimony in court. He didn't have a 5th amendment defense in a civil trial, but his refusal to defend against the charges counted against him. He did take the stand briefly after he had been found liable, but nobody found his testimony credible at that point.

Trump testifies in the E. Jean Carroll trial

Only two people know what actually happened, her and Trump. No one else was there. That's fact!
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Only two people know what actually happened, her and Trump. No one else was there. That's fact!

Yes, that and all of the other evidence, which included his unwillingness to face the jury and defend himself. Listen to the Access Hollywood tape again. He bragged about his ability to do just what he did to her. The man was only willing to go into a court and try to defend himself when he wanted to get the amount of the penalty reduced. That is all he cared about, because he knew that his supporters either wouldn't believe the verdict or wouldn't care about it.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
They are family members who have never met him.

That's a fact.

How much do your family members you've never met actually know about you?
Oopsy, looks like you're the one avoiding the pertinent facts here.
I would love to know them. If any are still out there.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
It isn’t just him. Democrats are changing parties or becoming independents because they have gone so far left that it is just a hop, skip and a jump into marxism. It is almost around the corner.

Would you be interested in a friendly attempt to pin down what you are claiming.

I know little about Marxism, but here's what Britannica has to say. I didn't even get to the end of it, it's incredibly complicated, and it appears there are lots of different versions of Marxism. We can use it as a reference, if you wish.


Now I'll give a short description of my own political position, which is well to the left of the Democratic party.

It's pretty much as practiced in the Scandinavian countries like Denmark. Single payer government run health care, generous paid vacations, long parental leave, strong representation of workers in the running of companies, government regulation to protect the public from the excesses of industry (and so on, you get the picture I hope) and a progressive taxation where the rich pay a lot more than the middle class, sufficient to fund all the benefits. It's what Americans loosely call "Socialism", though it's not the correct definition of course.

OK, if you want to, you can explain to me how I am "a hop, skip and a jump" away from Marxism. I ask because I don't feel that I am. Then we can discuss the Democratic party in the same way.
 
Top