The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: J-Man on August 12, 2020, 02:44:30 AM
-
Well have our first female President...
This really excites me. We come so far as a nation of fools. Send us more money please?
-
CNN is already reporting that Kamala will be ready if and when Biden "decides to step aside".
(https://i.imgur.com/TmIh6Ui.jpg)
-
Pence is also ready to step in if and when Trump steps aside.
What's your point?
-
Yeah, I feel like that's the expected duty of any Vice President. :-\
-
It's a rather absurd article advertisement. Clearly put forward as a selling point.
Joe is as old as Ronald Reagan was when Reagan left office. He has a declining mental state and struggles to string sentences together. Can you imagine Joe running again in four years if he’s not dead?
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1498608510765/biden-acknowledges-he-might-die-in-office-im-an-old-guy
Biden acknowledges he might die in office: 'I'm an old guy'
Joe Biden said that his vice president needs to be capable of being president because he is so old. 'I can think of at least eight women, at least four or five people of color, that I think are totally qualified to be vice president of the United States,' the former vice president, 77, said at a campaign event in Clinton, Iowa on Tuesday.
"I might die in office. Vote for me!"
-
It's a rather absurd article advertisement. Clearly put forward as a selling point.
Joe is as old as Ronald Reagan was when Reagan left office. He has a declining mental state and struggles to string sentences together. Can you imagine Joe running again in four years if he’s not dead?
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1498608510765/biden-acknowledges-he-might-die-in-office-im-an-old-guy
Biden acknowledges he might die in office: 'I'm an old guy'
Joe Biden said that his vice president needs to be capable of being president because he is so old. 'I can think of at least eight women, at least four or five people of color, that I think are totally qualified to be vice president of the United States,' the former vice president, 77, said at a campaign event in Clinton, Iowa on Tuesday.
"I might die in office. Vote for me!"
Trump is 3 years younger, rambles off topic, has issues with words above a 5th grade reading level, often gets common historical facts wrong, and never had a sharp mental state.
Not sure you really wanna be calling the pot black, Mr. Kettle.
-
Biden acknowledges he might die in office: 'I'm an old guy'
Joe Biden said that his vice president needs to be capable of being president because he is so old. 'I can think of at least eight women, at least four or five people of color, that I think are totally qualified to be vice president of the United States,' the former vice president, 77, said at a campaign event in Clinton, Iowa on Tuesday.
"I might die in office. Vote for me!"
Why does his replacement have to be a woman and why should they be black? His pandering is revolting. I hope latte slurping virtue hungry white Americans wake up and just vote GOP. Give the leftists the kick between the legs that the British gave to the Labour party last time out when they came over all identity politics and Marxist policies.
-
Joe is as old as Ronald Reagan was when Reagan left office. He has a declining mental state and struggles to string sentences together.
Have you read the OFFICIAL Whitehouse transcripts of what Trump says at his pressers and other news conferences?
It is first-rate, premier division, world-class gibberish.
Seriously.
The rest of the world looks at conservatives, republicans, folk like yourself and (for instance) Trump Junior throwing this insult at Biden and thinks "What the actual FECK are you talking about?", wondering in what parallel universe you think you're living in....
-
I mean, it goes both ways. At least Biden seems to be realistic about the possibility of his death, and tries to make sure the nation would be prepared for that eventuality. This strikes me as responsible. Both candidates look like they might drop dead tomorrow. One of them has a plan, the other has presidential health, believe me.
-
Joe is as old as Ronald Reagan was when Reagan left office. He has a declining mental state and struggles to string sentences together.
"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."
What am amazing orator...
-
Incorrect. Trump's speeches are typically coherent.
He speaks casually, and repiticiously, which loses context in print.
A linguist analyzed that speech and concluded that Trump was coherent and that it was not evidence of cognitive decline:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/06/opinion/trump-speech-mental-capacity.html
What Trump’s Speech Says About His Mental Fitness
By JOHN MCWHORTER
"As part of the discussion about Donald Trump’s lack of fitness for the presidency, some have argued that his linguistic capacities have worsened, suggesting significant cognitive decline.
...
Casual speech tends towards the repetitious, as we seek to indicate sincerity and make sure our meaning has gotten across. Mr. Trump, because he speaks casually, does a lot of repeating.
...
Real speech tends to be fundamentally subjective rather than objective, and is therefore decorated with what linguists call pragmatic words and constructions, expressing attitude rather than content
...
This passage also has a kind of coherence. Mr. Trump starts out addressing the nuclear deal with Iran, but then interjects some insights about his elevated qualifications for discussing the subject and his resentment of a purportedly biased media that forces him to mention them – and then he does get back to the nuclear subject. Elegant? No, but not demented, either. Facial expression and context, which print obscures, made Mr. Trump’s meaning clear.
...
The difference between the younger man talking in sentences and the older one talking in vocal ejaculations is evidence not of decline but authenticity – he has settled into his normal. Late in life an artless man has learned that he could leave his linguistic fly unzipped and life would go on. It may not be pretty, but it isn't a sign that his pants are going to fall down.
...
John McWhorter is a linguist, an associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia, the author of books like “Words on the Move,” and host of Slate’s language podcast “Lexicon Valley.”
-
Incorrect.
About what? I wasn't stating an opinion, it was a transcript of what I'll charitably call a "speech".
I wonder what you'd have made of it had it been Biden rambling like that...
-
About what? I wasn't stating an opinion, it was a transcript of what I'll charitably call a "speech".
I wonder what you'd have made of it had it been Biden rambling like that...
Since Trump is speaking casually and repiticiosuly you would need to watch the entire speech to see if it is actually coherent and makes sense or not. The linguist did and gave it a pass, explaining that this is how people talk in casual, real speech.
-
repiticiosuly
Maybe Trump just makes you feel better?
-
About what? I wasn't stating an opinion, it was a transcript of what I'll charitably call a "speech".
I wonder what you'd have made of it had it been Biden rambling like that...
Since Trump is speaking casually and repiticiosuly you would need to watch the entire speech to see if it is actually coherent and makes sense or not. The linguist did and gave it a pass, explaining that this is how people talk in casual, real speech.
How did you feel about the recent interview where challenged about the death stats from Covid Trump said
"Well, right here United States is lower in numerous categories. We're lower than the world".
Lower than...the world...
Hmm.
-
Linguist consultants of the liberal media seem to be giving him a pass.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/07/this-linguist-studied-the-way-trump-speaks-for-two-years-heres-what-she-found/
This linguist studied the way Trump speaks for two years. Here’s what she found.
Jennifer Sclafani, a linguist at Georgetown University, says President Trump is a “unique” politician because he doesn’t speak like one.
“Great people.” “Believe me.” “Not good.”
These two-word expressions are among some of the staples of the 45th president of the United States’ vocabulary. Although President Trump’s political career is just a few years old, he has already become associated with several simple phrases — “make America great again,” “build the wall” — and even single words — “win,” “sad,” “great.”
Trump is a “unique” politician because he doesn’t speak like one, according to Jennifer Sclafani, an associate teaching professor in Georgetown University’s Department of Linguistics.
“He is interesting to me linguistically because he speaks like everybody else,” said Sclafani, who has studied Trump’s language for the past two years. “And we’re not used to hearing that from a president. We’re used to hearing somebody speak who sounds much more educated, much smarter, much more refined than your everyday American.”
During a February news conference, Trump seemed to give credit to the power of his words for helping him become president.
“That’s how I won,” Trump told reporters gathered at the White House. “I won with news conference and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people, that’s for sure.”
Sclafani, who recently wrote a book set to publish this fall titled “Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and Political Identity,” said Trump has used language to “create a brand” as a politician.
“President Trump creates a spectacle in the way that he speaks,” she said. “So it creates a feeling of strength for the nation, or it creates a sense of determination, a sense that he can get the job done through his use of hyperbole and directness.”
The features of Trump’s speech patterns include a casual tone, a simple vocabulary and grammar, repetitions, hyperbole and sudden switches of topics, according to Sclafani.
“When we hear ‘well’ coming from other candidates, we’re more likely to perceive their responses as being dodgy,” she said. “And when we hear no ‘well’ from Donald Trump, we don’t notice that there is no ‘well’ there, but by contrast he comes off as sounding more straightforward and more direct.”
During a 2015 rally in South Carolina, Trump explained how he feels about his vocabulary.
“I know words,” he said. “I have the best words.”
It's probably part of why he won. He clearly seems to be speaking from a stream of consciousness and being honest with us, rather than giving constructed pre-prepared statements. Simple and direct statements also have the potential to be more powerful than complex ones.
-
First-hand encounter with Biden;
https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/trump-beats-biden-mangling-words
"Sure, Irish American Biden makes verbal gaffes, but he has been making them for years, nothing related to age. I have known him for decades and every time he asks me how the Irish Times is going, but he is razor-sharp when it counts.
We fairly recently inducted him into the Irish America Hall of Fame. He stayed for two hours and spoke to everyone in the room. He is as good a retail politician as I have seen even in his mid-seventies."
-
being honest with us
Heh. Come on, dude. Now you're just being silly.
When he talks it is a meandering stream of consciousness but it's not honest. It's mostly lies about his own achievements.
-
being honest with us
Heh. Come on, dude. Now you're just being silly.
When he talks it is a meandering stream of consciousness but it's not honest. It's mostly lies about his own achievements.
Sounds like TDS to me. Writers at the liberal Washington Post, which disparages Trump's victory even at the top of their page, have said that "Trump could be the most honest president in modern history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html)"
"when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty. For better or worse, since taking office Trump has done exactly what he promised he would."
Another article says "Trump is the King of Lies" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-king-of-lies/2020/07/23/b9a52fb0-cd02-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html)
"The president is a bold, intentional liar, by any moral definition. A habitual liar. A blatant liar. An instinctual liar. A reckless liar. An ignorant liar. A pathological liar. A hopeless liar. A gratuitous liar. A malevolent liar."
Uh huh. Two views from the same liberal newspaper. The TDS sufferers are clearly assuming facts, interpret things they disagree with as lies, and seeing things as they want to see them.
-
There is plenty of evidence that Trump has enacted his numerous policies, shitty and otherwise, as well as being a narcissistic liar. These are not mutually exclusive.
-
Sounds like TDS to me.
This is always the lazy response from people like you who are suffering from a different type of TDS where you actually can't admit that anything Trump does or says is wrong, and just don't seem to care that he constantly lies to you.
The article you posted says:
Don’t get me wrong, Trump lies all the time. He said that he “enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history” (actually they are the eighth largest) and that “our economy is the strongest it’s ever been in the history of our country” (which may one day be true, but not yet). In part, it’s a New York thing — everything is the biggest and the best.
You "accidentally" left that bit out, I notice.
So no, not two different views, they're talking about two different things.
I will say one thing, which is what that first article is saying, Trump does do what he says he's going to do, or tries to.
And in some ways that is refreshing, although it's not something I'm pleased about because I disagree with most of his policies.
But to say that he's honest is laughable, he lies constantly. Do you honestly not see that or do you just not care?
-
Writers at the liberal Washington Post, which disparages Trump's victory even at the top of their page, have said that "Trump could be the most honest president in modern history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html)"
.. .and the very next sentence in the article says "Don’t get me wrong, Trump lies all the time. " and states he's only honest in terms of executing policies he said he would (or trying to). The article describes this as the "barometer of presidential truthfullness", but ... it's not. Not really.
-
Writers at the liberal Washington Post, which disparages Trump's victory even at the top of their page, have said that "Trump could be the most honest president in modern history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html)"
.. .and the very next sentence in the article says "Don’t get me wrong, Trump lies all the time. " and states he's only honest in terms of executing policies he said he would (or trying to). The article describes this as the "barometer of presidential truthfullness", but ... it's not. Not really.
And only honest at that to things he didn't lie about.
Remember his awesome health care plan he claimed had which turned out to be... having no idea what to do?
So he is good at carrying out the plans he isn't lying about. Good luck knowing which is which ahead of time.
He also said he would release his tax returns. Liar.
He also said if he was elected he would be too busy to golf. Liar.
-
The example given about "biggest tax cuts and reforms" would just be being incorrect about something. Or possibly some interpretation that it was the biggest based on the details of what was actually done. Maybe someone thinks one variable matters more than another to count as best. Not truly a lie, in either case.
And the author suggests that those don't matter.
The author says:
But whether one agrees or disagrees is not the point. When Trump says he will do something, you can take it to the bank. Yes, he takes liberties with the truth. But unlike his predecessor, he did not pass his signature legislative achievement on the basis of a lie (“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it ”) — which is clearly worse than falsely bragging that your tax cut is the biggest ever.
Liberties with the "truth" is really just one's interpretation of the truth, and not really a lie if it disagrees with your interpretation. Implying that a particular person is a criminal isn't a lie. Being wrong about something isn't a lie. You just disagree with his interpretation.
Calling himself the best can technically have some truth value to it, which is why it is legal for a business to call itself the 'x town's best sandwich shop' without running afoul of false advertising laws. Someone might think that. Two different restaurant review periodicals might say that about different restaurants in the same city.
Point is that the main meter is that Trump says he will do something and Trump does it. A truthful, reliable President.
Remember his awesome health care plan he claimed had which turned out to be... having no idea what to do?
So he is good at carrying out the plans he isn't lying about. Good luck knowing which is which ahead of time.
He also said he would release his tax returns. Liar.
He also said if he was elected he would be too busy to golf. Liar.
Trump said that he wanted to release his tax returns before he ran for president. He later said that his lawyers recommended against it. I don't see the lie.
The golf one is just deception on part of those critics. That Trump-Golf website counts every time he goes to his Florida home that has a golf course as golfing. It is unclear how often he actually golfs. Trump is seen golfing with politicians and world leaders anyway, and that can count as working if they are discussing political things. Trump is otherwise allowed to have a weekend, and may have meant taking time off to golf like Obama.
Trump constantly talks about the health care plan he's working on. Liberal media says it's not fast enough. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-obamacare-promise/2020/08/01/856ce250-d348-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html Didn't arrive on time according to estimates so it's a "lie".
Pretty weak lies.
-
“He lies, sure, but hey they aren’t important lies.”
-Tom Bishop referring to someone he likes.
-
Those lies were pretty weak. It is not clear that Trump was being deceptive.
Here is real deception:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUGlqIlRyjE
Talk about splitting hairs on the definition of “being tested”.
-
Remember his awesome health care plan he claimed had which turned out to be... having no idea what to do?
So he is good at carrying out the plans he isn't lying about. Good luck knowing which is which ahead of time.
He also said he would release his tax returns. Liar.
He also said if he was elected he would be too busy to golf. Liar.
Trump said that he wanted to release his tax returns before he ran for president. He later said that his lawyers recommended against it. I don't see the lie.
The golf one is just deception. That Trump-Golf website counts every time he goes to his Florida home that has a golf course as golfing. It is unclear how often he actually golfs.Trump is seen golfing with politicians anyway, and that can count as working if they are discussing political things. Trump is otherwise allowed to have a weekend, and may have meant taking time off to golf like Obama.
Trump constantly talks about the health care plan he's working on. Liberal media says it's not fast enough. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-obamacare-promise/2020/08/01/856ce250-d348-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html Didn't arrive on time according to estimates so it's a "lie".
Pretty weak lies.
2014: “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely”
He didn't produce them. He lied. He claims his lawyers told him not to, which could be another lie, who knows with him.
2016: “If I win I may never see my property — I may never see these places again. But because I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me, folks.”
Yeah. How many days has he been golfing now? It's nearing 300 isn't it? He's not allowed to golf if he promised not to. Believe him! Or not, because it was a lie.
As for health care, he promised he had a great plan when he campaigned. Everyone would be taken care of. When asked details he never provided any. He had two years with control of the Senate and the House and his plan was... nothing. Just left it up to Republicans in Congress to come up with something which of course, they didn't. If he had a plan, surely he would have told us about it by now. At least even a little detail? No. He just lied about it.
How about when he claimed he had investigators looking into Obama in Hawaii and they found stuff that would be revealed shortly, and then nothing, because it was all made up.
“I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump told host Meredith Vieira.
“You have people now down there searching, I mean in Hawaii?” she asked.
“Absolutely,” he replied. “And they cannot believe what they’re finding.”
The guy lies constantly. Daily.
-
2014: “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely”
He didn't produce them. He lied. He claims his lawyers told him not to, which could be another lie, who knows with him
There is your problem. You didn't establish deception, that he was insincere about wanting to release them. You just called it a lie.
Trump took a cognitive test, as popularly reported. When Biden was asked if his cognition was being tested he said yes. His handlers later clarified and argued that he was being tested every day in life. Clear deception.
-
2014: “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely”
He didn't produce them. He lied. He claims his lawyers told him not to, which could be another lie, who knows with him
There is your problem. You didn't establish deception, that he was insincere about wanting to release them. You just called it a lie.
He said he would produce them. He then decided not to. Not sure what you call that other than a lie. Breaking a promise?
-
Trump recently claimed to pass a bill that no other president was able to get passed. Except Obama passed it. When confronted about it he tried to move on to another reporter. When the reporter insisted he address the evident falsehood, he abruptly ended the press conference and walked off to YMCA. How scrupulously honest.
Trump has lied numerous times about his knowledge and belief in the seriousness of the pandemic most of which is captured on video. It’s astonishingly naive (at best) to believe this is an honest man.
-
Trump has lied numerous times about his knowledge and belief in the seriousness of the pandemic most of which is captured on video. It’s astonishingly naive (at best) to believe this is an honest man.
WaPo is keeping score:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
-
There is plenty of evidence that Trump has enacted his numerous policies, shitty and otherwise, as well as being a narcissistic liar. These are not mutually exclusive.
^ This.
You can try really hard to build a wall and have mexico oay for it while lying about how you did the most of any president ever.
-
I don't see any evidence that deception has been established.
Trump could simply be incorrect about the things you interpret as "lies." But it is more likely that Trump is correct in a way in which you are unaware. He does have a team of people in the Whitehouse feeding him information.
Show me something like the Biden example, where there is clear deception involved.
-
Trump's record as a liar is extremely well-established. Sycophants like Tom only exist to try to convince the drooling masses too stupid to think for themselves otherwise.
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money.html
There ya go.
We know that he knew. His lawyer spilled those beans.
-
This is interesting
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-53754294
Interesting because here Biden is talking perfectly fluently. Probably reading it, but still. If you listen to Trump's rhetoric - and that from his little sheep followers like Tom who lap up everything Trump says - Biden is not actually capable of talking like this, on script or not.
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
I mean, sure, you can explain away anything and you regularly do.
The mental gymnastics you try and do in order to keep finding no fault in Trump really is incredible.
You've been shown plenty of Trump's lies already. I like this one a lot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kew_ZYnUyg
I like it because it shows the way he lies. He lies like a child lies.
The sequence of events was he Tweeted something about the hurricane hitting Alabama, which was incorrect.
The weather service quickly corrected him, reassuring residents of Alabama that the hurricane wasn't going to hit them.
So far, so reasonable. Trump probably made an honest mistake, and that's OK. I mean, one could argue that the President of the United States should do a bit of fact checking before tweeting something which could alarm residents of a state which didn't need to worry about this, but mistakes happen.
So what was Trump's reaction? Was it to correct himself and apologise for the mix up? No, because it's Trump. And Trump cannot be wrong about anything, even when he is.
So instead he doubles down, even bringing out a map that shows the predicted path of the hurricane which has clearly been doctored to include the state of Alabama.
It's kinda funny and a bit terrifying that you have someone in the White House who lies like that.
My niece tells a story of babysitting a friends' kids. She saw one shove another over and said to the one who did the shoving "What did you do that for?".
The kid replied "Didn't!" despite the fact that my niece had literally just watched him do it and the kid knew that she saw him.
That's how Trump lies.
He lied about the inauguration crowd.
Several times he has lied about his father being born in Germany.
He routinely lies about how much he knows about things (I know more about <x> than anyone, is a common pattern)
Most people grow out of this sort of lying, he just hasn't. It's weird behaviour from an adult. It's why he's not taken seriously on the world stage
The other world leaders at the UN literally laughed at him when he boasted about how much he'd achieved.
I don't understand why you don't care about this. I found this which I thought was interesting:
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2020/02/its-hard-to-understand-trump-supporters-willingness-to-excuse-his-blatant-falsehoods/
He talks about people who know Trump is lying to them all the time but basically like his policies so put up with it. But then he writes about people like you:
I worry more about those, presumably most of his supporters, who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the lying. It’s frightening. It’s cultish. It’s 1984-ish.
And he's right, it is. It's doublethink. You see him blatantly lying about things but somehow manage to convince yourself that he isn't.
-
I don't see any evidence that deception has been established. Trump could simply be incorrect about the things you interpret as "lies."
"In 1,267 days, President Trump has made 20,055 false or misleading claims" says the Wash Post.
In what other position of authority would an average of approx. 20 lies, misleading or INCORRECT statements PER DAY be tolerated?
-
"In 1,267 days, President Trump has made 20,055 false or misleading claims" says the Wash Post.
In what other position of authority would an average of approx. 20 lies, misleading or INCORRECT statements PER DAY be tolerated?
Lawyer.
PR representative.
Salesman.
Estate agent.
Priest.
Oh and journalist. Where did you get that stat from again?
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money.html
There ya go.
We know that he knew. His lawyer spilled those beans.
Trump's lawyer said that Trump didn't know and that he did it on his own:
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-trump.html
Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, said on Tuesday that he had paid $130,000 out of his own pocket to a pornographic-film actress who had once claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.
In the most detailed explanation of the 2016 payment made to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, Mr. Cohen, who worked as a counsel to the Trump Organization for more than a decade, said he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or the campaign for the payment.
“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times
The article then states that people started hounding Cohen because the payment could classify as a campaign contribution:
Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause, which contended that the payment, made through a limited liability company that Mr. Cohen established, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.
And if we look at a timeline of events, looking for the part where Cohen flips and admits that it was not his own contribution -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal
December 12, 2018: Cohen was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, in part for having paid $130,000 hush money (characterized in the charges as an "excessive campaign contribution") to Daniels during Trump's election campaign.[120][121]
So Cohen was contending that he did it on his own as a contribution up to the end. He was even sentenced to imprisonment for an "excessive campaign contribution" while maintaining this claim!
It's not clear that it was not Cohen's own illegal contribution, and that Cohen willingly went to jail over something that was false. Sounds a bit extreme to maintain on your end. It certainly is possible that Trump was being truthful that he did not know, and it was something that Cohen primarily orchistrated and went to jail over.
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.
Yes, because you are often wrong about your interpretation of the facts.
-
Any lie can be true, from a certain point of view.
Like when Anakin was killed by Darth Vader.
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment
The link says: "On Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump "didn't know the specifics of it [the payment to Daniels], but he did know the general arrangement. That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds, or whatever funds, doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months."
That could just mean "Some people are making claims against you." "Okay, you're my lawyer, handle it."
Trump doesn't necessarily know about the details he was asked about.
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.
Yes, because you are often wrong about your interpretation of the facts.
Absolutely. One thing I can give you I guess is that Trump is often wrong about his interpretation of facts. But this argument isn't about whether or not Trump is an idiot, it's about whether or not he's a liar, of which we both know there are many examples. Focus!
-
Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.
"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.
Heh. Yeah, I noticed that. Smacks of the "alternative facts" nonsense.
The alternative to a fact is something which isn't true!
-
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/fact-check-jonathan-swan-axios-hbo-interview-trump-coronavirus/index.html
Here's a great example of a very recent lie Trump told. In his interview with Swan Trump insisted that experts say you can "test too much", referring to the coronavirus. When pressed on who says that Trump says "manuals, books" but can't be more specific than that. Because no real experts are saying you can test too much, an utterly ridiculous and self-serving statement he made because he doesn't like doing all this testing because it exposes more cases.
And that was, what, a week or two ago?
So there you go, a deception where Trump was clearly not wrong or (snicker) "correct in an alternative way". Just a pure, bald-faced, self-serving lie of the type he's told numerous times during his presidency.
I look forward to laughing at Tom's justification for this.
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment
The link says: "On Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump "didn't know the specifics of it [the payment to Daniels], but he did know the general arrangement. That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds, or whatever funds, doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months."
That could just mean "Some people are making claims against you." "Okay, you're my lawyer, handle it."
Trump doesn't necessarily know about the details he was asked about.
So either Trump doesn't care to know the details(which is uncharacteristic of him) or Guliani is lying to protect his client.
Also, Trump's own tweets contradict that he didn't know anything about it.
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment
The link says: "On Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump "didn't know the specifics of it [the payment to Daniels], but he did know the general arrangement. That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds, or whatever funds, doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months."
That could just mean "Some people are making claims against you." "Okay, you're my lawyer, handle it."
Trump doesn't necessarily know about the details he was asked about.
So either Trump doesn't care to know the details(which is uncharacteristic of him) or Guliani is lying to protect his client.
Also, Trump's own tweets contradict that he didn't know anything about it.
After 10 years working for Trump Cohen may have more independence and autonomous power than realized. If you are a billionaire there are probably always people trying to bring claims against you or your companies. There is probably a legal budget somewhere, like how Congress has a legal budget for claims against senators.
Cohen may have known that his firm was going to get reimbursed eventually and Trump may not have known about this particular payment at the time he was questioned. If you read into this Cohen is making some similar deals with other people. Daniels also claims that Trump didn't sign the confidentiality agreement, and so that's why she is free to speak about it without legal risk.
https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/07/trump-didnt-sign-agreement-stormy-daniels/
Why Trump Didn’t Sign Agreement with Stormy Daniels
Michael Avenatti, attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, told the Today Show why he thinks Donald Trump didn’t sign the confidentiality agreement with his client.
Said Avenatti: “There were three parties to the agreement…two of the three signed. Mr. Trump did not sign. We believe that was so that he could later claim deniability, and therefore, from a legal perspective, we believe she’s free to talk.”
So Trump didn't even sign the agreement. This strengthens the suggestion that he didn't even know about the payment. Someone clearly dropped the ball somewhere if a payment was made, but the documents weren't fully signed. The person that didn't sign is the same person who said that he didn't know about the payment.
It's somewhat tenuous to suggest that Trump wanted the agreement, payed the money, but also wanted plausible deniability, and so left the confidentiality agreement incomplete. Pretty sure that is not legally advisable. That's just another logical loop that we need to justify to support your view.
Trump's original answer that he didn't know about the particular payment and they would need to talk to his lawyer to get more details. Why not take him at his word? I'm sure he at least knew about the allegations in general, and probably that something was being done about it like Giuliani said. I don't see why I have to assume all this stuff about Trump maliciously not signing the agreement and Cohen going to jail for "excessive campaign contributions" to fulfill this Trump = Liar fantasy going on.
-
Why not take Trump at his word? Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women. He has recently also tried to push through policies the supreme court has ruled against, so why should we be surprised that he ignores his personal lawyer's advice? In fact, from what is known about Trump's behaviour, his actions in the Stormy Daniel's settlement seem entirely likely.
-
Why not take Trump at his word? Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women. He has recently also tried to push through policies the supreme court has ruled against, so why should we be surprised that he ignores his personal lawyer's advice? In fact, from what is known about Trump's behaviour, his actions in the Stormy Daniel's settlement seem entirely likely.
I don't think it's entirely likely that Trump would not sign the documents for the confidentiality agreement and that Cohen would go to jail for "excessive campaign contributions" if Trump was really directly orchestrating this himself.
The problem is that you are automatically assuming that Trump is lying about everything he says, and must create this elaborate fantasy around his simple statement that he didn't know about it and that his lawyer should be consulted. It appears to be a rule that Trump = Bad.
If Trump lies so much, there must be something that clearly shows deception. It is really rather absurd to claim that someone can constantly lie all day without being able to show this deception outside of your assumptions of whether he is correct or not.
-
Why not take Trump at his word? Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.
Trumped talked about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Biden grabbed a woman by her pussy.
Its like you have total amnesia when it is your own candidate behaving deplorably.
Even his new VP thinks he's a rapist.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/11/flashback-kamala-harris-said-she-believed-bidens-rape-accusers/
What a shit show. 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!
-
Because no real experts are saying you can test too much
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-does-the-coronavirus-test-work
Does everyone really need to be tested?
Realistically, it isn't feasible to test everyone who is sick in the US. Therefore, most health officials believe it is important to prioritize the testing of people who need it the most: those at high risk such as health care workers who have been in contact with COVID-19 patients; symptomatic people in areas with high infection rates; and people 65 years of age and older with chronic health issues, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes. Does everyone really need to be tested?
Statnews - We need smart coronavirus testing, not just more testing (https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/24/we-need-smart-coronavirus-testing-not-just-more-testing/)
By Farzad Mostashari, MD and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD
To know if Covid-19 is getting better or worse, we need to know how the percentage of positive cases — not the number — changes day by day, accounting for delays in testing and reporting and how the percentages change in response to public health measures such as sheltering-in-place or suppression. This will tell us how effective these measures are in curtailing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and thus whether when social restrictions could be relaxed or additional policies might need to be implemented.
European Society of Cardiology - Diagnosing the first COVID-19 patient in Italy – Codogno, Italy (https://www.escardio.org/Education/COVID-19-and-Cardiology/diagnosing-the-first-covid-19-patient-in-italy-codogno)
Dr. Annalisa Malara
When it came to testing, we started with the patient’s family and everyone who had been in contact with him. In the hospital, we tested patients who had been near him in the emergency room and the ward. After four days, we then tested all the doctors and nurses. Now we only test people with symptoms because the numbers are too high to check everyone. Mass testing slows down results for people who really need them, and the swab gives a lot of false negatives – possibly around 20%.
See the bolded above. You may be merely calling Trump a liar based on your own misunderstandings.
-
Why not take Trump at his word? Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.
Trumped talked about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Biden grabbed a woman by her pussy.
Its like you have total amnesia when it is your own candidate behaving deplorably.
Even his new VP thinks he's a rapist.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/11/flashback-kamala-harris-said-she-believed-bidens-rape-accusers/
What a shit show. 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!
He isn’t my candidate so don’t make up shit. Also, Trump has had multiple allegations of sexual impropriety up to possibly raping his ex-wife and definitely talking about how hot his daughter is on live television. It’s far beyond the “Grab them by the pussy” comment.
Remember when you were criticizing people for being involved in foreign politics? Nice integrity.
-
Why not take Trump at his word? Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.
Trumped talked about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Biden grabbed a woman by her pussy.
Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by well over a dozen women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations). I can't imagine the level of mental contortion it takes to believe Trump and assume that every single one of these women are lying. One or two women could absolutely be lying or otherwise not credible. But this many? When has that ever happened? Trump is not the only controversial politician in the world. Lying women didn't come out of the woodwork in droves to try and take down, say, Boris Johnson. Just how likely is that all these women are lying rather than Trump most likely having raped or assaulted at least a few of them?
And because there are a few people here who don't see - or refuse to see - the distinction, I must stress once again that this is not a suggestion that we skip the trial and lock Trump up forever. It's a suggestion that you, not a cop, not a judge, just an adult with common sense who has every right to make personal moral judgments about what other people have or haven't done in the past, compare the likelihood that Trump has probably engaged in sexual misconduct in the past with the likelihood that all these women have chosen to publicly lie about it.
-
Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by well over a dozen women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations).
It continues to be the case that very few of these allegations went particularly far. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many people make unsubstantiated accusations about the bad man you don't like. They remain unsubstantiated, and the decent thing to do is to presume Trump's innocence until these totally sincere women choose to present some evidence for their claims.
-
I suspect Trump probably has behaved badly. He's a billionaire. And I'd guess many of these women put him in that position because women are greedy and they like nice gifts.
I don't have a problem with it. I honestly don't care. If you put yourself in a position where a billionaire can Th*rk you, you'll get what is coming to you. Its not like he's out in the woods doing this. These women are visiting his hotels, meeting him in Trump Tower, riding in his limos and using his concierge services. I honestly have little sympathy for them. They were social climbing.
But you can't say Biden hasn't done that too. Or that Trump is bad and its a black mark on him when his opposite number did the same thing. They cancel out in my head. Both as bad as each other. So stop throwing the accusation at Trump, pretending that Biden has been any better. He hasn't. I don't want to hear "Trump is a misogynist". So what? So is Biden. Both get a minus point, move on and focus on what separates them as candidates.
-
Because no real experts are saying you can test too much
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-does-the-coronavirus-test-work
Does everyone really need to be tested?
Realistically, it isn't feasible to test everyone who is sick in the US. Therefore, most health officials believe it is important to prioritize the testing of people who need it the most: those at high risk such as health care workers who have been in contact with COVID-19 patients; symptomatic people in areas with high infection rates; and people 65 years of age and older with chronic health issues, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes. Does everyone really need to be tested?
Statnews - We need smart coronavirus testing, not just more testing (https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/24/we-need-smart-coronavirus-testing-not-just-more-testing/)
By Farzad Mostashari, MD and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD
To know if Covid-19 is getting better or worse, we need to know how the percentage of positive cases — not the number — changes day by day, accounting for delays in testing and reporting and how the percentages change in response to public health measures such as sheltering-in-place or suppression. This will tell us how effective these measures are in curtailing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and thus whether when social restrictions could be relaxed or additional policies might need to be implemented.
European Society of Cardiology - Diagnosing the first COVID-19 patient in Italy – Codogno, Italy (https://www.escardio.org/Education/COVID-19-and-Cardiology/diagnosing-the-first-covid-19-patient-in-italy-codogno)
Dr. Annalisa Malara
When it came to testing, we started with the patient’s family and everyone who had been in contact with him. In the hospital, we tested patients who had been near him in the emergency room and the ward. After four days, we then tested all the doctors and nurses. Now we only test people with symptoms because the numbers are too high to check everyone. Mass testing slows down results for people who really need them, and the swab gives a lot of false negatives – possibly around 20%.
See the bolded above. You may be merely calling Trump a liar based on your own misunderstandings.
Saying you need to prioritize testing is perfectly reasonable and not at all the same as saying it's possible to test too much. I knew the degree you'd have to reach to try to justify this would be hysterical and you truly didn't disappoint. ;D
-
More testing may cause slower results for those who need them, we may need a percentage not a number, some people need to be prioritized rather than needing to test everyone who asks or mass-test. It's not a given that there inherently needs to be more testing. You were incorrect about what "no experts think".
-
Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by well over a dozen women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations).
It continues to be the case that very few of these allegations went particularly far. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many people make unsubstantiated accusations about the bad man you don't like. They remain unsubstantiated, and the decent thing to do is to presume Trump's innocence until these totally sincere women choose to present some evidence for their claims.
Innocent until proven guilty is how the legal system sees people, and that's how it should be.
It doesn't apply here though. Here the public is trying to decide who best to represent them and lead them. We have no way of forcing the truth, we can't hold a trial or issue a subpoena so we have to judge character with the evidence we have.
And we have a lot of evidence that Trump is a terrible person when it comes to women. How he treated his multiple wives, the things he's said, the multiple women who were paid off, all the allegations.
To me it's pretty clear the guy is a terrible person. Even if you just stick to the things he's done legally, they show his character to be horrible.
Obama was just as reviled, if not more by the right and we didn't see a dozen women accusing him or him paying them off.
President Clinton did have a number of credible accusers, and I don't think he was fit to be President either. He didn't break a law with what he did to that blue dress, but he certainly crossed a moral line.
A conviction for sexual assault isn't required for someone to be unfit to be a leader. To me, Trump's behaviors even without the accusations are enough to give him the boot.
-
Let me clarify my position. I am not suggesting that Trump is a good person. I also agree that he's likely unfit for any position of leadership. It is, however, my opinion that (even in casual discussion, far from any legal implications) it's ethically questionable to call someone a rapist just because multiple people made allegations to that effect. My suggestion would be to call him a horrible misogynist, but to stop short of calling him a sexual abuser.
-
Obama was just as reviled, if not more by the right and we didn't see a dozen women accusing him or him paying them off.
- Obama wasn't a billionaire
- There wasn't a massive media hate campaign against Obama
- A single hate filled democrat organization can incite woman DT met with allure of a payoff; the one in this thread was a porn star who does stuff for money
- You inherently assume that conservative women are equally repugnant
- You are assuming that the theory of Michelle Obama being a man and Obama homosexual is untrue
President Clinton did have a number of credible accusers, and I don't think he was fit to be President either. He didn't break a law with what he did to that blue dress, but he certainly crossed a moral line.
Lying under oath is a crime.
-
- You are assuming that the theory of Michelle Obama being a man and Obama homosexual is untrue
Are you saying it is true? That MO has a pair of conkers between her(his) legs?
-
Let me clarify my position. I am not suggesting that Trump is a good person. I also agree that he's likely unfit for any position of leadership. It is, however, my opinion that (even in casual discussion, far from any legal implications) it's ethically questionable to call someone a rapist just because multiple people made allegations to that effect. My suggestion would be to call him a horrible misogynist, but to stop short of calling him a sexual abuser.
Rape is a worse crime than murder in my, and many peoples opinion, so I would have to agree it isn't a label one should use lightly.
So I can't claim it's a fact that he has sexually abused women, but it's certainly my personal belief he has.
I'll stick with horrible misogynist and suspected sexual abuser for what to call him.
-
- You are assuming that the theory of Michelle Obama being a man and Obama homosexual is untrue
Wot?
Excuse me but even if that WAS true... what does it have to do with anything?
How is that even remotely related to what we have been discussing?
I find this particular right wing conspiracy theory to be in extremely bad taste and highly offensive on many levels.
-
Rape is a worse crime than murder in my, and many peoples opinion.
What? How on earth did you get to that conclusion?
Who are these other peoples?
You can get over being raped. You aren't ever going to get over being murdered. What a stupid comment.
-
Rape is a worse crime than murder in my, and many peoples opinion.
What? How on earth did you get to that conclusion?
Who are these other peoples?
You can get over being raped. You aren't ever going to get over being murdered. What a stupid comment.
Two guys get into a drunken bar fight and one dies, that's murder. That person in my opinion is less evil than someone who would grab a woman in a back alley and forcibly rape her.
You can have your opinion, I can have mine.
-
- You are assuming that the theory of Michelle Obama being a man and Obama homosexual is untrue
Wot?
Excuse me but even if that WAS true... what does it have to do with anything?
You implied that there were no sex rumors about Obama. There are. There are claims that he was involved in the gay bar and bathhouse scene, and that he is hiding it. It would follow that he's not around many women who can even claim to have met him. There is also one about Michelle Obama's sexuality, and that their children were really adopted. Not that there is anything wrong about gay or transsexual people.
May be non-credible, but you are listing out non-credible allegations, so there are some allegations you can look into.
I find this particular right wing conspiracy theory to be in extremely bad taste and highly offensive on many levels.
You can talk about the allegations that exist with Trump but I can't talk about the allegations that exist with Obama?
-
You can have your opinion, I can have mine.
You've got a 5 year old daughter. She is snatched and dragged to the woods. Would you prefer the guy rapes her and you get her back, or she gets murdered?
Its not even close. Murder is the ultimate crime in every civilised nation. Rape is always a lesser crime.
If I went to prison, I don't want to get raped. But I sure as hell don't want to get murdered. The two are not the same. Live goes on after rape.
-
- You are assuming that the theory of Michelle Obama being a man and Obama homosexual is untrue
Wot?
Excuse me but even if that WAS true... what does it have to do with anything?
You claimed that there were no sex rumors about Obama. There are. There is a claim that he was involved in the gay bar and bathhouse scene, and that he is hiding it. It would follow that he's not around many women who can even claim to have met him. There is also one about Michelle Obama's sexuality, and that their children were really adopted. Not that there is anything wrong about gay or transsexual people.
May be non-credible, but you are listing out non-credible allegations, so there are some allegations you can look into.
I said no such thing.
I said there were no allegations by women, in the context of allegations of sexual abuse, and you know it.
My point was Obama was hated too, and we don't see a dozen women accusing him of sexual abuse. Plenty of people are hated, and don't have a dozen accusers. The fact that Trump does *IS* indeed evidence. You can't claim it's just because 'liberals' hate him, because there is plenty of hate to go around.
I'm glad you stated there is nothing wrong with being gay, because rumors like that are ALL about painting being gay as some terrible sin. It's why people spread awful homophobic rumors like that in the first place. I'm sad to see people spreading it here too.
-
I'll stick with horrible misogynist and suspected sexual abuser for what to call him.
Sounds fair to me. I'd point out that him being a suspected abuser is not a disqualifying factor in isolation, but it's not like it's the only thing going against Trump.
-
You can have your opinion, I can have mine.
You've got a 5 year old daughter. She is snatched and dragged to the woods. Would you prefer the guy rapes her and you get her back, or she gets murdered?
Its not even close. Murder is the ultimate crime in every civilised nation. Rape is always a lesser crime.
If I went to prison, I don't want to get raped. But I sure as hell don't want to get murdered. The two are not the same. Live goes on after rape.
We are talking about two different things.
You are talking about the effects a crime has on the victim and their families.
I'm talking about the kind of evil you have to have in your heart to commit them. I can imagine getting so pissed off I hit someone hard enough to kill them. I can not imagine being so turned on that I hold someone down and rape them while they beg. It's not absolute, you can find examples to go either way, but that's my view. You have to be a truly evil person to commit violent rape. You don't accidentally drag someone off to a bedroom and sexually assault them. The act is very personal, very deliberate, and very evil, always.
-
If Trump lies so much, there must be something that clearly shows deception. It is really rather absurd to claim that someone can constantly lie all day without being able to show this deception outside of your assumptions of whether he is correct or not.
Tom, you're doing that thing again. You do it about lots of things when you have "an opinion" about something and refuse to budge an inch no matter how clearly you're shown to be wrong. This is how you come across when you ask to be shown evidence contrary to what you believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkcKQmr7kRc
Trump lies all the time. He's caught out in the lie all the time. You either don't care or, worse, as that article I posted above suggests you have somehow trained yourself to not see it. You're like the downtrodden wife of a serial philanderer, pathetically "standing by your man" and just not able to let yourself see what's going on.
The mental gymnastics you go through to excuse or explain away his constant an obvious lies boggle my mind.
And you uniquely apply that to him, not Biden.
If you agree with Trump's policies and you like the fact that he does what he says he's going to do (or tries to) then fine. That's all fairly reasonable. That doesn't mean you have to turn a blind eye to the way he behaves. You can like his policies and also be frustrated by his compulsive lying and self-aggrandisement too, it's not a contradiction.
-
You can have your opinion, I can have mine.
You've got a 5 year old daughter. She is snatched and dragged to the woods. Would you prefer the guy rapes her and you get her back, or she gets murdered?
Its not even close. Murder is the ultimate crime in every civilised nation. Rape is always a lesser crime.
If I went to prison, I don't want to get raped. But I sure as hell don't want to get murdered. The two are not the same. Live goes on after rape.
We are talking about two different things.
You are talking about the effects a crime has on the victim and their families.
I'm talking about the kind of evil you have to have in your heart to commit them. I can imagine getting so pissed off I hit someone hard enough to kill them. I can not imagine being so turned on that I hold someone down and rape them while they beg. It's not absolute, you can find examples to go either way, but that's my view. You have to be a truly evil person to commit violent rape. You don't accidentally drag someone off to a bedroom and sexually assault them. The act is very personal, very deliberate, and very evil, always.
1) You are conflating the crime of murder with the lesser crime of manslaughter. There is a reason you get far less time in prison for manslaughter in every country on earth. Punching someone and them dying without your meaning to kill them is not the same as Myra Hindley and Ian Brady gutting children whilst they are still alive and recording the children crying out for their parents to save them. The Moors murderers got life. They got off on murder in the same way a rapist gets off on rape. But the victim is far worse off when being murdered. Its not the same.
2) Murder is also very personal. If I put my hands around your throat and watched the light go out in your eyes, the fear you would feel, the violation, the horror that in that moment I am taking your life and you will never think another thought. Your last moments on earth, suffering as I choke the life from you. I am literally taking everything from you. Everything. You'll never see anyone again. Never have another thought. Everything you dreamed of, never going to happen. Your family, bereaved. You can't therapy your way back from murder.
Consider this. If you are murdered, you could get raped afterwards. You wouldn't care about the rape. If you were raped, you'd be praying to God that the rapist didn't want to cover their tracks and murder you too. Murder trumps rape by a country mile. Your moral compass is out of whack. Its probably why you think evil thoughts and vote left.
-
You can have your opinion, I can have mine.
You've got a 5 year old daughter. She is snatched and dragged to the woods. Would you prefer the guy rapes her and you get her back, or she gets murdered?
Its not even close. Murder is the ultimate crime in every civilised nation. Rape is always a lesser crime.
If I went to prison, I don't want to get raped. But I sure as hell don't want to get murdered. The two are not the same. Live goes on after rape.
We are talking about two different things.
You are talking about the effects a crime has on the victim and their families.
I'm talking about the kind of evil you have to have in your heart to commit them. I can imagine getting so pissed off I hit someone hard enough to kill them. I can not imagine being so turned on that I hold someone down and rape them while they beg. It's not absolute, you can find examples to go either way, but that's my view. You have to be a truly evil person to commit violent rape. You don't accidentally drag someone off to a bedroom and sexually assault them. The act is very personal, very deliberate, and very evil, always.
1) You are conflating the crime of murder with the lesser crime of manslaughter. There is a reason you get far less time in prison for manslaughter in every country on earth. Punching someone and them dying without your meaning to kill them is not the same as Myra Hindley and Ian Brady gutting children whilst they are still alive and recording the children crying out for their parents to save them. The Moors murderers got life. They got off on murder in the same way a rapist gets off on rape. But the victim is far worse off when being murdered. Its not the same.
2) Murder is also very personal. If I put my hands around your throat and watched the light go out in your eyes, the fear you would feel, the violation, the horror that in that moment I am taking your life and you will never think another thought. Your last moments on earth, suffering as I choke the life from you. I am literally taking everything from you. Everything. You'll never see anyone again. Never have another thought. Everything you dreamed of, never going to happen. Your family, bereaved. You can't therapy your way back from murder.
Consider this. If you are murdered, you could get raped afterwards. You wouldn't care about the rape. If you were raped, you'd be praying to God that the rapist didn't want to cover their tracks and murder you too. Murder trumps rape by a country mile. Your moral compass is out of whack. Its probably why you think evil thoughts and vote left.
Plenty of people commit suicide after being raped. For them, death is the better option.
We can come up with examples and counter examples all day.
In the end it's all feelings and opinions and nobody is going to change anyones mind here or prove one side right and the other wrong, so we can agree to disagree on this.
-
Fine. But having a weird sense of morality will effect how you feel about situations. It will effect how you vote. And make you vote for stupid libtard stuff. You probably should have gone to Sunday School.
Top 10 crimes ...
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Rape doesn't even pop the top 10. But murder is right there.
-
Fine. But having a weird sense of morality will effect how you feel about situations. It will effect how you vote. And make you vote for stupid libtard stuff. You probably should have gone to Sunday School.
Top 10 crimes ...
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Rape doesn't even pop the top 10. But murder is right there.
Yeah, rape wasn't really considered much of a crime back when the Bible was written. Women were property in much of the world back then.
It wasn't even that big a deal 50 years ago. It wasn't that long ago in the US that a man could not legally be charged with raping his wife, it just wasn't a crime. It wasn't even considered rape, just a man making sure his wife performed her duties properly.
So you seem fine with thinking stealing or swearing is a worse crime than rape. Don't you lecture me on my morality.
-
My point is that throughout history murder is always a dreadful crime. A woman getting boned when she doesn't want it ... yeah, that's a new thing because they complain more these days and everyone is outraged about everything. I'm sure its never been nice for them, but these days they act like its the end of the world. I think much of this is them acting how they feel they should act. Not acting directly because of the ordeal. If it was treated like missing a bus and you got a bit of sympathy but not much, I'm sure most women would just move on from it within the same day. Unpopular opinion I'm sure ... but the seriousness of rape is a new thing and it should be questioned why.
-
My point is that throughout history murder is always a dreadful crime. A woman getting boned when she doesn't want it ... yeah, that's a new thing because they complain more these days and everyone is outraged about everything. I'm sure its never been nice for them, but these days they act like its the end of the world. I think much of this is them acting how they feel they should act. Not acting directly because of the ordeal. If it was treated like missing a bus and you got a bit of sympathy but not much, I'm sure most women would just move on from it within the same day. Unpopular opinion I'm sure ... but the seriousness of rape is a new thing and it should be questioned why.
Wow.
I literally have no words for how much I disagree with what you said, and how much complete disgust I have for that appalling rant.
It would be worth being banned again to tell you what I think of you right now, but I can see it would do no good.
I'm done with this entire conversation.
-
Yeah, you got outraged. ::) Your kind are always outraged about something. Even a stranger on the internet with an opinion you don't share.
-
Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by well over a dozen women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations).
It continues to be the case that very few of these allegations went particularly far. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many people make unsubstantiated accusations about the bad man you don't like. They remain unsubstantiated, and the decent thing to do is to presume Trump's innocence until these totally sincere women choose to present some evidence for their claims.
Of course it does. The sheer number of them is exactly what makes the accusations - not necessarily any one of them in particular, but at least some of them - credible.
And Thork, you've complained about Big Mike enough to know why rape is considered a serious crime. Don't play dumb.
-
If it is possible that some of those claims are false then it is possible that all of those claims are false, and that there are more claims than other people for different variables. Wealth, hate, etc.
-
If it is possible that some of those claims are false then it is possible that all of those claims are false ...
If it is possible that some of those claims are true, then it is possible that all of those claims are true.
-
Yeah, you got outraged. ::) Your kind are always outraged about something. Even a stranger on the internet with an opinion you don't share.
You're a degenerate Thork. I am not outraged, this is the accumulation of almost a decades worth of experiences. Rape is a crime now, not because woman complain and people are outraged, its because for a real long time now, humans have been exploring morality and come to the conclusion that forcing yourself physically on another human in anyway without their consent is amoral. Trump thinking that just grabbing women by the pussy is a vestige of a society that people like you used to put forth and fortunately are dinosaurs who die alone more often than being surrounded by loved ones.
Trump's attitude towards women is not special treatment though. He broadly treats everyone and everything as his toy to derive pleasure, power and wealth from and it's exactly why he is a god awful president: he behaves as a toddler does. Nakedly enriching the billionaire class while blatantly disenfranchising the middle and lower classes is de rigeur with him. The worst part is, that it's not going to be too much different with Biden because that is just the status quo in western capitalist economies. After all the progress made in the previous century, regression to serfdom seems inevitable.
-
Trump thinking that just grabbing women by the pussy is a vestige of a society that people like you used to put forth and fortunately are dinosaurs who die alone more often than being surrounded by loved ones.
"When you're a star you can do anything. You can grab them by the pussy..."
Trump is a wealthy TV star on a bus with TV personalities and is privately joking and talking about groupies here. Anyone can see that this "gotcha" is nonsense. If an equally famous person such as Bruce Springsteen or a famous actor said that, the response would have been "yes".
No reason to assume that he's talking about him sexually assaulting random women.
-
Trump thinking that just grabbing women by the pussy is a vestige of a society that people like you used to put forth and fortunately are dinosaurs who die alone more often than being surrounded by loved ones.
"When you're a star you do anything. You can grab them by the pussy..."
Trump is a wealthy TV star and is talking about groupies here.
That is your assertion and nothing he explicitly said.
Anyone can see that this "gotcha" is nonsense. If an equally famous person such as Bruce Springsteen or a famous actor said that, the response would have been "yes".
Prove it.
No reason to assume that he's talking about him sexually assaulting random women.
Ehhh, it can be construed as harmless locker room talk, but to say there is no reason to assume he is talking about sexually women is idiotic, especially in context of his other comments and allegations against him.
-
That is your assertion and nothing he explicitly said.
It's pretty clear. Here is a more accurate quote:
"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
They let you do it?
Obviously talking about groupies, and how women react to that status. Please explain the "they let you do it" part if he is encouraging unwanted sexual assault.
-
That is your assertion and nothing he explicitly said.
It's pretty clear. Here is a more accurate quote:
"When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
They let you do it?
Obviously talking about groupies, and how women react to that status. Please explain the "they let you do it" part if he is encouraging unwanted sexual assault.
Tom, go educate yourself on power imbalances and how they can influence consent. Ok, boomer?
-
Tom, go educate yourself on power imbalances and how they can influence consent. Ok, boomer?
So you think Trump is talking about touching consenting women now who are only secretly voicing their displeasure?
What a weird world sufferers of TDS must live in to be forced to have to justify their world view with increasingly absurd statements.
-
Tom, go educate yourself on power imbalances and how they can influence consent. Ok, boomer?
So you think Trump is talking about touching consenting women now who are only secretly voicing their displeasure? What a weird world sufferers of TDS must live in to be forced to have to justify their world view with increasingly absurd statements.
I mean, you think you are really smart here but then support when accusers come out against dems, so really you are just putting your hypocrisy on display.
-
They let you do it?
Obviously talking about groupies, and how women react to that status. Please explain the "they let you do it" part if he is encouraging unwanted sexual assault.
It's in the same category as
"My inauguration crowd was the biggest"
"I have the best words"
"I know more about X than ..."
"I'm the healthiest president ever"
"COVID-19 will just go away, it will go away"
"How do I get my likeness added to Mount Rushmore?"
All fantasy and/or bluster.
Just because Trump claims this, does not make it a fact.
If he claims 20 women "let" him do this, but those same 20 bring court cases against Trump saying they recoiled in horror and tried to fend him off, is Trump the one in the right?
-
You're a degenerate Thork. I am not outraged, this is the accumulation of almost a decades worth of experiences. Rape is a crime now, not because woman complain and people are outraged, its because for a real long time now, humans have been exploring morality and come to the conclusion that forcing yourself physically on another human in anyway without their consent is amoral. Trump thinking that just grabbing women by the pussy is a vestige of a society that people like you used to put forth and fortunately are dinosaurs who die alone more often than being surrounded by loved ones.
I'm not saying rape isn't a crime. I'm saying it isn't akin to murder. That's not a weird notion. That's how a judge would look at it in every country on earth. Its your view that is out of whack if you think otherwise.
Trump's attitude towards women is not special treatment though. He broadly treats everyone and everything as his toy to derive pleasure, power and wealth from and it's exactly why he is a god awful president: he behaves as a toddler does. Nakedly enriching the billionaire class while blatantly disenfranchising the middle and lower classes is de rigeur with him. The worst part is, that it's not going to be too much different with Biden because that is just the status quo in western capitalist economies. After all the progress made in the previous century, regression to serfdom seems inevitable.
You hate the world and want it to burn. Yes the left are angry people and everything is always a crisis. ::) People are better off by almost any metric you choose to name, this century. I know, doesn't fit with your "everything is wrong" rhetoric, but that's the reality.
Here's a great little video to help you get some perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm9Ng0bbEQ
-
I'm not saying rape isn't a crime. I'm saying it isn't akin to murder. That's not a weird notion. That's how a judge would look at it in every country on earth. Its your view that is out of whack if you think otherwise.
It's so strange that you don't see how incredibly flippant and condescending you are being about this. It also displays an astounding lack of comprehension that you would think I asserted you didn't think rape was a crime.
You hate the world and want it to burn. Yes the left are angry people and everything is always a crisis. ::) People are better off by almost any metric you choose to name, this century. I know, doesn't fit with your "everything is wrong" rhetoric, but that's the reality.
Here's a great little video to help you get some perspective.
I am perfectly aware the world is getting better. You would be better off remembering that when you whinge about how the 'rona is ruining everything. What isn't getting better is the disparity between the very rich and everyone else. It is getting worse. Which was my point. Which you missed because you wanted to triumphantly plop a Ted Talk in to the conversation.
-
What isn't getting better is the disparity between the very rich and everyone else. It is getting worse. Which was my point. Which you missed because you wanted to triumphantly plop a Ted Talk in to the conversation.
Oh, you don't understand the maths. Ok.
Let's assume the poorest person in America has zero dollars. There will always be someone with nothing. You can't go below nothing. You can declare bankruptcy if things get out of hand. For the sake of making the maths easy because its simple maths and you are struggling ... the poorest person has zero dollars.
Now, lets assume the richest person in America has $10. The gap between rich and poor is $10.
Let's now assume that America's economy is going well. There is more wealth in it. The poorest will still have $0 because this person is a drug addict with no job. The richest person now has $20.
OMG! >o< The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger!
And of course it is. The more wealth in a nation, the larger the gap between the rich and the poor. It isn't a sign of inequality. It is a sign of prosperity. Why are you always so envious of other people who have more than you? Just work harder.
The wealth gap increases because there is more wealth. If America only had $1000 dollars in it, the wealth gap could only be $1000 assuming one person had all of it. I'm sure that would make you very happy. ::)
-
What isn't getting better is the disparity between the very rich and everyone else. It is getting worse. Which was my point. Which you missed because you wanted to triumphantly plop a Ted Talk in to the conversation.
Oh, you don't understand the maths. Ok.
Let's assume the poorest person in America has zero dollars. There will always be someone with nothing. You can't go below nothing. You can declare bankruptcy if things get out of hand. For the sake of making the maths easy because its simple maths and you are struggling ... the poorest person has zero dollars.
Now, lets assume the richest person in America has $10. The gap between rich and poor is $10.
Let's now assume that America's economy is going well. There is more wealth in it. The poorest will still have $0 because this person is a drug addict with no job. The richest person now has $20.
OMG! >o< The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger!
And of course it is. The more wealth in a nation, the larger the gap between the rich and the poor. It isn't a sign of inequality. It is a sign of prosperity. Why are you always so envious of other people who have more than you? Just work harder.
The wealth gap increases because there is more wealth. If America only had $1000 dollars in it, the wealth gap could only be $1000 assuming one person had all of it. I'm sure that would make you very happy. ::)
Now explain why the percentage of total wealth held by the richest people is getting bigger. Extra points if you pass as a human while you do it.
-
Most people have no money or very little money. They spend all of it.
It works like this.
Let's suppose you want a job as a plumber. You're qualified and ready to do the job. How much would you like? $million a year? Sure, why not? But your employer is going to say mmmmm, any other plumbers out there prepared to take less? Now how much less and how low the plumbers will go will depend on the standard of living they expect. They want to cover their rent, feed their family, pay their bills, maybe lease hire a care. So they will say "Ok, I can live on $50,000 so I'm prepared to accept $50,000 as a wage." Now that cost of living isn't going to change much from year to year. What does change is the amount of prosperity in wealthy nations. So who gets all this extra wealth? The rich. They aren't looking at "What is the minimum I can live on?". They are reinvesting their money to make even more money. They don't use most of their money to buy things they need. They use it to invest to make more money.
Again, a wealth gap show increasing prosperity. It doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. They aren't. Just that the rich are getting richer. And so what? They are creating businesses that generate enormous amounts of wealth and are ultimately the reason your nation is not a 3rd world shit hole and why you have a job.
-
So cost of living going up while wages are down means the poor aren't getting poorer? Fascinating. It's amazing that you can blame solely the government for your financial woes when it's the collusion of billionaires and government that is causing it. I guess you only care about the wealthy overclass when it fits your Jewish conspiracy theories?
-
You have to stop parroting CNN.
Let someone else calmly tell you why you are wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=rv0VKl_jwwI&feature=emb_logo
And feel free to scour my post history. I don't have Jewish conspiracy theories. Maybe you are projecting?
-
You have to stop parroting CNN.
I don't watch CNN. This is based on economic data of people's wage growth vis a vis inflation and cost of living.
Let someone else calmly tell you why you are wrong.
Why don't you be a big boy and do it yourself.
And feel free to scour my post history. I don't have Jewish conspiracy theories. Maybe you are projecting?
I mean, I have engaged with you on your nonsense fear and hatred of the Rothschilds. Maybe you don't remember? It happens with age.
-
Of course it does. The sheer number of them is exactly what makes the accusations - not necessarily any one of them in particular, but at least some of them - credible.
It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it continues to be a complete perversion of logic. It's just a spicy mix of the ad populum fallacy with your wishful thinking.
If it is possible that some of those claims are true, then it is possible that all of those claims are true.
It certainly is. So far, no evidence was brought forward for any of them. Once one of those claims turns out to be true, the label will fit Trump regardless of the truth value of the remaining claims. Until then, nope.
-
It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it continues to be a complete perversion of logic. It's just a spicy mix of the ad populum fallacy with your wishful thinking.
I don’t even think this is an example of the ad populum fallacy. That fallacy states that just because a lot of people believe something - like, say, that the earth is a sphere - that doesn’t make it true. Which is right although I’d suggest the fact that pretty much 100% of scientists believe that isn’t entirely irrelevant in the discussion, but enough with that rabbit hole.
Here we are talking about the number of people who have accused Trump. I’d suggest in any legal trial that would be highly relevant. I’m not sure what evidence they could provide of an alleged unwanted sexual encounter decades ago.
When you add the number of people who have accused him to the way he talks about women, the frankly disturbing things he has said about his own daughter, the “grab ‘em by the pussy”’ comment and his own boasts about barging into dressing rooms when involved in Miss Teen USA...
It all adds up to thinking at best he has used his wealth and power to prey on woman in a way he wouldn’t have been able to were he not in that position. Not uniquely - a lot of rich and powerful men have done this, historically.
Whether he’s done anything actually illegal is debatable, I guess we will never really know.
It wouldn’t surprise me.
TL;DR, I don’t think the number of accusers is irrelevant. Fewer people have accused Michael Jackson of abuse and it’s been enough to make people question his legacy in the court of public opinion.
-
I’m not sure what evidence they could provide of an alleged unwanted sexual encounter decades ago.
Yes, waiting decades before reporting a crime will do that to you. However, this does not free them from the burden of proof.
-
Of course it does. The sheer number of them is exactly what makes the accusations - not necessarily any one of them in particular, but at least some of them - credible.
It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it continues to be a complete perversion of logic. It's just a spicy mix of the ad populum fallacy with your wishful thinking.
The ad populum fallacy is about popular belief. It would be like me saying that a lot of people believing Trump to be a sexual predator is what makes him one. But I'm talking about accusations. However likely it is that an accuser is lying or otherwise mistaken, the probability goes down with every new accuser that they are all lying or otherwise mistaken. It's not fallacious to take a step back and question how likely it is that all these women are lying or mistaken about what he's done in the past, and why this phenomenon would only be limited to Trump.
-
It's incredulous that you guys are unable to admit that factors such as wealth, hate, could not factor into why Trump has more claims against him than someone else. That a big fallacy there. Trump is certainly different than other people.
"He must have done some of that stuff because there are more claims"
"He said that 'when you're a star, they let you do it', and I'm going to ignore the possibility that groupies exist, therefore he must be sexually assaulting people without consent."
Really, listen to yourselves.
-
It's incredulous that you guys are unable to admit that factors such as wealth and hate could not factor into why Trump has more claims against him than someone else. That a big fallacy there. Trump is certainly different than other people.
"He must have done some of that stuff because there are more claims"
"He said that 'when you're a star, they let you do it', and I'm going to ignore the possibility that groupies exist, therefore he must be sexually assaulting people without consent."
Really, listen to yourselves.
Who is ignoring that? Has anyone said that’s impossible? You’re strawmanning people.
Really, listen to yourself.
-
I’m not sure what evidence they could provide of an alleged unwanted sexual encounter decades ago.
Yes, waiting decades before reporting a crime will do that to you. However, this does not free them from the burden of proof.
Sure. But it's coming across as though you think that somehow casts doubt on their accounts.
Aren't all cases like this a person (or people) saying another person did a thing? And the accused saying no they didn't.
I'd suggest that when a lot of people say the person did a thing then it becomes more credible.
Doesn't make it true of course.
-
It's incredulous that you guys are unable to admit that factors such as wealth, hate, could not factor into why Trump has more claims against him than someone else.
I'd certainly agree that's a potential factor, but I've also listed a few reasons why there's a pattern of behaviour there which makes the allegations credible.
Really, listen to yourselves.
Right back atcha, buddy.
Look at the the mental gymnastics you do to defend Trump no matter what he says or does. Something you don't do with the people you don't support.
As I've said elsewhere, if you like his policies and like the fact that he basically does (or tries to) the things he says he's going to do then fine.
It's perfectly possible to believe that and also not like the way he behaves and lies all the time.
-
Sure. But it's coming across as though you think that somehow casts doubt on their accounts.
No. Presuming Trump's innocence does not strictly mean accusing the women or lying, or doubting their accounts. However, it would be utter insanity to just take their accusations as fact with no proof. Luckily, Saddam is in an extremely small minority when it comes to his approach.
I'd suggest that when a lot of people say the person did a thing then it becomes more credible.
I disagree. If you had 12 women testifying to him committing the same crime, that would obviously grant the one incident some credibility (not immediately settling it, but certainly pushing the needle). Here we have individual accounts of him committing a whole bunch of crimes decades ago, which they all chose to do nothing about until suddenly, by complete coincidence, they chose to all speak up at once.
If anything, the timing makes me ever so slightly doubtful. How did they achieve this hive mind mentality to suddenly and independently decide to take action on crimes from decades ago?
and why this phenomenon would only be limited to Trump.
It isn't. Bill Clinton, Boris Johnson and Joe Biden immediately come to mind. They were victims of similar slander, admittedly to a lesser extent, at pivotal points in their lives.
-
If anything, the timing makes me ever so slightly doubtful. How did they achieve this hive mind mentality to suddenly and independently decide to take action on crimes from decades ago?
Going public with charges of sexual assault by a powerful, wealthy man is usually just going to get that woman's reputation and life dragged through the gutter by a legion of high priced lawyers and all the tabloids they can use to smear and slander her. Winning will be a long shot.
It's a scary process, and even when it's not someone rich, having to go on the stand and relive the incident and get cross examined and attacked by yet another man in a lawyer suit is something a lot of people simply can't handle.
So when one of them DOES go public, it can give others the courage to come forward. This is common in a lot of situations like this, not just sexual assault. They likely wouldn't even know any of the others until they started going public. How would they?
But I have no problem believing women that were harassed/abused 10 or 20 years ago by Trump wouldn't come out until now.
Again, it's not proof but the fact they waited until now is not at all unusual for this sort of thing, it's the norm.
-
A good article that does a way better job than I did of explaining...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner
-
No. Presuming Trump's innocence does not strictly mean accusing the women or lying, or doubting their accounts.
In a court of law, it doesn't. But in the world of objective reality, it absolutely, 100% does. Anyone whose stance is to presume Trump's innocence (morally, not legally) needs to be prepared to mentally reconcile this with the fact that a large number of women have all seemingly lied about his behavior with them.
If anything, the timing makes me ever so slightly doubtful. How did they achieve this hive mind mentality to suddenly and independently decide to take action on crimes from decades ago?
The political climate being their motivation is obvious, but I don't think that indicates a lack of sincerity. It's one thing to have the sleazy businessman who assaulted you continue to be a sleazy businessman; it's another to watch him become the President of the United States.
It isn't. Bill Clinton, Boris Johnson and Joe Biden immediately come to mind. They were victims of similar slander, admittedly to a lesser extent, at pivotal points in their lives.
The extent of it is exactly what makes it unique. It's one thing to have one woman who's ready to step forward publicly and take the risk of lying about a powerful figure, it's entirely another to have the number of liars enter double digits. (I don't like using this phrase twice in one post. Please forgive me.) If this - producing a bunch of lying women to take down presidential candidates - is really a thing that can and does happen, then the Trump campaign would already have spent half its reelection budget pumping out an assembly line of paid liars to tear down Biden. And before anyone says it, no, they wouldn't refrain from doing that for fear of the backlash if they got caught. Trump has been implicated in worse scandals before, and I already know how this one would play out. He'd deny that it ever happened, proof would be shown that it did happen, he'd deny denying it, he'd deny any knowledge of the scheme, he'd throw whatever patsy was convenient under the bus and blame it all on them, angrily tweet about how he's always hated that employee and they were only ever a coffee boy to begin with, and not only would he not lose a single member of his devoted fanbase, they would love him all the more for it.
-
In a court of law, it doesn't. But in the world of objective reality, it absolutely, 100% does.
We are so, so lucky that hardly anyone thinks like you.
-
I’m not sure what evidence they could provide of an alleged unwanted sexual encounter decades ago.
Yes, waiting decades before reporting a crime will do that to you. However, this does not free them from the burden of proof.
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations).
-
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations).
Many American states have no statute of limitations on sexual assault, though I haven't cross-checked this against the specific accusations made.
-
I’m not sure what evidence they could provide of an alleged unwanted sexual encounter decades ago.
Yes, waiting decades before reporting a crime will do that to you. However, this does not free them from the burden of proof.
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations).
Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.
It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people to fall back on 'respectable' fields, even when they aren't relevant. It's the same guiding principle that sees people crying 'free speech, first amendment!' in what should be a casual discussion between friends. If you're in a situation where you have to talk legality and laws as opposed to simply your opinion of an individual, then you're in a very dicey situation. It's a way to appear as though you have the high ground while having very little to stand on indeed.
Laws aren't synonymous with morality. In many cases they're actively not meant to be an accurate judge of someone's character. What a court of law would make of someone should not necessarily be the same as what an individual concludes.
-
Of course it does. The sheer number of them is exactly what makes the accusations - not necessarily any one of them in particular, but at least some of them - credible.
It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it continues to be a complete perversion of logic. It's just a spicy mix of the ad populum fallacy with your wishful thinking.
The ad populum fallacy is about popular belief. It would be like me saying that a lot of people believing Trump to be a sexual predator is what makes him one. But I'm talking about accusations. However likely it is that an accuser is lying or otherwise mistaken, the probability goes down with every new accuser that they are all lying or otherwise mistaken. It's not fallacious to take a step back and question how likely it is that all these women are lying or mistaken about what he's done in the past, and why this phenomenon would only be limited to Trump.
I could probably quite easily convince a large portion of the IRC to say you're a witch and that they've witnessed to you performing demonic rituals. This, of course, will never hold up in a court of law, because there's (probably) no evidence of you sacrificing children to evil gods, but many people are accusing you of it, so it must be true.
The point of having due process is that accusing someone, especially without actually getting the state to charge them, is completely risk-free. There's no downside to saying "this person sexually assaulted me 20 years ago". You might say "there's no reason for them to lie" but the fact is that there's no reason for them not to lie, either. Believing an accusation as strong as sexual assault without any genuine evidence of the act is as immoral as it is unjust.
-
The point of having due process is that accusing someone, especially without actually getting the state to charge them, is completely risk-free. There's no downside to saying "this person sexually assaulted me 20 years ago".
No downside? The reason why a large number of cases go unreported, and many take years to come to light is there are some very big downsides to reporting it. Especially if the man you are accusing is rich and well connected.
Saying there is no downside is factually wrong. If the accused it wealthy, your name will be dragged through the mud, your entire life exposed, lies will be spread about you. It's not going to be risk free or easy or something you do on a whim. It very likely could destroy your life.
-
In a court of law, it doesn't. But in the world of objective reality, it absolutely, 100% does.
We are so, so lucky that hardly anyone thinks like you.
There is nobody who lives their life the way you seem to be advocating. Your life is not a courtroom, and you're handicapping your own capacity for critical thought if you want to act like there's an imaginary set of rules floating above your head that you dare not defy in your private life. The rest of the world does not feel beholden to this. If someone at work asks you how you're feeling and you respond by citing your right to medical privacy, they're going to treat you like an asshole. If you try to pay for something at a store with an unusual denomination of currency and tell the manager they have the burden of proof in determining its authenticity, they're going to ask you to leave. If your significant other asks you if you're cheating on them and you respond by saying they need evidence before they start making slanderous accusations, they're going to view that suspiciously. These are all normal human interactions in normal life, the exact same as private citizens discussing whether or not they believe Trump to have committed sexual assault in the past. You know all this, because you're a functioning adult who has a life outside of the Internet, and I'm convinced that we wouldn't be getting this monocle-popping "muh ethics!" response from you on any other subject than a controversial political race.
I could probably quite easily convince a large portion of the IRC to say you're a witch and that they've witnessed to you performing demonic rituals.
Shitposts from pseudo-anonymous screen names and Twitter handles have no credibility, and if that was the extent of the accusations against Trump, we'd be having a very different discussion. I would be very impressed if you could get anyone on IRC to attach their real name to a claim of me being a witch and genuinely try to publicize it by going to the media.
The point of having due process is that accusing someone, especially without actually getting the state to charge them, is completely risk-free. There's no downside to saying "this person sexually assaulted me 20 years ago". You might say "there's no reason for them to lie" but the fact is that there's no reason for them not to lie, either.
I disagree. By accusing him, they've subjected themselves to endless scrutiny of their behavior and private lives by the media and the public, opened themselves up to sexual and personal judgment from both well-meaning skeptics like Pete and ogres like Thork, invited potential legal action from Trump himself (as well as, dare I say, possible non-legal retribution from his devoted fans), and ensured that their names will be forever associated with all this on the public record, where potential employers, friends, and others can read all about it with a simple Google search of their name. Even if one of them were to go to court and have it be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump assaulted them, it still wouldn't look good to be attached to this, and if they were more or less proved to be lying or wrong, they'd risk becoming a pariah for the rest of their life. It's not as simple as "Trump raped me, kthxbai."
Believing an accusation as strong as sexual assault without any genuine evidence of the act is as immoral as it is unjust.
I don't see how belief can itself be interpreted as moral or immoral. We don't exactly choose what we find to be compelling or sincere, or what we see as inauthentic or unbelievable. Anyway, I've explained my reasoning for believing that Trump has most likely sexually assaulted at least one person in the past. It wouldn't be admissible in court, but thankfully, we're not in court, and so Trump's due process rights are entirely intact. It's just one of the reasons why I believe that he's a garbage human being and his presidency will forever be a stain on this country.
-
I'm with JSS and Honk, Rushy: Accusing someone, especially someone with power, of sexual assault is pretty much a death sentence for your life as you know it. Your reputation is ruined. You may get death threats depending on how public it is and how powerful the man (because its always a man) is.
Like if I claimed you sexually assaulted me, odds are no one would know or care except the people I told. The police may investigate but without evidence or witnesses, its not going anywhere.
Teenagers who get date raped in college aren't victims, they're sluts. The god damn US armed forces has a ton of rape cases that go unreported because if you report a rape, you get thrown out. Why? Because you're a woman trying to sully the name of good boys.
So yeah. No consequences? What world do you live in?
-
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations).
Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.
It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people
Whoa whoa whoa. faux-reasonable? >:(
It is very reasonable. You can't say 20 years later when the guy is rich and you'll get a huge win-fall and able to sell your story to Oprah and the Washington Post ... "that man raped me." It's not fair. Accuse at the time it happened or STFU. When the evidence is fresh and everyone's memory of the event is still at the forefront of their mind. I'm now 42. If a girl I knew from from Uni accused me of rape tomorrow, all I'd be able to confirm is if I knew them and maybe if I slept with them. I certainly wouldn't know of a night we went to a club or a particular conversation. That's why there is a statue of limitations. Because over 20 years, not only does my recollection of events get fuzzy ... but so would my accusers. You need to make the accusation immediately. Else did it even bother you? If it did, why did you not say anything until after I became President? Statue of limitations is good law making.
to fall back on 'respectable' fields, even when they aren't relevant. It's the same guiding principle that sees people crying 'free speech, first amendment!' in what should be a casual discussion between friends. If you're in a situation where you have to talk legality and laws as opposed to simply your opinion of an individual, then you're in a very dicey situation. It's a way to appear as though you have the high ground while having very little to stand on indeed.
Laws aren't synonymous with morality. In many cases they're actively not meant to be an accurate judge of someone's character. What a court of law would make of someone should not necessarily be the same as what an individual concludes.
Laws are synonymous with society. Murder bad. Murder illegal. Rape bad. Rape illegal. Buying a loaf of bread fine. Buying a loaf of bread legal. Law reflects social norms. Hence Sodomy used to be illegal, today it isn't.
-
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations).
Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.
It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people
Whoa whoa whoa. faux-reasonable? >:(
Absolutely. Those that want the appearance of reasonability by appealing to high-profile topics, but lack any actual solid basis. It's the same kind of thinking that sees REers use their 'do you think you know better than Einstein?' (keeping on-brand with the forum). Appeal to something people respect and associate yourself with something perceived as reasonable, rather than be reasonable yourself.
Court-case legality and personal morality are very different beasts. Take fruit of the poisoned tree; you can have solid evidence someone is a serial murder-rapist, but if that evidence was obtained in a questionable fashion, it's inadmissible. If legality was all we were concerned with, you could know for a fact someone was a monster, but be expected to forgive them and act as though they weren't. Courtroom legality like this exists to try and ensure investigations are carried out in a way that doesn't give unjustified power to every Tom, Dick and Plod, not to tell a private citizen how to live their life. If you know something that's inadmissible in court, you should still adhere to it when you live your life.
Do you even know how legality works? The degree of proof required varies even depending on the crime they're accused of. You can be liable in civil court but not guilty in criminal court, how then should one consider a situation like that?
If you find yourself needing to appeal to high-brow 'statute of limitations,' 'innocent until proven guilty,' 'free speech,' as opposed to just talking about the matter at hand, it's a pretty clear indication your goal is in appearing reasonable as opposed to actually being reasonable. Yes, those things exist, those things are true, but no one lives their life as though every decision is a trial. Bringing in fundamental laws of the land to talk about personal points of view, as opposed to criminal action, is like invoking a tsunami to water your houseplant. Someone might get the idea your goal is something other than the houseplant.
-
That was pretty incoherent.
But ultimately, if someone commits a crime against you, it is not unreasonable to say the time to report this is immediately. Not in 20 years time when DNA evidence is gone, everyone has forgotten the event and you boiled it down to a he said she said.
All these women coming out of the woodwork 20 years later are opportunists. Not victims.
-
I don't see how belief can itself be interpreted as moral or immoral. We don't exactly choose what we find to be compelling or sincere, or what we see as inauthentic or unbelievable.
You absolutely can choose to act in a moral or immoral way. When it comes to beliefs, the process is no different than acknowledging any other cognitive bias - you realise you have it, and you consciously evaluate your findings before opening your mouth about them.
Your defense here is identical to that of any other prejudiced person. After all, if I intrinsically believe that people who look different from me are inferior, there's just nothing I can do about it. It's not like I can choose my biases, right?
Once again: thank Allah you're virtually alone in thinking like this.
-
by complete coincidence
No.
suddenly and independently
No!
JSS has already dealt with this but it isn't a coincidence and they didn't do it independently.
Trying to go up against a rich and powerful man must be incredibly intimidating. And it's a crime in which the victim can feel deep shame and not want to have to relive it, especially when they know they're going to get dragged through the mud by a powerful legal team and probably in the press. When one person has the courage to come forward it can embolden others, this happens all the time. And when that happens it does add to the credibility of all of them, it indicates a pattern of behaviour.
And as I've said when you add in his own comments about his daughter, his boasts about going into dressing rooms when involved in Miss Teen USA. The general way he talks about women. Posted this to you before, but exhibit A, your honour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCEe8v6ZIs
Now, fine. It's a jokey comment in a jokey conversation. But many a true word spoken in jest and it fits with the way he generally talks and behaves towards women.
With some people when they start getting accused there is shock, with others the reaction is "yeah, that figures".
I'd suggest with Trump it's the latter. Doesn't make him guilty, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if he is.
-
Doesn't make him guilty
All of this rambling just to agree with me. Sheesh, you must not value my time. ;)
-
Doesn't make him guilty
All of this rambling just to agree with me. Sheesh, you must not value my time. ;)
Well, I don't. Obviously.
And yes, we agree about that, just not about all the other stuff which you mentioned and I responded to.
Hope that helps to clarify ;)
-
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up.”
Barack Obama Has "Privately Expressed Grave Concerns" About Joe Biden's 2020 White House Run
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/barack-obama-has-privately-expressed-grave-concerns-about-joe-bidens-2020-white-house-run
-
Once again: thank Allah you're virtually alone in thinking like this.
All right, it looks like you're more interested in trying to provoke me than sincerely debating the issues involved, so I don't think I'm going to bother keeping this discussion going.
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up.”
Barack Obama Has "Privately Expressed Grave Concerns" About Joe Biden's 2020 White House Run
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/barack-obama-has-privately-expressed-grave-concerns-about-joe-bidens-2020-white-house-run
Holy shit, the author of this stupid article actually uses the handle "Tyler Durden" and a picture of the character? Is he twelve years old? I mean, I know I should be focusing on the content of the article, but there's really not much to it. Just a few mined quotes from a Politico article to support a narrative that Obama thinks Biden is a moron and an incredibly far-fetched prediction that Biden will soon be replaced as the Democratic candidate. I just can't get over the Tyler Durden thing. That's amazing.
-
All right, it looks like you're more interested in trying to provoke me than sincerely debating the issues involved
There is no debate here. You're being immoral. It deserves calling out. I'll call it out again the next time you pull the "accusation = guilt" crap.
And yes, we agree about that, just not about all the other stuff which you mentioned and I responded to.
What stuff? The things you disagreed with were rhetorical questions devices, written out to be just about as disagreeable as possible. I mean, congratulations, I guess?
I was asking what the possible motive might be. JSS provided a plausible answer, which I didn't question further. You say that "JSS has already dealt with this", but you quote a post I wrote before his response. Are you sure you didn't respond to an old post by mistake?
-
What stuff?
All the stuff I wrote in my posts about the things I disagreed with you about in your posts.
Honk makes the assertion that the number of accusations makes them more credible. You disagree. I agree. It does.
You called it an ad populum fallacy, it isn't an example of that. I have explained why.
You also said that they all came forward at the same time by coincidence. Not true, I have explained why.
You also said
it would be utter insanity to just take their accusations as fact with no proof
And there we agree.
But, it would also be insanity not to look at the general way he talks about women, including his own daughter, and the things he has admitted to doing when assessing these allegations and the likelihood of them being true.
In that context my gut feel is that yeah, he probably has done some stuff which he could be convicted for. I don't think he ever will be though and I in the spirit of libel - and knowing a bit about what you should allow people to say publicly on a forum like this - I should make clear that this is only my personal opinion and not based on anything other than circumstantial evidence
-
I dunno but it seems like saying accusers are credible is looooong way from saying someone is guilty. I wouldn’t say Trump has sexually assaulted anyone but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if at least one of those women is telling the truth and I would think it likely that at least one of their stories is true. That being said, he isn’t guilty under a criminal standard, which is extraordinarily high because it’s thought to be the only ethical way to justify the State removing liberty from a citizen. I agree with that but “balance of probabilities” is used in civil courts to determine if a tort has occurred between two citizens and is much applicable to what is being discussed here.
-
I wouldn’t say Trump has sexually assaulted anyone
That is all I'm saying. Those who want to take it a step further, to me, are ridiculously morally bankrupt.
-
I wouldn’t say Trump has sexually assaulted anyone
That is all I'm saying. Those who want to take it a step further, to me, are ridiculously morally bankrupt.
I never took Honk to be saying that either. We all know I am a careless reader and miss stuff occasionally, but I only saw him saying that the accusers were credible.
-
We all know I am a careless reader and miss stuff occasionally, but I only saw him saying that the accusers were credible.
I'll grant you that he was very careful with his wording. I have my suspicions regarding his intent. Of course, if he agrees with you and me, there is no problem.
-
I said no such thing.
I said there were no allegations by women, in the context of allegations of sexual abuse, and you know it.
What woman would lodge an allegation of sexual abuse/harassment against a noted homosexual?
-
There is no debate here.
If you're not willing to debate, then you shouldn't be posting in a debate forum.
You're being immoral. It deserves calling out. I'll call it out again the next time you pull the "accusation = guilt" crap.
There are no "call-out" or "when they deserve it" exceptions to the rule against personal attacks (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0). Your virtue-signaling and lecturing about how terrible I am belongs in AR, not here.
-
If you're not willing to debate, then you shouldn't be posting in a debate forum.
I agree. Luckily, we're in PR&S.
There are no "call-out" or "when they deserve it" exceptions to the rule against personal attacks (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0).
If you believe that my comments on the immoral behaviour you promote here is a personal attack against you, then I guess I'll back down. Although, I assure you that there's nothing personal about it - I'd point out the same logical flaws in this reasoning if it were someone else spreading it.
Nonetheless, you've made yourself clear. I'm dropping this.
-
It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations).
https://youtu.be/XrKb2TTy2ik
-
Remember his awesome health care plan he claimed had which turned out to be... having no idea what to do?
So he is good at carrying out the plans he isn't lying about. Good luck knowing which is which ahead of time.
He also said he would release his tax returns. Liar.
He also said if he was elected he would be too busy to golf. Liar.
Yes Trump is a buffoon but pointing out lies from a guy running for office. Wow campaign promises brokem, say it isn't so.