*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10380 on: May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM »
It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time.
Granted.

Quote
Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.
But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque. You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you. You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10381 on: May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM »
It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time.
Granted.

Quote
Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.
But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque. You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you. You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.
Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence? The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10382 on: May 11, 2023, 09:10:40 AM »
Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?
I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.


Quote
The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"
Incorrect. I've gone in to some detail above why it's incorrect.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10383 on: May 11, 2023, 09:21:15 AM »
Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?
I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.
"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."

FTFY
Quote
The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"
Incorrect. I've gone in to some detail above why it's incorrect.
LMMFAO!

You did no such thing!

Listen, like I said earlier, there is truly nothing to this story, as I wrote earlier. and all you are doing is demonstrating the true purpose of stories like these, by echoing a line of continued bull cookies.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10384 on: May 11, 2023, 09:29:23 AM »
Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?
I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.
"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."
You said "didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?"
The answer is no. More than 200 people were accused, 30 were convicted. If what you're saying was correct then they would all have been convicted.
But anyway, what you said is the common perception. And that is absolutely not what happened here.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2805
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10385 on: May 11, 2023, 11:01:37 AM »
Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?
I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.
"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."
You said "didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?"
The answer is no. More than 200 people were accused, 30 were convicted. If what you're saying was correct then they would all have been convicted.
But anyway, what you said is the common perception. And that is absolutely not what happened here.
A) I didn't write all of them were convicted. I also never brought up "common perception."

II) This was exactly like a witch trial (given your analysis) in that most people would have never been found civilly liable for anything.

Evidently, Trump is just that bad...LOL!!!

See?

The exact state of affairs for which you all have been clamoring is now upon us... When the ouroboros starts to eat, only the humans will need to fear, however... 
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10386 on: May 11, 2023, 03:18:46 PM »
But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

That is quite literally how the system worked in this case.

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque.

This woman did just that very thing...

You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you.

It turns out that level of evidence is a book you wrote.

You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.

One time I saw a big rally where Trump met with hundreds of people and spoke to them. Think of all the abuse they must have experienced by meeting him. Surely, he owes them all a few million dollars each?

I guess you're a witch if I get three whole people to say you're a witch instead of saying it by myself. Imagine if I got five people to say you're a witch. Then I guess I'd get ten million dollars for pointing out your witchcraft instead of just five.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2023, 03:20:50 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10387 on: May 12, 2023, 04:48:10 PM »


What rape victim doesn't fantasize about their rapist?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 01:37:20 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10388 on: May 12, 2023, 05:25:17 PM »


What rape victim doesn't victim fantasize about their rapist?

She said she did it because it's better to laugh than cry. Seems reasonable to me tbh
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10389 on: May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM »
You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10390 on: May 12, 2023, 07:48:02 PM »
You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Every lawyer defending a rapist knows this and works it. It's a standard defense tactic to attack the victim.


Actually, attacking the victim works in a lot of criminal defense cases.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10391 on: May 12, 2023, 08:21:31 PM »
You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Every lawyer defending a rapist knows this and works it. It's a standard defense tactic to attack the victim.


Actually, attacking the victim works in a lot of criminal defense cases.

To be fair, it would be a disservice to their clients if they didn't work it, to some degree. I still think that a better, maybe more sympathetic lawyer and a more tight-lipped deposition could have won Trump the case.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10392 on: May 13, 2023, 11:28:40 AM »
You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10393 on: May 13, 2023, 01:12:59 PM »
You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.
Rape or sexual assault.  Define the difference.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Dual1ty

Re: Trump
« Reply #10394 on: May 13, 2023, 01:38:28 PM »
Rape or sexual assault.  Define the difference.

Rape = non-consensual intercourse.
Sexual assault = non-consensual everything else.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10395 on: May 13, 2023, 01:49:01 PM »
Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.
Or, back in the real world, the jury believed her but decided that while what occurred was sexual assault it wasn’t rape. That isn’t the resounding victory for Trump or damning criticism of the victim you seem to want to believe.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10396 on: May 13, 2023, 03:15:07 PM »
Rape or sexual assault.  Define the difference.

Rape = non-consensual intercourse.
Sexual assault = non-consensual everything else.

Exactly.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10397 on: May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM »
Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.
Or, back in the real world, the jury believed her but decided that while what occurred was sexual assault it wasn’t rape. That isn’t the resounding victory for Trump or damning criticism of the victim you seem to want to believe.

I would suggest that you try reading the document. It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means. They checked yes on "Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carrol?".

Most telling is that the two counts he was not charged with are "Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?" and "Mr. Trump forcibly touched Ms. Carroll?". Apparently the court thinks that whatever sexual abuse means, it was not rape and did not involve being forcibly touched.

So, you are incorrect. You did not understand the words. It was not "sexual assault".

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 03:49:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10398 on: May 13, 2023, 03:48:59 PM »
Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10399 on: May 13, 2023, 03:55:08 PM »
Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all. And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.

Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.