|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 17, 2024 0:53:39 GMT
The obsession with trump really is a bit bizarre when the other doddery fool seemingly gets away with all sorts. Almost like its a distraction đ˛ I've heard of this TDS issue that some people have. I'm beginning to think its true... What is TDS... Googled it and came up with tenancy deposit scheme. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on May 17, 2024 5:55:09 GMT
I'm not defending Biden but I don't see what he could have done to start those wars like you are implying. You made out he is responsible for those wars, I only asked what he did to start them To be fair I'm not having a go at you or mrstudent really. But I've been doing latterly research on all of this and I'm seeing inconsistencies all over the shop. And I'm doing it from an angle of someone who is not some maga nut job hill Billy bible bashing weirdo. I understand all that shyte. I get all the insurrection shyte too. But come on, a few 1000 people show up unarmed to overthrow the most powerful country on the planet. Seriously..... As for the wars starting, if this had all happened on trumps watch, you know what the media would have done. Biden is seen as a weak and feeble minded fool. Putin knew this and he knew it weakened America. Foolish to think otherwise in my opinion. People like Putin understand one thing very well. Spot a weakness exploit it. Je saw that with Biden. With trump he saw unpredictability and a gambler so he sat still. Because which ever way we chop this up the only country on the planet with a proper functioning nuclear arsenal is America. Putin wasn't ever taking trump on. Not a chance... Putin would have tried to take Ukraine whether Trump was in power or not it's been a known Putin agenda for years. He wants to leave a legacy and it was COVID that provided the opportunity when everyone's economy was taking a huge hit. Putin likely assumed other countries couldn't afford to get involved. The difference is Ukraine would be under Russian control by now if Trump was President so which one is the weakest? Ukraine should have been an easy win for Russia
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 17, 2024 7:02:25 GMT
Have you considered that it's Trump supporters who are suffering from TDS? It's logical that failure to accept Buyers Remorse leads to a particular psychosis similar to the object of their affection and inhabit a parallel universe where the Moon is made of Green Cheese Yeah considered that too. And defo something in it. But one thing really just keeps itching a scratch and it's that historically trump was a Democrat. And he was universally liked on the whole despite his oafishness. Strange how from nought to 100 he became the devil incarnate really. Doesn't add up to the neutral viewer like me... How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 17, 2024 7:13:17 GMT
I'm not defending Biden but I don't see what he could have done to start those wars like you are implying. You made out he is responsible for those wars, I only asked what he did to start them To be fair I'm not having a go at you or mrstudent really. But I've been doing latterly research on all of this and I'm seeing inconsistencies all over the shop. And I'm doing it from an angle of someone who is not some maga nut job hill Billy bible bashing weirdo. I understand all that shyte. I get all the insurrection shyte too. But come on, a few 1000 people show up unarmed to overthrow the most powerful country on the planet. Seriously..... As for the wars starting, if this had all happened on trumps watch, you know what the media would have done. Biden is seen as a weak and feeble minded fool. Putin knew this and he knew it weakened America. Foolish to think otherwise in my opinion. People like Putin understand one thing very well. Spot a weakness exploit it. Je saw that with Biden. With trump he saw unpredictability and a gambler so he sat still. Because which ever way we chop this up the only country on the planet with a proper functioning nuclear arsenal is America. Putin wasn't ever taking trump on. Not a chance... Trump would have sold Ukraine to Russia and Taiwan to China if he thought it could turn a profit for himself. He is totally predictable as his only interest is self interest.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on May 17, 2024 9:22:17 GMT
Have you considered that it's Trump supporters who are suffering from TDS? It's logical that failure to accept Buyers Remorse leads to a particular psychosis similar to the object of their affection and inhabit a parallel universe where the Moon is made of Green Cheese Yeah considered that too. And defo something in it. But one thing really just keeps itching a scratch and it's that historically trump was a Democrat. And he was universally liked on the whole despite his oafishness. Strange how from nought to 100 he became the devil incarnate really. Doesn't add up to the neutral viewer like me... Heâs a populist. By definition, you either love him or hate him in the US. He was a Republican before being a democrat. At that time, he was at his prior peak of popularity. Propagating birther conspiracy theories on your way into power didnât help his popularity with people who knew it was inflammatory bollocks. It made him a hero to the 4chan mob though.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 18, 2024 9:04:04 GMT
Yeah considered that too. And defo something in it. But one thing really just keeps itching a scratch and it's that historically trump was a Democrat. And he was universally liked on the whole despite his oafishness. Strange how from nought to 100 he became the devil incarnate really. Doesn't add up to the neutral viewer like me... How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape. So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 18, 2024 18:37:22 GMT
How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape. So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you... Your TDS is limiting your ability to report accurately There were more than 3000 Civil Suits filed under the Adult Survivors Act which has a time limitation ending in Thanksgiving this year. So hardly a Law change to facilitate EJ Carroll or inconvenience Trump The first case which EJ Carroll brought had nothing to do with the Adult Survivors Act and the Jury in under 3 hours found Trump Guilty of *Sexual Abuse and awarded her $5M The second case EJ Carroll brought was under the Adult Survivors Act where she renewed her claim of Defamation and added Battery under the Act and was awarded $83.3M ($18.3M Compensatory and $65M Punitive) partially because Trump was unable to keep his gob shut and kept calling EJ Carroll a liar and repeating his false claims on "Truth Central" and elsewhere In a Civil Case nobody gets fined. If you are found Guilty as Trump was, damages are awarded for the harm you have caused. In a Court of Law it's irrelevant if your Brother or Mate is a "Good Guy" it is the duty of the Jury to examine the Prosecution and Defence Evidence and make a determination. On two occasions a Jury found Trump Guilty *In case anyone should quibble like Trumps Lawyers have unsuccessfully done on the term Sexual Abuse Judge Kaplan said New Yorkâs legal definition of ârapeâ is âfar narrowerâ than the word is understood in âcommon modern parlance.â The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with oneâs penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for â forced digital penetration â meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration âwith any body part or object.â So there we have it, some call it Stink Finger, Trump calls it Grabbing them by the Pussy in his peculiar method of attracting a Female www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 18, 2024 18:41:36 GMT
So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you... Your TDS is limiting your ability to report accurately There were more than 3000 Civil Suits filed under the Adult Survivors Act which has a time limitation ending in Thanksgiving this year. So hardly a Law change to facilitate EJ Carroll or inconvenience Trump The first case which EJ Carroll brought had nothing to do with the Adult Survivors Act and the Jury in under 3 hours found Trump Guilty of *Sexual Abuse and awarded her $5M The second case EJ Carroll brought was under the Adult Survivors Act where she renewed her claim of Defamation and added Battery under the Act and was awarded $83.3M ($18.3M Compensatory and $65M Punitive) partially because Trump was unable to keep his gob shut and kept calling EJ Carroll a liar and repeating his false claims on "Truth Central" and elsewhere In a Civil Case nobody gets fined. If you are found Guilty as Trump was, damages are awarded for the harm you have caused. In a Court of Law it's irrelevant if your Brother or Mate is a "Good Guy" it is the duty of the Jury to examine the Prosecution and Defence Evidence and make a determination. On two occasions a Jury found Trump Guilty *In case anyone should quibble like Trumps Lawyers have unsuccessfully done on the term Sexual Abuse Judge Kaplan said New Yorkâs legal definition of ârapeâ is âfar narrowerâ than the word is understood in âcommon modern parlance.â The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with oneâs penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for â forced digital penetration â meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration âwith any body part or object.â So there we have it, some call it Stink Finger, Trump calls it Grabbing them by the Pussy in his peculiar method of attracting a Female www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/Zero evidence, zero witnesses, zero cctv. Nothing. If you'd be happy getting convicted under those terms 30 years hence then you are a clown..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 18, 2024 19:16:20 GMT
Your TDS is limiting your ability to report accurately There were more than 3000 Civil Suits filed under the Adult Survivors Act which has a time limitation ending in Thanksgiving this year. So hardly a Law change to facilitate EJ Carroll or inconvenience Trump The first case which EJ Carroll brought had nothing to do with the Adult Survivors Act and the Jury in under 3 hours found Trump Guilty of *Sexual Abuse and awarded her $5M The second case EJ Carroll brought was under the Adult Survivors Act where she renewed her claim of Defamation and added Battery under the Act and was awarded $83.3M ($18.3M Compensatory and $65M Punitive) partially because Trump was unable to keep his gob shut and kept calling EJ Carroll a liar and repeating his false claims on "Truth Central" and elsewhere In a Civil Case nobody gets fined. If you are found Guilty as Trump was, damages are awarded for the harm you have caused. In a Court of Law it's irrelevant if your Brother or Mate is a "Good Guy" it is the duty of the Jury to examine the Prosecution and Defence Evidence and make a determination. On two occasions a Jury found Trump Guilty *In case anyone should quibble like Trumps Lawyers have unsuccessfully done on the term Sexual Abuse Judge Kaplan said New Yorkâs legal definition of ârapeâ is âfar narrowerâ than the word is understood in âcommon modern parlance.â The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with oneâs penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for â forced digital penetration â meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration âwith any body part or object.â So there we have it, some call it Stink Finger, Trump calls it Grabbing them by the Pussy in his peculiar method of attracting a Female www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/Zero evidence, zero witnesses, zero cctv. Nothing. If you'd be happy getting convicted under those terms 30 years hence then you are a clown.. Testimony from 2 women that EJ Carroll related to them contemporaneously about the Sexual Assault by Trump The infamous Hollywood Access "Grab them by the Pussy" Tape used in evidence to give insight into Trump's character In cases of Rape there is rarely a Perry Mason Smoking Gun introduced and in a Civil Court a Verdict is returned on the Balance of Probability
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 18, 2024 19:24:45 GMT
Zero evidence, zero witnesses, zero cctv. Nothing. If you'd be happy getting convicted under those terms 30 years hence then you are a clown.. Testimony from 2 women that EJ Carroll related to them contemporaneously about the Sexual Assault by Trump The infamous Hollywood Access "Grab them by the Pussy" Tape used in evidence to give insight into Trump's character In cases of Rape there is rarely a Perry Mason Smoking Gun introduced and in a Civil Court a Verdict is returned on the Balance of Probability Lol. You're clutching at straws chief. I've shared dressing rooms with many a rugby player whose said far worse. None as far as I am aware were rapists. And this her mates said so is ridiculous. Now he may well be guilty but this is not how justice should be served or you me and a lot of your mates could be in the firing line 30 years down the line...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 18, 2024 20:10:56 GMT
Testimony from 2 women that EJ Carroll related to them contemporaneously about the Sexual Assault by Trump The infamous Hollywood Access "Grab them by the Pussy" Tape used in evidence to give insight into Trump's character In cases of Rape there is rarely a Perry Mason Smoking Gun introduced and in a Civil Court a Verdict is returned on the Balance of Probability Lol. You're clutching at straws chief. I've shared dressing rooms with many a rugby player whose said far worse. None as far as I am aware were rapists. And this her mates said so is ridiculous. Now he may well be guilty but this is not how justice should be served or you me and a lot of your mates could be in the firing line 30 years down the line... Not at all chief, you said there was no evidence There was, she told two friends immediately after the Sexual Assault by Trump and under New York Law Rule 415 previous character is admissible which was why Trump's Lawyers pre-trial were desperate to exclude video evidence of him saying he did exactly what he was accused of You're just suffering TDS
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 18, 2024 20:19:57 GMT
The bloke is literally a rapist. Why would anyone defend him?
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 18, 2024 20:53:17 GMT
Lol. You're clutching at straws chief. I've shared dressing rooms with many a rugby player whose said far worse. None as far as I am aware were rapists. And this her mates said so is ridiculous. Now he may well be guilty but this is not how justice should be served or you me and a lot of your mates could be in the firing line 30 years down the line... Not at all chief, you said there was no evidence There was, she told two friends immediately after the Sexual Assault by Trump and under New York Law Rule 415 previous character is admissible which was why Trump's Lawyers pre-trial were desperate to exclude video evidence of him saying he did exactly what he was accused of You're just suffering TDS Nope. I just wouldn't want to see a mate go down the same way 30 odd years after the event. And neither would you..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 18, 2024 21:33:48 GMT
Not at all chief, you said there was no evidence There was, she told two friends immediately after the Sexual Assault by Trump and under New York Law Rule 415 previous character is admissible which was why Trump's Lawyers pre-trial were desperate to exclude video evidence of him saying he did exactly what he was accused of You're just suffering TDS Nope. I just wouldn't want to see a mate go down the same way 30 odd years after the event. And neither would you.. I didn't realise you were a Mate of Trump's, that TDS does strange things to the head The facts are Trump was convicted twice by a Jury of his peers having considered all of the evidence presented under the Laws of that particular Jurisdiction Introducing hypocritical Brothers or Mates potentially facing legal difficulties 30 years hence in a different Jurisdiction is pure whataboutery adopted by MAGA supporters and bears no semblance of reality to the here and now.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 18, 2024 21:38:13 GMT
Nope. I just wouldn't want to see a mate go down the same way 30 odd years after the event. And neither would you.. I didn't realise you were a Mate of Trump's, that TDS does strange things to the head The facts are Trump was convicted twice by a Jury of his peers having considered all of the evidence presented under the Laws of that particular Jurisdiction Introducing hypocritical Brothers or Mates potentially facing legal difficulties 30 years hence in a different Jurisdiction is pure whataboutery adopted by MAGA supporters and bears no semblance of reality to the here and now. No its not whataboutery. Its about precedent and the implications it can have to you and me. I can't stand trump but I'm even less of a fan of kangaroo courts and the risk that poses to the rest of us. Step aside from your TDS and see it for what it really is..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 18, 2024 21:55:00 GMT
I didn't realise you were a Mate of Trump's, that TDS does strange things to the head The facts are Trump was convicted twice by a Jury of his peers having considered all of the evidence presented under the Laws of that particular Jurisdiction Introducing hypocritical Brothers or Mates potentially facing legal difficulties 30 years hence in a different Jurisdiction is pure whataboutery adopted by MAGA supporters and bears no semblance of reality to the here and now. No its not whataboutery. Its about precedent and the implications it can have to you and me. I can't stand trump but I'm even less of a fan of kangaroo courts and the risk that poses to the rest of us. Step aside from your TDS and see it for what it really is.. There is no precedent, unless you live in New York, get over yourself. I did for a few years quite a while ago but I'm quite sure I didn't sexually assault anyone. It was you that introduced the pejorative TDS, quite copiously.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 18, 2024 21:58:30 GMT
No its not whataboutery. Its about precedent and the implications it can have to you and me. I can't stand trump but I'm even less of a fan of kangaroo courts and the risk that poses to the rest of us. Step aside from your TDS and see it for what it really is.. There is no precedent, unless you live in New York, get over yourself. I did for a few years quite a while ago but I'm quite sure I didn't sexually assault anyone. It was you that introduced the pejorative TDS, quite copiously. Great to know that as long as you're not one of the 6 or so million men who live in NY. Its a totally unsound conviction by any metric you care to choose. Oggy will know he's a lawyer..
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 18, 2024 22:35:54 GMT
There is no precedent, unless you live in New York, get over yourself. I did for a few years quite a while ago but I'm quite sure I didn't sexually assault anyone. It was you that introduced the pejorative TDS, quite copiously. Great to know that as long as you're not one of the 6 or so million men who live in NY. Its a totally unsound conviction by any metric you care to choose. Oggy will know he's a lawyer.. Your juxtaposition crusade on behalf of New York Males as opposed to the conviction of one particular New York Male is peculiar There is no Legal basis for your assertion that Trump's conviction is unsound other than your particular preference It may be tested if Trump proceeds to Appeal one and/or both of his convictions The only Metric that is relevant is that Trump has been convicted twice by a Jury of his Peers who based their decision on the evidence presented It's easy to understand despite your protestations that you too are afflicted with TDS whom most of its congregation do not respect the rule of law but just what it's Messiah tells them. I'm sure Oggy may or may not have a particular view on Trump's conviction but I'm also sure he would concede as a Family Lawyer in London he would not be qualified to assess a Sexual Assault Civil Case in New York
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 18, 2024 23:59:29 GMT
Testimony from 2 women that EJ Carroll related to them contemporaneously about the Sexual Assault by Trump The infamous Hollywood Access "Grab them by the Pussy" Tape used in evidence to give insight into Trump's character In cases of Rape there is rarely a Perry Mason Smoking Gun introduced and in a Civil Court a Verdict is returned on the Balance of Probability Lol. You're clutching at straws chief. I've shared dressing rooms with many a rugby player whose said far worse. None as far as I am aware were rapists. And this her mates said so is ridiculous. Now he may well be guilty but this is not how justice should be served or you me and a lot of your mates could be in the firing line 30 years down the line... The only rugby players Iâve shared a dressing room with whoâve said anything remotely like this were members of West Mids Police, but that really isnât relevant.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 19, 2024 0:05:29 GMT
How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape. So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you... Whilst claiming she wasnât his type and that heâd never seen her in his life, Trump identified her as his wife. Whoâs confused/ lying?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 19, 2024 0:26:50 GMT
So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you... Whilst claiming she wasnât his type and that heâd never seen her in his life, Trump identified her as his wife. Whoâs confused/ lying? I know that answer, is there a prize? Mickey is confused, Trump is lying.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 19, 2024 10:26:54 GMT
How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape. So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you... So presumably the judge in the case was also confused when he clarified in no uncertain terms that a jury had found Trump guilty of rape www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/. Yes it was a civil trial where the standard for a guilty verdict is the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt but that means a jury having listened to the evidence came to the conclusion that Trump did rape Carroll. The neutral position on the matter is to accept the judgement of the jury. Refusing to accept the jury's judgement is not a neutral act - its refusing to accept that the jury was right based purely on you wanting to make a point on a message board. So as I said- you are not being neutral you are turning a blind eye to rape. You point about it being a friend or relative is actually quite alarming - it implies your relationship to a potential rapist is supposed to override what may have actually happened which just confirms your claim to be neutral as utter nonsense. You are prepapared to believe someone is innocent of rape before the evidence has been assessesd and in the case of Trump even after they have been found guilty.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 19, 2024 11:28:34 GMT
Surprised the lefty pile on took so long đ I stand by every last word I said. No evidence, zero. Nothing. Just an accusation decades later from someone who couldn't even remember the year it supposedly happened. It is not how justice should be served or we could all be fucked.
And there have been some tasteless character assassinations here when all I am doing is pointing out a very obvious legal flaw in how justice has apparently been delivered. Unsurprising however. Grow up...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 19, 2024 11:58:12 GMT
Surprised the lefty pile on took so long đ I stand by every last word I said. No evidence, zero. Nothing. Just an accusation decades later from someone who couldn't even remember the year it supposedly happened. It is not how justice should be served or we could all be fucked. And there have been some tasteless character assassinations here when all I am doing is pointing out a very obvious legal flaw in how justice has apparently been delivered. Unsurprising however. Grow up... What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 19, 2024 12:26:55 GMT
Surprised the lefty pile on took so long đ I stand by every last word I said. No evidence, zero. Nothing. Just an accusation decades later from someone who couldn't even remember the year it supposedly happened. It is not how justice should be served or we could all be fucked. And there have been some tasteless character assassinations here when all I am doing is pointing out a very obvious legal flaw in how justice has apparently been delivered. Unsurprising however. Grow up... What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating that he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying. I think I'm with Mickey on this one, although I'm quite open to being convinced the other way. You said ... "Trump's defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it." Well if he didn't do it, what other evidence are you expecting him to have? If a copper came and banged on my door this afternoon and made the same accusation against me, what could I possibly do but say that I didn't do it? And it appears to me, that her 'evidence', is pretty much based on the fact that she told two mates, 30 years ago, that she had been raped by a very famous person, how do we know she wasn't lying to her friends at the time? It would appear, that somebody could tell two of her friends that she was raped by say, I dunno, Prince Harry. Do nothing about it whatsoever and then in twenty or thirty years time, come forward with the same accusation and we would then apparently have enough 'evidence' to nail Harry. Now Trump may well be guilty (I suspect he is) but it seems to me, that the bar has been set incredibly low in terms of what evidence is required to 'prove' him so. Indeed, wasn't the reason that the case didn't ever go to criminal trial, was precisely BECAUSE the Attorney's Office didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prosecute? Reading Mickey's posts, it seems to me, that he's actually more concerned with the 'principle' of how this conviction has been reached, rather than this specific case per se.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on May 19, 2024 13:10:52 GMT
What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating that he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying. I think I'm with Mickey on this one, although I'm quite open to being convinced the other way. You said ... "Trump's defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it." Well if he didn't do it, what other evidence are you expecting him to have? If a copper came and banged on my door this afternoon and made the same accusation against me, what could I possibly do but say that I didn't do it? And it appears to me, that her 'evidence', is pretty much based on the fact that she told two mates, 30 years ago, that she had been raped by a very famous person, how do we know she wasn't lying to her friends at the time? It would appear, that somebody could tell two of her friends that she was raped by say, I dunno, Prince Harry. Do nothing about it whatsoever and then in twenty or thirty years time, come forward with the same accusation and we would then apparently have enough 'evidence' to nail Harry. Now Trump may well be guilty (I suspect he is) but it seems to me, that the bar has been set incredibly low in terms of what evidence is required to 'prove' him so. Indeed, wasn't the reason that the case didn't ever go to criminal trial, was precisely BECAUSE the Attorney's Office didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prosecute? Reading Mickey's posts, it seems to me, that he's actually more concerned with the 'principle' of how this conviction has been reached, rather than this specific case per se. Thank you, someone with sense who can see the exact point I'm making. Cheers...
|
|
|
Post by biddulphchav on May 19, 2024 14:15:00 GMT
Surprised the lefty pile on took so long đ I stand by every last word I said. No evidence, zero. Nothing. Just an accusation decades later from someone who couldn't even remember the year it supposedly happened. It is not how justice should be served or we could all be fucked. And there have been some tasteless character assassinations here when all I am doing is pointing out a very obvious legal flaw in how justice has apparently been delivered. Unsurprising however. Grow up... What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying. You have to ask yourself why the timing was as it was though donât you? Do you think this case was about getting justice or was it political? Sadly, in the US, politics has degenerated to the point where you donât know what to believe.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 19, 2024 14:31:51 GMT
What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating that he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying. I think I'm with Mickey on this one, although I'm quite open to being convinced the other way. You said ... "Trump's defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it." Well if he didn't do it, what other evidence are you expecting him to have? If a copper came and banged on my door this afternoon and made the same accusation against me, what could I possibly do but say that I didn't do it? And it appears to me, that her 'evidence', is pretty much based on the fact that she told two mates, 30 years ago, that she had been raped by a very famous person, how do we know she wasn't lying to her friends at the time? It would appear, that somebody could tell two of her friends that she was raped by say, I dunno, Prince Harry. Do nothing about it whatsoever and then in twenty or thirty years time, come forward with the same accusation and we would then apparently have enough 'evidence' to nail Harry. Now Trump may well be guilty (I suspect he is) but it seems to me, that the bar has been set incredibly low in terms of what evidence is required to 'prove' him so. Indeed, wasn't the reason that the case didn't ever go to criminal trial, was precisely BECAUSE the Attorney's Office didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prosecute? Reading Mickey's posts, it seems to me, that he's actually more concerned with the 'principle' of how this conviction has been reached, rather than this specific case per se. Hoist by his own Petard springs to mind It's not uncommon for Women to not report a Rape Assault (Digital Penetration) to Police for any manner of reasons. She did tell 2 of her friends at the time. The case never went to the Attorney's Office simply because E Jean Carroll didn't report it to the Police and the Criminal Statute of Limitations ran out after 5 years E Jean Carroll write a memoir in 2019 claiming Trump had Raped her. Trump responded by calling her a liar and claimed it never happened. This opened up a new window limited only from the time Trump called her a liar in 2019 which allowed E Jean Carroll to sue for Defamation. Note Trump never tried to sue E Jean Carroll for Defamation other than to mouth off on Twitter In New York in cases of Sexual Assault Rule 415 allows the accuser to bring evidence of the defendants past behaviour. Before trial Trump's Lawyers tried to exclude the infamous Access Hollywood tape in which Trump can be heard saying âIâm automatically attracted to beautiful women â I just start kissing them, itâs like a magnet. Just kiss. I donât even wait. And when youâre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,â he said, including âgrab âem by the pussy.â Fucked over by his own Braggadocio Trump's Lawyers were also unsuccessful in excluding testimony from 2 other women who claimed Trump had raped them Trump's Lawyers originally tried to have the case thrown out as he was President at the time he called E Jean Carroll a liar and denied the claims. Do I think Trump would have been Criminally Convicted of Rape back in the Day, probably not. Am I surprised that Trump was convicted twice by a Jury in a Civil Trial "On the Balance of Probability" not at all In any case Trump has the opportunity to overturn both verdicts as he has indicated he will appeal, he doesn't always follow through on his outpourings
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 19, 2024 14:44:52 GMT
What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating that he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying. I think I'm with Mickey on this one, although I'm quite open to being convinced the other way. You said ... "Trump's defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it." Well if he didn't do it, what other evidence are you expecting him to have? If a copper came and banged on my door this afternoon and made the same accusation against me, what could I possibly do but say that I didn't do it? And it appears to me, that her 'evidence', is pretty much based on the fact that she told two mates, 30 years ago, that she had been raped by a very famous person, how do we know she wasn't lying to her friends at the time? It would appear, that somebody could tell two of her friends that she was raped by say, I dunno, Prince Harry. Do nothing about it whatsoever and then in twenty or thirty years time, come forward with the same accusation and we would then apparently have enough 'evidence' to nail Harry. Now Trump may well be guilty (I suspect he is) but it seems to me, that the bar has been set incredibly low in terms of what evidence is required to 'prove' him so. Indeed, wasn't the reason that the case didn't ever go to criminal trial, was precisely BECAUSE the Attorney's Office didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prosecute? Reading Mickey's posts, it seems to me, that he's actually more concerned with the 'principle' of how this conviction has been reached, rather than this specific case per se. I really don't want to get into the Trump good/bad part of the discussion but commenting on the case per se Trump didn' help himself. Trump wasn't in court and didn't take the stand. Now in a criminal trial where 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the threshold then silence might be an option if you think that the prosecution has insufficient evidence or where being cross examined may trip you up. However in a civil case showing contempt for the court by not turning up is not a good look and when it's about 'balance of probabities' if one side is offering evidence and willing to be cross examined whilst the other is relying on a written statement it will undoubtedly affect a jury's view of 'probability' as that 'probability' is only being built up from one side in the courtroom Also after the $2m award Trumps team almost contradicted themselves by complaining that it was a punitive award for what was effectively "groping' (so if it was just a 'grope' then maybe 'fessing up would have been a cleaner defence) Since the 1970's either Trump or his businesses gave been involved in over 4000 lawsuits - yet his (or his team's) approach to this displayed a remarkable naivity
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 19, 2024 14:50:22 GMT
I think I'm with Mickey on this one, although I'm quite open to being convinced the other way. You said ... "Trump's defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it." Well if he didn't do it, what other evidence are you expecting him to have? If a copper came and banged on my door this afternoon and made the same accusation against me, what could I possibly do but say that I didn't do it? And it appears to me, that her 'evidence', is pretty much based on the fact that she told two mates, 30 years ago, that she had been raped by a very famous person, how do we know she wasn't lying to her friends at the time? It would appear, that somebody could tell two of her friends that she was raped by say, I dunno, Prince Harry. Do nothing about it whatsoever and then in twenty or thirty years time, come forward with the same accusation and we would then apparently have enough 'evidence' to nail Harry. Now Trump may well be guilty (I suspect he is) but it seems to me, that the bar has been set incredibly low in terms of what evidence is required to 'prove' him so. Indeed, wasn't the reason that the case didn't ever go to criminal trial, was precisely BECAUSE the Attorney's Office didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prosecute? Reading Mickey's posts, it seems to me, that he's actually more concerned with the 'principle' of how this conviction has been reached, rather than this specific case per se. Hoist by his own Petard springs to mind It's not uncommon for Women to not report a Rape Assault (Digital Penetration) to Police for any manner of reasons. She did tell 2 of her friends at the time. The case never went to the Attorney's Office simply because E Jean Carroll didn't report it to the Police and the Criminal Statute of Limitations ran out after 5 years E Jean Carroll write a memoir in 2019 claiming Trump had Raped her. Trump responded by calling her a liar and claimed it never happened. This opened up a new window limited only from the time Trump called her a liar in 2019 which allowed E Jean Carroll to sue for Defamation. Note Trump never tried to sue E Jean Carroll for Defamation other than to mouth off on Twitter In New York in cases of Sexual Assault Rule 415 allows the accuser to bring evidence of the defendants past behaviour. Before trial Trump's Lawyers tried to exclude the infamous Access Hollywood tape in which Trump can be heard saying âIâm automatically attracted to beautiful women â I just start kissing them, itâs like a magnet. Just kiss. I donât even wait. And when youâre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,â he said, including âgrab âem by the pussy.â Fucked over by his own Braggadocio Trump's Lawyers were also unsuccessful in excluding testimony from 2 other women who claimed Trump had raped them Trump's Lawyers originally tried to have the case thrown out as he was President at the time he called E Jean Carroll a liar and denied the claims. Do I think Trump would have been Criminally Convicted of Rape back in the Day, probably not. Am I surprised that Trump was convicted twice by a Jury in a Civil Trial "On the Balance of Probability" not at all In any case Trump has the opportunity to overturn both verdicts as he has indicated he will appeal, he doesn't always follow through on his outpourings Yup I agree with all of that and as I said, there wouldn't have been enough for me, if I had been on the jury. Personally I find "on the balance of probability" a bit of a strange concept, when it comes to a person's guilt. As we know, there are plenty of people out there, who would quite easily convict "on the balance of probability" simply based on a person's skin colour.
|
|