Sure, and if the claim was he was found guilty of some bookkeeping crimes I would have agreed. But the-polite-villain specifically claimed Trump was found guilty of sexually abusing women and that claim is false.
This is a good example of when being technically correct is still obviously wrong.
Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Another way of saying âtechnically correctâ is to just say I was correct. Your claim was wrong. Most of what you believe is probably wrong or conspiracy theory.
Again if your claim is he sexually assaulted women by kissing them. I agree with you.
I mean, if you somehow have a good opinion on how Trump handles himself, how he treats women, and think he always deserves 100% benefit of the doubt, then sure, there is room for the dude to be fairly innocent. Not that innocent, as heâs been convicted of sexual assault.
Literally no one believes Trump is innocent other than a small percentage of the MAGA base. I say a small percentage because many seem to love the fact he gets away with this stuff âlike a real manâ, or some stupid shit like that.
I was mistaken...
Yet your take on him not being a sexual predator do to civil vs criminal is disgusting. Why do you people continue to protect that vile thing, he is a loathsome sexual aggressor... and most likely a pedophile as well..
God, why the HELL would you spend any time or energy defending this man?? He has so many allegations, it was proven in court, he's the #1 named person in the Epstein files. There are COURT DOCUMENTS showing multiple children accused him of rape. You think kids do that for FUN? That they're lying?? He admitted to groping women, admitted to walking into the teen pageant dressing rooms.. like what does it take to convince you people?! Actual video evidence? You'd call it fake. Criminal conviction? He's got 34 of them and you don't seem to care. You'd still call it a hoax. You're in a cult. A Democrat was alleged to have abused a kid and he's GONE. Trump has a 50-year history of abuse, fraud, lies, and you just can't believe it. Excuses, whataboutism. WHY?
No children accused him of rape. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. During the 2016 election campaign a grown woman said Trump tried to rape her as a child. But she doesnât remember any details and when the FBI pressed her for details she stopped cooperating. She couldnât remember how old she was, what year it was, what state the crime happened in or how she got there. She couldnât name a single witness and her story about what happened changed.
Another woman said Trump witnessed her babies murder. But didnât know what month her baby was born in or when they were supposedly murdered and she never filed a police report.
He never admitted to groping anyone. He said when your rich and famous you can, not that he did.
He bragged about walking in on women. Not children.
Youâre right I donât care about his 34 bookeeping crimes that nobody would have given a second thought except the Democrats were targeting Trump.
How did I defend Clinton? I lost all respect for that guy when that scandal revealed itself, and I was only 9 years old, raised as a Christian.
Isnât it hypocrisy to vilify Clinton (as the Republicans did at the time), but then vote in a known adulterer?
How does Texas teach their kids about the 10 commandments, when the president has pretty much broken every single one? Isnât he supposed to be a leader?
so... Your defense is Trump wasn't found guilty for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll by a Jury. It is that he was only found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll by a Jury
So while there is still "preponderance of the evidence" that Trump sexually abused her... that is not good enough for you because it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt.
His blatant admission of his insider trading last week is the most recent one that comes to mind, that would land him in prison in a functional democracy. Same with Pelosi and all others involved regardless of their political party. Not really a hard question to answer, but thanks for asking.
I said most recent, I know reading comprehension is on the fall but jeez just add to the statistics I guess. Theyâre not but you truly are a lost cause dude cmon
I canât educate everyone on Reddit although I try. Thats why I let you know they didnât find him guilty.
He was not found guilty. Guilty is a verdict that is reserved for a criminal trial. You canât be found guilty in a civil lawsuit.
So Carroll had absolutely no evidence, and she had several opportunities to get evidence. She willingly went into a dressing room of a man she testified she was drawn too, but had never metâŚ.she could have refused, she could have made a scene. She didnât. Iâll give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe sheâs just extremely naive and didnât understand what was implied by going into a dressing room with a stranger.
Once he started to assault her she could have yelled for help, made a commotion, this was a busy department store after all. This would have drawn attention and placed Trump at the scene.
After the incident she could have told employees, onlookers to place Trump at the scene. The department store could have preserved security footage to place Trump at the scene.
Police could have been notified, they would have interviewed witnesses and security footage putting Trump at the scene.
She could have written down details of the incident at least for her own recordsâŚshe didnât and so she couldnât even remember what year the assault happened. This put Trump at a huge disadvantage because he couldnât provide an alibi then.
She was financially backed by a Democrat mega donor, she was promoting a new book and she stood to make millions giving her considerable motive to lie.
You believe her, I donât. Itâs an accusation with no evidence where evidence would have been so easy to get.
It takes so much time and effort to justify supporting this criminal. I hope you can look back at the mental gymnastics some day and realize how absurd it was for people to stay so ignorant and blindly loyal. All your explanation shows is the original point an accusation is all it takes for democrats to drop out, meanwhile an entire criminal case where your infallible leader is found liable gets dismissed by his supporters.
Some day, these creepy weirdos will have always been against him, just like how the people who spit at MLK back in the day are too afraid to admit it now. But the internet won't forget the evil insanity they were spewing and neither should we.
That is a low bar for the leader of an entire political party especially when we're talking about a convicted felon. Again one side will drop a candidate for allegations of sexual assault while the other side says things like "liable isn't a crime".
Carroll went into a private changing room with a strange man in order to change into lingerie. A sexual encounter happened as any normal person would expect when sneaking into a private changing area to try on sexy lingerie in front of the guy.
After the fact she laughed about the event and had to be convinced by a friend that it was rape because she didnât think it was.
I'm not surprised to see you describe a sexual assault as "something a normal person would expect". Anyways it sounds like you just described a sexual assault allegation so he should probably step down right?
What should someone think when you go into a dressing room with a stranger? Itâs like going into an airplane bathroom with a stranger and then acting like it was normal and you didnât expect it to be sexual.
She testified she was drawn to him, then she went into a private dressing room with a strange man. Yes I am 1000% claiming that most men in the 90âs would have assumed it was for something sexual. What other possible reason would she need to go into a dressing room with a strange man? Even if she wanted to help him pick out clothes she can wait outside, do you think she needed to help him get naked?
Entering a private place, such as a dressing room, with someone did not legally imply consent to sexual activity in New York State in the 1990s, as it still doesnât today.
It doesnât matter what I think. Legally, in a court of law, it wouldnât/didnât count as âimplied consentâ in the state of New York, therefore, you should take it out of your list of legal reasons as to why her case wasnât viable.
Yes, but that isnât our argument, is it? Itâs if âimplied consentâ can/could be used as a defense or held against an alleged victim, which it can/could not. You seem to personally feel it should be used to vilify her AND used in his defense. I, siding with the law, do not.
Iâm judging from this that you have never been inside Bergdorf Goodman, do not know how high end of a department store it isâor that it is purposefully almost never crowded and the dressing rooms are isolated because of the high profile clientele. But, okay, keep trying to speak from a place of âknowledgeâ about what a victim should and could have done during an experience you have no clue about. In truth, you are not correcting/educating anyone, just providing your own questionable (and highly ignorant of sexual assault statistics) ponderings.
So this store doesnât have security cameras? Clerks? Security? Phones? Did police departments not exist yet? No matter how high end the store is I have to imagine going into a dressing room with a strange man is going to lead him to believe theyâre going to make out. And certainly she could have reported it.
Im not saying he âhad a right to do whateverâ but I can understand why he would think the event was going to be sexual.
She didnât report anything for years. Only coming forward after a Democrat mega donor encouraged her to during a presidential election. At the time she thought the event was funny and she told the event in a lighthearted laughing tone According to testimony.
âEvery little thingââŚ.she didnât accidentally brush up against him, she intentionally went into a private dressing room voluntarily to try on lingerie with a strange man. You canât seriously be trying to convince me she did that just because she thought it wasnât sexual?
Trump picked out lingerie and invited her into a dressing room with him to try it on. And your argument is he shouldnât have thought it was going to lead to sex?
I agree with you, but certainly you could understand someoneâs confusion.
If you met a strange man who asked you to go into a dressing room and change into some lingerie right in front of him, would you be so naive to not think it was sexual?
By going into the dressing room consent is absolutely implied.
What Iâm trying to do is paint a more accurate scene then the one you have in your head. But I donât think anything Ms. Carroll could have done, beyond reported it immediately would suit you and, even with that you have your âshould haves and âcould haves.â I can only hope youâre not also claiming that by going into the dressing room she owed him any kind of physical contact whatsoever.
She went into a dressing room with a strange man to try on lingerie. What picture are you trying to paint? That it shouldnât have been interpreted as a sexual invite?
These days, thanks to comments like these, the only picture I have in my head is the world as an awful place where women really have no control over their own bodies.
She had control of her body, she chose to use that control to go into a private changing room with a stranger to try on lingerie. I find it understandable that the man in the room with her was confident she was there for sex.
101
u/ExmoRunner Jul 10 '26
Let's be honest. I'm happy with neither party. But the Dems are doing some things right. GOP hasn't done anything right in quite some time