It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: muse7
If it happened the way that it's described in the article then that is rape. However I expect this to make trump's approval ratings go higher since most of the republican base is still stuck in the 40s..back when wives were seen as property.
According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren't fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who's gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever # with us.
originally posted by: Metallicus
After the Republicans finish with Trump you will see something happen to Bernie Sanders. They can't have the people backing any non-official candidates.
originally posted by: intrepid
Please stop. This is the second thread today that had crap to do with yesterday. This a LONG time yesterday... if it's true. OK. I'll admit it right now. As A Canadian citizen I can run for Prez: See: Cruz. I once raped my left hand back in the 60's.
My apologies to rape victims. I'm not making light of you. I'm making light of this ridiculous process.
originally posted by: NerdGoddess
I just want to throw this out there....
Spouses can be raped.
Just because you're married doesn't make rape, not rape.
If he or she does not want to have sex, and you force it.... that is rape. Regardless of your title.
States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under ..... of husband and wife, whether common law or otherwise
originally posted by: Monger
Warning: The article contains explicit language, in the form of threats directed against a reporter by Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen.
gawker.com... dium=socialflow
Please note that the first one to attack the source earns my undying scorn. Yes, Gawker is often shady and morally dubious. But I've never seen them post anything factually incorrect, or at least wholly so.
Basically, the gist of the story is that a 1993 biography of The Donald revealed accusations from his ex-wife Ivana Trump that he forcibly raped her while the two were married.
After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon. [...] What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants. “Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified…It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”
A reporter recently reached out Trump's camp for comment, and got the following inexplicable response from his lawyer:
Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.” “It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”
As well as some pretty vicious threats to the reporter in question.
So, what do you think? Ivana and Donald later came to some sort of consensus that what happened wasn't 'rape rape' and left the matter at that (with, I'm sure, an 'extra' in the divorce settlement), so it's not like anybody is going to be looking at charges against him. But do you think it will hit him in the polls?
originally posted by: Monger
Please note that the first one to attack the source earns my undying scorn. Yes, Gawker is often shady and morally dubious. But I've never seen them post anything factually incorrect, or at least wholly so.