Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: JadedGhost

Apparently saying you're innocent is worth exponentially more....



The same rights that protect you from these silly comments are the same that should be protecting Trump. If they found a way to remove that right from Trump, what chance do you think you have?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JadedGhost

Apparently saying you're innocent is worth exponentially more....

But now your just being intentionally ignorant to defend your boy Trump. Because he didn’t just claim to be innocent did he? He publicly went on some moronic rant and personally attacked his accuser.

There’s a big difference.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JadedGhost

Apparently saying you're innocent is worth exponentially more....

But now your just being intentionally ignorant to defend your boy Trump. Because he didn’t just claim to be innocent did he? He publicly went on some moronic rant and personally attacked his accuser.

There’s a big difference.

By all means, show me the rant that convinced you he raped/assaulted then defamed her?

I've been waiting for what, 12 pages now......

a reply to: JinMI

I’m not personally convinced he did rape (or sexually assault) her and I’m pretty damn sure he would’ve never been criminally convicted for it.

But thats not really the point here. Sports stars or whatever are being accused of sexual assault on the news every other week, but even they have the basic common sense to just make a formal statement (usually though there lawyer) about being innocent and fighting the charges.

Not Trump though, he goes off on some rant and personally attacks the accuser. His big mouth just cost him 83 million dollars… next POTUS right there.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JadedGhost

Apparently saying you're innocent is worth exponentially more....

But now your just being intentionally ignorant to defend your boy Trump. Because he didn’t just claim to be innocent did he? He publicly went on some moronic rant and personally attacked his accuser.

There’s a big difference.

By all means, show me the rant that convinced you he raped/assaulted then defamed her?

I've been waiting for what, 12 pages now......

People don't have to be convinced when they already assume and want a thing to be True.

It's like a Drug just keep feeding it to them .

Present a person with a flat pathway paved and well lit , On this path give them the predetermined answers that follow the narrative .

Also present a person with a Mountain at the top of the mountain is the Truth .

a reply to: JadedGhost

I’m not personally convinced he did rape (or sexually assault) her and I’m pretty damn sure he would’ve never been criminally convicted for it.

Truly fascinating.

Know why? Because this is all predicated upon that allegation via Carroll's article.

What wraps it in a nice neat bow is that it doesn't change your mind at all.


I'll say it again. You can still hate the orange man but see that the justice system is corrupt. It's completely fine.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

This has been a thread that I'm proud of.

I legitimately wanted to know if folks not only agreed with the decisions of the NYC jury, but could quantify it. Perhaps they had something they missed or perhaps I missed some key piece of evidence or quote.

What has been discovered and shown is that it appears no one supporting this has seen or been able to provided sourcing to what convinced them but haven't even done a basic inquiry of the case.

They're merely just happy that they got Trump on something and he deserved it because...reasons.


Every time I think we are in deep sh....water. I find another drop off.

a reply to: JinMI

I honestly don’t think this is a case of the justice system being corrupt. It would be better described as a case of the justice system baiting Trump and giving him just enough rope to hang himself with.

a reply to: JadedGhost

It sounds like you may need a bit of time to reflect....

I honestly don’t think this is a case of the justice system being corrupt.

Also you:

I’m not personally convinced he did rape (or sexually assault) her and I’m pretty damn sure he would’ve never been criminally convicted for it.

But that's on you and your credibility.


Meanwhile, if the rape allegation is false, then the Trumps defenses are true. Thus the defamation is null.


See how easy this is when just a smidge of critical thinking is applied?

a reply to: JadedGhost

Spot on. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Unfortunately, Trump's stupid games seem to be going down well with his MAGA crowd.

Trump or Biden?

What a rubbish choice!

a reply to: JinMI

"Meanwhile, if the rape allegation is false, then the Trumps defenses are true. Thus the defamation is null."

Except that wasn't the sole basis of the suit.

Jury says to you, "no".

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

"Meanwhile, if the rape allegation is false, then the Trumps defenses are true. Thus the defamation is null."

Except that wasn't the sole basis of the suit.

Jury says to you, "no".

By all means, provide the missing context then.....

12 pages and counting.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

"Meanwhile, if the rape allegation is false, then the Trumps defenses are true. Thus the defamation is null."

Except that wasn't the sole basis of the suit.

Jury says to you, "no".

By all means, provide the missing context then.....

12 pages and counting.

a reply to: JinMI

The thing with the fingers?

Sexual assault?

Defamatory statements?

What the jury found?

12 pages telling you all of this.

Count on.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

The thing with the fingers?

Sexual assault?

Defamatory statements?

What the jury found?

12 pages telling you all of this.

Count on.

So, nothing. Just appeals and deference.


Blind leading the blind telling me that I can't see.

a reply to: JinMI

"Appeals and deference", to what?

Like, findings of fact by a jury?

None so blind as them that won't see.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

"Appeals and deference", to what?

Like, findings of fact by a jury?

None so blind as them that won't see.

Yes, Carp, we've heard from the jury.

I want to hear from you and others that agree.

Where's that context I'm missing?

Where is that source or quote that convinced you that the jury made the correct decision?

None so blind as them that won't see.

Which is clearly more apt than you know. (although I thought my quote was more in context)

a reply to: JinMI

So in your mind, if a person makes an accusation of being sexually assaulted, then it’s totally appropriate for the accused to jump on social media and personally attack the accuser?

If so, then what’s stopping a person who is blatantly guilty of sexual assault using social media to bully and intimidate the victim?

See where I’m going here?

The court made the right decision. All Trump had to do is keep his mouth shut and it never would’ve come to this in the first place.

a reply to: JadedGhost

So in your mind, if a person makes an accusation of being sexually assaulted, then it’s totally appropriate for the accused to jump on social media and personally attack the accuser?

Yes actually, especially if that person is innocent. Can you please provide a link to these personal attacks at the accuser please?

If so, then what’s stopping a person who is blatantly guilty of sexual assault using social media to bully and intimidate the victim?

Why are you using "blatantly guilty" when even you yourself don't believe he raped her?

See where I’m going here.

Absolutely. I've been outlining your trail with bright shiny lights even. Big red signs and flags.....

The court made the right decision here. All Trump had to do is keep his mouth shut and it never would have come to this in the first place.

Again, yet you yourself don't even believe the allegations of rape. Which was what this is all built on. So, if the rape allegation is false, then there can not be defamation in the context of Trump defending himself.

This is pretty basic guy.

a reply to: JinMI

What context?

You don't like things going against DJT. Neither does he when he doesn't get his way. Unfair. So unfair.

Continued to page 98.

You have a source that says the jury made the wrong decision?

Let's wait for the Appeal decision.

Guessing you will not like or accept that either.

And so it goes on, and on.