The Rapist

This is the new labeling for Trump from the left. It has become for many their only way to identify him in their comments. Even Biden had to suggest Trump rapes women in the debate, and so I guess that is their new theme of you can't vote for him because he is a rapist.

"The rapist" used over and over even with people I have known for decades are using it with pure hate in their eyes.

Rapist gets shot. He's fine. A few years from now, after his dictatorship is firmly established

This is the beginning of a long rant from a friend that I have known for many years. What was even more surprising was the thumbs up from others I know.

I also want to know just how a mid-80s guy, much less anyone, could form a dictatorship in America? Someone, please explain that one. That is even worse than suggesting Jan 6 was almost the end of our democracy from an unarmed selfie-taking group of people. Even if they were fully loaded with M4s it still would not be the end of our democracy. In both cases are events that just sound nice to call that way, but impossible to accomplish in anyway.

Now back to NYC and the uncontrollable legal system there that has been attacking Trump 100 different ways, and they get their hands on E. Jean Carroll. A crackpot that said almost 30 years ago she met Trump in an upscale department store and the two went into a changing room together so she could try on different outfits for him. This alone is about the strangest story one could suggest happened. She is by far not a pretty woman, even back in the 90s, but there are so many questions to ask of how did they get into a fitting room without anyone on staff knowing, or opening the door? Trump has said he doesn't think he has ever been there and would have had zero reasons to be there in the first place, such as what would be the reason for Trump being in the women's section just walking around to run into Carroll in the first place?

Then the fun started when he supposedly groped her in the fitting room with no timeline of how long they were there, what was she doing, etc. Now of course NY is going to rule in her favor with zero evidence of anything except for 30-year memory where she couldn't even get a rough idea of the month. We also need to remember this was another famous NY civil case that needs basically nothing as proof, just a judge to allow it and a jury that hates Trump. The big part and why the NY judicial system is so corrupt is that the judge should never have allowed it in the first place with zero evidence.

To finally add icing on the cake Carrel has said in her book that she was trying to sell throughout all this and also in an interview on CNN, that she finds the idea of rape sexually arousing, so it has been a fantasy of hers all along. Cooper had a shocked look on his face as they quickly cut to a brake to stop her talking about it, but in the end "the rapist" is what they now want to use.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I suppose that answers my question

a reply to: Xtrozero

Apparently the democrat party never learns.
Hillary ran on the platform, “trump sucks” and it didn’t end well.

Now with their mentality compromised candidate (the world can’t deny that fact after the debate), they are not able to do anything but attack the other guy in an attempt to make him look worse than their own guy.

a reply to: Xtrozero

This is the new labeling

Joe slept with the babysitter

Joe asked me to keep an eye on the boys ... 'I thought, hmm...

Joe a hypocrite for criticizing people's character

We ALL KNOW by now what it means when Biden emphatically accuses somebody of something don't we. 😃

Biden has more than one "record" in that secret Congressional sex case hush fund.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Now with their mentality compromised candidate (the world can’t deny that fact after the debate), they are not able to do anything but attack the other guy in an attempt to make him look worse than their own guy.

These are intelligent people I know, so how do they believe in impossibilities and suggest that is what will happen? It takes just a second to ask the question how in the hell can it even happen? In 2028 both Trump and Biden will be forever out of politics and the doors are open to many younger people to move forward. The country will still be here, in better shape than today.

I think there is a level of pure anguish that there is no victory for them and it will be a huge crush and no way to stop it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

that doesn't matter now, after yesterday election win for trump he will be called the attempted assassination survivor President Trump

originally posted by: EatZeeBugs

Joe slept with the babysitter

It seems he abused his daughter too by her own words. Clinton screwed dozens of women throughout his Governor and Presidency. He also forcefully raped an election worker that Hillary called them all sluts.

But hey a crazy woman says something that is her fantasy to happen, and Trump is the rapist.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The biggest problem with politics is that it’s all about popularity today.
Everything is feelings and not ability.
That all started with television and has gotten so much worse with 24/7 social media coverage.

Basically in the future we will be stuck with influencers running the country.😳👎

originally posted by: BernnieJGato

that doesn't matter now, after yesterday election win for trump he will be called the attempted assassination survivor President Trump

We all know that, but the part that really gets me is all these people I have known for many years, educated/intelligent professionals that believe some basement narrative like it is spoken directly from God...lol geez

Zero rationality in all that they think today. It took Biden to fail on stage to open their eyes and he has been that way for the last 5+ years, so what the F have they been looking at that was any different than what the rest of us were seeing?

Liberals also act like lemmings as in they wait until one goes over the cliff and then they follow. All it took this time was one prominent Democrat to say WTF happened and all of a sudden, they all go over the cliff.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

The biggest problem with politics is that it’s all about popularity today.
Everything is feelings and not ability.
That all started with television and has gotten so much worse with 24/7 social media coverage.

Basically in the future we will be stuck with influencers running the country.😳👎

Hate is a strong emotion, and I keep asking Liberals to name one or two things that Trump did to create so much hate, and I get nothing.

I have a friend who calls all Conservatives Fascist, and I asked him can he name anything that Trump did that was fascist and all he could say was Jan 6 and that was the end of his argument on it all.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You've got a few things wrong.

1. The event happened back at the very end of 1995 or beginning of 1996. that nails it down to plus or minus a week or two. Shortly afterwards, E. Jean Carroll confided in a couple of her friends about the incident. They weren't with her when the incident supposedly happened, but their testimony establishes that she wasn't just making it all up many years later.

2. She claims that Trump managed to get his pink little pecker out and into action and spooged on her. She wiped it off with her dress more or less like Monica Lewinsky did after servicing Bill Clinton. The spooge stain was later examined forensically by a lab and found to contain male DNA. For many years, her legal team tried to get Trump to provide a DNA sample to see if it could be matched to the DNA sample on the dress and he consistently refused. There is less than one chance in a billion that a DNA match could return a false positive, so you would think that if he really never met her, he could easily have conclusively disproved her claim. Now, in a criminal case, a defendant can't be required to incriminate themselves, doesn't even have to testify, and furthermore, their refusal to testify can't be used against them when the jury goes to deliberate. But the case against Trump was a civil case seeking damages, not a criminal case. In a civil case, the fact that Trump refused to provide a DNA sample that would exonerate him can be interpreted by the jury as evidence of guilty knowledge. And apparently, it was.

3. E. Jean Carroll was a cheerleader in high school and a beauty pageant winner. Trump claimed he never met her, but the jury was shown photos of the two of them together from around the time of the encounter. In his deposition, Trump was shown a photo of himself with several other people, including E. Jean Carroll and was asked to identify her. He mistakenly identified her as his former wife, Marla. The jury concluded that he was lying about not knowing who she was and that she "wasn't his type".

4. During the trial, she described in some detail what happened and that the sexual part of the encounter took about 3 minutes. The statement that she provided no time line is bullcrap. The basics of the encounter she described is that he immediately started kissing her without asking and grabbed her by the pussy. Of course, the jury was shown the famous Access Hollywood tape in which he candidly admits that that is exactly how he treats women he is attracted to. The important thing there is the timing. E. Jean Carroll was telling her story from about 1995 onward, but the Access Hollywood tape wasn't made until 2005, and it didn't become public until late 2016. So her story could not possibly have been based on the tape. The tape simply provided independent evidence that Trump engages in exactly the kind of behavior she reported.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.

a reply to: Xtrozero

She also accused 6 other guys of sexually assaulting her. Including the CEO of CBS.

a reply to: Boomer1947

In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.

Is that why they wouldn't allow Trump's lawyers to present any evidence to the contrary? Asking for a friend.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Xtrozero

You've got a few things wrong.

1. The event happened back at the very end of 1995 or beginning of 1996. that nails it down to plus or minus a week or two. Shortly afterwards, E. Jean Carroll confided in a couple of her friends about the incident. They weren't with her when the incident supposedly happened, but their testimony establishes that she wasn't just making it all up many years later.

2. She claims that Trump managed to get his pink little pecker out and into action and spooged on her. She wiped it off with her dress more or less like Monica Lewinsky did after servicing Bill Clinton. The spooge stain was later examined forensically by a lab and found to contain male DNA. For many years, her legal team tried to get Trump to provide a DNA sample to see if it could be matched to the DNA sample on the dress and he consistently refused. There is less than one chance in a billion that a DNA match could return a false positive, so you would think that if he really never met her, he could easily have conclusively disproved her claim. Now, in a criminal case, a defendant can't be required to incriminate themselves, doesn't even have to testify, and furthermore, their refusal to testify can't be used against them when the jury goes to deliberate. But the case against Trump was a civil case seeking damages, not a criminal case. In a civil case, the fact that Trump refused to provide a DNA sample that would exonerate him can be interpreted by the jury as evidence of guilty knowledge. And apparently, it was.

3. E. Jean Carroll was a cheerleader in high school and a beauty pageant winner. Trump claimed he never met her, but the jury was shown photos of the two of them together from around the time of the encounter. In his deposition, Trump was shown a photo of himself with several other people, including E. Jean Carroll and was asked to identify her. He mistakenly identified her as his former wife, Marla. The jury concluded that he was lying about not knowing who she was and that she "wasn't his type".

4. During the trial, she described in some detail what happened and that the sexual part of the encounter took about 3 minutes. The statement that she provided no time line is bullcrap. The basics of the encounter she described is that he immediately started kissing her without asking and grabbed her by the pussy. Of course, the jury was shown the famous Access Hollywood tape in which he candidly admits that that is exactly how he treats women he is attracted to. The important thing there is the timing. E. Jean Carroll was telling her story from about 1995 onward, but the Access Hollywood tape wasn't made until 2005, and it didn't become public until late 2016. So her story could not possibly have been based on the tape. The tape simply provided independent evidence that Trump engages in exactly the kind of behavior she reported.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.

it's funny when you lie so aggressively. I suppose if I knew my political ideals were nothing but hate and stupidity, I'd be angry too.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

You've got a few things wrong.

1. The event happened back at the very end of 1995 or beginning of 1996. that nails it down to plus or minus a week or two. Shortly afterwards, E. Jean Carroll confided in a couple of her friends about the incident. They weren't with her when the incident supposedly happened, but their testimony establishes that she wasn't just making it all up many years later.

Women who get abused remember down to the day and time for such an event. Her two friends are also Trump haters and all three have spoken publicly and in private messages shown to the jury about their hatred for the former president. This was also a civil case that didn't end in rape, so why use the word rape?

They narrowed it down to sometime in the spring of 1996

During the trial, she described in some detail what happened and that the sexual part of the encounter took about 3 minutes. The statement that she provided no time line is bullcrap. The basics of the encounter she described is that he immediately started kissing her without asking and grabbed her by the pussy. Of course, the jury was shown the famous Access Hollywood tape in which he candidly admits that that is exactly how he treats women he is attracted to. The important thing there is the timing. E. Jean Carroll was telling her story from about 1995 onward, but the Access Hollywood tape wasn't made until 2005, and it didn't become public until late 2016. So her story could not possibly have been based on the tape. The tape simply provided independent evidence that Trump engages in exactly the kind of behavior she reported.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.

None of this answers about how they got into a fitting room...why was she even in a fitting room with him, why was Trump even at the department store alone in the women's department?

We also have the book she was trying to sell and that she has said that rape is sexually arousing to her to push that fantasy. So, for some reason, Trump got her into the fitting room to try on different outfits, and in 3 minutes he basically masturbated on her as he groped her. Sounds so reasonable...geez

In the end, Trump is not a convicted rapist to really call him that, and that was my main point in all this.

originally posted by: watchitburn

She also accused 6 other guys of sexually assaulting her. Including the CEO of CBS.

She admitted it is all sexually exciting to her.

a reply to: Xtrozero

George Stephanopoulos is being sued by Trump for calling him a rapist.

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: nugget1

Is that why they wouldn't allow Trump's lawyers to present any evidence to the contrary? Asking for a friend.

The judge rules it all, allows or disallows. He allowed hearsay to be used as evidence and so here we are without trying to understand how that all would even happen and what strange state of mind Carrol is in to push it.

originally posted by: network dude

George Stephanopoulos is being sued by Trump for calling him a rapist.

www.cbsnews.com...

He should sue them all, I'm sure in NY he would get 85 million on each. Trump called her a "wack job" and she proved she is a wack job. I think calling someone a rapist is worse.