DJT and TDS

[Mountain Man]

Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll, as a matter of fact. He has bragged about sexually assaulting women and, to that end, has been accused of sexual assault by a score of women.

A number of people have indeed been convicted of plotting and attempting an insurrection; that's what "seditious conspiracy" means. Among those convicted are members of the Proud Boys, who Trump infamously refused to denounce and told to "stand down and stand by" at the final 2020 presidential debate and members of the Oath Keepers, who were in direct contact with Roger Stone, a close Trump ally, before and during the Jan. 6 riot.

They say when the facts and the law aren't on your side, pound the table. That's what we're seeing here in Trump's defense.

-Sam

No, the President was never found to have raped Carroll. The jury just couldn't pull the trigger on that one due to a complete lack of evidence to support the allegations, but being New York, they were determined to find the President guilty of something, so they downgraded it to the lesser charge of sexual assault despite the same lack of evidence. But it's New York, you know? They seem to have one of the most corrupt judicial systems in the United States. As an aside, did you know that the dress Carroll claimed she was wearing at the time she was supposedly assaulted wasn't available until years later? That's right, she is not a credible accuser.

And, no, "sedition" and "insurrection" are not synonyms. Sedition, broadly speaking, means any illegal act against the government, while insurrection refers specifically to the actual overthrow of government.

[carpedm9587]

Yes.

I believe that's an oversimplification.

How so?

I wish to God there was some other choice.

There is ALWAYS a choice, CP. Every time we make a decision to act, we do so from an array of choices - large or small.

That is a statement of fact.

More fact.

Never said nor implied that. EVER.

The point, CP, is that you will be saying it with your vote - if you vote for Mr. Trump.

I just happen to care about fact over emotion.

Now this is interesting. What facts are driving your choice, and what emotion are you eschewing?

[Cow Poke]

...Now this is interesting. What facts are driving your choice, and what emotion are you eschewing?

In this particular situation, my main point was that there is a difference between a civil and criminal trial, along with rules of evidence, allowable testimony, language, outcome...
That's simply a fact.

The "emotion" is to declare Trump a "rapist" (a criminal charge) based on the findings of a civil proceeding.

[Sam]

No, the President was never found to have raped Carroll. The jury just couldn't pull the trigger on that one due to a complete lack of evidence to support the allegations, but being New York, they were determined to find the President guilty of something, so they downgraded it to the lesser charge of sexual assault despite the same lack of evidence. But it's New York, you know? They seem to have one of the most corrupt judicial systems in the United States. As an aside, did you know that the dress Carroll claimed she was wearing at the time she was supposedly assaulted wasn't available until years later? That's right, she is not a credible accuser.

And, no, "sedition" and "insurrection" are not synonyms. Sedition, broadly speaking, means any illegal act against the government, while insurrection refers specifically to the actual overthrow of government.

We've been over this numerous times. The jury found that E. Jean Carroll proved that Donald Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina. But Carroll didn't prove that he did so with his penis, as opposed to his fingers. Because NYS penal code classified the former as rape and the latter as sexual assault, the jury found that Trump had committed sexual assault but did not find that he had committed (penile) rape.

For all purposes other than NYS penal code sentencing, that's a distinction without a difference. Digital rape is rape. If you want to continue being an abysmal moral failure by trying to waffle around that, it's on you.

We've already discussed the distinction between seditious conspiracy and insurrection. Again, for purposes other than a narrow legal reading and punishments, the distinction is immaterial. If the President plots to usurp an election he lost to illegitimately retain power over the executive branch, it's an insurrectionist plot and he's an insurrectionist.

Plain facts that easily withstand such amoral babbling.

-Sam

[Sam]

In this particular situation, my main point was that there is a difference between a civil and criminal trial, along with rules of evidence, allowable testimony, language, outcome...
That's simply a fact.

The "emotion" is to declare Trump a "rapist" (a criminal charge) based on the findings of a civil proceeding.

"Rapist" isn't a criminal charge. Many rapists, despite never facing a criminal trial, exist and are named by their victims. "Rapist" is a statement of fact, one which must be weighed on the basis of evidence. E. Jean Carroll has met a high (albeit not the highest) standard of evidence and a jury concluded that Trump digitally raped her.

It is therefore merited to call Trump a rapist and while you or others might consider it reasonable to retain doubt that Trump is a rapist, I'll note that the same deference to criminal convictions has not been afforded other politicians on this site. So it's not a principled deference but a self-interested one and, therefore, dishonorable.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

We've been over this numerous times. The jury found that E. Jean Carroll proved that Donald Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina. But Carroll didn't prove that he did so with his penis, as opposed to his fingers. Because NYS penal code classified the former as rape and the latter as sexual assault, the jury found that Trump had committed sexual assault but did not find that he had committed (penile) rape.

For all purposes other than NYS penal code sentencing, that's a distinction without a difference. Digital rape is rape. If you want to continue being an abysmal moral failure by trying to waffle around that, it's on you.

We've already discussed the distinction between seditious conspiracy and insurrection. Again, for purposes other than a narrow legal reading and punishments, the distinction is immaterial. If the President plots to usurp an election he lost to illegitimately retain power over the executive branch, it's an insurrectionist plot and he's an insurrectionist.

Plain facts that easily withstand such amoral babbling.

-Sam

Please, Sam, I am not defending sexual assault. Let's think this through: Carroll claimed that President Trump had raped her, as in penile insertion, right? However, there was no evidence to support this charge, so the verdict should have been not guilty, right? Instead, the corrupt jury pivoted and found Trump guilty of sexual assault instead, despite the fact that there was no more evidence to prove it than there was for the rape accusation. It was a clear miscarriage of justice, courtesy of the corrupt New York legal system. We also know that Carroll is not a credible accuser based on false claims she made about the timing of the supposed incident.

On the second point, legally speaking, there is a clear distinction between sedition and insurrection. To a layman, this might appear to be a distinction without a difference, but legally, there is, in fact, a clear distinction. That's why someone can be convicted of sedition without also being convicted of insurrection.

[Sam]

Please, Sam, I am not defending sexual assault. Let's think this through: Carroll claimed that President Trump had raped her, as in penile insertion, right? However, there was no evidence to support this charge, so the verdict should have been not guilty, right? Instead, the corrupt jury pivoted and found Trump guilty of sexual assault instead, despite the fact that there was no more evidence to prove it than there was for the rape accusation. It was a clear miscarriage of justice, courtesy of the corrupt New York legal system. We also know that Carroll is not a credible accuser based on false claims she made about the timing of the supposed incident.

On the second point, legally speaking, there is a clear distinction between sedition and insurrection. To a layman, this might appear to be a distinction without a difference, but legally, there is, in fact, a clear distinction. That's why someone can be convicted of sedition without also being convicted of insurrection.

Carroll claimed that Trump pulled down her underwear, inserted his fingers into her vagina and then inserted his penis. Therefore, there were multiple complaints the jury was instructed to rule on, including both "sexual assault" — referring to digital rape — and "rape" — referring to penile rape.

You are defending a sexual assailant and a rapist. And you're doing so not out of principle but because there's an (R) suffixed to his name.

On the second point, it's perfectly appropriate to call a seditionist an insurrectionist, so long as you're not doing so as a narrow point of law and sentencing. If you want to say "Trump isn't an insurrectionist, he's a seditionist", I won't let it slide — Trump took material actions to advance his seditious plot — but neither will I make it a point of stern correction. "The current Republican candidate for president is a seditionist" is close enough.

-Sam

[carpedm9587]

In this particular situation, my main point was that there is a difference between a civil and criminal trial, along with rules of evidence, allowable testimony, language, outcome...
That's simply a fact.

The "emotion" is to declare Trump a "rapist" (a criminal charge) based on the findings of a civil proceeding.

CP, at the end of the day, I don't really care about which word we do or do not use to label Mr. Trump's actions. Mr. Trump was found liable for sexual assault. A jury of his peers found credible reason to demand a sizeable restitution from him. His words, his behavior, his history, and the existence of a large number of other women claiming the same thing make it highly probable that he did exactly what he is accused of doing: he violated a woman. It is very likely that he has a string of such events in his past. And this is only ONE of the areas where the man has shown himself to be morally compromised.

And this is the man that Republicans and conservatives across the country want to return to the highest office in the land.

It boggles the mind that anyone can manage the cognitive dissonance associated with claiming to be a moral person, a follower of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, and pulling the level for Mr. Trump in November. And yet a lot of people are doing (or going to do) exactly that. I just do not understand it.

[Cow Poke]

CP, at the end of the day, I don't really care about which words we do or do not use. Mr.Trump was found liable for sexual assault. A jury of his peers found credible reason to demand a sizeable restitution from him. His words, his behavior, his history, and the existence of a large number of other women claiming the same thing make it highly probable that he did exactly what he is accused of doing: he violated a woman. And this is only ONE of the areas where the man has shown himself to be morally compromised.

And this is the man that Republicans and conservatives across the country want to return to the highest office in the land.

It boggles the mind that anyone can manage the cognitive dissonance associated with claiming to be a moral person, a follower of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, and pulling the level for Mr. Trump in November. And yet a lot of people are doing (or going to do) exactly that. I just do not understand it.

I'm glad you're back, Carpe. Sincerely.

[rogue06]

Maybe I'm just not in the same threads, but it really seems like JimL has dialed down the "nearly every post" goofy accusations "you're a trumpster, you support, on purpose or not, a lying wanna be dictator who plotted the overthrow of thecountry and tried to destroy democracy so you are just as guilty, you traitor insurrection supporting anti-democracy... blah blah blah..."

I tend to skip over most of his posts given that he adds very little of interest, but if he has dialed it back a notch, it could be in part due to one or two of his own fellow travelers telling him to knock it off and not post that crap in their threads.

[Mountain Man]

Carroll claimed that Trump pulled down her underwear, inserted his fingers into her vagina and then inserted his penis. Therefore, there were multiple complaints the jury was instructed to rule on, including both "sexual assault" — referring to digital rape — and "rape" — referring to penile rape.

You are defending a sexual assailant and a rapist. And you're doing so not out of principle but because there's an (R) suffixed to his name.

On the second point, it's perfectly appropriate to call a seditionist an insurrectionist, so long as you're not doing so as a narrow point of law and sentencing. If you want to say "Trump isn't an insurrectionist, he's a seditionist", I won't let it slide — Trump took material actions to advance his seditious plot — but neither will I make it a point of stern correction. "The current Republican candidate for president is a seditionist" is close enough.

-Sam

So you agree that Carroll claimed that Trump raped her, but the jury clearly didn't believe it, so it should have been a verdict of "not guilty" and not a pivot to another charge that was equally lacking evidence.

On the second point, again, legally speaking, "sedition" and "insurrection" are separate crimes, although I recognize you will refuse to concede this because it is in your best ideological interest to wrongly conflate the two.

[carpedm9587]

I'm glad you're back, Carpe. Sincerely.

Thanks. Nice to see you too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I came back with an agenda. I am doing some things in the real world to try to address the dangers I see facing our country, but I want to do more online. X is a cesspool. Truth Social is the same or worse. My FB page has become an echo chamber because the people who disagree don't stay and discuss; they leave and even block. It dawned on me that returning here would put me in the middle of a venue where most of those participating are going to disagree with me. I know there are some who will never be convinced to reconsider their support for Mr. Trump and the MAGA movement, but it is my hope that the things I post will be seen and read by some who will consider the arguments and the situation.

I also want to better understand what it is that drives those who are planning to cast their votes for Mr. Trump. As I have said before, I cannot reconcile "good person" with "support Trump." There are people in my life who I KNOW (as much as anything can be known for certain) are good people, and who I likewise know plan to vote for Trump. Those two realities just don't square for me and I'm hoping to gain a better insight.

Finally, I want to make sure my own assessments are supportable. That doesn't happen when I speak only with people who agree with me. It primarily happens when people who disagree with me push and propose counter arguments. Is it possible I will end up pulling the lever for Trump? Right this moment, I cannot even begin to fathom it. The man simply has done and said too many things that do not square with my personal ethic. But I seldom say "never." If someone comes up with something I have not already considered, or successfully points to inconsistencies in my positions, I hope I will have the intellectual honesty to adjust accordingly.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks. Nice to see you too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I came back with an agenda. I am doing some things in the real world to try to address the dangers I see facing our country, but I want to do more online. X is a cesspool. Truth Social is the same or worse. My FB page has become an echo chamber because the people who disagree don't stay and discuss; they leave and even block. It dawned on me that returning here would put me in the middle of a venue where most of those participating are going to disagree with me. I know there are some who will never be convinced to reconsider their support for Mr. Trump and the MAGA movement, but it is my hope that the things I post will be seen and read by some who will consider the arguments and the situation.

I also want to better understand what it is that drives those who are planning to cast their votes for Mr. Trump. As I have said before, I cannot reconcile "good person" with "support Trump." There are people in my life who I KNOW (as much as anything can be known for certain) are good people, and who I likewise know plan to vote for Trump. Those two realities just don't square for me and I'm hoping to gain a better insight.

Finally, I want to make sure my own assessments are supportable. That doesn't happen when I speak only with people who agree with me. It primarily happens when people who disagree with me push and propose counter arguments. Is it possible I will end up pulling the lever for Trump? Right this moment, I cannot even begin to fathom it. The man simply has done and said too many things that do not square with my personal ethic. But I seldom say "never." If someone comes up with something I have not already considered, or successfully points to inconsistencies in my positions, I hope I will have the intellectual honesty to adjust accordingly.

[carpedm9587]

So you agree that Carroll claimed that Trump raped her, but the jury clearly didn't believe it, so it should have been a verdict of "not guilty" and not a pivot to another charge that was equally lacking evidence.

On the second point, again, legally speaking, "sedition" and "insurrection" are separate crimes, although I recognize you will refuse to concede this because it is in your best ideological interest to wrongly conflate the two.

Umm.. my understanding is that, in any court of law, a "guilty" verdict means that there was sufficient evidence to support the accusation being made beyond a reasonable doubt. A "not guilty" claim, however, is not a claim that "he didn't do it." It is merely a claim that there is not sufficient evidence to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words, the possibility that he didn't do it is a reasonable conclusion.

There is a vast difference, both criminally and civilly, between what a person did, and what can be proven that he did. Sexual assault cases are almost always he-said-she-said cases with very little by way of corroborating physical evidence, making it that much more difficult for a jury to assess. In the Trump case, they had two other women who told their stories about Trump groping them and kissing them without permission, and they had Mr. Trump's own words from the access hollywood tape. Across all of those the common thread is groping and sexual assault, so that is what the jury went with. Penal penetration was only asserted (as far as I know) by Ms. Carroll (though it has been asserted by other women not involved in the trial), so the jury did not believe it had enough evidence to conclude, "that most likely happened."

For myself, all of the available evidence points to a man who does what he wants, disrespects women, and sees himself as justified in any liberty he takes. There is little/no doubt in my mind that he sexually assaulted many women, not just Ms. Carroll. Out of the millions of conservatives in the U.S., that this is the best they could do for a candidate speaks volumes as to how far the Republican party has fallen in the last 9 years.

[Sparko]

Thanks. Nice to see you too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I came back with an agenda. I am doing some things in the real world to try to address the dangers I see facing our country, but I want to do more online. X is a cesspool. Truth Social is the same or worse. My FB page has become an echo chamber because the people who disagree don't stay and discuss; they leave and even block. It dawned on me that returning here would put me in the middle of a venue where most of those participating are going to disagree with me. I know there are some who will never be convinced to reconsider their support for Mr. Trump and the MAGA movement, but it is my hope that the things I post will be seen and read by some who will consider the arguments and the situation.

I also want to better understand what it is that drives those who are planning to cast their votes for Mr. Trump. As I have said before, I cannot reconcile "good person" with "support Trump." There are people in my life who I KNOW (as much as anything can be known for certain) are good people, and who I likewise know plan to vote for Trump. Those two realities just don't square for me and I'm hoping to gain a better insight.

Finally, I want to make sure my own assessments are supportable. That doesn't happen when I speak only with people who agree with me. It primarily happens when people who disagree with me push and propose counter arguments. Is it possible I will end up pulling the lever for Trump? Right this moment, I cannot even begin to fathom it. The man simply has done and said too many things that do not square with my personal ethic. But I seldom say "never." If someone comes up with something I have not already considered, or successfully points to inconsistencies in my positions, I hope I will have the intellectual honesty to adjust accordingly.

So basically "TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP?"

Most of us don't want Trump as president again, but we don't want Biden even more. Trump is the lesser of two evils.