DJT and TDS

[seanD]

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.

If you're on some sort of quest ("agenda") to try and persuade folks how evil Trump is, wouldn't your quest be better suited to a more populated platform? There may be less than a dozen folks that regularly post in this section, and as far as politics, their minds are pretty much already set in stone.

Btw, I hope you're at least getting paid for that endeavor, otherwise you sure do have a lot of time on your hands.

[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.

This post starts out in "not even wrong" territory and takes a hard turn into "apparently can't even read".

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

There may be less than a dozen folks that regularly post in this section, and as far as politics, their minds are pretty much already set in stone.

In some cases, their heads appear to be made of stone.

[NorrinRadd]

I generally agree, and won't usually respond to its use in an active conversation. But I thought the topic in general merited a post. It also gave me an opportunity to lay out in a bit more detail my opposition to Mr. Trump.

Some might regard this as a pretense motivated by your TDS.

[NorrinRadd]

I can assure you that Mr. Trump is not all that I think about. But I have decided that I am going to take time, each day, to put together a post outlining issues related to this man, in the hopes that I will influence some of the lurkers in the various sites where I post. Right now, it's the primary thing I can do, and I am seriously concerned about the threat this man poses to our nation.

Given that he is one of the two candidates likely to be in the Oval Office come next January, it seems that the time is warranted.

Thinking that Bad Orange Man is more of a threat than Stumblin' Stammerin' Sniffin' Ol' Joe is a sign of TDS.

[Roy]

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.

That appears to be untrue. There was more evidence:

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.

That's evidence for sexual assault, but not evidence for rape.

[CivilDiscourse]

That appears to be untrue. There was more evidence:
That's evidence for sexual assault, but not evidence for rape.

It seems to me that Sam prefers very strict definitions when doing so helps his point, but is more than willing to change his standard when doing so will help a different point he wants to make.

[Sam]

That appears to be untrue. There was more evidence:
That's evidence for sexual assault, but not evidence for rape.

It is evidence for digital rape, which is rape. If a person uses their penis, their fingers, or an object to forcibly penetrate, it's rape.

-Sam

[VonTastrophe]

This reminds me of "Bush derangement syndrome" which used to used by feeble minded supporters to manipulate those who criticized Bush Jr. But certainly that's not what's happening here, right? Right?

[Mountain Man]

It is evidence for digital rape, which is rape. If a person uses their penis, their fingers, or an object to forcibly penetrate, it's rape.

-Sam

The point is, both accusations were supported by the same evidence, which is to say the same lack of evidence. There is not even any evidence that President Trump and Carroll were ever in the store at the same time. Then there's the fact that Carroll lied about what she was wearing on the day she was supposedly assaulted (the designer dress she claimed to have worn wasn't even available at the time), the fact that years earlier, she suggested in her advice column that the dressing rooms of Bergoff Goodman were a good place to proposition a woman, and what about her infamous interview with Anderson Cooper where she grinned mischievously and told him that rape was sexy and the stuff of fantasies?

In short, there was no evidence to support the charges, and Carroll is not a credible accuser. Based on those the facts, I am justified in believing that the President was wrongly convicted.

[Cow Poke]

It seems to me that Sam prefers very strict definitions when doing so helps his point, but is more than willing to change his standard when doing so will help a different point he wants to make.

Kinda like those giant orange deadly attack balls in the Rio Grande with the razor sharp saw blades between them that are designed to kill and drown innocent migrants.
(Hey, maybe it's "orange" that triggers him!)

[Sam]

The point is, both accusations were supported by the same evidence, which is to say the same lack of evidence. There is not even any evidence that President Trump and Carroll were ever in the store at the same time. Then there's the fact that Carroll lied about what she was wearing on the day she was supposedly assaulted (the designer dress she claimed to have worn wasn't even available at the time), the fact that years earlier, she suggested in her advice column that the dressing rooms of Bergoff Goodman were a good place to proposition a woman, and what about her infamous interview with Anderson Cooper where she grinned mischievously and told him that rape was sexy and the stuff of fantasies?

In short, there was no evidence to support the charges, and Carroll is not a credible accuser. Based on those the facts, I am justified in believing that the President was wrongly convicted.

Well, you've made numerous and repeated factual misstatements regarding the complaint and the trial so I wouldn't call your belief informed but you are, of course, free to believe that a civil case finding leaves room for reasonable doubt.

The point, however, was establishing that calling Trump a rapist, as determined by a jury, is not evidence of "derangement" but rather a reasonable and factual statement.

-Sam

[Sam]

Kinda like those giant orange deadly attack balls in the Rio Grande with the razor sharp saw blades between them that are designed to kill and drown innocent migrants.
(Hey, maybe it's "orange" that triggers him!)

Pretty stupid - strategically, if nothing else - for a pastor to join in qubbiling over whether digital penetration really counts as rape.

Do better.

-Sam

[rogue06]

The point is, both accusations were supported by the same evidence, which is to say the same lack of evidence. There is not even any evidence that President Trump and Carroll were ever in the store at the same time. Then there's the fact that Carroll lied about what she was wearing on the day she was supposedly assaulted (the designer dress she claimed to have worn wasn't even available at the time), the fact that years earlier, she suggested in her advice column that the dressing rooms of Bergoff Goodman were a good place to proposition a woman, and what about her infamous interview with Anderson Cooper where she grinned mischievously and told him that rape was sexy and the stuff of fantasies?

In short, there was no evidence to support the charges, and Carroll is not a credible accuser. Based on those the facts, I am justified in believing that the President was wrongly convicted.

Apparently the manufacture of the outfit she claims she was wearing says that it hadn't been made at the time of the accusation.

[Sam]

Apparently the manufacture of the outfit she claims she was wearing says that it hadn't been made at the time of the accusation.

"Apparently" is doing an intense amount of work here for a claim that, as far as I can see, originated from the thin air of online forums.

-Sam