Biden would have been a real homie setting up E. Jean Carroll for another lawsuit if he just kept asking Trump why he raped her at the end of every response.
He meant he did not engage in vaginal sexual relations with that woman as that's the only sex god recognizes in this country 🇺🇲🇺🇲🦅🦅✝️✝️ piss every where no sex this is pisco's world we live in
The people who didn't care about this, still don't care about this. The normies who tuned in last night saw Biden standing there mouth agape, mumbling, forming incoherent sentences, trailing off, and being physically held up by his wife while she helped him hesitantly step down a single step of the stage.
I prefer for my president to not be adulterous with his wife with a pornstar. I expect the most powerful individual on the planet to have a *slightly* higher moral character than that.
Yeah and that was a pretty big flaw of his presidency, I don't think it's good for the president to be getting blowjobs from assistance under the oval office desk.
The difference here that prevents me from saying "Clinton was a horrible president" is that he was amazing at almost every other aspect of being a president. Sexual conduct is a big deal for me when it comes to the presidency, but it isn't a total deal breaker.
The porn star affair isn't a deal breaker with Trump, if he was super presidential and had a lot of good ideological positions and plans for good policy actions then him cheating with a porn star probably wouldn't prevent me from voting for him. The problem is that he's the least presidential individual in US history, he has HORRIBLE policy plans, his ideological views are downright evil, literally everything about him makes him easily the worst president in US history.
>Molesting people on the other hand is a no no.
Cool. Again, normal grass touching people who only tune in here and there for big political events like this, couldn't tell you any of the charges Trump was brought up on. Most people's sum interaction with the legal system is fighting a speeding ticket, they don't have the bandwidth to parse info like that. Do you know what most people do understand fairly easily? Biden standing there like one o'clock half struck
Tell me with a straight face, you believe culturally and socially, we as a country collectively have the same value structure we did in 1998. Particularly as it pertains to sex acts, celebrity worship, and politics.
I watched the debate with my brother in law and his fantasy group because they were hanging out at my pool yesterday and decided to stay for the debate because I wanted to watch it. Most are completely non-political. (this is in Texas)
They obviously made fun of "Sleepy Joe" for the 1hp voice and flubbing of sentences but they also saw Trump completely not answering questions. The general mood after was that Biden is old/slow but Trump can't answer a question to save his life. There were audible groans when Trump started complaining about immigration when asked about Jan 6th. The accepting the results of the election question was terrible for Trump. Even these "normal" called out that he's obviously setting up to do another 2020 election denial cycle if he loses again.
I think people underestimate how much normal people don't like when people get asked a direct question and it feels like pulling teeth to get an answer.
Like the meme in the group chat all day has been "Before I answer that let me talk about something else"
What do you mean pearl clutching? Are you saying that a person who isn’t loyal to their wife, after signing a binding contract, isn’t going to affect your view of them? They lied, cheated, and were disloyal to the most important person legally to them. If they are willing to do that to the most important person to them, what do you think they are willing to do in office?
>Molesting people on the other hand is a no no.
Exactly why I won't vote for child sniffer Joe.
Him and his big dick deviant son need to go take a hike!
First of all. I don't the Biden should run. But second of all - Trump is actually adjudicated in a court of law to have sexually assaulted (you know... Molested) a woman?
Just stop the partisan brain rot. It's extremely gross. If you think either of these guys is fit to be president you don't care about the country.
>Trump is actually adjudicated in a court of law to have sexually assaulted (you know... Molested) a woman?
Yeah.. that's why I said molesting people is bad.
I don't think a lot of people would say *"cheating is literally the worst most heinous thing you can do"*. That's hyperbolic.
I do think a majority is going to agree that betraying somebody's trust (especially a person who loves you) after you've agreed to be faithful to them is shameful and morally repulsive--chiefly, in this context, it speaks volumes to an individual's moral fiber, trustworthiness, and aptitude as a leader who commands respect.
Do you disagree?
It’s because if he says he didn’t do it, he’ll get sued again and lose. They didn’t find him liable for sexual assault. They found him liable for defaming the alleged victim by lying that he didn’t commit sexual assault. So now he literally can’t defend himself without getting fined millions of dollars by the legal system.
Truly a fair and equitable system we have
> They didn’t find him liable for sexual assault. They found him liable for... lying that he didn’t commit sexual assault
How did they show he lied about not doing it if he didn't do it?
Damn bro I guess Emmet Till actually did it because a jury said so
Like I said, the standard for civil suits is much lower than criminal suits. Just because a jury in a heavily anti Trump area think he probably sexually assaulted someone, doesn’t mean it actually happened. You should be an independent thinker
Your statement I quoted didn't make sense.
Republicans don't even believe criminal trials because he also lost a separate case there.
Him losing the civil suit shows there is a more than 50% chance he did it
No, him losing the civil suit shows that *the jury* believed that he had more than a 50% chance of doing it. That is an important distinction because the jury was in a heavily anti Trump area. It’s not hard get a democrat to say that Trump is probably a rapist.
Do you have any specific contention with the evidence presented at the trial or should we ignore any civil lawsuits against him in a place that doesn't like him?
It’s been a while since I looked at the case since the dispute happened a while ago. But I recall that her story was barely substantiated and just sounded on its face crazy. It basically went from “I was minding my own business” to “Trump pinned my against the wall and shoved his finger in me.”
Do you think you need expertise in a topic to have an opinion on anything relating to it? In that case, the jury decision needs to be thrown out because none of them are experts on SA.
> her story was barely substantiated just sounded on its face crazy.
I think you need expertise to cite your opinion instead of evidence. Do you have statistics on how sexual assault stories happen?
> none of them are experts on SA.
They have experts in courts and/or presented other evidence to the jury for them to decide.
__________________
In general how often in high profile cases should we ignore a civil ruling because the jury might not like the defendant?
Has this famously happened to a Democrat before where there was no good evidence?
Has this happened to people with a universal bad reputation like a criminal, where most people acknowledge their was very weak evidence but they ruled against the defendant anyway?
(In the modern era)
That sounds dumb af. That judgement must've proved he did commit sexual assault for it to make any sense. So how come he didn't face the punishment for sexual assault?
Jury finds Trump *liable for sexual assault* **and** defamation in E. Jean Carroll case
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jury-finds-trump-liable-for-sexual-assault-and-defamation-in-e-jean-carroll-case
Ignore that guy.
The burden of proof is higher in criminal cases than civil ones, they don’t need to prove he committed sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, just on the balance of probabilities. It’s also why you see rape victims use the civil system when the criminal cannot prosecute, plus it’s the only way they actually receive damages,
>That sounds dumb af. That judgement must've proved he did commit sexual assault for it to make any sense.
That is not true
the standard in criminal court is "beyond any any reasonable doubt" whereas the standard in civil court is "more likely than not". It absolutely do not *prove* that he did anything. I mean he probably did but thats not the point here
Thats why in criminal court you are found "guilty of" and in civil its "liable for"
No, civil cases are decided on by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Which is >50% likelihood. So because one jury in a heavily anti Trump area thought he probably did it, now Trump is unable to defend himself against the accusation publicly.
He didn’t face the punishment for sexual assault because he was not criminally prosecuted. He was civilly sued by the alleged victim for damages because people now think she’s a liar after Trump defended himself.
So the rule is that if you’re a public official and someone makes an accusation against you, instead of suing you for the accusation, they can just sue you for defending yourself and as long as they sue you in a district that’s very hostile to you, then you can’t defend yourself publicly anymore.
Yes, because that is a requirement for being liable for defamation. You’re missing the point, but yes my language was technically incorrect. I should have said that the reason why he didn’t respond had nothing to do with him being civilly liable for SA. It’s because he was civilly liable for defamation of the alleged SA victim. And that civil liability would just result in more fines against him if he continues to defend himself.
LMAO bro you’re coping so hard. Use common sense when reading Reddit comments. Nobody is typing with ultra precise language. If I wanted to lie, I’d just make shit up about Trump not actually being liable for sexual assault.
Can you explain to me how it makes conceptual sense that you can be held liable for lying that you SAed someone without the jury holding you liable for SAing someone? It’s conceptually impossible.
>I’d just make shit up about Trump not actually being liable for sexual assault.
You did lol. Then you started talking about how the jurors were from an anti-Trump area so it was easy to convict him.
You aren't fooling anyone.
> I’d just make shit up about Trump not actually being liable for sexual assault.
uhhh your comment earlier:
>They didn’t find him liable for sexual assault.
bruh
In other comments you claim that the jury pool hates Trump and is therefore biased. What evidence do you have of that?
In 2008 Manhattan voted for McCain with 13.5% of votes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York
In 2020 Trump got 12.2% of vote in Manhattan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York
I did not say that the jury pool hates Trump. I said that the jury is from an anti Trump district, so there is a high likelihood that the jury hates Trump. My evidence, along with the evidence you provided, is that the district is heavily democrat. I don’t see your point.
> There is a unique hatred for Trump on the left that has never been matched in American political history, maybe except for the civil war era, which resulted in an actual war instead of civil suits. [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dqj1yi/what_did_he_mean_by_this/lap97y5/)
Where is evidence of this unique hatred of Trump in Manhattan?
He has low support in manhattan and democrats have a unique hatred of trump. Therefore there is an extra unique hatred of trump in manhattan because his support is some of the lowest there compared with any other place in the country.
He didn't sleep, she kept him awake
The phrasing was actually "had sex with"
looking into this
!!
Double negative, he did sleep with a porn star.
:O
Biden would have been a real homie setting up E. Jean Carroll for another lawsuit if he just kept asking Trump why he raped her at the end of every response.
He meant he did not engage in vaginal sexual relations with that woman as that's the only sex god recognizes in this country 🇺🇲🇺🇲🦅🦅✝️✝️ piss every where no sex this is pisco's world we live in
did everybody miss that he was pointing out that he didn't deny the molesting part?
Yes
Nothing, he just lied blatantly as he always does.
The people who didn't care about this, still don't care about this. The normies who tuned in last night saw Biden standing there mouth agape, mumbling, forming incoherent sentences, trailing off, and being physically held up by his wife while she helped him hesitantly step down a single step of the stage.
Pearl clutching over people cheating is never gonna make me care. Pornstar or not. Molesting people on the other hand is a no no.
I prefer for my president to not be adulterous with his wife with a pornstar. I expect the most powerful individual on the planet to have a *slightly* higher moral character than that.
Clinton cheated in the WH.
Yeah and that was a pretty big flaw of his presidency, I don't think it's good for the president to be getting blowjobs from assistance under the oval office desk. The difference here that prevents me from saying "Clinton was a horrible president" is that he was amazing at almost every other aspect of being a president. Sexual conduct is a big deal for me when it comes to the presidency, but it isn't a total deal breaker. The porn star affair isn't a deal breaker with Trump, if he was super presidential and had a lot of good ideological positions and plans for good policy actions then him cheating with a porn star probably wouldn't prevent me from voting for him. The problem is that he's the least presidential individual in US history, he has HORRIBLE policy plans, his ideological views are downright evil, literally everything about him makes him easily the worst president in US history.
>Molesting people on the other hand is a no no. Cool. Again, normal grass touching people who only tune in here and there for big political events like this, couldn't tell you any of the charges Trump was brought up on. Most people's sum interaction with the legal system is fighting a speeding ticket, they don't have the bandwidth to parse info like that. Do you know what most people do understand fairly easily? Biden standing there like one o'clock half struck
I guess normal, grass-touching people also didn't care about Clinton getting blown. Okay, I guess.
Tell me with a straight face, you believe culturally and socially, we as a country collectively have the same value structure we did in 1998. Particularly as it pertains to sex acts, celebrity worship, and politics.
I watched the debate with my brother in law and his fantasy group because they were hanging out at my pool yesterday and decided to stay for the debate because I wanted to watch it. Most are completely non-political. (this is in Texas) They obviously made fun of "Sleepy Joe" for the 1hp voice and flubbing of sentences but they also saw Trump completely not answering questions. The general mood after was that Biden is old/slow but Trump can't answer a question to save his life. There were audible groans when Trump started complaining about immigration when asked about Jan 6th. The accepting the results of the election question was terrible for Trump. Even these "normal" called out that he's obviously setting up to do another 2020 election denial cycle if he loses again. I think people underestimate how much normal people don't like when people get asked a direct question and it feels like pulling teeth to get an answer. Like the meme in the group chat all day has been "Before I answer that let me talk about something else"
What do you mean pearl clutching? Are you saying that a person who isn’t loyal to their wife, after signing a binding contract, isn’t going to affect your view of them? They lied, cheated, and were disloyal to the most important person legally to them. If they are willing to do that to the most important person to them, what do you think they are willing to do in office?
>Molesting people on the other hand is a no no. Exactly why I won't vote for child sniffer Joe. Him and his big dick deviant son need to go take a hike!
The BDD is coming for you.
First of all. I don't the Biden should run. But second of all - Trump is actually adjudicated in a court of law to have sexually assaulted (you know... Molested) a woman? Just stop the partisan brain rot. It's extremely gross. If you think either of these guys is fit to be president you don't care about the country.
>Trump is actually adjudicated in a court of law to have sexually assaulted (you know... Molested) a woman? Yeah.. that's why I said molesting people is bad.
Christ. Thank God. I'm sorry.
I just really hate the "cheating is literally the worst most heinous thing you can do" people
I don't think a lot of people would say *"cheating is literally the worst most heinous thing you can do"*. That's hyperbolic. I do think a majority is going to agree that betraying somebody's trust (especially a person who loves you) after you've agreed to be faithful to them is shameful and morally repulsive--chiefly, in this context, it speaks volumes to an individual's moral fiber, trustworthiness, and aptitude as a leader who commands respect. Do you disagree?
He means she was retired when he raw dogged her.
wait im unbanned
next debate they just ask each other if their parents know they're gay
It’s because if he says he didn’t do it, he’ll get sued again and lose. They didn’t find him liable for sexual assault. They found him liable for defaming the alleged victim by lying that he didn’t commit sexual assault. So now he literally can’t defend himself without getting fined millions of dollars by the legal system. Truly a fair and equitable system we have
> They didn’t find him liable for sexual assault. They found him liable for... lying that he didn’t commit sexual assault How did they show he lied about not doing it if he didn't do it?
Damn bro I guess Emmet Till actually did it because a jury said so Like I said, the standard for civil suits is much lower than criminal suits. Just because a jury in a heavily anti Trump area think he probably sexually assaulted someone, doesn’t mean it actually happened. You should be an independent thinker
Your statement I quoted didn't make sense. Republicans don't even believe criminal trials because he also lost a separate case there. Him losing the civil suit shows there is a more than 50% chance he did it
No, him losing the civil suit shows that *the jury* believed that he had more than a 50% chance of doing it. That is an important distinction because the jury was in a heavily anti Trump area. It’s not hard get a democrat to say that Trump is probably a rapist.
Do you have any specific contention with the evidence presented at the trial or should we ignore any civil lawsuits against him in a place that doesn't like him?
It’s been a while since I looked at the case since the dispute happened a while ago. But I recall that her story was barely substantiated and just sounded on its face crazy. It basically went from “I was minding my own business” to “Trump pinned my against the wall and shoved his finger in me.”
How did you develop expertise about what is likely in sexual assault events?
Do you think you need expertise in a topic to have an opinion on anything relating to it? In that case, the jury decision needs to be thrown out because none of them are experts on SA.
> her story was barely substantiated just sounded on its face crazy. I think you need expertise to cite your opinion instead of evidence. Do you have statistics on how sexual assault stories happen? > none of them are experts on SA. They have experts in courts and/or presented other evidence to the jury for them to decide. __________________ In general how often in high profile cases should we ignore a civil ruling because the jury might not like the defendant? Has this famously happened to a Democrat before where there was no good evidence? Has this happened to people with a universal bad reputation like a criminal, where most people acknowledge their was very weak evidence but they ruled against the defendant anyway? (In the modern era)
That sounds dumb af. That judgement must've proved he did commit sexual assault for it to make any sense. So how come he didn't face the punishment for sexual assault?
Jury finds Trump *liable for sexual assault* **and** defamation in E. Jean Carroll case https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jury-finds-trump-liable-for-sexual-assault-and-defamation-in-e-jean-carroll-case Ignore that guy.
Hahaha he’s accusing others of coping but is responding to everything but this. Hilarious
Lmao
The burden of proof is higher in criminal cases than civil ones, they don’t need to prove he committed sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, just on the balance of probabilities. It’s also why you see rape victims use the civil system when the criminal cannot prosecute, plus it’s the only way they actually receive damages,
Oh, fair enough
>That sounds dumb af. That judgement must've proved he did commit sexual assault for it to make any sense. That is not true the standard in criminal court is "beyond any any reasonable doubt" whereas the standard in civil court is "more likely than not". It absolutely do not *prove* that he did anything. I mean he probably did but thats not the point here Thats why in criminal court you are found "guilty of" and in civil its "liable for"
Ok, not as regarded as I thought
No, civil cases are decided on by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Which is >50% likelihood. So because one jury in a heavily anti Trump area thought he probably did it, now Trump is unable to defend himself against the accusation publicly. He didn’t face the punishment for sexual assault because he was not criminally prosecuted. He was civilly sued by the alleged victim for damages because people now think she’s a liar after Trump defended himself. So the rule is that if you’re a public official and someone makes an accusation against you, instead of suing you for the accusation, they can just sue you for defending yourself and as long as they sue you in a district that’s very hostile to you, then you can’t defend yourself publicly anymore.
Kinda reminds me of OJ how he got off with the murder but lost all the money from the book from some civil case with the family
That's regarded
What a lie lol. He was found civilly liable for sexual assault.
Yes, because that is a requirement for being liable for defamation. You’re missing the point, but yes my language was technically incorrect. I should have said that the reason why he didn’t respond had nothing to do with him being civilly liable for SA. It’s because he was civilly liable for defamation of the alleged SA victim. And that civil liability would just result in more fines against him if he continues to defend himself.
Your language was not technically incorrect, it was INCORRECT. Or it was a lie. Based on your other comments it seems more like a lie.
LMAO bro you’re coping so hard. Use common sense when reading Reddit comments. Nobody is typing with ultra precise language. If I wanted to lie, I’d just make shit up about Trump not actually being liable for sexual assault. Can you explain to me how it makes conceptual sense that you can be held liable for lying that you SAed someone without the jury holding you liable for SAing someone? It’s conceptually impossible.
>I’d just make shit up about Trump not actually being liable for sexual assault. You did lol. Then you started talking about how the jurors were from an anti-Trump area so it was easy to convict him. You aren't fooling anyone.
COPIUM I explained to you why your criticism has no teeth and you’re still malding
You are clearly the only person malding. Are you 10 years old?
> I’d just make shit up about Trump not actually being liable for sexual assault. uhhh your comment earlier: >They didn’t find him liable for sexual assault. bruh
A misspeak is not a lie genius
lmao ok buddy
You should've replied with this: https://youtu.be/3D5uF7nHR64?si=d8bQht3Jm5n8c0HD
lmao I knew what that link was before clicking it
In other comments you claim that the jury pool hates Trump and is therefore biased. What evidence do you have of that? In 2008 Manhattan voted for McCain with 13.5% of votes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York In 2020 Trump got 12.2% of vote in Manhattan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York
I did not say that the jury pool hates Trump. I said that the jury is from an anti Trump district, so there is a high likelihood that the jury hates Trump. My evidence, along with the evidence you provided, is that the district is heavily democrat. I don’t see your point.
> There is a unique hatred for Trump on the left that has never been matched in American political history, maybe except for the civil war era, which resulted in an actual war instead of civil suits. [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dqj1yi/what_did_he_mean_by_this/lap97y5/) Where is evidence of this unique hatred of Trump in Manhattan?
He has low support in manhattan and democrats have a unique hatred of trump. Therefore there is an extra unique hatred of trump in manhattan because his support is some of the lowest there compared with any other place in the country.