President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The thought process is insane.
Rather than posting proof of a confirmed rapist, imma post a separate video of someone who 22 years after an alleged rape makes a claim about it, it fizzles out in courts, and then she disappears.
The speculative video will dig deeper. Gotta push my narrative. Imma go with that one.
Yeah, I dunno why anyone would possible think its true that the convicted rapist who is currently openly coercing powerful people through threats might have sexually abused or raped someone else then threatened them
****ing wild to even think that amirite
not a convicted rapist.
but in general it is hard to believe that rich and powerful people need to rape when it's so shockingly easy to have infinite sex with 10/10 women just by paying (a lot).
and that applies to leftist s as well ofc.
personally I decided to never again believe any rape accusation against a powerful person, especially in the USA ,.until proven beyond reasonable doubt in court after the Dominique Strauss Khan horrific ordeal.
he was the socialist candidate in pectore for president in France, and he got wiped out and completely destroyed by a totally fabricated set of accusations by employees of a hotel he was staying in , in NY.
well played Sarkozy (he went to lose to Hollande anyway but by very little, DSK would have slaughtered him) I guess but I won't fall for it ever again.
No, you're just a ******* simpleton.
Nobody needs that proven again, df.
The one that has been suppressed and hardly anyone knows about is the one I chose to post, yes. The reasons are just too complex for you to understand. I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with "everyone already knows about the schmother one."
******* idiot.
Enough wasting time with literal pond scum defending an actual rapist. I do have to work tomorrow. Ugh.
personally I decided to never again believe any rape accusation against a powerful person, especially in the USA ,.until proven beyond reasonable doubt in court after the Dominique Strauss Khan horrific ordeal.
.
My co-worker had a criminal rape charge against him. Had some girls at his place. They leave. An hour or two later cops knock on his door, handcuff and arrest him.
Charged with rape.
Paid $$ for lawyers. Realized he had a nest cam in his living room. Looked at the footage from that date. When he was out of his room, the girls were discussing their plan to frame him for rape.
Case thrown out. The girls were charged.
My co-worker had a criminal rape charge against him. Had some girls at his place. They leave. An hour or two later cops knock on his door, handcuff and arrest him.Charged with rape. Paid $$ for lawyers. Realized he had a nest cam in his living room. Looked at the footage from that date. When he was out of his room, the girls were discussing their plan to frame him for rape.Case
Good for him; that kind of thing definitely happens and should be made public.
But you'd have to be blind not to see that Trump is clearly the kind of guy who would have no qualms about sexuallly abusing a woman. And without even taking into account any of the many allegations, just on verified and recorded things he has said over the years.
Biden sniffed women's hair - yes, inappropriate.
Trump grabbed women's pussies and barged into beauty contest changing rooms then bragged about it - nah, that's fine
having the hots for ivanka is one of the few things i have in common with that man though 😀
not a convicted rapist.but in general it is hard to believe that rich and powerful people need to rape when it's so shockingly easy to have infinite sex with 10/10 women just by paying (a lot). and that applies to leftist s as well ofc.personally I decided to never again believe any rape accusation against a powerful person, especially in the USA ,.until proven beyond reasonabl
I agree that we should be cautious with overstating the evidence for rape (although in Trump’s case there are very good independent reasons to believe he is a predator, including his own admissions), but seems a bit of an oversimplification to say that because they can have sex with whoever that that won’t rape. I mean, there are definitely independent reasons from sexual desire that men end up pursuing sex, and there are also different levels of coercion.
If you pay for a prostitute, as per your example, what if her pimp is a violent man and will beat her or is threatening her family if she doesn’t become a sex slave for them (this has happened before). I mean are you not participating in some way in rape, sex trafficking, etc? And this disgusting practice is not so uncommon. See the ballet:
Women entered the ballet as young children, training at the opera’s dance school until they could snag a coveted position in the corps de ballet. Girls who studied at the school became apprentices to the Opera; only after years of militaristic training and a series of brutal exams could they get guaranteed, long-term contracts.
In the meantime, they attended classes and auditioned for small, walk-on roles. Often malnourished and dressed in hand-me-downs, the “petits rats” of the ballet were vulnerable to social and sexual exploitation. And the wealthy male subscribers of the Paris Opera—nicknamed abbonés—were often on hand to exploit them.
“The ballet is…what the bar-room is to many a large hotel,”wrote Scribner’s Magazine in 1892, “the chief paying factor, the one from which the surplus profits come.” Men subscribed to the opera not for the music, but for the beautiful ballerinas who danced twice per show—and, behind the scenes, they bought sexual favors from the women they ogled on stage.
…
One of Degas’ best-known works is his Little Dancer of Fourteen Years, a life-sized statue of a teenage “petit rat,” or ballet dancer in training. To modern eyes, it’s the portrait of a child who eagerly awaits her next dance step. But when Degas exhibited it in 1881, it was panned by the critics, who called the dancer “frightfully ugly,” monkey-like, and “marked by the hateful promise of every vice.”
Degas’ subject may have been vulnerable, but for 19th-century observers, she was marked by the sordidness of the sexual harassment that was baked into ballet. Teenager Marie van Goethem, a Paris Opera petit rat who modeled for the sculpture, likely traded sex for money in order to survive—but even if she hadn’t, it’s almost certain Degas’ audience would have assumed she did.
I also think it’s just a bad inference to make that because it’s easy, that they will be satisfied with the easiness of it. In fact, all the more damage to their ego that they are turned down, and if they are more assertive by nature it doesn’t seem crazy that they would overstep their bounds. Think of Trump’s famous tic-tac, grab em by the pussy screeds. The thought here is that they are owed something, and if they don’t get it right away they’ll “[move] on her like a bitch”. With that type of attitude towards women, what exactly is so strange about imagining such a person doing that to someone that didn’t want it but was too intimidated to say anything? Is it not rape if you don’t immediately yell out no? That seems like a bad rule to have.
Anyway this isn’t a comment on this particular case at all. Even if he did rape Jane Doe, there’s really nothing much we can infer from a civil trial that was dropped and no criminal case.
It comes down to semantics if you want to say Trump is simply a rapist or a "legally defined convicted rapist"
In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".
I guess I called him a "convicted rapist" which based on Kaplans comments is technically true, but I could see it being argued that hes just a rapist. Not sure why anyone would want to argue that distinction though. That would be strange, imo.
As far as the rich and powerful being able to pay for 10/10, sure. That isn't really how it works though
A personal anecdote: I used to live with a guy who was incredibly charismatic and typically had a stable of women. He would throw parties at our house and just constantly kick girls out, bring new girls in, and could largely get any woman he wanted who came over to the house. He is a total narcissistic sociopath type though and really what he liked to do is get girls black out drunk and have guys run trains on them. Not because he couldn't get laid, but because he was a horrific piece of **** who really got his rocks off creating power imbalances and exploiting them
Lol at people wanting a serious debate on whether Trump sexually assaults women when he said he just rolls up on random chicks and grabs them by the pussy.
Good for him; that kind of thing definitely happens and should be made public.But you'd have to be blind not to see that Trump is clearly the kind of guy who would have no qualms about sexuallly abusing a woman. And without even taking into account any of the many allegations, just on verified and recorded things he has said over the years.Biden sniffed women's hair - yes, inap
i would say it's pretty clear that trump is very forceful and aggressive with women (and frankly it's pretty effective as women tend to be very amenable with the right pressure)
in his rape accusations - they meet at a department store, he asks her to help him buy some stuff - she says they were having fun and joking around and him being very famous, she obv knew who he was
they then go to look at lingerie together, he says "oh you would look good in this you should try it on" she flirts back "no you should put it on" and he agrees so they go into the changing room together
so she was clearly flirting with him, she admits that she was starstruck by him and found him very funny and charming and she was into him enough to go into the changing room with him - in the most mild result of that they are seeing each other near naked if not fully naked - and it's heavily implied that more direct contact will happen
she probably was expecting it to just be making out
not once did she scream, she just forced him off of her and left the changing room
do i think he acted inappropriately - yes, without question
do i think in his mind he thought it was rape - not for second, i'm sure he did that a lot and it was usually consensual despite requiring a little cajoling at first
It comes down to semantics if you want to say Trump is simply a rapist or a "legally defined convicted rapist"
I guess I called him a "convicted rapist" which based on Kaplans comments is technically true, but I could see it being argued that hes just a rapist. Not sure why anyone would want to argue that distinction though. That would be strange, imo.
If this is in response to me, I have no problem calling Trump a rapist, I was disagreeing with the assertion that powerful men are by default not rapists because they have access to beautiful women. I don’t even think it particularly reduces their proclivity to rape. They’re also in a much better situation to get away with it, with money, lawyers, charisma, etc.
If this is in response to me, I have no problem calling Trump a rapist, I was disagreeing with the assertion that powerful men are by default not rapists because they have access to beautiful women. I don’t even think it particularly reduces their proclivity to rape. They’re also in a much better situation to get away with it, with money, lawyers, charisma, etc.
I guess I have to do a better job of quoting people because this is the 2nd time this is happening in short order
I was broadly responding to Luciom but it kind of was just talking to the thread
Lol at people wanting a serious debate on whether Trump sexually assaults women when he said he just rolls up on random chicks and grabs them by the pussy.
To be fair I included that in my reply, and I definitely think his statements about women just make it obvious he has sexually assaulted a few of them. His ex-wife accused him of rape and then recanted her accusation of specifically rape while not denying that he had done those things.
"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald," she said in the statement today. "The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised 3 children that we love and are very proud of."
Ivana Trump had already walked back the rape allegation in 1993 as the book was about to be published.
“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” Ivana Trump said in a statement at the time, as the Daily Beast reported. "[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."
A Trump campaign spokesman responded Monday night to the Daily Beast article, saying, "This is an event that has been widely reported on in the past, it is old news and it never happened. It is a standard lawyer technique, which was used to exploit more money from Mr. Trump especially since he had an ironclad prenuptial agreement. It is just a way for the badly failing and money losing Daily Beast, which has been reporting inaccurately on Mr. Trump for years, to get some publicity for itself."
Which by the way the lawyer calls it a lie but she never recanted the substance of what she said:
Ivana Trump’s assertion of “rape” came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.
The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.
“Your ****ing doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.
What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.
“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”
Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.
“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.
Donald Trump has previously denied the allegation. In the book, he denies having had the scalp reduction surgery.
“It’s obviously false,” Donald Trump said of the accusation in 1993, according to Newsday. “It’s incorrect and done by a guy without much talent… He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.”
Cohen acknowledged Monday that he has not read the entire deposition but said he had read the two relevant pages of it, including the rape accusation.
“It’s not the word that you’re trying to make it into,” Cohen told The Daily Beast, saying Ivana Trump was talking about how “she felt raped emotionally… She was not referring to it [as] a criminal matter, and not in its literal sense, though there’s many literal senses to the word.”
Cohen added that there is no such thing, legally, as a man raping his wife. “You cannot rape your spouse,” he said. “There’s very clear case law.”
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url...
So yeah, based on all things considered it’s clear it goes far beyond just him being a little overly assertive and into him having a real problem with violence against women. Also remember that these things can cool down with age, but he may also become more predatory as he becomes more experienced in manipulating and strategically dominating women, which seems to be his goal in a lot of these allegations.
Also he does this thing where he just denies something happens so his followers say it’s debunked, but he doesn’t actually deny anything specific a lot of the time. When he does, he ends up getting into huge trouble as in the case you cited.
It comes down to semantics if you want to say Trump is simply a rapist or a "legally defined convicted rapist"
I guess I called him a "convicted rapist" which based on Kaplans comments is technically true, but I could see it being argued that hes just a rapist. Not sure why anyone would want to argue that distinction though. That would be strange, imo.
can't be a convicted rapist unless he got a guilty verdic *in a trial with rape charges*.
he got a guilty verdict in a trial about something else where the jury had to assess if the rape had plausibly happened to decide if he was defamating someone.
also as Kaplan himself said what he was found to have plausibly done (not a criminal conviction for that though, not beyond reasonable doubt) wasn't rape at the time it allegedly happened.
@checkraise
in general as customer of a good or service no you aren't responsible in the slightest of any criminal activity that happened in the chain process required to produce that good or service. like not at all.
@checkraise
in general as customer of a good or service no you aren't responsible in the slightest of any criminal activity that happened in the chain process required to produce that good or service. like not at all.
If the good or service is raping little girls, or the organization you’re giving money to is a literal terrorist/cartel organization, you absolutely are.
Yeah, I dunno why anyone would possible think its true that the convicted rapist who is currently openly coercing powerful people through threats might have sexually abused or raped someone else then threatened them****ing wild to even think that amirite
not a convicted rapist.but in general it is hard to believe that rich and powerful people need to rape when it's so shockingly
funny how it works again for you.
One case makes all the others invalid, how selective of you good sir.
Where did I hear the contrary and from who again.... hummm can't remember.
If the good or service is raping little girls, or the organization you’re giving money to is a literal terrorist/cartel organization, you absolutely are.
if the service is inherently criminal. But you mentioned they are supposed to know the escorts they go with aren't operating voluntarily, that's totally different
funny how it works again for you.
One case makes all the others invalid, how selective of you good sir.
Where did I hear the contrary and from who again.... hummm can't remember.
The other cases aren't INVALID. But the onus is forever on the accuser to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Cases aren't invalidated. I just don't believe the accuser of a politically prominent person for any accusation (of any crime btw, not only sexual crimes). It has been demonstrably too easy to destroy people with false accusation for political gain .
Ofc a solution to the problem of false accusations would exist: punishing the false accusers with penalties equal to those of the crime they made up. But society doesn't want to do that so we are in a situation where it is absolutely wrong to believe accusers of important people, until they prove their case in court beyond reasonable doubt.
And up to that point NO consideration should apply to the candidate , or person, at all in any walk of life. Innocent until proven guilty means NO harm until proven guilty.
Lol at people wanting a serious debate on whether Trump sexually assaults women when he said he just rolls up on random chicks and grabs them by the pussy.
Not to mention walks in on naked teenagers at beauty pageants by his own admission.
It will never cease to amaze me when someone sees this scum being criticized for their first inclination to be to argue "well technically he wasn't convicted."
Just disgusting humans all around.
Yeah, I dunno why anyone would possibly think its true that the convicted rapist who is currently openly coercing powerful people through threats might have sexually abused or raped someone else then threatened them
****ing wild to even think that amirite
-Ajudicated- rapist, remember his case was civil, not criminal.
