Anyone engaging with a republican on any level other than that of a troll-troll argument are the real losers. They are bad faith actors. Saying whatever RJ Riley said is useless, you either have to just ignore them or tell them their mom eats dog poop or something even stupider
DEMOCRATS support RAPISTS!
-People who Support Jeffrey Epstein!
Was platner a rapist? We’re still doing trials before we conclude that, right?
The state must prove things beyond a reasonable doubt before they’re allowed to use their power to punish someone. Individuals can use their own common sense and draw conclusions from the available information. Mine is telling me Platner is a rapist.
Y’all still supported him when you knew he murdered innocent civilians in the middle east and had a Nazi tattoo for 20 years, but the second he’s accused of raping a white woman it’s game over. Sick stuff.
If you think a woman is an object to be used at your whim…go blow a handgrenade.
In fact. If you think you have a right to anyone’s body, you are scum through to the soul.
I was one of the people who thought that Al Franken was right to resign and not fight.
We have to be better than the GOP.
And by ‘we’ I mean anyone who wants Trump out.
That is an incredibly low bar.
What does better mean? The whole Franken thing was a deliberate stitch-up job, just like what happened to Corbyn. A centre right party expunging its left-leaning components on the pretense of lies so tenuous that only a billionaire-owned media could fail to report on them.
Both parties can be bad.
And one of them can be clearly worse
Two things can be bad.
Nuance like acknowledging that while two things can be bad, one of them can still be worse than the other?
Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about nuance
So you’re supporting a bad party.
Yes, that’s how the system is designed. Additional parties with fresh opinions are logically extremely discouraged under the shitty two-party system which the US runs.
With that said, one party is clearly a clusterfuckton much worse than the other, so even beginning to put them in the same category as “bad” seems extremely disproportional.
Sounds like the system is designed poorly. Time to start over!
Ah yes the Two Parties section of the constitution as envisioned by it’s designers. Permanent and immutable, as intended. Nothing to do but vote and hope, just like the founders wanted.
How many allegations does Trump have against him that are every bit as credible as Platner’s? 37?
Not to mention that Republican support is the only thing that enables Trump to continue suppressing the Epstein files.
Not only that, but Trump put Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS bench. (As did Susan Collins – she since claims she regrets it.) The whole system punishes character integrity.
He is an adjudicated rapist, proven in court. He’s such a confirmed rapist that he immediately owes Jean E Carroll millions of dollars anytime he says that he did not rape her. Which he did, in fact, do. It’s wild they didn’t use him as an example
This is the Republican play book get upset about things they are doing way worse like gerrymandering, voter fraud, shipping in understand cumented workers etc.
It’s not like their voters are going to know their own party is doing much worse. Their propaganda networks wouldn’t allow it.
Is this real?
If so then fucking hell.Of course it is real and I don’t understand the gotcha tweets.
The Republican electorate doesn’t care about hypocrisy. Social Media is heavily siloed such that no one with right leaning sympathy will see that reply. The reply will be under 500 others. The initial tweet will be someone’s feed who will see it, absorb it and continue on. That’s how this works, that’s who it is for.
The same thing is true here. We only see this gotcha because someone posted it and this image will never be seen on truth social or whatever.
Say, didn’t Biden and the Dems have control over the files for 4 years and also didn’t hold anyone accountable over it?
Every. Republican. Endorses. A. CHILD. RAPIST.
Max Miller?!?
Oh, the other one.
Um. What about Trump?
He’s a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and probable pedophile.
So, exactly what he needs to be to rise to the top of the GOP.
I mean Trump has literally been found to be a rapist in a court of law
i hate this but he’s been found guilty of sexual assault but specifically not rape afaik… legal shit which isn’t worth correcting unless you add “i’m a court of law” etc
Spoken like a sex pest who has to explain why they have to introduce themselves to the neighbourhood
If you’re gonna be picking nits, then at least commit to it.
Trump was found legally liable for sexual assault (and defamation). This is a civil verdict, and it means that the jury found it more likely than not that these things happened. The judge also clarified that the jury’s finding meets the “common, everyday definition of rape”, so while it doesn’t meet the highly specific statutory requirements of New York (which required penile penetration), it is rape.
There was no criminal case, however, and the word “convicted” is specifically used for criminal trials, so it can’t be used here.
The bar is also different: the criminal standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”, while for a civil case it’s “preponderance of evidence” (ie, more likely than not).I don’t think anyone doubts it happened, but a criminal trial can be gruelling and ultimately lead to nothing. At least she got some vindication, even if it falls short of locking that disgusting scumbag for good.
I don’t think anyone doubts it happened,
You might want to look at right wing social media - there’s a whole lot of claims that it didn’t and that she based her story on Law and Order SVU S13 E11 from 2012. Given the circles she traveled in, it’s at least as likely that the SVU episode was inspired by her telling someone connected to the writers the story.
but a criminal trial can be gruelling and ultimately lead to nothing.
Also, odds are that it’s past statute of limitations, and those exist in large part because memories fade and evidence doesn’t last forever making crimes both more difficult to prove and more difficult to defend against over time.
Her civil case would have already been past statute of limitations, but NY passed a law that created a temporary window where the statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault was retroactively revoked. It’s pretty obvious that the goal was specifically to allow Carroll to sue Trump, but it’s written a more broadly than that essentially as plausible deniability. I was actually surprised that NY law didn’t get stopped under the same grounds that retroactively expanding the statute of limitations has been shot down in the past - usually the line the courts will follow is that if you expand a statute of limitations, the new limit only applies to conduct that happens after the change occurs.
She has a dress with DNA evidence, he refused to submit a sample.
It’s pretty obvious that the goal was specifically to allow Carroll to sue Trump
No, it is not, and it’s revolting to me that you’d think that. More than 3000 suits were filed in 1 year under the Adult Survivors Act, are all those “happy little accidents”, or do those people mean nothing and you only care about that one case?
Also, you’re omitting the broader context of the ASA: New York’s had a 3 year statute of limitations for civil suits for sexual assault, and they changed it to 20 years.
This was not retroactive, however, so the ASA was passed to allow alleged victims to bring up their cases.
Proven in court without a doubt rapist who owes one of his victims millions of dollars.
Determined by a preponderance of the evidence (this standard is essentially slightly more likely than not as opposed to the stronger standards of clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt) to be civilly liable for sexual abuse (he was found not liable for rape because while the jury believed it had been proved more likely than not she was penetrated by him they didn’t believe it had been proved more likely than not that he used his penis to do so) for which he owes her damages, and then further damages for suing her for defamation for calling him a rapist (the judge there ruled that while he had not been found civilly liable for rape in the trial that the conduct he was found liable for met the colloquial definition of rape if not the NY penal code definition of such).
It’s sort of like how OJ Simpson was never found guilty of murder, but he was found civilly liable for wrongful death for the same killings.
Determined in civil court, which requires less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” that criminal court does. However it has been determined that Carroll claiming he raped her is not slander. So while he wouldn’t be behind bars for it, he definitely deserves to be, for that and many other reasons.
Republicans protect Trump the way the Catholic Church protects their pedophile priests.
Seems like the obvious example. Not sure why he wasn’t mentioned there shrug
He’s not currently in an active campaign for the next election I guess? He’s for sure the most direct example but maybe not the most timely?
When you see an elephant you know the circus is in town 🤡 🎪 🐘
