Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 568 of 573 < 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 >

georgenorman 10 May 23 7.16am
It just shows how like John F. Kennedy he is.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

10 May 23 7.16am

It just shows how like John F. Kennedy he is.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 10 May 23 8.19am
Originally posted by Matov Trying to get my head around this Trump case. 1. This woman claimed that Trump essentially bumps into her in a department store, persuades her to come and look at some lingerie, cajoles her into a changing room, which she willingly does, and then rapes her. No physical evidence, no CCTV, nothing. No reporting it to the police for decades, no medical evidence. Essentially her word against his. The Jury disbelieves her rape claim but still finds Trump guilty of sexual assault anyway? Trump says he has no idea who this woman even is and vehemently denies it. This woman was either raped or she was not. That is it. If you don't believe her claims about being raped, how can you then believe her claims about being sexually assaulted? Was the penetrative sex consensual but everything else not? None of this makes any sense whatsoever. Edited by Matov (10 May 2023 6.12am) You forgot to mention here legal fees were funded by a prominent democrat and I am guessing she is to. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 10 May 23 8.19am

Originally posted by Matov

Trying to get my head around this Trump case.

1. This woman claimed that Trump essentially bumps into her in a department store, persuades her to come and look at some lingerie, cajoles her into a changing room, which she willingly does, and then rapes her.

No physical evidence, no CCTV, nothing. No reporting it to the police for decades, no medical evidence. Essentially her word against his.

The Jury disbelieves her rape claim but still finds Trump guilty of sexual assault anyway?

Trump says he has no idea who this woman even is and vehemently denies it.

This woman was either raped or she was not. That is it. If you don't believe her claims about being raped, how can you then believe her claims about being sexually assaulted? Was the penetrative sex consensual but everything else not?

None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Edited by Matov (10 May 2023 6.12am)

You forgot to mention here legal fees were funded by a prominent democrat and I am guessing she is to.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 10 May 23 8.54am
Originally posted by Badger11 You forgot to mention here legal fees were funded by a prominent democrat and I am guessing she is to. A valid point but the crux of it is the rape bit. She was either raped like she says she was or she was not. That is what I cannot get my head around. And if not it means that A: The Jury believe she consented or B. She is lying. Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

10 May 23 8.54am

Originally posted by Badger11

You forgot to mention here legal fees were funded by a prominent democrat and I am guessing she is to.

A valid point but the crux of it is the rape bit. She was either raped like she says she was or she was not. That is what I cannot get my head around. And if not it means that A: The Jury believe she consented or B. She is lying.

Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 10 May 23 8.59am
Originally posted by Matov A valid point but the crux of it is the rape bit. She was either raped like she says she was or she was not. That is what I cannot get my head around. And if not it means that A: The Jury believe she consented or B. She is lying. Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest? Agreed. I have been thinking about this since my last post. I don't understand the Jury's verdict. Based solely on her statement the they decided that Trump assaulted her but did not rape her. So what what their logic. They believed her about the assault but didn't believe her or didn't think there was enough evidence to convict on the rape count. But it was the same evidence that convinced them he had assaulted her. I very odd decision. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 10 May 23 8.59am

Originally posted by Matov

Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest?

Agreed. I have been thinking about this since my last post.

I don't understand the Jury's verdict. Based solely on her statement the they decided that Trump assaulted her but did not rape her.

So what what their logic. They believed her about the assault but didn't believe her or didn't think there was enough evidence to convict on the rape count. But it was the same evidence that convinced them he had assaulted her.

I very odd decision.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 10 May 23 9.24am
Originally posted by Badger11 Agreed. I have been thinking about this since my last post. I don't understand the Jury's verdict. Based solely on her statement the they decided that Trump assaulted her but did not rape her. So what what their logic. They believed her about the assault but didn't believe her or didn't think there was enough evidence to convict on the rape count. But it was the same evidence that convinced them he had assaulted her. I very odd decision. Quite. Essentially it boils down to he said/she said. So if you believe her then you have to believe she was raped. And if you don't, then she either consented or she lied. But either way, a lesser sexual crime falls away based on that. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

10 May 23 9.24am

Originally posted by Badger11

Agreed. I have been thinking about this since my last post.

I don't understand the Jury's verdict. Based solely on her statement the they decided that Trump assaulted her but did not rape her.

I very odd decision.

Quite. Essentially it boils down to he said/she said. So if you believe her then you have to believe she was raped.

And if you don't, then she either consented or she lied. But either way, a lesser sexual crime falls away based on that.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 10 May 23 9.44am
Originally posted by Matov Trying to get my head around this Trump case. 1. This woman claimed that Trump essentially bumps into her in a department store, persuades her to come and look at some lingerie, cajoles her into a changing room, which she willingly does, and then rapes her. No physical evidence, no CCTV, nothing. No reporting it to the police for decades, no medical evidence. Essentially her word against his. The Jury disbelieves her rape claim but still finds Trump guilty of sexual assault anyway? Trump says he has no idea who this woman even is and vehemently denies it. This woman was either raped or she was not. That is it. If you don't believe her claims about being raped, how can you then believe her claims about being sexually assaulted? Was the penetrative sex consensual but everything else not? None of this makes any sense whatsoever. Edited by Matov (10 May 2023 6.12am) ^^^ this with bells on. Except what it clearly demonstrates is the undisputable link between the judiciary and the Government. The verdict was a shock, but also the (political)timing was immaculate. "The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 10 May 23 9.44am

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

Originally posted by Matov

Trying to get my head around this Trump case.

No physical evidence, no CCTV, nothing. No reporting it to the police for decades, no medical evidence. Essentially her word against his.

The Jury disbelieves her rape claim but still finds Trump guilty of sexual assault anyway?

Trump says he has no idea who this woman even is and vehemently denies it.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Edited by Matov (10 May 2023 6.12am)

^^^ this with bells on. Except what it clearly demonstrates is the undisputable link between the judiciary and the Government. The verdict was a shock, but also the (political)timing was immaculate.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 10 May 23 10.16am
I heard somewhere the investigation into Biden Inc in DC tomorrow so this is a distraction of interesting timing. It's certainly a strange one, Trump denies he knows the woman, she said she wanted damages for Trump calling her a liar for the rape accusation, the jury didn't find she was raped but still awarded damages. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 10 May 23 10.16am

I heard somewhere the investigation into Biden Inc in DC tomorrow so this is a distraction of interesting timing.

It's certainly a strange one, Trump denies he knows the woman, she said she wanted damages for Trump calling her a liar for the rape accusation, the jury didn't find she was raped but still awarded damages.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 10 May 23 10.23am
This verdict actually helps Trump. He has something very solid now to take to the voters he needs and say that his claims about a bias are actually spot on. And a New York jury? LOL. Because of course, so many people in the US have a positive opinion, especially those who might lean Trump, of New York. This tells me that the people who got so hysterical about Trump in 2016, and effectively handed him the White House, have not learnt anything since. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

10 May 23 10.23am

This verdict actually helps Trump. He has something very solid now to take to the voters he needs and say that his claims about a bias are actually spot on.

And a New York jury? LOL. Because of course, so many people in the US have a positive opinion, especially those who might lean Trump, of New York.

This tells me that the people who got so hysterical about Trump in 2016, and effectively handed him the White House, have not learnt anything since.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 10 May 23 10.36am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I knew you would know. The answer lies in your own hands. Either start posting some common sense that I can agree with or stop posting critical comments about my own opinions. Continue as you are and so will I. Good luck with that.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

10 May 23 10.36am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I knew you would know.

The answer lies in your own hands. Either start posting some common sense that I can agree with or stop posting critical comments about my own opinions. Continue as you are and so will I.

Good luck with that.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 10 May 23 10.43am
Originally posted by Matov A valid point but the crux of it is the rape bit. She was either raped like she says she was or she was not. That is what I cannot get my head around. And if not it means that A: The Jury believe she consented or B. She is lying. Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest? These people now operate in plain sight. She is either lying or not. The jury obviously think she might be lying about being raped, so why would they believe any of it? And then Trump gets hammered for saying she was lying. This is such clear political manipulation involving the courts that it throws into question any verdict past and future involving Trump and all things related. The corruption in the US has reached a new level
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

10 May 23 10.43am

Originally posted by Matov

Her claim is founded on the rape allegation. If the Jury don't believe her on that, even in a civil court, then how can they go with the rest?

These people now operate in plain sight.

She is either lying or not. The jury obviously think she might be lying about being raped, so why would they believe any of it?
And then Trump gets hammered for saying she was lying.

This is such clear political manipulation involving the courts that it throws into question any verdict past and future involving Trump and all things related.

The corruption in the US has reached a new level

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 10 May 23 10.43am
The media coverage has also been interesting, especially mute about the victim. As I understand it 30 years ago this woman was in a department store bumped into Trump who she did not know. They got chatting and he invited her to go to the Lingerie department to look at the frillies (as one does with a strange man). They then decide to go to a dressing room where he assaulted her. Now imagine if instead of Trump it was Obama or Clinton who was accused. What do you think the media reaction to this woman's story would be? I suspect a lot of columnists opining on her personal behaviour and poor judgement. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 10 May 23 10.43am

The media coverage has also been interesting, especially mute about the victim.

As I understand it 30 years ago this woman was in a department store bumped into Trump who she did not know. They got chatting and he invited her to go to the Lingerie department to look at the frillies (as one does with a strange man).

They then decide to go to a dressing room where he assaulted her.

Now imagine if instead of Trump it was Obama or Clinton who was accused. What do you think the media reaction to this woman's story would be?

I suspect a lot of columnists opining on her personal behaviour and poor judgement.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 10 May 23 2.58pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger These people now operate in plain sight. She is either lying or not. The jury obviously think she might be lying about being raped, so why would they believe any of it? And then Trump gets hammered for saying she was lying. This is such clear political manipulation involving the courts that it throws into question any verdict past and future involving Trump and all things related. The corruption in the US has reached a new level And it's not in an upwards trend "The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 10 May 23 2.58pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

These people now operate in plain sight.

She is either lying or not. The jury obviously think she might be lying about being raped, so why would they believe any of it?
And then Trump gets hammered for saying she was lying.

This is such clear political manipulation involving the courts that it throws into question any verdict past and future involving Trump and all things related.

The corruption in the US has reached a new level

And it's not in an upwards trend

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 568 of 573 < 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Bias against Trump

Site Map

Sponsors