politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Nobody here is arguing that. And if you think so, you need to go back and reread the comments.
I made myself very, very clear, but a big words frighten you, I’ll make nice and simple:
Trump was never convicted of rape (a crime). He was adjudicated of having committed sexual assault and a civil case (a civil offense). legally, in the state of New York, they are not the same thing. One carries a prison sentence. The other carries a financial judgment. That’s why E Jean Carroll got $5 million from him.
The whole reason she sued him in the first place is because she couldn’t get him charged with the crime. And the burden of proof in a civil case as much lower than in a criminal case.
She won
Nobody is debating that here
Incorrect. A jury determined that he had committed sexual assault, and that E Jean Carroll deserved $5 million in a civil case in the state of New York.
And that’s a matter of public record don’t believe me? Read the court case. Read the judges final ruling.
Just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.
And then again for 85 more million, yeah. So you’re saying that due to the civil nature of the case, and the expired statute of limitations on the criminal charges, when the judge and jury determined that his attacking and forcibly penetrating her vagina with his penis was - what - just “sexual assault”? (It was.)
And if I go read the court case with the letters r-a-p-e appear in the findings of fact? No? Well then he can’t have raped her can he? Except that he can, and did, and - here’s the part I think we disagree on - it was proven. In court.
So sure, it’s “just” sexual assault on the printed page but who’s fooling who? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is Allah God? Is a brontasaurus an apatasaurus?
If somebody says he wasn’t found guilty of rape, they’d better damned well understand his “sexual assault” for which he was liable was rape.
no. you said that. all of that.
all I did was explain, repeatedly, that, in New York State, there is a legal distinction between a crime and a civil offense, and that there is also a legal distinction between rape and sexual assault. further, Donald Trump was never convicted of the crime of rape in the state of New York (nor anywhere to my knowledge). nowhere here did I nor anyone argue whether he actually did rape her.
just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.
So who found him liable for sexual assault? Was it the courtroom sketch artist?
And what led them to that conclusion, I wonder. Was it the rape?
I'm not so sure what about this you find so difficult to understand here. I really don't.
I've explained it several times in many different ways, from complex to simple.
trump committed what is commonly defined as a rape
in a civil court, he was found liable for having committed what, in NY State, is legally defined as sexual assault
he paid e jean carroll a massive, multi-million-dollar judgement
he was not "convicted of rape"
why is that so hard to understand?
It’s not hard to understand. But it’s often used by trumps defenders to claim he isn’t a rapist.
And he is. Let there be NO DOUBT.
as I have said several times, nobody here is debating that. I was just discussing the difference in legal terminology in NY State. Even the judge in the case, in her final ruling, did express her frustration with the State of New York's anachronistic legal terminology.
It stems from NY State defining rape - a very long time ago - as the unwillful act of, basically, "man put penis in woman's vagina". Not even her 'other places' which were defined as sodomy. Eventually, and much later, other acts that, in most other places were also defined as also rape, NY State decided to create a new law to cover as 'sexual assault' rather than expanding their rape laws as most other places did.
many people - then and still today - find this to be many flavors of bullshit and have and continue to try to change this by consolidating all such acts into the legal definition of rape in NY State. the fight is ongoing.
Some people think that the law and the truth are always the same. They are not. Thank you for being smart enough to recognize that.
I should have been more clear in my initial comment. I apologize for not being more considerate in my wording.
You have been clear and consistent throughout.
what I mean is that my initial point was to try to highlight NY State's weird and archaic rape laws, and I did a pretty crappy job of that, initially coming off like I was trying to defend Trump. I can see why that triggered some people, and, given the topic and the space, I should have been more thoughtful before I said anything.