Because there’s evidence of protecting paedophiles (heavy redaction of the Epstein files) but no public evidence of him having raped a child, so statements like that are viewed as hyperbolic expressions of hatred instead of genuine criticism.
The only case I know of in which trump was found civilly liable of anything was the E Jean Carroll case, which happened in 1995. Carroll was born in 1943.
The only case I know of in which trump was found civilly liable of** anything** was the E Jean Carroll case, which happened in 1995. Carroll was born in 1943.
Are you thinking of something else?
He’s raped kids and gotten away with it. He’s talked about having no inhibition when it comes to sexually assaulting vulnerable people on hot mic. He talked about how sexy his teen daughter is. You know it. Everyone knows it.
it’s about time for some people to rub two thoughts, “convicted rapist” and “pedophile protector” together in their minds for a few moments to reach the frankly braindead obvious conclusion.
If you think that’s a “braindead obvious conclusion” then let’s keep you away from any courtrooms, hmm?
More to the point though, what you call an obvious conclusion is nothing more than speculation fueled by hatred. So, to those people who don’t hate Trump (they still exist, sadly) it is not effective. There are many things that Trump has done, with evidence, that you can criticise him about. Let’s start with the children’s deaths he has caused in Iran, or the people his stormtroopers have shot dead in cold blood on the streets?
He drops bombs on kids but he won’t rape em? Sure buddy.
If you just assume that the all guys who had child sex slave ownership disputes with Jeffery Epstein (gosh who hasn’t?) are rapists then you’d eventually accuse everyone, right?
Why the fuck would being willing to murder children (at arms length only, obviously) mean you’d fuck them? You ever killed anything? Would you fuck it?
The only reason the evidence isn’t known is because the very MAGA perverts who are exposed in the Epstein Files are now in charge of their release. If they are going to perform an OFFICIAL criminal cover-up of one of the most heinous conspiracies in human history, then we can be allowed to assume the worst speculation possible, until MAGA offers up the evidence to the contrary.
More to the point though, what you call an obvious conclusion is nothing more than speculation fueled by hatred.
Mostly with you, but this, I think, is overplaying your point and just isn’t true. This makes it sound like something just made up because you don’t like someone, like Obama not being an American citizen or something. There is certainly circumstantial evidence that Trump has indeed had sex with minors. His role and behavior in underage beauty pageants, frequent trips to the island we know these things happened on, etc.
Not enough to convict someone, yes, but enough that even someone with no opinion at all of Trump (impossible, but hypothetically), if told of this circumstantial evidence, probably wouldn’t trust their daughter to be alone with him.
I think the point that there’s enough to tar him with that’s completely proven and on the record there’s no need to venture into such circumstantial accusations is well taken, but let’s also not pretend those accusations are baseless and purely from hatred. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that would lead even a pretty impartial observer to at least consider it.
But I think my main point that it isn’t convincing to anyone except the already convinced remains true, and this is why it’s not really a rallying cry you hear used to try and win people over.
That I do agree with you on. For Trump criticisms and attacks… well, there’s plenty of meat on that bone that we don’t need to go gnawing for scraps, as it were.
I didn’t say confronting people with the, yes fucking braindead obvious conclusion of putting “notoriously friends with and protector of pedophiles whose name appears literally more than anyone else in the epstein documents, requiring literally thousands of manhours of redactions of specifically his name from the epstein documents,” and also “is a rapist” together would solve anything: there will always be people who will refuse to trust even their own instincts, let alone the testimony of multiple mutually corroborating victims, FBI documents with repeated, mutally corroborating anonymous tips about Trump individually and Trump in connection with Epstein (and I really could go on at some considerable length further here); I said it was necessary (about fucking time).
Sure. Let’s all just ignore the credible, repeated, unadjudicated claims of child rape for whatever catastrophe the obvious1 child rapist is causing to distract from all his other crimes this week. why not. yeah great idea. who cares about an uncounted number of children who wont even speak up for themselves for some reason. all those politicians around the world connected to this are probably like, low level and unimportant anyway. no princes or princesses or kings or presidents or pms or senators or entire national alliances are implicated in this. youre so fucking smart and reasonable dude, it was such a wise and ethical idea to ignore all those child rapes good call bro
like, comically obvious:
edit: “Sure, he’s capable of operating concentration camps and bombing countries just to manipulate the stock market, but I draw the line at any suggestion he might have RAPED CHILDREN. Be reasonable.”
edit2: a thing can be necessary but insufficient in itself. the two are not incompatible.
edit3: he had to be talked out of pardoning ghislane for the love of all that is good in this world… how fucking obtuse can you be?
From what I have read about the claims that Trump raped children, the evidence is weak. I haven’t dug into it that much, but I live in a country where I trust some of the media to have looked at it and flagged anything serious that I therefore didn’t spot.
At the same time, we live in a time when people are willing to call any Republican anything, regardless of evidence, so the assertions of a rando on the internet doesn’t really sway me, I’m afraid.
Let’s all just ignore the credible, repeated, unadjudicated claims of child rape for whatever catastrophe the obvious child rapist is causing to distract from all his other crimes this week.
This doesn’t make sense. You can’t in usefully distract from crimes by committing other serious crimes. It just draws attention to your new crimes.
He’s not just protecting pedos, he is a pedo. He is part of a whole ring of disgusting perverts.
honestly. Why are people shouting “pedophile protector” instead of the much more damaging and relevant “child rapist?”
Because there’s evidence of protecting paedophiles (heavy redaction of the Epstein files) but no public evidence of him having raped a child, so statements like that are viewed as hyperbolic expressions of hatred instead of genuine criticism.
There is so much evidence of him raping at least one child, a jury found him civilly liable and those damages have been upheld on appeal
The only case I know of in which trump was found civilly liable of anything was the E Jean Carroll case, which happened in 1995. Carroll was born in 1943.
Are you thinking of something else?
He’s raped kids and gotten away with it. He’s talked about having no inhibition when it comes to sexually assaulting vulnerable people on hot mic. He talked about how sexy his teen daughter is. You know it. Everyone knows it.
“the only case I know of” lol sure.
You know of another case where he was found civilly liable? Wanna… say what it is?
it’s about time for some people to rub two thoughts, “convicted rapist” and “pedophile protector” together in their minds for a few moments to reach the frankly braindead obvious conclusion.
If you think that’s a “braindead obvious conclusion” then let’s keep you away from any courtrooms, hmm?
More to the point though, what you call an obvious conclusion is nothing more than speculation fueled by hatred. So, to those people who don’t hate Trump (they still exist, sadly) it is not effective. There are many things that Trump has done, with evidence, that you can criticise him about. Let’s start with the children’s deaths he has caused in Iran, or the people his stormtroopers have shot dead in cold blood on the streets?
He drops bombs on kids but he won’t rape em? Sure buddy.
If you just assume that the all guys who had child sex slave ownership disputes with Jeffery Epstein (gosh who hasn’t?) are rapists then you’d eventually accuse everyone, right?
Why the fuck would being willing to murder children (at arms length only, obviously) mean you’d fuck them? You ever killed anything? Would you fuck it?
The only reason the evidence isn’t known is because the very MAGA perverts who are exposed in the Epstein Files are now in charge of their release. If they are going to perform an OFFICIAL criminal cover-up of one of the most heinous conspiracies in human history, then we can be allowed to assume the worst speculation possible, until MAGA offers up the evidence to the contrary.
Mostly with you, but this, I think, is overplaying your point and just isn’t true. This makes it sound like something just made up because you don’t like someone, like Obama not being an American citizen or something. There is certainly circumstantial evidence that Trump has indeed had sex with minors. His role and behavior in underage beauty pageants, frequent trips to the island we know these things happened on, etc.
Not enough to convict someone, yes, but enough that even someone with no opinion at all of Trump (impossible, but hypothetically), if told of this circumstantial evidence, probably wouldn’t trust their daughter to be alone with him.
I think the point that there’s enough to tar him with that’s completely proven and on the record there’s no need to venture into such circumstantial accusations is well taken, but let’s also not pretend those accusations are baseless and purely from hatred. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that would lead even a pretty impartial observer to at least consider it.
That’s a fair take.
But I think my main point that it isn’t convincing to anyone except the already convinced remains true, and this is why it’s not really a rallying cry you hear used to try and win people over.
That I do agree with you on. For Trump criticisms and attacks… well, there’s plenty of meat on that bone that we don’t need to go gnawing for scraps, as it were.
Call me crazy, but I don’t want pedophile supporters on my side.
I didn’t say confronting people with the, yes fucking braindead obvious conclusion of putting “notoriously friends with and protector of pedophiles whose name appears literally more than anyone else in the epstein documents, requiring literally thousands of manhours of redactions of specifically his name from the epstein documents,” and also “is a rapist” together would solve anything: there will always be people who will refuse to trust even their own instincts, let alone the testimony of multiple mutually corroborating victims, FBI documents with repeated, mutally corroborating anonymous tips about Trump individually and Trump in connection with Epstein (and I really could go on at some considerable length further here); I said it was necessary (about fucking time).
Sure. Let’s all just ignore the credible, repeated, unadjudicated claims of child rape for whatever catastrophe the obvious1 child rapist is causing to distract from all his other crimes this week. why not. yeah great idea. who cares about an uncounted number of children who wont even speak up for themselves for some reason. all those politicians around the world connected to this are probably like, low level and unimportant anyway. no princes or princesses or kings or presidents or pms or senators or entire national alliances are implicated in this. youre so fucking smart and reasonable dude, it was such a wise and ethical idea to ignore all those child rapes good call bro
edit: “Sure, he’s capable of operating concentration camps and bombing countries just to manipulate the stock market, but I draw the line at any suggestion he might have RAPED CHILDREN. Be reasonable.”
edit2: a thing can be necessary but insufficient in itself. the two are not incompatible.
edit3: he had to be talked out of pardoning ghislane for the love of all that is good in this world… how fucking obtuse can you be?
From what I have read about the claims that Trump raped children, the evidence is weak. I haven’t dug into it that much, but I live in a country where I trust some of the media to have looked at it and flagged anything serious that I therefore didn’t spot.
At the same time, we live in a time when people are willing to call any Republican anything, regardless of evidence, so the assertions of a rando on the internet doesn’t really sway me, I’m afraid.
This doesn’t make sense. You can’t in usefully distract from crimes by committing other serious crimes. It just draws attention to your new crimes.
You have a poor grasp of American politics and media.
Alliteration goes a very long way.
Minor Molester doesn’t quite hit the spot.
not only pedophile, but a RAPIST.