Dixiecrats were racists? True fact.
Moral Question after Latest Bombshell - Support Platner or Not?
- Thread starter LurchAddams
- Start date
Democrats were and still are racists.
Yes Black, Christian, Jewish and female Democrats are racists today. You've totally convinced me.
I suppose Trump is racist too?
Not that I have seen.
He was a Democrat. Apply your logic.
He found religion.......
Were you trying to make me laugh? If so, thanks.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
republican isn't a race, but democrats ARE born that way.
I was. And you are welcome!
What is a false fact?
I guess it's something akin to false shit.
You are citing what tickles your confirmation bias, and that's that.
Like any true leftist, you consider all accusations against conservatives to be true and all accusations against leftists to be false and there's no mountain of evidence high enough to sway you in either instance.
What matters in your society is slander and accusations against conservatives. This site is a testament to that. Every post from owl woman or Ross Dola is a testament to that.
Of course there are times when evidence is incontrovertible, or there are enough witnesses to an event who all have independent, corroborating testimony plus there's a body, a murder weapon, etc, etc.
In a lot of instances it is entirely possible to say "that person committed that crime", but this isn't one of those times.
Are you really pretending to "know" that Carroll was r4ped, based on the evidence that has been provided? Buddy, people have been wrongly convicted before, based on far more evidence than just "In about 1995 or 1996..."
Just pretend that EJ Caroll accused your grandfather... What then? She can't name what year your grandfather raped her. No one heard or saw your grandfather r4pe her, despite the fact that it allegedly happened in a very public place where there was no soundproofing at all and there would always be dozens of potential witnesses. Your grandfather denies ever being there. Her story includes nothing but implicit consent on her part until the point where she gives him a one-armed shove, then she goes away without a struggle. Is your grandfather a rapist, QPI?
Did you think that was a criminal trial? FYI there's a huge difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial.
FYI a civil trial is where one person sues another person for money, as a remedy for some type of harm they caused. It's not nearly the same thing as a criminal trial.
A criminal trial is where the police gather evidence of a known crime and send it to a district attorney/crown prosecutor, and then they determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient to successfully prosecute someone, and if they do, that person is considered a criminal and goes to jail.
If Trump was found guilty in a criminal trial then he would be considered a r4pist.
The standard of evidence required to start a criminal trial is much higher than for a civil suit, because the requirement for a guilty verdict goes from "probably" to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Caroll would never have been able to convince police and DAs to indict a person for r4pe based on "I don't know what year, I have no physical or eyewitness evidence, etc..." She only provided a dress that had semen from a bunch of different dudes on it.
QP!
Verified User
Tickling your confirmation bias is ignoring every single court verdict you disagree with and saying 'my opinion is greater than theirs' and then trying to make your case with your more limited info.
I am avoiding my bias by NOT citing my opinion and pointing to the FACT that the jury found Trump to be a rapist.
1) are you gonna admit now, that you didn't understand the difference between a civil suit and a criminal conviction? Trump was never convicted of being a r4pist, period. That's a fact that you just need to wrap your head around. Not only has he never been convicted, there's no evidence on this planet that he's a rapist.
2) If E J Caroll wanted to bring real evidence to an actual criminal court, and she showed up with the same level of evidence that she brought to the civil trial, she would be considered to be showing up empty-handed.
I never used "limited info". I used E J Caroll's own unsolicited description of the facts, unabridged, which is the exct opposite of what leftists do.
If you go read about her book in Vox or the Atlantic you'll see: "then after he came into the changeroom he raped her." FYI that's called editorializing, only it's more like "editorial lying". Left wing rags will lie to you, I did not.
What's the difference between:
- I brought some lingerie into the changeroom to model for him, and after he closed the changeroom door behind him, he pushed me against the wall and kissed me and I giggled, then he put his fingers inside me and I giggled, and then he went to put his penis inside me but i pushed him away with one arm and I left..... and
- I brought some lingerie into the changeroom to model for him, and after he closed the changeroom door behind him, he raped me.
The first story shows implied consent at every single step of the way. The second story sounds like she was physically beaten, overpowered, or seriously threatened.
If you find Caroll's actual book excerpt, you will see 100% accuracy in my account of it, and misleading bullshit from every leftist rag.
You might waana ask yourself why I'm a far more valuable source of information than the Atlantic or Vox. I told Caroll's whole story. And I accurately described the value of the testimony from her friends: they saw nothing themselves. Not even marks on Caroll's body. They heard nothing from anyone but Caroll's story. They weren't witnesses, they were parrots.
And Caroll, with all of her parrots, couldn't remember if the incident happened before or after Christmas. Before or after NYear's.
FYI those days are a pretty big deal. If a woman got raped on Dec 21 she would remember her shitty Christmas. If she got raped between Christmas and NY's she would remember the horrible Christmas season, and how she felt going to NY, or why she maybe even cancelled her plans. And if they say that it happened after NY's, then they've halved their timeline, and made it easier for Trump to defend himself in court.
Dude, you pretend to know that Trump was a rapist because you want to know it, and liars are telling you it's true.
I actually do know that Caroll was not raped, and that's even true if her own account of what happened is 100% accurate. If you bring a guy into a changeroom to strip off your clothes and then model lingerie for him, he's gonna 100% think it's playtime. And how could it not be? Is there a non-sexual way to do that?
At the very worst, she was treated like a cheap slut, and she disliked the experience to the point where she called it off, but that's not rape. It's just the kind of sleazy experience that she was probably expecting when she went out in 4" stilettos and a skirt in the NYC winter. There's a really good reason that most women have never even worn 4" stilettos. My wife wears heels all the time and she would never even try on a pair of 4's. It's honestly just a slut shoe, period. Ask any woman.
There's not much left to say QPI:
- her own story doesn't describe a rape
- it would be impossible to rape someone in a dept changeroom without getting caught, so no one would risk it
- she didn't make enough noise to get them busted
- she didn't describe him blowing through a stopsign
- by her own story she made it pretty easy for him to get some fingers into her vagina
- she had no witnesses
- she couldn't name a year
- there was never a criminal trial -> so he was obviously never convicted -> and without a conviction, he's not considered an actual rapist: he's just a guy who lost a civil suit.
Another fact is that they voted along with the Republicans again and again. They were the original Dem in name-only part of the party. That is a true fact as opposed to false facts, whatever they are.