One is a convicted felon, 34 times over, and there is more on the way. The other has never been suspected of any criminal act.
tHeY’rE tHE sAmE! bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe! LoL aMiRiTe
So many idiots can’t figure out who’s really rigging the game against them, even when it’s staring them in the face, blasting them with racist and fascist language and actions, with the breath of chronic bad health habits and the smell of soiled diaper.
Funny how the republicans did their best to start investigations and all they came up with is that his crack head son was bad, which everybody already knew. Good thing I’m not voting for hunter biden.
Jurors rejected E. Jean Carroll’s claim of rape. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse. But sexual abuse doesn’t sound as spicy as rape so people are content to misinform others.
you’ve confused the legal definitions with the layman use of the word.
To quote Judge Kaplan “clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.”
New York Penal Law defines rape as vaginal penetration by the penis, which Carroll stated perhaps entered only “halfway”.
A state law passed in late January 2024 expanded the state’s legal definition of rape to include nonconsensual vaginal, anal, and oral contact, effective non-retroactively beginning in September 2024.
I’m only interested in legal definitions as it’s objective, and layman can be subjective.
Also, wouldn’t halfway penetration still be penetration? Why would this not qualify as rape? Or is this due to her uncertainty via using the word “perhaps”?
Idk, he’s sponsoring a genocide. I’m pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it’s not like any US president in the last half century hasn’t been some kind of war criminal.
I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor’s refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that’s true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you’re celebrating.
I don’t know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it’s lost any punch it ever had.
I don’t believe it’s as unpopular as you think. The one-state (final) solution has been the only acceptable answer for decades, and everyone turned a blind eye to turning Gaza into a prison while “settlers” terraform the West Bank.
The other guy moved his embassy to disputed territory, firmly claiming the whole of Jerusalem for one side. “Their 911” plays a huge part in maufacturing consent in casual observers, and “never again” was always tongue-in-cheek.
Honestly, does anyone still care about the enslavement and cultural destruction of Chinese Uyghurs? How about the Rohingya genocide?
This election comes down to narcissistic boomers who believe the world should die with them. Their pop religion tells them armageddon will happen in their lifetime and the other guy is offering a way to make it happen.
Life has been objectively getting worse for years. The end of the world (or at least the american experiment) is on the ballot - the question is whether enough voters want to burn it all down.
How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?
I have the answer: because that’s how the two party system works to push you towards defending the genocide guy.
Like, you get that the genocide support has a good chance of making him lose to the somehow-worse-genocide-guy, right? Like why aren’t you mad about that? Why do you constantly have to tell everyone to stop talking about the genocide support? You realise that’s a kind of genocide denial, right?
There are exactly two options here. It’s either the life long politician that’s actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.
There are exactly two options with voting. I assume you don’t see any others because your entire political imagination has been contracted to voting. I believe I anticipated your answer when I said that the two-party system has done this to your brain.
And “walking back” support of the genocide is one way to say that he hasn’t actually removed any of the material support, and also a way to obscure the fact that the “walking back” has mostly been lip service.
One is a convicted felon, 34 times over, and there is more on the way. The other has never been suspected of any criminal act.
tHeY’rE tHE sAmE! bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe! LoL aMiRiTe
So many idiots can’t figure out who’s really rigging the game against them, even when it’s staring them in the face, blasting them with racist and fascist language and actions, with the breath of chronic bad health habits and the smell of soiled diaper.
Funny how the republicans did their best to start investigations and all they came up with is that his crack head son was bad, which everybody already knew. Good thing I’m not voting for hunter biden.
I’d vote for Hunter Biden if he was running against Trump. Sure he’d be a terrible President, but still better than Trump.
I’d vote for a pile of shit if it was running against Trump
The pile of shit does have a better foreign policy than Trump’s.
Don’t forget found liable for rape too. Imo worse than his felony charges.
is that the terminology because of a civil case?
Jurors rejected E. Jean Carroll’s claim of rape. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse. But sexual abuse doesn’t sound as spicy as rape so people are content to misinform others.
you’ve confused the legal definitions with the layman use of the word.
To quote Judge Kaplan “clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.”
I’m only interested in legal definitions as it’s objective, and layman can be subjective.
Also, wouldn’t halfway penetration still be penetration? Why would this not qualify as rape? Or is this due to her uncertainty via using the word “perhaps”?
Idk, he’s sponsoring a genocide. I’m pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it’s not like any US president in the last half century hasn’t been some kind of war criminal.
I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor’s refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that’s true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you’re celebrating.
I don’t know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it’s lost any punch it ever had.
I don’t believe it’s as unpopular as you think. The one-state (final) solution has been the only acceptable answer for decades, and everyone turned a blind eye to turning Gaza into a prison while “settlers” terraform the West Bank.
The other guy moved his embassy to disputed territory, firmly claiming the whole of Jerusalem for one side. “Their 911” plays a huge part in maufacturing consent in casual observers, and “never again” was always tongue-in-cheek.
Honestly, does anyone still care about the enslavement and cultural destruction of Chinese Uyghurs? How about the Rohingya genocide?
This election comes down to narcissistic boomers who believe the world should die with them. Their pop religion tells them armageddon will happen in their lifetime and the other guy is offering a way to make it happen.
Life has been objectively getting worse for years. The end of the world (or at least the american experiment) is on the ballot - the question is whether enough voters want to burn it all down.
The other guy, the one with 34 felonies, has said he’d help expand the genocide.
How do you miss these things?
How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?
I have the answer: because that’s how the two party system works to push you towards defending the genocide guy.
Like, you get that the genocide support has a good chance of making him lose to the somehow-worse-genocide-guy, right? Like why aren’t you mad about that? Why do you constantly have to tell everyone to stop talking about the genocide support? You realise that’s a kind of genocide denial, right?
There are exactly two options here. It’s either the life long politician that’s actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.
Gee, I don’t know…
I’m also not a one issue voter.
There are exactly two options with voting. I assume you don’t see any others because your entire political imagination has been contracted to voting. I believe I anticipated your answer when I said that the two-party system has done this to your brain.
And “walking back” support of the genocide is one way to say that he hasn’t actually removed any of the material support, and also a way to obscure the fact that the “walking back” has mostly been lip service.
Who else is a viable candidate for president this election?
Nobody.
Two questions:
Do you think I am somehow saying people shouldn’t vote for Biden? If so, can you explain where I have said that?
Do you think the fact that Biden is the tactically superior choice means that we should not discuss that he is complicit in genocide?
Yes. Because that is the talking point for everyone that is obsessed with him sending arms to Israel.
See response one.