More than 200 Republicans who previously worked for either former President Bush, Sen. McCain, or Sen. Romney, endorse VP Harris

[Bradskii]

THIS. And only this. We are not choosing a best friend or a soulmate...not the person you think would be your buddy.

Good grief...this man has raped a woman and cheated on his wife with a porn star. He is immediately excluded from anything to do with decent society. I could care less what his policies are. They may align with everything I hold dear. They may be what I've argued for for many years. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

Edit: And have you seen what he's now posting on Truth social about Harris? I'd link to it but I'm sure I'd get a warning from the mods as it's so crude. But don't worry, you'll get to hear about it. And this from a man you want to represent your country?

I refuse to accept that this is the new normal. I refuse to accept that a person like this should even be considered for office. I refuse to accept that this is the type of man that can run for any position at all with people telling us that we should ignore his character because, hey - we might like his policies.

Tell me, in all seriousness, what else would the guy have to do before you thought 'Well, maybe that was too much, maybe now he doesn't deserve my vote'. What could it possibly be?

 

[stevil]

Good grief...this man has raped a woman and cheated on his wife with a porn star.

For me personally, I could overlook the cheating on his wife with a porn star bit. The guy doesn't have to be a saint, and his consentual sex life is his business.

The rape is not something I'd overlook. I very much doubt I'd ever consider voting a person convicted or found liable for "rape"
But much worse from a democratic country perspective is his attempts to throw out the vote of the people and try to replace it with a vote by the state delegations in the House of Representatives. And his firing and trying to replace his AG because he wouldn't falsely claim widespread voter fraud. And his refusal to call off the dogs for over 3 hours once he saw they had gotten violent and criminal in an attack on the capital.
There are many reasons why I think rational USA folk shouldn't vote for D Trump even if they are absolutely delighted with his policies.

 

[Bradskii]

For me personally, I could overlook the cheating on his wife with a porn star bit. The guy doesn't have to be a saint, and his consentual sex life is his business.

It would kill his chances in the UK and Australia. He wouldn't have a hope. In fact, everyone would expect him to take himself off the ticket. Nothing less would be acceptable. That's the deal these days - although it wasn't back in the day. JFK was a known philanderer and Bob Hawke, our PM down here in the 80's was the same. But that was 40 years ago. You'd think that surely we've all changed for the better since then.

But that's just one problem. I could be here all day listing reasons why he shouldn't be considered. Even this morning it was reported what he'd posted re Harris and it's totally and completely unacceptable. In any office, in any business in the US it would be cause for immediate dismissal.

Yet as atrociously as he acts, as demeaning as his comments are to women, part of me wants him to continue. I want the light shone on what he does and what he says so we can all see it. He's killing his campaign every time he opens his mouth or posts anything.

 

[stevil]

Yet as atrociously as he acts, as demeaning as his comments are to women, part of me wants him to continue. I want the light shone on what he does and what he says so we can all see it. He's killing his campaign every time he opens his mouth or posts anything.

It's not just Trump, there are many MAGA people, even in the Republican party, plus also folk not officially in the party that say outlandish, attention seeking things. Things that are going to shock the educated and the civil and that are going to delight the MAGA base.

It almost seems to be a requirement, of a MAGA person to say shocking and outlandish things. If they don't then they are boring, part of the "establishment", RINOS, never Trumpers etc.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good grief...this man has raped a woman and cheated on his wife with a porn star. He is immediately excluded from anything to do with decent society. I could care less what his policies are. They may align with everything I hold dear. They may be what I've argued for for many years. It doesn't matter in the slightest.


I refuse to accept that this is the new normal. I refuse to accept that a person like this should even be considered for office. I refuse to accept that this is the type of man that can run for any position at all with people telling us that we should ignore his character because, hey - we might like his policies.

It's become increasingly obvious that most people don't think like that when it comes to politics and policy.

This sentiment "we can find this major flaw in your candidate - up to and including felonies... therefore you should do the honorable thing and vote for our side that will advance all of our interests and throw all of your interests in the wastebin"

And I don't believe for a second US Democrats would employ the type of logic you're describing.
If "Republican Ralph" was anti-abortion, anti-climate, anti-LGBT, and was calling to abolish the Department of Education, and "Democrat Dave" embraced all progressive policy proposals, but had proven cases of marital infidelity and rape allegations against him... Does anyone actually believe for a second that US progressives would vote for Ralph on the grounds of "Dave's character is beyond forgiveness"?


...and for the record, this isn't the new normal. Republicans tried the same approach with Bill Clinton back in the 90's. They dragged out all of his marital infidelities.
And yes, there were credible allegations that some of them were non-consensual.

Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did that inspire any democrats to abandon all of their principles and vote for HW Bush or Bob Dole?

Or was that just a cheap trick by the republicans at the time to feign concern about a matter (that they didn't really care about, it was just low-hanging fruit in terms of a political strategy) to try to help their team win?


The reason why zeroing in on the other side's sexual indiscretions is such an easy lever to pull in US politics, is because that behavior (unfortunately) has been somewhat ubiquitous within the field of federal politics for quite some time.

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If I understand this correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong about this next part)...
Perhaps the reason for the mindset being different from onlookers in other countries is due to the differences between our system, and the parliamentary systems. The parliamentary system gives people the luxury of voting for party/platform (and party leaders select the PM). And the PM can be swapped out with another member of the party should bad behavior like this be uncovered.

So it
A) allows people to morally distance themselves from whatever bad stuff is uncovered about a PM "Hey I didn't vote for the person, I voted for the party/platform"

B) allows for the "hot swap" I mentioned, so even if it turns out the PM was a scumbag, they can be replaced with another member of the party quickly, so that people can get the "bad guy" out, without having to completely throw their policy interests in the wastebin for 4 years by voting for the other team's guy


In a nutshell, for people living under parliamentary systems, being able to say "I would never vote for a guy like that...no matter what" is a luxury in the same way that it'd be a luxury for a rich trust-fund kid with their dad's platinum card to say "I'd never shoplift...no matter what"...they're never being presented the same type of moral dilemma involving the potential for not getting what they want.

 

[Bradskii]

And I don't believe for a second US Democrats would employ the type of logic you're describing.
If "Republican Ralph" was anti-abortion, anti-climate, anti-LGBT, and was calling to abolish the Department of Education, and "Democrat Dave" embraced all progressive policy proposals, but had proven cases of marital infidelity and rape allegations against him... Does anyone actually believe for a second that US progressives would vote for Ralph on the grounds of "Dave's character is beyond forgiveness"?

I didn't think that the point I was making could be misunderstood. I was obviously wrong. Let me try again.

Someone with Trump's character, someone with such a list of comments and acts with which he is associated should not be considered for office. Period. In most civilised countries, any one of them would have immediately disqualified him from running.That they are ignored, excused and glossed over shows the state of US politics today. It's beyond my comprehension.

With him excluded then the GOP would present a different candidate. And everyone is then free to consider the policies that they would present and vote accordingly.

 

[Hammster]

I didn't think that the point I was making could be misunderstood. I was obviously wrong. Let me try again.

Someone with Trump's character, someone with such a list of comments and acts with which he is associated should not be considered for office. Period. In most civilised countries, any one of them would have immediately disqualified him from running.That they are ignored, excused and glossed over shows the state of US politics today. It's beyond my comprehension.

With him excluded then the GOP would present a different candidate. And everyone is then free to consider the policies that they would present and vote accordingly.

I actually agree with you in principle.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I didn't think that the point I was making could be misunderstood. I was obviously wrong. Let me try again.

Someone with Trump's character, someone with such a list of comments and acts with which he is associated should not be considered for office. Period. In most civilised countries, any one of them would have immediately disqualified him from running.That they are ignored, excused and glossed over shows the state of US politics today. It's beyond my comprehension.

With him excluded then the GOP would present a different candidate. And everyone is then free to consider the policies that they would present and vote accordingly.

I understood your point...the problem is that your point doesn't apply to the US (legally speaking)

By what legal mechanism would he be disqualified from running? We have no laws that suggest that a convicted felon can't run for office (with the exception of a few very specific crimes). In fact, such a system would likely be abused within the current US political structure. -- and I can provide examples of how that would play out if you're interested.

As I noted, we don't have the same laws and systems in place as you do with your parliamentary systems over there. Nor do we have a luxury of voting for a party/platform (with an easy way of swapping out the person while still letting your own party take power).


When you have a system where the party and person are a package deal (like our system in the US), there is no way to "exclude just him" if there are no legal provisions to do so.

And this idealistic notion of "we found this damning information about your candidate, so the right thing to do is for you to do is bow out this time and let us do whatever the hell we want for 4 years" is a faux-lofty standard that both US political parties seem to love when they have the dirt on the other side, but conveniently revert back to "we're not voting for a pastor or moral leader" when it's going in the other direction.

 

[Bradskii]

I understood your point...the problem is that your point doesn't apply to the US (legally speaking)

I don't give two cents what is legally applicable or not. I said that a person like Trump 'should not be considered for office.'

That's not hard to comprehend. That is as plain as I can make it. If he's the candidate then you should not consider him a suitable person for election to any office whatsoever. So you don't vote for him. He has excluded himself from receiving your vote by his behaviour.

Now whether you vote for someone else depends on who is available. But you are limited to those others. If the Republican Party offers someone else then you can consider them as well. If they don't, you can't.

Pretty simple I would have thought.

 

[Pommer]

This sentiment "we can find this major flaw in your candidate - up to and including felonies... therefore you should do the honorable thing and vote for our side that will advance all of our interests and throw all of your interests in the wastebin"

This has been the whole of politics for the last two decades, at least.
Politicians [can] tend to be rather narcissistic since they actively seek the jobs that allows them to exercise their judgments “for the people”. Such politicians as are afflicted, enjoy this immensely. This and “ethical behavior” can sometimes rarely cross paths. Some are R and some are D, it’s a given, or should be.

 

[stevil]

That they are ignored, excused and glossed over shows the state of US politics today. It's beyond my comprehension.

With him excluded then the GOP would present a different candidate. And everyone is then free to consider the policies that they would present and vote accordingly.

I think it has something to do with the USA political system.

With British styled politics, the parties choose their own leader. Even if their leader is the current Prime Minister, if a scandal happens, the party can do a vote of no confidence, kick the leader out and appoint a new leader.

In USA, the people don't vote for a party, they vote for a President. Also they have this Primary election where the people that have registered affiliation to a party, they get to vote for their party's Presidential nominee. The Republican supporters are sticking with Trump regardless of his bad behaviour. And Trump is demanding total loyality from those in his party, if they don't lie for him, then he turns on them and gets his base to vote them out.
Even if the Republican Party could remove him, he wouldn't leave with grace, he would run as an independent and large swaths of voters will vote him rather than the Republican nominee.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Good grief...this man has raped a woman and cheated on his wife with a porn star. He is immediately excluded from anything to do with decent society. I could care less what his policies are. They may align with everything I hold dear. They may be what I've argued for for many years. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

Edit: And have you seen what he's now posting on Truth social about Harris? I'd link to it but I'm sure I'd get a warning from the mods as it's so crude. But don't worry, you'll get to hear about it. And this from a man you want to represent your country?

I refuse to accept that this is the new normal. I refuse to accept that a person like this should even be considered for office. I refuse to accept that this is the type of man that can run for any position at all with people telling us that we should ignore his character because, hey - we might like his policies.

Tell me, in all seriousness, what else would the guy have to do before you thought 'Well, maybe that was too much, maybe now he doesn't deserve my vote'. What could it possibly be?

Rape is a criminal charge. He was never charged with rape. That's a false assertion. Best not to lead with easily refuted falsehoods, despite your bias.

The real issue that Harris and Leftists need to deal with is that Trump policies are better, which is why 1) she is co-opting them and 2) she was never elected by primary, merely foisted on people, and 3) that Trump is still her opponent because half of America sees that despite his many flaws, he is STILL a preferable candidate to this Biden/Harris mess which she controls now as the only competent person currently in the President/VP offices.

Dislike him all you want; many people do, as many equally dislike Harris. But again, we aren't picking a friend or buddy, we are picking someone to run the country better than this. But the important issue is that we need to get out of the current Biden/Harris crash on all fronts, where the borders were left open for 3.5 years, with entirely predictable results, wars on multiple fronts, and a mess of an economy. We cannot have Harris dissolving into a mass of hysterical guffaws whenever she is challenged on any position, which is what she has done. That's also why she is avoiding the press and real questions.

Auto-reject.

 

[JosephZ]

Rape is a criminal charge. He was never charged with rape. That's a false assertion. Best not to lead with easily refuted falsehoods, despite your bias.

"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was 'raped' within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape, Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that." -- US District Judge Lewis Kaplan


Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

After Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, his legal team and his defenders lodged a frequent talking point.

Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

Right. Read it. Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse. The JURY has the final say and the JURY did not convict of rape.

Legal distinction is a legal distinction. And the same judge who decided it was rape despite the jury saying otherwise, declined to hear a new motion. Shocker.

What has happened?

"A federal judge refused to dismiss Trump's lawsuit against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos following the news anchor's comments made in March after he asserted Trump was essentially found "liable for rape."

The former president had sued the Disney-owned network and Stephanopoulos, claiming the anchor defamed him during an interview with Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, in which Stephanopoulos stated on multiple occasions that Trump was found liable for the rape of writer E. Jean Carroll. According to the lawsuit, Stephanopoulos' comments were made "with actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth."

Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the United States District Court in Miami ruled Wednesday, "A jury may, upon viewing the segment, find there was sufficient context. But a reasonable jury could conclude Plaintiff was defamed and, as a result, dismissal is inappropriate."

"Stephanopoulos's exchange with Mace lasted about ten minutes, during which Stephanopoulos stated ten times that a jury or juries had found Plaintiff liable for rape," wrote Altonaga. "In fact, of course, the Carroll II jury did not find (Trump) liable for rape under New York Penal Law; it was Judge Kaplan who determined that the jury's verdict amounted to liability for rape."

There will be a trial (or perhaps a settlement as media doesn't like its talent tied up in lawsuits.

Donald Trump Celebrates 'Big' Legal Win in Court

A federal judge refused to dismiss Trump's lawsuit against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos following the news anchor's comments made in March after he asserted Trump was essentially found "liable for rape."

nationalinterest.org

 

[JosephZ]

The JURY has the final say and the JURY did not convict of rape.

It was a civil trial, so the jury wasn't able to convict Trump of anything. What they were able to do, however, is conclude that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll. This finding was based in part on New York's strict definition of rape at the time.

Legal distinction is a legal distinction.

Since the trial, New York has changed it's legal definition of rape to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact. This is more in line with the long standing federal definition of rape which includes penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Using the federal definition of rape, Trump raped Carroll. Using New York's revised definition of rape, Trump raped Carroll.

 

[Bradskii]

But again, we aren't picking a friend or buddy, we are picking someone to run the country better than this.

If you think that he's the type of man to be considered to represent your country, then so be it.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now, Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney hjave both come out, and saidTrump is grossly offending
that they will vote for Kamala Harris.

Trump is grossly offending historic Republican conservatives.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It was a civil trial, so the jury wasn't able to convict Trump of anything. What they were able to do, however, is conclude that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll. This finding was based in part on New York's strict definition of rape at the time.


Since the trial, New York has changed it's legal definition of rape to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact. This is more in line with the long standing federal definition of rape which includes penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Using the federal definition of rape, Trump raped Carroll. Using New York's revised definition of rape, Trump raped Carroll.

Exactly. There was NO conviction. Not of rape or any other criminal charge. Rape is a criminal charge.

We know exactly how New York changed its law, first of all so E. Jean Carroll could file.

In 2022, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which created a one-year lookback period during which adult victims of alleged sexual offenses could file civil suits whether the standard statute of limitations had passed or not (previously, it was 3 years).

Carroll sued Trump once the Adult Survivors Act took effect, and in May 2023, a jury awarded Carroll $5 million after finding Trump was responsible civilly for sexual abuse and defamation.

 

[JosephZ]

Exactly. There was NO conviction. Not of rape or any other criminal charge. Rape is a criminal charge.

Just because Trump wasn't criminally charged with rape doesn't mean he didn't rape Carroll.

We know exactly how New York changed its law, first of all so E. Jean Carroll could file.

There were thousands of victims of sexual assault who also filed claims during the same period, the law wasn't passed just so Carroll could sue Trump.

 

[RileyG]

Now, Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney hjave both come out, and saidTrump is grossly offending
that they will vote for Kamala Harris.

Trump is grossly offending historic Republican conservatives.

Trump doesn’t do a good job representing Republicans or conservatives.

He does not.

Which is why many will be voting for Harris instead.