Has anyone noticed?

[Aldebaran]

That would be 'technically raped as per the criminal code in NY state'. I don't know about other guys, but if someone said 'I didn't rape your wife. I just used my hand' then it wouldn't really change my mind on how I'd like him punished (and it wouldn't be a financial punishment either).

The courts of the State of New York rely on laws, and not what you like.

 

[Bradskii]

The courts of the State of New York rely on laws, and not what you like.

The courts and laws that found that he sexually assaulted a woman? Those courts? Yeah, I read about it.

 

[Aldebaran]

My opinions on Trump are based on...Trump. I don't need an opinion piece to tell me what I can see and read for myself. And my personal opinions on the American people are the result of many months travelling through your country and interacting with them on a daily basis.

Your judgement about the American people as a whole, and your opinions that go along with them have nothing to do with a verdict for a specific person's court case. You weren't on the jury, and you weren't present during whatever some people would like to believe happened between Trump and some woman.

 

[Aldebaran]

The courts and laws that found that he sexually assaulted a woman? Those courts? Yeah, I read about it.

You should broaden the scope of your readings instead of reading only what aligns with your judgement of American people.

 

[Bradskii]

Your judgement about the American people as a whole, and your opinions that go along with them have nothing to do with a verdict for a specific person's court case. You weren't on the jury, and you weren't present during whatever some people would like to believe happened between Trump and some woman.

No, I wasn't. So it's odd that just a couple of posts ago you were relying on a few million others who also weren't there listening to the evidence to give you a correct verdict.

Personally I'm relying on those good people who were on the jury and who sat and listened for some considerable time to all the evidence, to reach a valid conclusion regarding the matter. Your personal opinion that you don't like the verdict is noted.

 

[Bradskii]

You should broaden the scope of your readings instead of reading only what aligns with your judgement of American people.

Are you saying that I should have looked harder to find a news outlet that said that he had won the case? Unfortunately, all the media that I normally access said that he'd lost and that a jury of his peers had awarded damages. I'm assuming that all the media that you access said the same thing.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I wasn't. So it's odd that just a couple of posts ago you were relying on a few million others who also weren't there listening to the evidence to give you a correct verdict.

Not just a few million. More like the 77,284,118 who voted for him after that "trial".

Personally I'm relying on those good people who were on the jury and who sat and listened for some considerable time to all the evidence, to reach a valid conclusion regarding the matter. Your personal opinion that you don't like the verdict is noted.

12 American people from New York who you agree with?

 

[Bradskii]

Not just a few million. More like the 77,284,118 who voted for him after that "trial".

So why complain that I wasn't the trial so I can't give a judgement?

12 American people from New York who you agree with?

I can't agree to something if I haven't been given all the facts. But I can accept the verdict of those who have. Your mileage seems to vary.

 

[Aldebaran]

So why complain that I wasn't the trial so I can't give a judgement?

Because you weren't at the trial to hear the evidence and give a proper judgement.

I can't agree to something if I haven't been given all the facts. But I can accept the verdict of those who have. Your mileage seems to vary.

I seem to recall you saying something quite different not too long ago.....

My opinions on Trump are based on...Trump. I don't need an opinion piece to tell me what I can see and read for myself. And my personal opinions on the American people are the result of many months travelling through your country and interacting with them on a daily basis.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bradskii]

Because you weren't at the trial to hear the evidence and give a proper judgement.

I keep emphasising that point. I'm glad you get the point that I am making. And understand why it seems odd that you refer to 'reasons why 76 million Americans reject the verdict made in the civil lawsuit'. Because gee, wouldn't you know, they weren't at the trial either. I'll guess we'll have to leave it to those twelve who were there to give that 'proper judgement'.

I seem to recall you saying something quite different not too long ago.....

Yeah. It was so different as to have no relevance whatsoever. My opinion of Trump is what I get about the man from watching him and reading what he's said. Which has nothing to do with not necessarily being able to agree with a jury's decision but being able to accept it nevertheless.

This is becoming tiresome. I hope that's it...

 

[Aldebaran]

I keep emphasising that point. I'm glad you get the point that I am making. And understand why it seems odd that you refer to 'reasons why 76 million Americans reject the verdict made in the civil lawsuit'. Because gee, wouldn't you know, they weren't at the trial either. I'll guess we'll have to leave it to those twelve who were there to give that 'proper judgement'.

Yeah. It was so different as to have no relevance whatsoever. My opinion of Trump is what I get about the man from watching him and reading what he's said. Which has nothing to do with not necessarily being able to agree with a jury's decision but being able to accept it nevertheless.

This is becoming tiresome. I hope that's it...

You trust 12 people over 77,284,118 people? What happened to protecting what the majority decide. You know, "democracy"?

 

[Bradskii]

You trust 12 people over 77,284,118 people? What happened to protecting what the majority decide. You know, "democracy"?

Well, to quote someone who posted so very recently: 'Because (they) weren't at the trial to hear the evidence and give a proper judgement.'

You are now arguing with yourself. You don't actually need me to be here.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, to quote someone who posted so very recently: 'Because (they) weren't at the trial to hear the evidence and give a proper judgement.'

You are now arguing with yourself. You don't actually need me to be here.

Correct. I don't.

 

[Vambram]

My opinions on Trump are based on...Trump. I don't need an opinion piece to tell me what I can see and read for myself. And my personal opinions on the American people are the result of many months travelling through your country and interacting with them on a daily basis.

ok

 

[KCfromNC]

As you pointed out, 3 of the most liberal news organizations can't stop talking about it.

Or 3 of the first hits on a quick google search.

Regardless, though, it kinds puts the idea that no one's talking about it to rest.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am not going to rely upon results from an ABC News Ipso Poll that is dated back in October 24th.

Posts are free to ignore reality as much as necessary, it is a free country after all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why cannot the liberals understand that reasons why 76 million Americans reject the verdict made in the civil lawsuit against Donald Trump regarding whether or not Trump did anything sexually wrong towards that woman?

I think you are making a serious category error to think that all Trump voters rejected the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll suit.

1. Some were probably not aware of it.
2. Others probably forgot about it.
3. A further group don't care about it enough to have an opinion on the action of the jury.
4. Some accept the jury verdict and vote for him anyway because they think other factors are more important. (As do I.)

That's potentially a lot of voters who cast ballots for Trump.

The fraction of Trump voters that knew about the case and verdict and thought Trump was "railroaded", "Carroll lied", or something similar is probably pretty low. (Not on this site, participation in this part of CF involves becoming aware of many minor or irrelevant facts and occurrences regarding politicians and politics that most voters do not pay attention to.)

 

[Aldebaran]

Or 3 of the first hits on a quick google search.

Regardless, though, it kinds puts the idea that no one's talking about it to rest.

Further evidence that liberal and anti-Trump pieces are favored by Google's algorithms.

 

[Bradskii]

Further evidence that liberal and anti-Trump pieces are favored by Google's algorithms.

They are individually tailored to the person who logs on to Google. You often get given links that reflect your past searches. Anyone that has told you that Google is politically biased is talking abject nonsense.

From here: Google algorithms explained: Everything you need to know

'The algorithm looks at information such as location, search history and search settings to return content based on the specific user profile. Search also personalizes results based on previous activity on the Google account. For example, a search for "events near Newton" may affect the results of future searches.'

 

[Hans Blaster]

They are individually tailored to the person who logs on to Google. You often get given links that reflect your past searches. Anyone that has told you that Google is politically biased is talking abject nonsense.

From here: Google algorithms explained: Everything you need to know

'The algorithm looks at information such as location, search history and search settings to return content based on the specific user profile. Search also personalizes results based on previous activity on the Google account. For example, a search for "events near Newton" may affect the results of future searches.'

I.e., they're not biased, they are creepy.