U.S. Politics - Thread

[lukedog]

If Biden is so bad, why would DeSantis get stomped? I reckon there are very few republicans who would vote for Biden over DeSantis, but there are quite a few republicans who would never vote for Trump if 2020 is anything to go by. Only question is will it be enough to cost them the election. The republicans are weak for letting one man hijack their party. Especially when he has attacked so many party colleagues and run their names through the mud.

He'd be stomped by Trump in the primaries. 2020 is an eternity ago, as 2016 was to then.

Politics is an ugly game, people forget it was Clinton's campaign who started the "Obama wasn't born in the US" thing in 08, Trump took that ball and sprinted away with it, creating his opening into politics.

People forget those other Clinton leaks from 2016 strategizing on Trump, referring to him as a Pied Piper who they should encourage the growth of, ostensibly to destabilise the Republicans.

Whoops

 

[Memberberries]

 

[Flanagun]

The whole team were "suspects"

Hasem refused as a matter of principle....Trump has no principles.

Hazem has stated he was never a suspect, had multiple teammates who could attest he was nowhere near the pool and the fact police opted not to pursue a court order, when they could well have done so considering it was a criminal case, suggests they didn't really consider him a suspect either. You can guarantee if the complainant claimed to have his DNA on her clothing or in her body, they would have sought a court order to obtain the sample.

The alleged victim in the Trump case openly claimed she still has a stain from him on her dress and he still maintains he's never met her. A simple test could have proven his story true if he had in fact told the truth. Witnesses place Trump at the store on the same day as Carrol claims the incident occurred and that, coupled with his refusal to provide DNA does not exactly paint the picture of a man who is being truthful.

It was a civil case, and nobody was forcing him to supply the sample, but he really only has himself to blame for the verdict. At worst he was guilty, at best he had a perfect opportunity to clear his name and refused to take it.

Any reasonable person would have to suspect he has been lying about having never met her.... at very least.

 

[Flanagun]

He'd be stomped by Trump in the primaries. 2020 is an eternity ago, as 2016 was to then.

Politics is an ugly game, people forget it was Clinton's campaign who started the "Obama wasn't born in the US" thing in 08, Trump took that ball and sprinted away with it, creating his opening into politics.

People forget those other Clinton leaks from 2016 strategizing on Trump, referring to him as a Pied Piper who they should encourage the growth of, ostensibly to destabilise the Republicans.

Whoops

I don't forget about any of the mistakes the democrats made in the lead up to the 2016 election.... from underestimating Trump, to providing ammunition and not throwing a crumb to progressives whose vote they were depending on, they ran an absolutely terrible campaign. All they did was throw around the it's time to vote a woman in rhetoric and hope Trump would beat himself.

I'm not really defending the democrats, they have lost the plot as a party too.

All I'm saying is a fairly large chunk of Republicans swore they would never vote Trump under any circumstances in 2020. He has also personally insulted many former and current republican politicians and many of the former ones at very least may be prepared to campaign against him. It will be interesting to see whether those never Trumpers on the republican side will hold their nose and vote for him to get Biden out. I'm not saying they won't. The state of the economy and Biden's many failings certainly give Trump a chance.... but while Trump appears to be a sure thing in the primaries, I think DeSantis would be a surer thing in the presidential race.

Interesting times ahead. American politics is a train wreck. can't help but watch with interest.

 

[Flanagun]

If he wasn't a suspect, why did they want his DNA? I'll answer my own question, since you don't seem to be at your best this early. So they could eliminate him and he would no longer be a suspect.

Ooooh... catty! Lol

I suppose in a general sense, they were all suspects initially. But police obviously obtained enough evidence from both eyewitness accounts and El Masri's interview to determine he was not a key suspect. If they had seriously thought there was a chance he might have been directly involved, they would have sought a court order. Especially if they believed he had refused the sample because he was guilty.

I'll revise, if it makes you feel better - he was initially considered a suspect like everyone else, but police pretty quickly dismissed the possibility he was involved.

 

[speedy2460]

Theres a lot of "twoing and frowing" going on in US politics. The bottom line is that it is the most corrupt system in the history of the world.

 

[Philistine]

Hasem refused as a matter of principle....Trump has no principles.

Hazem has stated he was never a suspect, had multiple teammates who could attest he was nowhere near the pool and the fact police opted not to pursue a court order, when they could well have done so considering it was a criminal case, suggests they didn't really consider him a suspect either. You can guarantee if the complainant claimed to have his DNA on her clothing or in her body, they would have sought a court order to obtain the sample.

The alleged victim in the Trump case openly claimed she still has a stain from him on her dress and he still maintains he's never met her. A simple test could have proven his story true if he had in fact told the truth. Witnesses place Trump at the store on the same day as Carrol claims the incident occurred and that, coupled with his refusal to provide DNA does not exactly paint the picture of a man who is being truthful.

It was a civil case, and nobody was forcing him to supply the sample, but he really only has himself to blame for the verdict. At worst he was guilty, at best he had a perfect opportunity to clear his name and refused to take it.

Any reasonable person would have to suspect he has been lying about having never met her.... at very least.

I don't blame Hazem for refusing to give a DNA sample. I would have done the same in those circumstances, and nobody has the right to assume Hazem was guilty of something because he refused. But you are assuming Trump was guilty because of what you think you know about Trump's character and prior behaviour.

My reading of Trump (which is worth absolutely nothing - just like yours!) is that he doesn't remember her, and has no clue whether or nor he once had a fling with her, and his automatic response is to say he has never met her - and let her prove otherwise if she can!

 

[Memberberries]

Theres a lot of "twoing and frowing" going on in US politics. The bottom line is that it is the most corrupt system in the history of the world.

apparently Imran Khan has been arrested?
If true, Pakistan resent your remark about America! Lol

 

[Natboy]

El Masri wasn't a suspect, the victim never claimed to have his semen on her clothing and he wasn't facing the prospect of losing millions of dollars.

If someone is a “suspect” charge them instead of trying to get rich off them

 

[Flanagun]

I don't blame Hazem for refusing to give a DNA sample. I would have done the same in those circumstances, and nobody has the right to assume Hazem was guilty of something because he refused. But you are assuming Trump was guilty because of what you think you know about Trump's character and prior behaviour.

My reading of Trump (which is worth absolutely nothing - just like yours!) is that he doesn't remember her, and has no clue whether or nor he once had a fling with her, and his automatic response is to say he has never met her - and let her prove otherwise if she can!

He has repeatedly said he never met her...not that he can't remember her, not that he wasn't sure. But that he has never met her and she is completely making the whole thing up. If that is all true, it would have been very easy for him to prove, that's all I'm saying.

I never said I was 100 percent sure he was guilty, by the way. I just said he seems to be lying about certain things and he didn't cooperate with requests for a DNA test which could have proven his claims, if true.

Do I think he did it? Yeah, I think he probably did. My belief is not only based on his past behaviours and previous allegations against him, but also the fact he was less than cooperative and seems to be lying about certain things. Not to mention that he repeatedly tried to compromise the case by making false claims on social media, such as claiming it was E Jean Carrol and her team who didn't want the DNA test, which is straight up bs. Hazem never lied about his principles and intentions regarding the DNA test, he was honest and upfront about his actions and principles, which gave him credibility.

At the end of the day Carrol's legal team presented witnesses who could corroborate elements of her story and Trump's team didn't even lodge a defence. His lawyer just attacked the complainant's credibility on cross examination, threw out some pretty far fetched theories with no basis and just expected the jury to exonerate him.

At the end of the day I don't have to be 100 percent impartial. I am not part of the jury. The reality is the court found him guilty and I think Trump only has himself and his legal team to blame for that.

 

[Flanagun]

If someone is a “suspect” charge them instead of trying to get rich off them

She can't charge him. There is a statute of limitations and a criminal case is no longer possible from a legal POV.

 

[Natboy]

She can't charge him. There is a statute of limitations and a criminal case is no longer possible from a legal POV.

What is the statute of limitations for sexual assault?

 

[speedy2460]

What is the statute of limitations for sexual assault?

In Australia, there isnt one.

 

[Ribo Flavin]

What is the statute of limitations for sexual assault?

In the video I posted, it says
a law was changed to open a one year window only for alleged "victims" to come forward and sue. The campaign to alter the statute of limitations was done specifically to have a civil law suit against Trump. Trumps current accuser led the campaign to have the law changed.

 

[Doogie]

Ya reckon? Most ‘real’ NY billionaires don’t consider Donny a club member. He robs Peter to pay Paul and often doesn’t pay Paul after he’s robbed Peter.

He’ll do everything he can to delay paying a dollar other than to lawyers through appeals. He’s always done it - kick the can down the road. He’s running in 2024 mainly to legally protect himself, even though it’s also ego, power and enrichment opportunity driven.

I reckon his ‘empire’ is a house of cards that once the loans are called back in, collapses. He just needs to keep the balls in the air until he’s six feet under.

This site needs a sarcasm font lol.

Anyways - the $5m would only have been $2m if he kept his mouth shut. And the fact he was done for a larger amount for the defamation than the sexual assault speaks volumes in itself.

Statute of limitations on rape? None. Never was one under Federal law. Civil case - civil cases are always lucky dips - you need a lower standard of proof but if it doesn't get up, you run the risk of being counter sued. Now imagine if Orange boy was found not guilty - how much u think he was counter suing whats her name for? Buckets.

My guess is he did what most celebs did back in the day - had a go. Some chicks go my bad for being near this idiot, some chicks will be hurt but keep it to themselves, some chicks will hold onto it until the day comes for revenge. And when you add in the question of consent, this is a rabbit hole and a half.

Now if Dumpster had half a brain in his head, he'd have paid out all these chicks yonks ago with locked in NDA's. Of course - reckon given he couldn't tell this chick from his ex-wife, he's probably forgotten them all. Or he did remember them all and worked out its probably ten times by actual worth.

Who knows but watching comb-over squirm is so much fun.

 

[DinkumDog]

In the video I posted, it says
a law was changed to open a one year window only for alleged "victims" to come forward and sue. The campaign to alter the statute of limitations was done specifically to have a civil law suit against Trump. Trumps current accuser led the campaign to have the law changed.

All due respect Vitamin B2 but many of your posts are far right lunacy content and Jimmy Dore is a well known conspiracy theorist so yeah, not a lot of cred…

 

[DinkumDog]

if he kept his mouth shut.

That is really where it begins and ends for me.
I’m not a big believer in civil law suits, especially in the absence of any criminality having been established. Doubly so when the alleged incident was 30 years ago. But, he made it worse for himself as he always does. He only opens his mouth to change feet .

 

[Hacky McAxe]

What is the statute of limitations for sexual assault?

It varies by state. NY has some of the longest statute of limitations, but that also differs when it comes to criminal or civil. It used to be 20 years for both, but they pushed a bill through last year that removed the limitation on civil cases. Criminal cases still hold a 20 year limitation.

 

[Natboy]

It varies by state. NY has some of the longest statute of limitations, but that also differs when it comes to criminal or civil. It used to be 20 years for both, but they pushed a bill through last year that removed the limitation on civil cases. Criminal cases still hold a 20 year limitation.

Thanks for that. So she only had 20 years to charge him?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

All due respect Vitamin B2 but many of your posts are far right lunacy content and Jimmy Dore is a well known conspiracy theorist so yeah, not a lot of cred…

Yeah. It's a bit messy, and could look like it was targeting Trump as the loopback window is only active for 1 year, after which time Trump would be free from civil suits. But this bill was raised well before the discussion of civil suits against Trump even came up. And it was based on another prescedent that's even older.