I’m inclined to believe this won’t change much. As many of his supporters see it, the “deep state”, courts, etc. are all biased against him and this is probably just further proof of that...
I’m inclined to believe this won’t change much. As many of his supporters see it, the “deep state”, courts, etc. are all biased against him and this is probably just further proof of that worldview in their eyes.
Conspiratorial thinking is remarkably circular and resistant to evidence. They'll just reframe it in a way that reinforces their previous beliefs. For example, this verdict is even more proof that...
Conspiratorial thinking is remarkably circular and resistant to evidence. They'll just reframe it in a way that reinforces their previous beliefs. For example, this verdict is even more proof that an evil cabal secretly controls all judicial institutions, etc.
I don't think the justifications will be that drastic. People will look at this and say "It's a NYC jury, of course they hate Trump" and not think about this again. I guarantee if you look at any...
I don't think the justifications will be that drastic. People will look at this and say "It's a NYC jury, of course they hate Trump" and not think about this again. I guarantee if you look at any comments on news articles about this, there will be ones that say that.
He's already been claiming he wasn't allowed to defend himself. The folks that are still in the cult will swallow that up and dismiss anything to the contrary as "fake news", I'm sure.
He's already been claiming he wasn't allowed to defend himself. The folks that are still in the cult will swallow that up and dismiss anything to the contrary as "fake news", I'm sure.
I know it doesn’t make sense on purpose, but in the same post he says “they won’t let me defend myself!” and then says, “I’m choosing not to speak until after the trial!” Which one is it? Are you...
“Waiting for a jury decision on a False Accusation where I, despite being a current political candidate and leading all others in both parties, am not allowed to speak or defend myself, even as hard nosed reporters scream questions about this case at me,” the former president wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday. “In the meantime, the other side has a book falsely accusing me of Rape, & is working with the press. I will therefore not speak until after the trial, but will appeal the Unconstitutional silencing of me, as a candidate, no matter the outcome!”
I know it doesn’t make sense on purpose, but in the same post he says “they won’t let me defend myself!” and then says, “I’m choosing not to speak until after the trial!”
Which one is it? Are you being silent or choosing to be silent?
I am pretty sure he’s not referring to being allowed to testify, and is instead referencing the Judge warning/telling him to not incite violence or comment on the case.
I am pretty sure he’s not referring to being allowed to testify, and is instead referencing the Judge warning/telling him to not incite violence or comment on the case.
I think it will help Trump in the primaries and hurt in the election. Probably neither by all that much. There've been focus groups showing that the sexual assault allegations are the most...
I think it will help Trump in the primaries and hurt in the election. Probably neither by all that much.
There've been focus groups showing that the sexual assault allegations are the most damaging to Trump among swing state voters. Women are half of the population, after all.
It probably helps his image in the primaries. His polling got a positive bump when he was arraigned for the NY case, and also in 2016 when the "grab by the pussy" thing came out.
Considering the record GOPers, and politicians in general, have with sexual assault, I would be surprised if they gave it any airtime. This could set a precedent that effects them down the line.
Will Ron DeSantis or any other GOP candidates for 2024 use this as ammunition against him?
Considering the record GOPers, and politicians in general, have with sexual assault, I would be surprised if they gave it any airtime. This could set a precedent that effects them down the line.
I don’t know about that. Clinton was impeached over sexual assault, and Thomas and Kavenaugh survived very credible allegations. Sad to say, we as a people have yet to have had enough of this sort...
If this were anyone but Trump, it would completely tank their political career
I don’t know about that. Clinton was impeached over sexual assault, and Thomas and Kavenaugh survived very credible allegations.
Sad to say, we as a people have yet to have had enough of this sort of thing.
I don’t know if I agree that a white house intern can have a consensual relationship with the sitting president. In fact, I know I don’t agree. But w.r.t. consequences, ever would i be more happy...
I don’t know if I agree that a white house intern can have a consensual relationship with the sitting president. In fact, I know I don’t agree. But w.r.t. consequences, ever would i be more happy about being wrong.
Can anyone? This line of thinking is what leads to the whole "must be catholic and married in a church and only do it to make kids" obsession americans have around sex. But what do I know, we...
I don’t know if I agree that a white house intern can have a consensual relationship with the sitting president.
Can anyone?
This line of thinking is what leads to the whole "must be catholic and married in a church and only do it to make kids" obsession americans have around sex. But what do I know, we French people are famously puritanistic 🙄
Huh? I think you're completely misunderstanding what @NoblePath was talking about. This has nothing to do with American puritanism, or sex shaming. Consent in sexual relations, when there is a...
Huh? I think you're completely misunderstanding what @NoblePath was talking about. This has nothing to do with American puritanism, or sex shaming. Consent in sexual relations, when there is a significant power differential between the participants, is complicated, and there is serious debate about if consent can ever truly be given under those circumstances. And that isn't a new idea or exclusive to the Americas either. It's one of the reasons why sexual relations between a boss and their subordinate is problematic, often heavily discouraged/forbidden, and considered a fireable offense (even in France, AFAIK). And also why fraternization between an officer and an enlisted soldier under their command is problematic, typically forbidden, and punishable (even in the French military).
Maybe the issue here is a matter of differentiation. Sex with subordinates may be universally recognized as wrong, abhorrent, inadvisable, problematic, and punishable. But, given the...
Maybe the issue here is a matter of differentiation.
Sex with subordinates may be universally recognized as wrong, abhorrent, inadvisable, problematic, and punishable. But, given the circumstances, there's still some differentiation to make in which not all of them will constitute sexual assault, sexual violence, rape, etc.
There does seem to be a tendency to group all bad behavior under the most serious category to intensify it's gravity for rhetorical purposes, which is problematic in itself. And I think you can see that already in the way sex offenders are registered in the US. A couple caught having consensual sex at a remote beach goes in the same register as a pedophile.
There's a difference between "consensual" and "unbalanced". If a person holds power over another and pushes for a sexual relationship, yes, it can't be consensual, even if the threats are...
There's a difference between "consensual" and "unbalanced". If a person holds power over another and pushes for a sexual relationship, yes, it can't be consensual, even if the threats are implicit. But just "being an intern at the white house" is no different position than "being just about anybody in the world" when you're talking about POTUS, one of the most powerful and influential positions in the world. This isn't a matter of POTUS being your boss, it's a matter of knowing he can snap his fingers and get you killed without batting an eye.
In other words, unless you're already POTUS' faithful married partner, you can't have a consensual relationship with a person in that position. And this is what I call bullshit on: Because this power dynamic doesn't apply to just sex, people just get iffy about sex specifically.
I think I’m starting to get where you’re coming from. That sexual activity has some kind of special status afforded to it that is not intrinsic, and that special status has been created as a form...
I think I’m starting to get where you’re coming from. That sexual activity has some kind of special status afforded to it that is not intrinsic, and that special status has been created as a form of control.
I don’t agree with that, fwiw, but I do agree that concepts like “sexual purity” need to go.
But even if sex is not special, that power differential makes consent for that sort of intimate boundary crossing impossible.
And if it means that no consensual relationship with potus is possible, that’s a problem the needs dealing with.
I’m a little confused what your overall point is then, since it seems you agree that it would be difficult for a subordinate to the president to engage in a consensual relationship with them. I...
I’m a little confused what your overall point is then, since it seems you agree that it would be difficult for a subordinate to the president to engage in a consensual relationship with them. I really don’t follow how this leads to some puritanical view regarding sex. Sexual violence is pervasive around the globe and disproportionately affects one demographic more than others. It is qualitatively and quantitatively different than some other offences it makes sense to me that it gets treated differently than violence of other categories. Maybe that’s my American puritanism shining through!
I really don’t think it’s an overstatement. Many forms of sexual assault involve in some way a power differential, whether it be a physical difference or social difference. Just because he didn’t...
I really don’t think it’s an overstatement. Many forms of sexual assault involve in some way a power differential, whether it be a physical difference or social difference. Just because he didn’t physically hold her down and rape her doesn’t mean it wasn’t sexual assault.
Archived.
I’m inclined to believe this won’t change much. As many of his supporters see it, the “deep state”, courts, etc. are all biased against him and this is probably just further proof of that worldview in their eyes.
Conspiratorial thinking is remarkably circular and resistant to evidence. They'll just reframe it in a way that reinforces their previous beliefs. For example, this verdict is even more proof that an evil cabal secretly controls all judicial institutions, etc.
I don't think the justifications will be that drastic. People will look at this and say "It's a NYC jury, of course they hate Trump" and not think about this again. I guarantee if you look at any comments on news articles about this, there will be ones that say that.
Which is ironic, since he once said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."
He's already been claiming he wasn't allowed to defend himself. The folks that are still in the cult will swallow that up and dismiss anything to the contrary as "fake news", I'm sure.
I know it doesn’t make sense on purpose, but in the same post he says “they won’t let me defend myself!” and then says, “I’m choosing not to speak until after the trial!”
Which one is it? Are you being silent or choosing to be silent?
I am pretty sure he’s not referring to being allowed to testify, and is instead referencing the Judge warning/telling him to not incite violence or comment on the case.
I think it will help Trump in the primaries and hurt in the election. Probably neither by all that much.
There've been focus groups showing that the sexual assault allegations are the most damaging to Trump among swing state voters. Women are half of the population, after all.
It probably helps his image in the primaries. His polling got a positive bump when he was arraigned for the NY case, and also in 2016 when the "grab by the pussy" thing came out.
Considering the record GOPers, and politicians in general, have with sexual assault, I would be surprised if they gave it any airtime. This could set a precedent that effects them down the line.
And boy howdy, do Republicans love sexual assault!
...and rape
...and child porn
...and grooming
...and sex trafficking
I don’t know about that. Clinton was impeached over sexual assault, and Thomas and Kavenaugh survived very credible allegations.
Sad to say, we as a people have yet to have had enough of this sort of thing.
I don’t know if I agree that a white house intern can have a consensual relationship with the sitting president. In fact, I know I don’t agree. But w.r.t. consequences, ever would i be more happy about being wrong.
Can anyone?
This line of thinking is what leads to the whole "must be catholic and married in a church and only do it to make kids" obsession americans have around sex. But what do I know, we French people are famously puritanistic 🙄
Huh? I think you're completely misunderstanding what @NoblePath was talking about. This has nothing to do with American puritanism, or sex shaming. Consent in sexual relations, when there is a significant power differential between the participants, is complicated, and there is serious debate about if consent can ever truly be given under those circumstances. And that isn't a new idea or exclusive to the Americas either. It's one of the reasons why sexual relations between a boss and their subordinate is problematic, often heavily discouraged/forbidden, and considered a fireable offense (even in France, AFAIK). And also why fraternization between an officer and an enlisted soldier under their command is problematic, typically forbidden, and punishable (even in the French military).
Maybe the issue here is a matter of differentiation.
Sex with subordinates may be universally recognized as wrong, abhorrent, inadvisable, problematic, and punishable. But, given the circumstances, there's still some differentiation to make in which not all of them will constitute sexual assault, sexual violence, rape, etc.
There does seem to be a tendency to group all bad behavior under the most serious category to intensify it's gravity for rhetorical purposes, which is problematic in itself. And I think you can see that already in the way sex offenders are registered in the US. A couple caught having consensual sex at a remote beach goes in the same register as a pedophile.
There's a difference between "consensual" and "unbalanced". If a person holds power over another and pushes for a sexual relationship, yes, it can't be consensual, even if the threats are implicit. But just "being an intern at the white house" is no different position than "being just about anybody in the world" when you're talking about POTUS, one of the most powerful and influential positions in the world. This isn't a matter of POTUS being your boss, it's a matter of knowing he can snap his fingers and get you killed without batting an eye.
In other words, unless you're already POTUS' faithful married partner, you can't have a consensual relationship with a person in that position. And this is what I call bullshit on: Because this power dynamic doesn't apply to just sex, people just get iffy about sex specifically.
I think I’m starting to get where you’re coming from. That sexual activity has some kind of special status afforded to it that is not intrinsic, and that special status has been created as a form of control.
I don’t agree with that, fwiw, but I do agree that concepts like “sexual purity” need to go.
But even if sex is not special, that power differential makes consent for that sort of intimate boundary crossing impossible.
And if it means that no consensual relationship with potus is possible, that’s a problem the needs dealing with.
Although a president does make decisions that get people killed, I don’t think it’s true that they could get anyone killed? Why do you think that?
I’m a little confused what your overall point is then, since it seems you agree that it would be difficult for a subordinate to the president to engage in a consensual relationship with them. I really don’t follow how this leads to some puritanical view regarding sex. Sexual violence is pervasive around the globe and disproportionately affects one demographic more than others. It is qualitatively and quantitatively different than some other offences it makes sense to me that it gets treated differently than violence of other categories. Maybe that’s my American puritanism shining through!
I really don’t think it’s an overstatement. Many forms of sexual assault involve in some way a power differential, whether it be a physical difference or social difference. Just because he didn’t physically hold her down and rape her doesn’t mean it wasn’t sexual assault.