The Second Trump Presidency

Please define fascist and give examples his fascist actions. Ditto the Mussolini description. Ditto the idiot accusation.This is the kind of talk that makes otherwise uninterested people wince and may even stir their sympathy toward him. They might not agree with him, and their dislike is probably based on what he says and how he says it, but we had four years of him and they know he’s not Hitler, or a fascist, or Mussolini.This is a clear example of what people are weary of.

So corporate media has failed and its successor is for fools. Where do you suggest we get our information?The advantage of these grifters/hatemongers/imbeciles is that there are many of them, they are independent, and they have broad discussions where you can draw your own conclusions. Sure there will be varying levels of bias, but if a public figure is willing to entertain just about any of them who ask, like Trump does, then you get a good cross-section of biases and a very clear picture of whoever/whatever.This system is far more informative than the Fox-CNN/MSNBC binary.

Pure legalese.Prosecutions are based on the law and on the wording of the applicable laws. And legal definitions are based on the wording of the applicable laws. That is why, despite the rampant collusion reported in the Mueller Report between the Trump campaign and Russia (as I recall, about 70 instances described in detail in more than 120 pages) there were no indictments for collusion: there are no laws regarding collusion, nor is there even any legal definition for collusion precisely because there are no laws regarding collusion.New York law's definition of rape requires penetration with the penis. Forceful penetration with anything other than the penis does not meet the legal definition of rape, but rather must be covered by other laws. Without evidence that Trump had violated her with his penis, rape-as-legally-defined could not be proven, so they had to apply the less stringent definition of sexual abuse.So there's nothing mystifying about the judge's comments. The general non-lawyer population's concept of rape would not be restricted solely to penetration by penis, so the general public would consider what Trump had done to her as rape. However, what he had done could not be considered rape legally.Court trials are centered around legal definitions. That is why the only reason why Trump cannot be tried for treason is because the conditions for treason (eg, being at war) would not be met, even though what he has done and will undoubtedly continue to do is clearly treasonous.Since my son is now a lawyer, discussions and arguments with him will be no fun at all.

Many disparate topics in this entry so I’ll respond to them one at a time.First up is the Evolution Definition thing. I am reluctant to bring this back up because it is completely off-topic, but you’ve stated something very curious, very telling:

quote:

---

…there is no one way of defining anything, not physics…

---

1. I disagree with the notion Physics/Chemistry/Astronomy – and Biology - cannot be defined, but we can take that up some other time.
2. Evolution is held out as a discrete process in the field of Biology and is based on biological principles, much like the Conservation of Energy in Physics. Evolution is therefore absolutely definable, or so it should be.
3. If Evolution is not definable, then how can it possibly be advocated for, much less demonstrated to be true?

The incidents you cite may be factual, but dronestar said “rapist” eight times or so, called me a rape-supporter multiple times, and called me a sociopath. This doesn’t strike me as someone who’s ready for thoughtful debate.And maybe you overlooked all of this, but this is the hearsay he cites:

I think you might have misread what I said. Read what you quoted above from me again.--Percy

I agree with you and think dronestar's been a bit over the top, but I understand dronestar's frustration that you haven't replied once, not even to ask him to please take it down a notch. You can take issue with the way dronestar is making his point, but if you don't say anything at all it leaves people wondering how a Christian wouldn't make a different choice regarding their vote for president.And it isn't hearsay that 26 women have publicly accused Donald Trump of "rape, kissing and groping without consent." Maybe you meant some other word, maybe you think they're all lying, but when someone publicly claims to have been sexually abused it isn't hearsay.Their names are listed in the article dronestar cited: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia. Here they are:

• Ivana Trump (1989)
• Jill Harth (1992)
• Katie Johnson/Jane Doe (1994)
• E. Jean Carroll (1996)
• Summer Zervos (2007)
• Alva Johnson (2016)
• Jessica Leeds (1980s)
• Kristin Anderson (1990s)
• Stacey Williams (1993)
• Lisa Boyne (1996)
• Cathy Heller (1997)
• Temple Taggart McDowell (1997)
• Amy Dorris (1997)
• Karena Virginia (1998)
• Karen Johnson (early 2000s)
• Mindy McGillivray (2003)
• Rachel Crooks (2005)
• Natasha Stoynoff (2005)
• Juliet Huddy (2005 or 2006)
• Jessica Drake (2006)
• Ninni Laaksonen (2006)
• Cassandra Searles (2013)
• Miss Teen USA contestants (1997)
• Bridget Sullivan (2000)
• Tasha Dixon (2001)
• Unnamed contestants (2001)
• Samantha Holvey (2006)

If you think all these claims are false then how do you explain that? Has any other public figure ever attracted this many false claims? Given the nature of the man, doesn't it seem far more likely that they're in essence true?--Percy

FACT, the former president was adjudicated for rape (using the judge’s words) by a jury of twelve people selected by the former president’s lawyerS. FACT, a jury awarded Carrol $5 million, and then upped it to $83.3 million dollars.FACT, the former president is a rapist. FACT, you support the former president. FACT, the inevitable result, you are a rapist-supporter.Now, is it over-the-top calling you a sociopath? I don’t think so. I am confident I can find supporting evidence linking rape-supporter to “antisocial personality disorder.” Let me know when you are ready for thoughtful debate on THIS topic.

If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, your son will be an excellent lawyer.

For some bewildering and unexplained reason, you edited out the third “hearsay” piece of evidence I presented: I am sure it was JUST an oversight.

The jury found Trump guilty of only sexual abuse, see my Message 165. The judge's words in a filing responding to Trump efforts seeking a new trial were wholly unconvincing:

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan:

---

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’.

---

If many people commonly understand the word ‘rape’ to include digital penetration, then it is also true that many people do not. The judge's words were inexplicably definitive on an issue that is highly equivocal, namely how the common person defines ‘rape’.Here's how this common person defines ‘rape’: penetration of the penis into the vagina. When a woman claims she was raped then to me she is saying that the perpetrator fucked her. I think many people see it the same way. In my opinion the judge erred when he said many people see digital penetration as rape without balancing this statement by stating what is equally true, that many people do not.Legally, a jury found that Trump did not commit rape. The jury verdict form is pretty clear and easily supercedes the judge's comments in his filing, and that's probably why ABC News dropped their defense of George Stephanopoulos's comments and paid Trump $16 million.Just because we do not support Trump doesn't mean we can claim that whatever we say about him is true, just as those who support Trump can't claim that whatever they say about him is true. We should hold ourselves to the same standards of truth that we hold everyone else to.--Percy

But the judge's words only said that that is how many people define rape. But many people do not define rape as digital penetration. In my opinion the judge erred in not making clear the equivocal nature of public understanding on this issue.Consider the argument in another context. Many people believe the world is only 6000 years old. A judge could be truthful saying this in a filing, but it's not even half the story. If you're going to argue that a judge saying that many people believe Carroll was raped and that that means she *was* actually raped, you would also have to accept that a judge saying in a filing that many people believe the world is only 6000 years old means that the world actually *is* 6000 years old.It seems to me that neither argument could be considered true. Carroll was not raped, and the world is not 6000 years old. That's why we have a legal system, so that what is considered true isn't reduced to a layperson's level of understanding and knowledge.--Percy

ABC settled the lawsuit because they are afraid of future retaliations from the new administration.Fear causes organizations and individuals to self-censure. Unfortunately, it helps tyranny.

It's likely much more complex than that, as a reading of https://www.cnn.com/...oulos-trump-settlement-abc/index.html makes clear. It concludes:

CNN:

---

Renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams told CNN “there is no escaping the reality” that the settlement was a “major victory” for Trump.

​

“The case undoubtedly posed a genuine level of risk for ABC since George Stephanopoulos had inaccurately summarized the jury verdict as one in which the jury had found Trump liable for rape when it had instead found him liable for ‘sexual abuse’ and not rape,” Abrams said. “But for a person, especially one now about to become our president, held by a jury to have committed an act of sexual abuse to receive an amount of this magnitude in settlement is disturbing.”

---

This excerpt cites the same issue I did: The jury found that Trump had not committed rape.--Percy

OK then, I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say, I was reading it literally. Maybe we should take this back to the evolution argument-forum.