[Pxtl]

So you expect progressive voters to simply politely ignore the awful things Trump has done, and the fact that his supporters don't seem to care?

Short list: Trump has been adjudicated in court as having sexually assaulted a woman, and has admitted to doing more. Nearly every person who has worked with him has described him in the worst possible terms. Stories of him celebrating Nazis [1], sexually fixating on his own daughter[2], horrifying things like that.

The man is a convicted felon, and has only escaped punishment for various other crime by virtue of his own appointees in the court system.

If a reader accepts these well-supported items as facts, what should they think about somebody who votes for that?

Should they lie and say "a reasonable person would support this"?

Or should they tell the truth even when it is "divisive"?

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-...

[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-lewd-talk-a...

[tightbookkeeper]

Yes. I think having a healthy community and successful future political campaign will require reframing this rhetoric.

[mrguyorama]

So we can't call a rapist a rapist because it upsets conservatives too much?

We can't call a failed businessman what he is? Or correctly point out that he idolizes dictators and Hitler specifically? Or that he is so fucking stupid he said he wanted Hitler's generals even though they were 1) Not very good 2) several tried to assassinate him and 3) fought like middle school girls?

Why do we have to abandon reality? Why do we have to treat conservatives with kid gloves?

I seem to remember something along the lines of "Facts don't care about your feelings" and "Fragile Snowflakes"

[tightbookkeeper]

Did I say any of that?

> rapist

Source?

[Pxtl]

Trump was found in court to have sexually assaulted a woman in a fashion that would fit the layman's definition of "rape", although not the legal definition thereof in that venue.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump...

> Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

> “As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

[tightbookkeeper]

> civil trial

So not a criminal case than? Trump didn’t even attend.

The article says the jury did not find enough evidence of the rape claim even at the lower requirement of the civil court.

> Carroll “cannot produce any objective evidence to back up her claim because it didn’t happen,” he told jurors.

[Pxtl]

You're quoting Tacopina, who is Trump's lawyer.

I'm pretty sure OJ's lawyer also said he didn't do it.

[anthonypasq]

this is pathetic and embarassing

[tightbookkeeper]

No. That would be being unable and unwilling to build a theory of mind to understand 80 million people from all walks of life.