989
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
989 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4523 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wow. They actually used the “she was asking for it” argument against a victim of sexual assault.
Also, he’s still not going to shut up about it and will land back in court under additional defamation charges.
Not exactly. It's far more insidious (and stupid). Her tact was to show that Carroll already received her financial reward by all the books and news appearances (i.e. the "comments and attention"). Basically, "Sure, she was raped, but look how well she profited from it!"
Too bad that kind of argument is only really relevant to the first trial. This one was punitive damages for failing to shut up after losing the first one, the purpose of which is to punish Trump so he thinks twice about doing it again, not award reparations to Ms. Carroll.
Alina Habba is truly the lawyer Trump deserves.
I agree, and my comment was intended as a reference not to the original rape but to the defense saying that she did not deserve any additional compensation due to Trump’s ongoing defamation because she wanted to profit off of it.
If I remember, one of his initial defenses against the allegations of rape was that the woman accusing him was too unattractive to rape, while other defenses were “they just let you do it.” I was thinking about the ironic application of the “asking for it” argument being applied to the additional judgement of defamation.
He’s going to triple down on this though, because he never thinks twice about anything. I don’t know if he is actually playing the game of “never admit to being wrong even when you are” or if he’s simply delusional enough to have reconstructed reality in his own brain, but I’d lay a wager that he’s not going to be able to shut up about this, even now. I don’t think it will even take a reporter triggering him by asking about it. I think it’s just going to pop out in one of his word salad campaign rambles.
And I can't wait for that to happen, because I'm sure a third jury will be so pleased (/s) he did it a third time.
Maybe next time he could at least be smart enough to do it in a red state.
Can't wait for someone to ask him about the case at a rally or something. He won't be able to help himself.
He knows very well how profitable being a victim can be and must think that that's why anyone is a victim. They don't win cases (because Trump hasn't ever really had a case), they settle out of court or gain from the sympathy of others.