• Trump Vows to Sue All Female Accusers After Election Completion
    66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bitches;51245276]I can't believe anyone in this thread is praising the thought of a billionaire president suing people for daring to accuse him of the sexual assault he's bragged about getting away with. Whether the accusations are true or not is irrelevant: because the accusations are unprovable (just as it is unprovable that it is only slander), you don't imprison Trump for them, AND you do not litigate against the accusers. You only risk either punishing an innocent man or a sexual assault victim.[/QUOTE] I can't believe anyone in this thread would think someone should sit idle when claims that could potentially ruin their life are made. [QUOTE=WhichStrider;51245282]Not to mention this can potentially reinforce some sexual assault victims to stay quiet on what happened due to threats like this. If it's a lie, shame on them, but for people that are telling the truth, that's some scary shit.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should blame the women who make false accusations for harming of the cases of legitimate victims.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51245483]I suppose it would be a personal choice. I don't think people should be forced into silence. My thoughts would be that I would look bad and make other victims look bad if I can't prove my case. On top of that, publically calling out the accused without evidence slanders them, guilty or not, so then a flaw is created where you can ruin someones reputation without meeding evidence. Accusations like these get people fired because employers don't want to touch the subject with a 40ft pole.[/QUOTE] So women who don't come out at the "Right time" should stay silent because otherwise they discredit women who do come forth at the "Right time"? That doesn't make sense. If a woman does come forward with evidence, that claim has evidence meaning regardless of other claims, you have evidence to work with so that woman won't be discredited from the get go. In situations like the ones these women are in, they aren't expecting to get a court case after all these years, the statue of limitations is way up at this point, but they still want to get their message out, and I'm guessing [B]a few days after Trumps tapes leak of him boasting about sexual assault[/B] felt like a pretty good time, and no doubt seemed like the first "Right time" in many, many decades for some of these women who would have been laughed at 30 years ago. Again, you seem to be misplacing your concern.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51245483]I suppose it would be a personal choice. I don't think people should be forced into silence. My thoughts would be that I would look bad and make other victims look bad if I can't prove my case. On top of that, publically calling out the accused without evidence slanders them, guilty or not, so then a flaw is created where you can ruin someones reputation without meeding evidence. Accusations like these get people fired because employers don't want to touch the subject with a 40ft pole.[/QUOTE] The accusations are not what's wrong. Social repercussions outside of court due to unprovable claims (or slander, as you put it) are not an excuse to sue potential victims. It is the employer who would be at fault and who should be subject to a lawsuit, in your example. For a real example, how the student accused of rape by Mattress Girl sued his university for acting against him without evidence.
if it was a crime to make accusations that couldn't be conclusively proven in a court of law, then we never would have found out about Bill Cosby, or the Catholic Church sex scandals, or that british children's TV presenter While I don't think outright slander(spreading demonstrably false claims with the intent to destroy someone's reputation) or harassment should be allowed, you also shouldn't be able to sue someone just because they can't prove everything they've said about you is accurate in a court of law
He won't do shit. He'll act tough but with how much of a slimy cunt he is whatever case he makes will fall apart. He's probably such an idiot he'd try to represent himself in court.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51245533]He won't do shit. He'll act tough but with how much of a slimy cunt he is whatever case he makes will fall apart. He's probably such an idiot he'd try to represent himself in court.[/QUOTE] I don't want presidential influence biasing the proceedings over such an injustice of a court case, and especially not so when half the country cheers on this disgusting behavior.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice Trump is about as likely to win a case against his accusers as they are to win a case against him for assault. There is simply not enough evidence. In order to qualify as slander or libel, one of several conditions must be true (among other conditions more easily met): 1) The speaker/writer must know the statement is false 2) The speaker/writer was negligent in fact-checking 3) There was actual malice to inflict harm (2) mostly applies to journalists, and they're protected in this case because they report it as "person X is accusing person Y of crime Z", which is true, even if "person Y committed crime Z" is not. There are relatively few things that could qualify as (1) or (3). If Trump can find some record of one of his accusers admitting that their story is false, sure, that would be a slam-dunk case. Or if one of the accusers recants their story, he could sue that person for slander, but that would be rather unproductive. Even if it could somehow be proven that Trump did not assault one of his accusers, as long as there was no intent to cause Trump harm, it would not be criminal so long as there was room for a reasonable person to think he had assaulted them. Maybe he did something that doesn't qualify as assault but might have been a lesser crime, or wasn't illegal but a non-legal-expert wouldn't necessarily have known. To win a case like the one he's "vowing" to bring, Trump doesn't just have to prove the stories false, he has to [B]prove[/B] that they were made up with specific intent of causing him harm. Even if the stories are fabricated (IMO unlikely but can't rule it out), I don't know how Trump would be able to prove that. Further, by bringing a suit he (or at least his lawyers) know he cannot win, he [I]may[/I] be subject to anti-SLAPP laws, depending on which jurisdiction he sues in. That would hit him financially by, bare minimum, awarding court costs to the defendants, and possibly additional fines, simply for filing a lawsuit with the intent to suppress freedom of speech. I'm not sure which states he would be able to file in, but New York is an obvious one, and they have anti-SLAPP laws.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51245322]If you can't prove it why bother making the claim It makes sexual assault victims look bad since they can't prove their case and get discredited, and makes it less desirable for victims to speak about it when they aren't taken seriously because some accusers had no evidence to support their own claims.[/QUOTE] 'this guy touched me without consent, but because he didn't stick his dick in me I have no proof, so I better not speak up about it'
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51245322]If you can't prove it why bother making the claim It makes sexual assault victims look bad since they can't prove their case and get discredited, and makes it less desirable for victims to speak about it when they aren't taken seriously because some accusers had no evidence to support their own claims.[/QUOTE] So I guess if those woman Bill Clinton assaulted can't prove it why does Trump bring it up?
[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;51245497] Perhaps you should blame the women who make false accusations for harming of the cases of legitimate victims.[/QUOTE] I never said they weren't at fault, because fuck people who do that, it's sick. That doesn't make people who brush off all as false in the right. I'm sorry, I do have a personal bias on the said topic. As a person with a mom that was sexually assaulted in which it still affects her to this day, I get a bit sensitive towards the topic. People who make false claims are incredibly shitty people and yes, they can/do ruin a person's perception on such cases, but don't act like these things can't happen and that each case should be viewed as purely to ruin someone's life. This stuff isn't black and white, and it's case-by-case basis.
Drumpf is willing to give them their day in court. The truth will have its chance now
[QUOTE=Sally;51246240]Drumpf is willing to give them their day in court. The truth will have its chance now[/QUOTE] I never got the whole "Drumpf" thing.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51246246]I never got the whole "Drumpf" thing.[/QUOTE] Trump has spent decades building a brand as a rich, ruthless business genius. That's not actually true - he's barely rich, he's one of the worst business managers in America, and while he's pretty immoral he backs down far too often to be called ruthless. But nobody really cared that he built a brand on lies when he only used it to run a mediocre reality-TV show. "Drumpf" was supposed to be a way to get people to think of Donald the presidential candidate without thinking of Donald the supposed wall street billionaire. I think it's been overused but that's what it was supposed to start as.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51246284]Trump has spent decades building a brand as a rich, ruthless business genius. That's not actually true - he's barely rich, he's one of the worst business managers in America, and while he's pretty immoral he backs down far too often to be called ruthless. But nobody really cared that he built a brand on lies when he only used it to run a mediocre reality-TV show. "Drumpf" was supposed to be a way to get people to think of Donald the presidential candidate without thinking of Donald the supposed wall street billionaire. I think it's been overused but that's what it was supposed to start as.[/QUOTE] Yeah but isnt it still like, just his grandfathers original surname or something? Its just kinda dumb imo.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51245226]If they truly lied they should be sued, regardless of the man accused.[/QUOTE] burden of proof is on the accuser, i for one welcome him trying to prove he doesn't grope women
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51246338]Yeah but isnt it still like, just his grandfathers original surname or something? Its just kinda dumb imo.[/QUOTE] People started calling him Drumpf after he said something disparaging about immigrants who change their surnames to fit in better in the nation they've come to, or something along those lines. It was a while ago and I'm hazy on the details There was a big stink about how it would be hypocritical of him to keep the name Trump and how he should change it back to Drumpf
[QUOTE=Naught;51245885]'this guy touched me without consent, but because he didn't stick his dick in me I have no proof, so I better not speak up about it'[/QUOTE] They should speak up about it... To the police. Not to the media in an obvious attempt to shame him. Just like he was doing with the ones that accused Bill Clinton. Sexual assault allegations do not belong in the media. Rape accusations do not belong in the media. They belong in a court room. There have been so many that have lied in order to use the media. For example, the famous Rolling Stone rape scandal. The simple fact of the matter is that to appear before the media accusing someone of a crime is simply a desire to turn public opinion. Pure and simple. And the media eats it up because the media is no longer about objective facts. But only about subjective opinions that will be presented as fact. The media is not ignorant to its effects. The media actively seeks out controversies, even where none exists. The recent spat with "racist cops" shooting "unarmed blacks" for example. An overwhelming majority of those cases are legitimate self-defense by the cop. But the media will spin it for ratings. As MSNBC did during the Zimmerman case, selectively editing tapes to make it sound racist. The mass media has no credibility in my view anymore. They've completely turned into shills for whatever angle they're pushing. Ignoring facts in favor of a narrative they wish to push. This shit with Donald Trump is pretty much spot on with this. All they want to talk about is Donald Trump's faults. To which he has many. But they then will ignore Hillary Clinton's faults. This is not objective media. Its completely subjective. And often they use lies by omission to push whatever angle they want rather than flat out lies that they could be called on. Just look at how many threads shaming Donald Trump have been created in this very forum vs how many shaming Hillary Clinton.
I'm just looking at this as a not-so-subtle way to intimidate accusers and say "I will make the world think you're a liar AND take all of your money" but that's probably because I don't put it beneath Trump. Then again, he can afford to regularly hire entire orgies full of $10,000 escorts so why would he go around groping random women Or maybe he's just a straight up dick. Either way, what a dick.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51246338]Yeah but isnt it still like, just his grandfathers original surname or something? Its just kinda dumb imo.[/QUOTE] it's dumbf
Good point, Kigen. It seems so obviously a problem now that I think of that, to let media publicize rape accusations before the verdict. That thought has never crossed my mind though. I can definitely see a lot of benefits to not allowing it. Would probably allow for less people to falsely accuse, and less people getting dox'd and sent death threats and shit
[QUOTE=Sitkero;51246385]People started calling him Drumpf after he said something disparaging about immigrants who change their surnames to fit in better in the nation they've come to, or something along those lines. It was a while ago and I'm hazy on the details There was a big stink about how it would be hypocritical of him to keep the name Trump and how he should change it back to Drumpf[/QUOTE] He made a huge point about how Jon Stewart is a bad person who's ashamed of his heritage because he changed his name from Jon Stewart Lebowitz to just Jon Stewart It shows how fucking stupid Trump is, how hypocritical he is, how he has no shame, and how he has the ability to target others for useless shit. [editline]22nd October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;51246417]They should speak up about it... To the police. Not to the media in an obvious attempt to shame him. Just like he was doing with the ones that accused Bill Clinton. Sexual assault allegations do not belong in the media. Rape accusations do not belong in the media. They belong in a court room. There have been so many that have lied in order to use the media. For example, the famous Rolling Stone rape scandal. The simple fact of the matter is that to appear before the media accusing someone of a crime is simply a desire to turn public opinion. Pure and simple. And the media eats it up because the media is no longer about objective facts. But only about subjective opinions that will be presented as fact. The media is not ignorant to its effects. The media actively seeks out controversies, even where none exists. The recent spat with "racist cops" shooting "unarmed blacks" for example. An overwhelming majority of those cases are legitimate self-defense by the cop. But the media will spin it for ratings. As MSNBC did during the Zimmerman case, selectively editing tapes to make it sound racist. The mass media has no credibility in my view anymore. They've completely turned into shills for whatever angle they're pushing. Ignoring facts in favor of a narrative they wish to push. This shit with Donald Trump is pretty much spot on with this. All they want to talk about is Donald Trump's faults. To which he has many. But they then will ignore Hillary Clinton's faults. This is not objective media. Its completely subjective. And often they use lies by omission to push whatever angle they want rather than flat out lies that they could be called on. Just look at how many threads shaming Donald Trump have been created in this very forum vs how many shaming Hillary Clinton.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of threads about Clinton but I guess we shouldn't cover the shit Trump says daily? I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's also super disingenuous.
One thing I dont thing people realize is that this will not be just a guy suing back for libel. This is trump, who has plenty of money and lawyers to get his way. he will probably drown these women in legal fees.
I blame Fred Trump for all this. He was obviously a shit father if this is how his son ended up.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51246509] There's a lot of threads about Clinton but I guess we shouldn't cover the shit Trump says daily? I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's also super disingenuous.[/QUOTE] Right now on the first page there are 5 threads specifically shaming Trump. There is only 1 shaming Clinton's campaign, not Clinton herself. And claims showing shit Clinton does are dismissed out of hand as being biased. Mainly because it is indeed biased. But the media that pushed the shaming of Trump is also obviously biased. And pointing to hard facts, such as WikiLeaks emails just gets ridicule because "Julian Assange." I don't care who it is, I care about actual facts. And WikiLeaks presents actual facts in the form of communications they have. But no, its a Russian conspiracy. Fucking hell, I thought the right wing had the issues with the conspiracy theorists. But really this is just human nature. "I don't like what's being said, I cannot fight it with facts, so CONSPIRACY!" is basically the thought process.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51246509]He made a huge point about how Jon Stewart is a bad person who's ashamed of his heritage because he changed his name from Jon Stewart Lebowitz to just Jon Stewart [/quote] Trump didnt change his last name, Jon did. [quote] It shows how fucking stupid Trump is, how hypocritical he is, how he has no shame, and how he has the ability to target others for useless shit[/QUOTE] 👌
[QUOTE=Kigen;51246550]Right now on the first page there are 5 threads specifically shaming Trump. There is only 1 shaming Clinton's campaign, not Clinton herself.[/QUOTE] feel free to make such groundbreaking threads as "benghazi happened 4 years ago" and "hillary klingon: alien from space?" there aren't that many clinton threads because she isn't an idiot and knows how to shut up
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51246509]He made a huge point about how Jon Stewart is a bad person who's ashamed of his heritage because he changed his name from Jon Stewart Lebowitz to just Jon Stewart It shows how fucking stupid Trump is, how hypocritical he is, how he has no shame, and how he has the ability to target others for useless shit. [/QUOTE] Donald Trump didn't change his name, someone before him did. The situations aren't really comparable. Still a stupid reason to attack someone over, on both sides; you lose when you fight an idiot by stooping to their level.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51246587]Donald Trump didn't change his name, someone before him did. The situations aren't really comparable. Still a stupid reason to attack someone over, on both sides; you lose when you fight an idiot by stooping to their level.[/QUOTE] If my great grandfather changed our name to make it seem more American/Anglicized I wouldn't attack others for doing the same. I think John Oliver went too far with that and the whole Drumpf thing is kinda dumb ad hominem but it was still really dumb on Trumps part.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51246550]Right now on the first page there are 5 threads specifically shaming Trump. There is only 1 shaming Clinton's campaign, not Clinton herself.[/QUOTE] This is because Clinton's campaign has been mostly silent to avoid gaffes and sound bites, this strategy let's them contrast themselves with Trump who stirs up a lot of controversies. Clinton is trying to avoid headlines and look generic to appear more sane than Trump so she can appeal to moderates and republicans, and I have to say it's working due the fact that Trump is barely even trying to avoid controversy. For example: Controversial non-acceptance of election conclusion, controversial claim that the election has been rigged, controversial comments from 2005 that are still being talked about, and even this thread is about controversial comments to priortize suing accusers. Even if suing is the right thing to do, announcing it is not very strategic as it won't help the campaign and may even turn off certain groups
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51246625]This is because Clinton's campaign has been mostly silent to avoid gaffes and sound bites, this strategy let's them contrast themselves with Trump who stirs up a lot of controversies.[/QUOTE] The media loves to dig. As they have with Trump. But it doesn't take much digging to see Hillary Clinton will involve the US in more Middle East wars. The media does not dig into Hillary Clinton. And some news outlets have downplayed the WikiLeaks emails and the other shit. [video=youtube;hyaFsPKjZdo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaFsPKjZdo[/video] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg[/url] <- General clearly states "controlling the airspace" over Syria will mean war with Syria and Russia. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zone-third-debate_us_58084280e4b0180a36e91a53[/url] <- Clinton pushing hard for said "no fly zone".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.