₦airaland Forum

bemeruca:
I am not confusing anything.
Carroll accused Trump of tape,
Then claimed he defamed her when he said that didn't happen.

In other to prove defamation, you have to prove tape did occur. She failed to do that.

So how is denying something that didn't happened defamation? Oh he said she was ugly?

Anyway, I don't think she will see a penny

You are not only confusing things, you are also misrepresenting them.

Carroll did not accuse Trump of tape, she accused him of rape. Learn to spell, or at least use spell check, before you try to debate me.

She did not claim he defamed her when he said that didn't happen, she claimed he defamed her when he said that she was lying. Learn to read, or at least use reading comprehension, before you try to debate me.

To prove defamation, you do not have to prove rape did occur, you have to prove sexual abuse did occur. Learn the law, and the difference between certain terms, before you try to debate me.

Denying something that didn't happen is not defamation, but denying something that did happen and calling the victim names is defamation. Learn the logic, or at least use common sense, before you try to debate me.

Anyway, I don't think you will see a point here, because you have none. Learn to argue, or at least use some facts, before you try to debate me.

Ciao.

y3mi:
What a beautiful and well expressed piece of nugget.
The question I often ponder on is... why does the default of a majority fall into the chasm of herd mentality as everyone seem unable to break free from the trappings of the band wagon effect ?
Those who dare to be different or by nature of the true self don't know how to conform to societal dictate while adhering to a view that isn't populist.

The answer to your question is quite simple: forced conformity.

We're born wired for connection to our fellow humans, but somewhere along the evolutionary line, we mistook conformity for belonging. We traded our unique personalities for predictability and bland routines.

There's beauty in unity, but not when it's a chorus of mindless rhetorics.

Negroid001:
What's your take?

Context, please!

@DevilsEqual

Perhaps your own vocabulary needs a bit of dusting off if you really think impressive use of grammar is connotative of a lack of originality.

You don't necessarily have to choose between scientists and unknown story tellers, because (1) that would be a false dichotomy, and (2) there's more to life than that. There are other possible sources of knowledge and wisdom, such as philosophy, art, or personal experience. Science and religion are not outright enemies, they are just different ways of looking at the world and ourselves. Sometimes they clash, sometimes they agree, and sometimes they inspire each other. It all depends on how you see it. And your assertion that no ancient philosopher was an atheist is ridiculously false. Long before Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, there were already ancient thinkers who didn't buy into the god hypothesis. Take the Carvaka gang from India, for example. They were way ahead of their time, back in the 6th century BCE, when they denounced gods, souls, and karma, in favour of nature and matter. And then there were the Greek rebels, like Protagoras, Epicurus etc, who got in trouble for questioning the divine. Maybe they weren't all hardcore atheists, but they sure didn't follow the herd when it came to religion. I'd advise you to remain silent if you're not privy to the knowledge of certain facts because you could easily come across as an intellectually dishonest individual when you make bald claims without doing any research to back them up.

My lack of belief isn't a declaration of war on faith. It's a personal conclusion drawn from years of grappling with the big questions. I haven't found the gods you seek, but I've found something far more precious: the freedom to think critically, to question assumptions, and to seek truth wherever it may lead, even if it means stepping outside the cozy confines of popular belief. So, instead of demanding proof for the absence of something, perhaps a more fruitful inquiry would be: why do you need the presence of gods in the first place? What void do they fill in your worldview? Perhaps by exploring that, we can both find something a little more profound than "evidence and proof."

P.S Calling your pet theory "the most important question" is like claiming vanilla is the only flavor of ice cream. Sure, it might tickle your taste buds, but to deny the other flavors is to narrow your palate beyond recognition.

bemeruca:
Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar is not defamation. After all the jury concluded she could not prove he raped her.
So defending your self and saying you will sue is defaming someone? You should not defend yourself again? Just accept and stay quiet when someone accuse you of tape. Are you listening to yourself?
For the bold you are a sick person. Trump is not the judge. You just prove you shouldn't be taken serious

Let me clue you into the facts of life real quick.

(1) Calling someone ugly, a loser and a liar IS defamation, given the context of the case, and especially when it is done by the president of the United States, who has a huge influence and reach. It is not a mere opinion, it is a malicious attempt to discredit and harm the reputation of the accusers. It also creates a hostile environment for other victims of sexual assault, who may be afraid to come forward because of the backlash they might face.

(2) Defending yourself is one thing, but threatening to sue and then not following through is another. It shows that Trump was bluffing and had no evidence to back up his claims. It also shows that he was trying to intimidate and silence the accusers, who had every right to speak their truth and seek justice.

(3) I am not a sick person, I am being realistic. Trump IS the judge, in the sense that he has the power and resources to manipulate the legal system in his favor. He has done so many times, by using his presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations to avoid accountability. He has also appointed loyalists and cronies to key positions in the judiciary, who may be biased or compromised in his favor. He has effectively blocked the accusers from having their day in court, where they could present their evidence and testimony.

You say I shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet, here you are, engaging with me. Fascinating, isn't it?

budaatum:
You were told, but I'm glad you bothered to confirm for yourself.

Bah! I'm having a bit of fun either way!

bemeruca:
Okay, I missed this the first time. You type a lot of things especially the Michelle Obama part which has nothing to do with what I am asking you or the case

Based on the bold, what did the jury find in the first hearing? They conclude she could not prove that trump raped her right?

So how then trump denying her claim is defamation when he was not found guilty of that?

For she to file a defamation claim against him, she has to prove that he indeed raped her.

Chck the jury verdict form, the jury concluded E. Jean did not prove trump raped her. So the jury agreed with trump saying he did not rape her

You seem to be confused about the difference between criminal and civil cases.

In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused harm or violated a right. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal cases.

E. Jean Carroll filed a civil lawsuit against Trump for battery and defamation. Battery is the intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent. Defamation is the false and injurious statement that damages someone's reputation. To prove battery, Carroll had to show that Trump sexually abused her, which the jury found that she did. To prove defamation, Carroll had to show that Trump made false and malicious statements about her, which the jury also found that he did.

The jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll, because that was not the question they had to answer. Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil one. Carroll did not sue Trump for rape, nor did she press criminal charges against him. She sued him for battery, which is a broader term that includes rape as well as other forms of sexual abuse. The jury verdict form clearly states that the jury had to decide whether Carroll proved that Trump sexually abused her, not whether he raped her.

Therefore, your argument is based on a false premise.

Trump denying her claim is defamation because he lied about what happened and harmed her reputation. He did not just say that he did not rape her, he called her a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are not opinions or expressions of free speech, these are factual assertions that can be proven or disproven. And the jury found that they were false and malicious.

You should check the facts before you make such baseless claims. Otherwise, you might end up like Trump, who is now facing an $83 million bill for his defamation and battery of E. Jean Carroll. That's a lot of money for someone who is not his type .

bemeruca:
Yet when trump denied accusations against him for something the accuser was unable to prove he has to pay 88million. Weldon

Again, apples and oranges.

Trump did not just deny accusations against him, he also attacked, insulted, and threatened to sue his accusers, calling them liars, losers, and ugly. He also publicly vowed to sue The New York Times for publishing the allegations, but never followed through. Furthermore, the accusers were not unable to prove their allegations, they were prevented from doing so by Trump's legal maneuvers and stonewalling! He has repeatedly tried to delay, dismiss, or avoid discovery in the lawsuits, invoking presidential immunity, arbitration clauses, and the statute of limitations.

I should clarify here that Carroll initially asked for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, but later increased the amount to $83.3 million, based on the estimated value of Trump's book sales that she claims were boosted by his defamatory statements about her. However, this is not the amount that Trump has to pay, but the amount that Carroll is asking for. The actual amount will be determined by the jury, if the case goes to trial.

bemeruca:
Trump is not paying 88 million to Michelle Obama. What are you talking about?

Got it mixed up with the Carroll case. My bad.

basilico:
You are hopelessly biased. With Trump anything said of him.is True but with the democrats, there has to be irrefutable proof.
Bill has abused women. Hillary talked ill of them.
You are like writing a love letter defending these Biden and Clinton.And Biden pinched a young 7-8 yr girls titties in the VP's office, She is now 15 and she acknowledged that gropper sniffer touched her inappropriately.joe Biden who said children loved to feel his hairy legs.

Wrt Trump saying he grabs them by the pussy, you are relying on media interpretation. He clearly meant that once a man is rich and famous ,these A-list types would let you grab their whatever. I've beaten this dog here. Remember that lady going to Tysons room in the morning after he had spent the whole night flirting and making it known he wanted to lay someone.. that's for another day.Or those groupies who appear in music videos. Yes that type looking for fame.
In the video of the debate, Trump clearly explained. Listen to girls talk when they are alone an you will be shocked.

You are proving yourself to be a liar an an apologetic for scumbags protected by media an DOJ.

I'm sorry to see that you are getting so emotional about the sexual misconduct allegations against Trump, but you have to realize that I'm doing you a big favor by offering you a bitter reality check concerning these lies you keep peddling.

Let me try to clear some things up for you. I am simply looking at the facts and the evidence, which you seem to ignore or dismiss. I am not writing a love letter to Biden or Clinton, nor am I defending them blindly. I am acknowledging that they have faced accusations of inappropriate behavior, which they have denied or apologized for, and that there is no conclusive proof that they committed any sex crimes. And you are wrong to say that with Trump anything said of him is true, but with the Democrats there has to be irrefutable proof. That is a double standard that you are applying, not me. Trump has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment by at least 25 women since the 1970s. He has also bragged on tape about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent and he did not provided any credible evidence to refute these allegations, nor has he apologized for them. He has instead resorted to calling his accusers liars, threatened to sue them, and attacked their appearance and credibility.

The claims you are making about Biden and Clinton are unsubstantiated. You say that Biden pinched a young girl's titties in the VP's office, but there is no evidence or witness to support that. The only source for that claim is a conspiracy theory website that has been debunked by fact-checkers. You also say that Biden said children loved to feel his hairy legs, but that is a distorted and out-of-context quote from a 2017 speech he gave about his relationship with the black community. He was not talking about anything sexual or inappropriate, but about how he learned to respect and understand different cultures and backgrounds. You also say that Bill abused women and Hillary talked ill of them, but that is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of their history.

(1) Bill admitted to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was wrong and immoral, but not a sex crime.

(2) He also faced allegations of sexual harassment and assault from several women, which he denied or settled out of court. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath about his affair, but acquitted by the Senate.

(3) Hillary supported her husband during the scandal, but also criticized his behavior and expressed her pain and anger. She did not talk ill of his accusers, but rather questioned their motives and credibility, which is a common and understandable reaction for a spouse in such a situation.

I'm still confused as to why you decided to bring up Mike Tyson and music video groupies. Do you know what a red herring fallacy is? Honest question: why do you find it so difficult to stay on topic?

Your suggestion that women who go to a man's room or appear in a video are consenting to sexual advances, is a dangerous and sexist assumption. Consent is not implied by location or appearance, but by explicit and enthusiastic agreement. No means no, regardless of the circumstances.

bemeruca:
what did Trump say that harmed her reputation?
what info did he steal? let's start from here. i am getting set to go to the office but I will reply when I can.
Dishonesty has something to do with defamation. in other to defame someone, you have to be dishonest abi? exercising your First Amendment right by saying you did not do something you are accused of is not defamatory. she Jury did not find him guilty of rape so how is it defamatory for him to deny he raped her.
unless there are things i don't know about this case that you will be kind enough to tell me. i don't think you know what you are saying.
so answer the questions up there and tell me what i don't know.

Actually, Trump did not just say that he did not do something he was accused of. He called E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in the 1990s, a liar, a loser, and not his type. He also implied that she made up the story to sell her book and that she was working with the Democratic Party to smear him. These are false and malicious statements that harmed her reputation and dignity, and that is why the jury found him guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay over $83 million in damages. This is not a matter of exercising his First Amendment right, but of abusing his power and influence to silence and discredit a victim of sexual violence.

Secondly, Trump did not just steal and misuse Michelle Obama's personal data. He also spread a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman who was born as Michael Obama. He also did this to undermine Michelle Obama's achievements and contributions as a former first lady, a best-selling author, and a role model for millions of people. This is not a harmless joke, but a deliberate and hateful attack on her identity and privacy.

Thirdly, you are not making any sense when you say that dishonesty has something to do with defamation. Dishonesty is a moral flaw, while defamation is a legal wrong. You can be dishonest without defaming someone, and you can defame someone without being dishonest. For example, if you lie to your boss about why you are late for work, you are being dishonest, but you are not defaming anyone. On the other hand, if you tell the truth about someone's criminal record, you are not being dishonest, but you may be defaming them if you do it without a valid reason or consent. The point is, defamation is not about whether you are telling the truth or lying, but about whether you are harming someone's reputation or not.

So, to answer your questions (again), yes, Trump said and did things that harmed Michelle Obama's reputation and violated her privacy. Yes, he stole and misused her personal data, along with the data of many other people who sued him for the same reason.

Have a nice day .

basilico:
More lies from you.


Tax returns revealed that Hoffman and this organization was the major financial backer of E. Jean Carroll, a columnist who alleged that former President Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.


Liar liar. What is Hoffman saying in the video I linked to.
Check my other update above on Billary the scorned wife.

Sorry child, but tax returns did not reveal that Hoffman and the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund were the major financial backers of E. Jean Carroll. They only showed that Hoffman's nonprofit, American Future Republic, gave a grant to the fund, which is one of the many donors who have contributed to the fund. The fund does not pay for Carroll's lawsuit, it only covers some of the expenses and fees that her lawyers incur while representing her pro bono. Carroll is not a beneficiary of the fund, she is a client of Roberta Kaplan, who is one of the many lawyers who have volunteered to take cases through the fund.

As for the video you linked to, it is a clip from an interview that Hoffman did with CNN in 2019, where he talks about his views on democracy, technology, and philanthropy. I've just skimmed through it and unless you can point it out for me, I don't see where he mentions Carroll or Trump at all, so I don't see how it is relevant to this debate. If you are trying to imply that Hoffman is somehow biased or dishonest, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Hoffman is a well-known and respected entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist, who has supported various causes and organizations that promote social justice, civic engagement, and innovation. He is not a partisan hack or a puppet master, he is a good guy who cares about the future of this country and the world.

So, before you accuse me or anyone else of lying, maybe you should check your facts and sources. And maybe you should also focus on the real issue here, which is whether Trump raped Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s, as she alleges in her book and her lawsuit. That is what the April 25 trial will be all about, not about who is funding whom or what Hoffman is saying in some random video. I hope you are ready to face the music, because I suspect it will be a long day for Trump and his supporters.

bemeruca:
Since when does being dishonest or denying something is defamatory?

There are countless of people who were accused of tape, they went to prison and was later vindicated. Are you saying each time they said they didn't do it they should pay 88million?

I'm glad you asked!

Now, I think you are misusing the term "defamatory". Defamation is a legal term that refers to a false statement that harms someone's reputation. It has nothing to do with being dishonest or denying something. Also, I suspect you are making a false analogy between the cases of people who were falsely accused of rape and the case of Michelle Obama. The former involves a serious criminal charge that requires evidence and due process, while the latter involves a baseless and absurd conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. Finally, you are ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama is not suing anyone for defamation, but for invasion of privacy. She is entitled to protect her personal information and identity from unauthorized and malicious use by anyone, especially by someone who is spreading lies and hate about her. She is not asking for 88 million dollars because she was called a man, but because her personal data was stolen and used without her consent. That is a clear violation of her rights and dignity, and she deserves justice and compensation.

So, to answer your question, no, I am not saying that every time someone denies something they should pay 88 million dollars. I am saying that every time someone steals and misuses someone else's personal data, they should pay the price. And every time someone makes a false and offensive claim about someone else, they should be challenged and exposed. And every time someone tries to evade the facts and logic of a debate, they should be called out and ridiculed. Like the child basilico.

basilico:
Bill Clinton who left the WH 'broke' paid $850000 to Paula Jones in an out of court settlement over a sexual harrassment case. If you care to remember Donald Trump paraded 4 suffering women in a Presidential debate with Hillary.
Because there is no court case it doesn't mean any clams were debunked. You lie again, echoing MSM talking points. I don't buy their lies.

On this day in 1998, President Bill Clinton settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by making an $850,000 payment. The settlement with Paula Jones, reached without the suit going to trial, heaped fuel on Clinton’s impeachment proceedings by the Republican-controlled House. (He was acquitted in a subsequent Senate trial and completed his term in office.

Listen to Trump's Second Debate with Billary on how vicious Bill was to women and how Hillary joined in the choir. According to you She was a scorned woman.. Yeah right scorned woman, Bill Clinton said of his faithful wife and mother to his child

Said Gennifer Flowers: “I just know what Bill Clinton told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know. ‘He said Hillary had eaten more pussy than he had.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcTY9g6Zc1M

Watch Bill Clinton's priceless facial expression

Another rant without any substance.

First of all, you seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations. You conveniently ignore the fact that Monica Lewinsky, who had a consensual affair with Clinton in the White House, publicly defended him against the accusations of rape and assault by other women! You also forget that Paula Jones, the woman who received the $850,000 settlement, initially sued Clinton for $700,000 in damages, but later reduced her demand to $525,000.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-a-look-at-bill-clintons-alleged-sexual-misconduct/

That means that Clinton actually paid her more than she asked for, which is hardly an admission of guilt. In fact, Clinton's lawyer stated that the settlement was made only to avoid further litigation, and that Clinton still maintained his innocence!

Secondly, you seem to have a very distorted view of Donald Trump's role in this whole saga. You claim that he "paraded 4 suffering women" in a presidential debate with Hillary, but you fail to mention that those women were paid by Trump to attend the debate and accuse Clinton of various crimes. You also fail to mention that Trump himself has been accused of sexual assault and/or misconduct by at least 26 women, some of whom have filed lawsuits against him. You also fail to mention that Trump has been caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by their genitals and kissing them without consent. How can you possibly defend such a vile and predatory behavior?

Shifting gears to the 'whataboutism' express, we arrive at your bizarre detour to attack Hillary Clinton, who's about as relevant to this topic as a one-legged man in a kicking contest. You throw shade with nicknames like 'Billary' and 'scorned woman,' then crown it all with a quote from Gennifer Flowers, who admitted to lying about her affair with Clinton in the past, and whose truthfulness is about as reliable as a Nigerian prince's email. Bravo! You also imply that Hillary is bisexual, as if that's something to be ashamed of or ridiculed for. You also ignore the fact that Hillary has been a champion of women's rights and empowerment throughout her career, and that she has faced constant sexism and misogyny from her opponents and the media. You are not a debater, you are a troll. And you are not a worthy opponent, you are a waste of time.

Every fabricated claim of yours is like a brick in the wall of delusion you're so desperately trying to build. But I'll be here with truth bombs to topple your castle of delusions!

basilico:
Glad you have done your homework. Reading through the attached image from the search engine , it was clear that it was not Blaise Ford, but another accuser. Read between the lines. All in all it's the democrats play book..Accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, truth be damned.
An incident where Harry Reid accused Pierre Delecto of not paying taxes for 10 years in 2012 election against St Jesus of Chicago.. Later Reid quipped
Well, they can call it whatever they want,” Reid said. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”


I will read through your post, I'm sure to pick up more lies. You are the one spreading lies. Note that you seem to get your talking points only from far left junk sites, while for me I first go through them knowing very well they are lying.
I suppose you think I believe Mitchell Obama is a man because of some right wing photos showing a bulge ? No I can separate the truth from the lies

You do realize that claiming something is a lie without proof is an exercise in hubris and dishonesty? Perhaps you've mistaken this debate for a childish scrap in the schoolyard, where "facts" are subjective and unjustified aspersions win the day. I didn't fail to notice how you subtly declined to acknowledge your amateurish gaffe about Blasey Ford. You were obviously conflating two different accusers of Brett Kavanaugh: Christine Blasey Ford and Judy Munro-Leighton. The latter was the one who admitted to fabricating a letter claiming to be another victim of Kavanaugh. She had no connection to Blasey Ford or her lawyers, and she was not the source of Reid's claim.

Moreover, you are comparing apples and oranges when you bring up Harry Reid's accusation of Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. This misses the whole point. Reid's source was some shady guy who claimed to have worked at Bain Capital, the evil empire that Romney used to run. Reid wasn't sure if his source was telling the truth, but he threw it out there anyway, hoping that Romney would show his tax returns and clear the air. But Romney didn't do that, because he probably had something to hide. Like maybe he was secretly funding a cult of Mormon vampires or something. Reid's claim was never confirmed or denied, but it was not a lie or a trick. It was a clever move to make Romney look bad and untrustworthy to the voters. It was also not a personal attack on Romney's personality or morals, unlike your ridiculous and rude suggestion that Michelle Obama is a man.

You are also making a sweeping generalization and a false dichotomy when you say that all Democrats accuse anyone of anything to serve the immediate cause, and that all Republicans can separate the truth from the lies. Let me break it down for you, champ. Both sides of the aisle have their fair share of hot takes and questionable logic. Painting entire parties with such broad strokes is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. You're ignoring the diverse spectrum of opinions within each group, from firebrands to moderates, and reducing complex issues to a kindergarten-level "good guys vs. bad guys" narrative.

Please do yourself a favor and crack open a non-partisan book (gasp, they exist!). The evidence might surprise you, revealing that truth and misinformation aren't neatly divided by party lines. Then, maybe, just maybe, you can join the grown-up table where we discuss the nuances of politics with, gasp again!, respect and critical thinking. Until then, you might as well create a private blog titled "Unpopular Opinions No One Asked For" and publish your toxic ideas there.

basilico:
I'll kerp updating. Reid Hoffman non profit made direct payment to Roberta Kaplan , a filing that was revealed in court filings. When Trump asked for more discovery the judge sealed the records relating to the Hoffman and Kaplan payments.


In a letter on Thursday morning, Trump’s legal team documented how Carroll at her Oct. 14 deposition claimed that no one else was paying for her lawyers—only to have those same lawyers suddenly inform them this Monday that they indeed had a mystery backer. Trump’s lawyers say Carroll’s team wouldn’t immediately disclose who this rich donor was until several phone calls later during the week, when they reluctantly revealed that it was Hoffman and a nonprofit called American Future Republic.




Reid Hoffman pays through his non profit. I would believe you if you claimed that he does not dictate the expenditure of this non profit not does he care what they do with the money.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NooiVt89n_s

Wow, you really do have a knack for twisting the facts and spewing nonsense. Reid Hoffman is not some sugar daddy who pays for people's lawsuits, he is a generous donor who supports a noble cause. He gave money to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which is a nonprofit organization that helps victims of sexual harassment and assault get legal help and media support. It is run by the National Women's Law Center, which is an independent and respected group that has been fighting for women's rights for over four decades.

The fund does not hand out cash to lawyers, it covers some of the costs and fees that they incur while representing victims. The fund also has strict standards and a thorough screening process to ensure that the cases it backs are valid and worthy. Roberta Kaplan, is one of the many lawyers who have volunteered to take cases for free or on a no-win-no-fee basis through the fund. She is not on Reid Hoffman's payroll or his nonprofit, American Future Republic, but is paid by her client, Carroll. The fact that Hoffman's nonprofit gave a grant to the fund does not mean that he has any say or sway over the fund or the cases it supports. He is one of the many donors who have chipped in to the fund, which has raised over $25 million from more than 20,000 people. He is also not involved in the legal strategy or the decision-making of Kaplan or Carroll. He is simply a good guy who cares about justice and equality for women. The reason why the judge sealed the records relating to the funding of Carroll's case is not because there is anything shady or wrong about it, but because it is irrelevant to the merits of the case and it could expose the fund and its beneficiaries to harassment and intimidation by Trump and his cronies. The judge also rejected Trump's request for a one-month delay of the trial, which shows that he is not falling for Trump's tricks to divert attention from the real issue: whether he raped Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

Your argument still amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign against E. Jean Carroll, by every means necessary. It is also a hopeless and dishonest attempt to tarnish the reputation and integrity of Hoffman and Kaplan, as well as a blatant disrespect for the truth and the rule of law. It still amazes me how you've not collapsed in a paroxysm of embarrassment for spreading such lies and misinformation constantly.

basilico:
Don't think I've not noticed your lies.
The judge was biased. You know nothing about the jury selected.
Reid Hoffman is paying her bills She admitted that in court.
Justice was not served rightfully.
There are women who claimed Clinton raped them, I think one settled out of court, the rest sit by and watch him escape all sort of scrutiny.
You lied about Monica Lewinsky blue dress. She was not a victim of Bill Clinton perse. She was a victim of Hillary who labelled her and others as " bimbo eruptions" and orchestrated a scheme to damage her reputation. I watched her Ted Talk don't assume I'm just writing or believing anything you've written
Tara Reid has a written complaint against Joe Biden. Those documents are sealed by Joe Biden Archivist, She can't prove it.
Justice is served to to those suing republican.
Giuliani was not able to produce evidence because FBI raid took away every electronics he had. The judge partly used that against him the declare him liable for defamation l.

You spew a lot of lies about Jean Carroll being traumatized.
Remember when Blaise Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. She later recanted. Democrat style. Image below because you will say it's lies.They lie to serve a particular putpose. I believe this is another scheme by Jean Carroll.
I'm.not known to give up on topics I believe I'm right, for the upteempth time I use this as my bookmarks for later reference.
To be honest I don't believe a thing you wrote about this topic. You sound like her lawyer. Intending to convince us that there is equal justice.Yiu are peddoing a narrative, it's very easy to pick your talking points and find them repeated by leftie media.
Before I forget, did she ever see a shrink or a counsellor about her traumatic rape in a very busy fashion shop? Did she, or maybe dyeing her dog pink was therauptic?
I think there was some witness who can swear there was no rape allegations in that store while she worked there during that period . I'll find out why she did not testify.
Finally Jean Carroll got her description of the store wrong too if I'm correct.

Because the darn encounter happened in her dreams.

I have already written two detailed posts full of links to the relevant articles rebutting this recent comment of yours but due to the unexplained ridiculousness of this forum's spambot, I couldn't get them through. I'll limit the length of my rejoinder and cut to the chase here. After reading this particular comment, it has become obvious to me that you're totally willing to indulge in mendacity and fraud. Of course I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your desperation to cling onto this sinking ship, while admirable, only lends credence to your unrelenting dishonesty.

#1 Reid Hoffman is not paying anyone's bills. He only chipped in some cash to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which backs up survivors of sexual harassment and assault.

#2 Clinton has been accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by several women, but none of them have been proven conclusively in court.

#3 Lewinsky had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton. She hid the dress from the public, while Carroll wore the dress openly several times. These are not opinions, these are verifiable facts. Do your research.

#4 Hillary Clinton did not label Lewinsky or others as "bimbo eruptions". That term was coined by Betsey Wright, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in 1992, long before the Lewinsky scandal. Hillary Clinton did not orchestrate a scheme to damage Lewinsky's reputation. She was just a scorned wife who stood by her cheating hubby in the face of political drama.

#5 You claim that you watched Lewinsky's TED Talk, but did you really listen to what she said? She said that she was a victim of cyberbullying and public shaming, not of Bill Clinton. She said that she regretted her involvement with him, but that she also forgave him.

#6 Tara Reade was exposed as a liar and fraud. She did not have a written complaint against Biden, but a criminal complaint against an unnamed person. Plus her allegation has been contradicted by several people who knew her or worked with Biden at the time, and by the lack of evidence or corroboration.

#7 The FBI raid on Guilani's home and office in April 2021 had nothing to do with the defamation case, but with his shady dealings with Ukraine. The raid did not strip him of all his gadgets, neither did it stop him from producing evidence. These are pathetic excuses!

#8 Blasey Ford bravely faced the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018 and never backed down from her allegation. It was Trump who played fast and loose with the truth by conveniently leaving out which accuser had changed her story (check out the screenshot below). And she was not a Democrat, but a card-carrying Republican.

#9 Halina Kuta, the ex-guard at Bergdorf Goodman who claimed to witness something scandalous while working there between 1975 and 2001 was exposed to be a liar and bluff. She wasn't even there when it supposedly happened. She confessed that she was a fan of Trump and that she got a nice $500 tip from his buddy to lie. Talk about fake news!

The rest of your post is just more gas-lighting, and clutching at irrelevant straws like the colour of Carroll's dog. You're clearly out of your depth on this topic but you insist on trudging on like a lost donkey. Of course, fanatics like you will thrive on spurious statements like "Justice is served to those suing Republican" which only serve to foster hatred and division. Justice is not a partisan issue, but a universal value.

In this discussion, you have only proven yourself to be a liar, a manipulator and a fraud with an ego the size of America. You obviously know next to nothing about these cases, but rather than educate yourself accordingly, you've intentionally limited yourself to regurgitating nonsensical far-right soundbites you've heard from your colleagues.

basilico:
I hear you. It seems you are fully in tune with tie feelings of a sexual assault victim.You also fully trust the judgeand jury. Well that's your right.
I don't believe she ever met him. Having a photo means nothing, I've met so many people in life whose faces nor names I cannot recall.
I dont believe the judge an jury are fair. The judge use the law to prevent any defence. Trump has already appealed the first ruling, the judge denying him defence based on the first trial, also threatening to jail Trump's lawyer, overuling questions to the plaintiff smacks of a predetermined outcome. He had said the jury would deliberate in a very short time ( 3 hours? ).
I no longer believe there is any justice esp to conservatives in America.

I'm not done with this topic.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, just like I'm entitled to pity you for clinging to one that's demonstrably false. Your claims that Carroll and Trump never met is contradicted by the evidence and by Trump's own words. This recent comment of yours is just sour grapes because you've lost the debate. The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, was a Clinton appointee who's known for being fair and unbiased. He ran the trial like a pro, and followed the book. He didn't block any defense, but he did say that Trump gave up his presidential shield by blabbing about the case. Questions to the plaintiff weren't ignored, he only upheld objections that made sense. The jury was do their job based on the facts and the law, so the verdict wasn't rigged. Saying that justice is a lost cause for conservatives in America, is a false and divisive narrative. Justice doesn't care about your red or blue hats, it cares about the truth. The jury that fined Trump with a hefty sum was made up of regular folks who got picked out of a hat. They didn't let their politics cloud their judgment, they let the evidence and the law guide them. They heard both sides of the story, checked the facts, and agreed on the outcome without any fuss.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternative facts in a game of charades, but when it comes to real issues, reality is the only costume you can wear. Conspiracy theories are like ripped tights – they'll only leave you exposed.

I suggest that you move on from this topic. You must have better things to do with your precious time and brain cells than to waste them on a washed-up ex-president who couldn't keep his pants zipped.

This is something I've been pondering on for quite some time. So I guess I need to finally get it off my chest.

The human species has become disturbingly obsessed with blending in, following the script, finding comfort in the crowd etc. I believe this mentality of trying to enforce a collective harmony of thought across all individuals in a society is ultimately dangerous. Conformity, my friends, is a hydra of a beast. It sprouts heads of societal expectations, whispers of "supposed tos," and the poisonous sting of judgment. It tells women they must bloom in gardens of domesticity, men they must conquer mountains of machismo, and everyone else they must fit into pre-made boxes with labels that chafe.

...And to all of that, I say pish posh! True belonging isn't found in fitting in, it's found in standing out, in raising your voice, in being your unapologetically authentic self. People who embrace their true nature and gifts are often the ones who break new ground, explore new possibilities, and solve problems in novel ways. They are not afraid to experiment, fail, and learn from their mistakes. They are not bound by the limitations of conventional wisdom, tradition, or dogma. They are willing to challenge the assumptions, paradigms, and methods of their fields and disciplines. Non-conformists are the pioneers, the inventors, the reformers, and the revolutionaries of human history.

For instance, Galileo Galilei was a non-conformist who defied the Catholic Church and the Aristotelian worldview by supporting the Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system. He used his telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and the spots on the sun, providing empirical evidence for his claims. He also developed the scientific method of observation, experimentation, and mathematical analysis, laying the foundations of modern science. Galileo's non-conformism led to his persecution by the Inquisition, but also to his recognition as one of the greatest astronomers and physicists of all time. Let's not also forget Marie Curie, defying the scientific establishment with her radioactive glow, or Martin Luther King Jr., thundering against the storm of segregation with his words of revolution, or Malala Yousafzai, a mere child challenging the bullets of oppression with her thirst for knowledge etc etc. These are the heroes of individualism, the ones who dared to be different, to chase their own moons, and in doing so, illuminated the path for others. And individualism isn't just about grand gestures. It's in the daily choices, the quiet rebellions. It's in wearing the purple socks with the orange polka dots, in pursuing the unconventional career, in loving (or not loving) whomever your heart desires. It's in saying "no" to the stifling expectations and "yes" to your own inner vibes.

So, my dears, raise a glass to the rebels, the outliers, the mavericks who dance to the music of their own souls. Remember, individualism isn't just a right, it's a responsibility. It's the torch we carry, lighting the way for a world where every color shines, every note rings true, and every heart beats to its own, perfect rhythm. Now, go forth and paint the world with the vibrant hues of your individuality!

pansophist:
That Nigeria go better.

No, it will not get better. It will only get worse. For Nigeria to be better, there must be a culture change, something similar to the cultural revolusion in China done by Mao, which laid the foundation for what China is today.

The constitution has to change, and every Nigerian from top to bottom must care for their fellow countryman like their brother. Only then, there will be hope for better days. Love plus love equals progress. Hate plus hate equals regress.

But as it is right now, the country is on the wrong bus, going to the wrong destination, with a blind driver, and no brake. Sorry.

On the surface, this sentiment seems alluring. Nigeria obviously faces complex challenges: corruption, inequality, social disunity etc. Mao's Cultural Revolution, however messy and brutal, did achieve some things: modernization, a sense of national identity, and a break from feudal traditions. So, one can easily see the appeal of applying a similar "shock therapy" to Nigeria's ills. However, we need to consider the context here. Comparing China's 1960s to Nigeria's 2020s is like comparing apples and oranges. China was under Mao's totalitarian grip, Nigeria is a pluralistic democracy. One size (especially that drenched in ideological fervor) rarely fits all.

The Chinese revolution left millions dead, purged intellectuals, and unleashed chaos. Nigeria has enough challenges without adding state-sanctioned mayhem to the mix. Sustainable improvement comes from within, not through top-down diktats. Empowering civil society, fostering education, and tackling corruption head-on – these are the catalysts, not the bulldozers, of progress. We must refrain from fetishizing "strongman" solutions. Authoritarian regimes may seem efficient on paper, but they often stifle innovation, dissent, and ultimately, progress. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nigeria doesn't need a Mao-inspired revolution, but a homegrown renaissance. Focus on education, invest in infrastructure, strengthen institutions, and nurture a vibrant civil society. These are the seeds that will blossom into a brighter future, not the iron fist of an ideological upheaval.

DevilsEqual:
That God does not exist
I used to believe this lie until I decided to pick us some books to read
Those books are :
1) Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist

2) On the origin of Time and also "Brief Answers to Big questions" both by Stephen Hawkngs, a world-renowned physicist who wrote extensively on big bang theory

3) On the origin of species by means of Natural selection by Charles Darwin... another Evolutionary biologist


Thats it...I gave up on atheism forever...it takes even greater faith to believe the bull crap origin of life stories propounded by those guys

Calling atheism a "lie" implies it's a belief system, which it isn't. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deities. You can't be "wrong" about not believing in something that hasn't been convincingly demonstrated to exist. Also, picking three prominent figures from one scientific field isn't an exhaustive exploration of atheism. Atheism draws from diverse disciplines like philosophy, psychology, and anthropology, offering arguments beyond evolution. Science doesn't claim to possess ultimate truths, but rather explains phenomena through models based on evidence. Evolution isn't "faith" – it's a constantly evolving framework supported by mountains of data. It doesn't negate the awe of existence; it enriches it with a deeper understanding.

Engaging in respectful discourse, exploring competing evidence, and acknowledging the complexities of the unknown are hallmarks of intellectual honesty, whether you're religious or not.

dhiqson:
Sigh
Okay baby dragon

No need to sigh! Unless you're just overwhelmed by the sheer brilliance of irrefutable logic and crushing facts.

basilico:
I trust my instincts. The judge was a senior partner at the same lawfirm she was a shining star, working smart to okease her bosses.
The script in law and irde was in 2012. 2019-7 = 2012.
She is a victim of rape, so her cat is called vagina, her dog is Tits, she lives in s dabin where the trees she paintef blue, she dyed her dog pink, she met Trump and within minutes he is offering to buy her lingerie. They go to the dressing room where she is fingered and penetrated. The jury finds she was not penetrated. Juries in a place that voted Biden by over 3/4 right if I'm .right..
I think she wanted to write a love story with Donald trump relative.
More will be coming out. I'll revisit this

Trust me Noone has ever proven me wrong here. You will be the first.
Her buddies are Trump haters.
According to nationalpulse and other media, Reid Hoffman is paying her lawyers.

I admire your commitment to creative thinking, even if it means bending the laws of logic like a pretzel. Let's see if we can straighten things out together.

1. My inner spell-check is having a seizure trying to keep up with your post. Maybe you should proofread your posts before you hit send. It doesn't help your credibility when you can't even spell "please" or "cabin" correctly.

2. You're still spewing baseless claims like a broken faucet. The judge was fair, Carroll was honest, the jury was impartial, and Reid Hoffman has nothing to do with this. These are all facts that have been verified by reliable sources. Do your research.

3. The jury slapped Trump with a guilty verdict for molesting and slandering Carroll, based on the words of Carroll, her buddies, and other people who saw it, as well as the DNA proof on the dress she had on when he attacked her. The jury also gave her $83 million in compensation, which is a big win for victims of sexual abuse and a loud wake-up call to Trump that he can't get away with anything.

4. You're showing a complete lack of empathy and/or sensitivity to Carroll and other survivors of sexual violence. You're making fun of her trauma, her lifestyle, her pets, and her book, which is a brave and inspiring story of her struggles and her quest for justice. You're also suggesting that she had some crush or lust for Trump, which is ridiculous and offensive. She was a accomplished and esteemed writer and journalist, who had no motive to fabricate being violated by a rich and influential man.

5. You keep projecting your own biases and prejudice onto the situation. You are thinking that Carroll and her supporters are "Trump haters" who are driven by politics, instead of by the facts and the law. You are also brushing off the decision of the jury, which was made up of regular folks who were picked randomly and fairly, suggesting that they were somehow swayed by their political leanings, rather than by the proof and the guidance of the judge. You are also turning a blind eye to the fact that Trump has been accused of sexual misbehavior by more than two dozen women, many of whom have sued him.

Hopefully, you will come to your senses and apologize to Carroll and other survivors of sexual violence by retracting your baseless accusations. They deserve your respect and your support, not your mockery and your lies. And I hope you will also enlighten yourself and learn more about the problems and the truths of sexual harassment and assault, and how they impact millions of people around the world. Maybe then you will realize why this case is so crucial and why we need to say "enough is enough" to sexual predators like Trump!

dhiqson:

Look at the ****** above me
Women will always support their own
The sisterhood so strongggg

Now let's get down to business.

The lady disrespecting him Is not abuse?
Or you didn't read the first part of what happened?
How on earth can't you deduce she's just a vile creature that wants to have things her way!!?
Ohh i know why!
Emotions!!!! The dominate feature of every woman
I don't expect You to understand what the gentle man meant by saying "she should be thankful for the bf"

I expect you to think " you're the exception to the rule"

Subtlety isn't your strong suit, is it? Next time, try @-ing me so I can join the party .

By the way, I'm actually impressed that you managed to fit more fallacies in one tiny rant than a circus tent can fit clowns. Your passionate little submission deserves a standing ovation, if I can peel myself off the floor from laughing at the logic holes.

Stating that all women will back each other up no matter what the truth is, is not only false, but also beside the point. The OP is looking for guidance based on her own situation, not on some fanciful "girl power" allegiance. You've also committed a red herring fallacy, referencing actions by the girl that you perceive to be disrespectful, but are ultimately irrelevant to the core issue. Whether OP donned a shirt from a male pal or stashed away some chow from her partner are trivial matters that do not excuse the abusive actions of her partner. You are attempting to sidetrack from the real problem here, which is the absence of regard and love in their relationship.

Furthermore, you are just setting up straw men and knocking them down by yourself. The OP didn't claim to be flawless or infallible. She just shared her feelings about how her partner treats her. You're acting like there are only two options: she's a "vile creature" or he's a saint. But life is not black and white, it's full of shades of gray. Maybe you should try to see things from a different perspective. You write off the poster's emotions as a sign of madness and prejudice, then insinuate that because she is a woman, she is unfit for rational thinking and fair judgment. This is not only sexist, but also nonsensical. Emotions are not evil or good, they are human. They can guide our choices, but they do not negate them. Besides, you are being two-faced, since you are obviously emotional yourself, as shown by your overuse of exclamation marks and emojis.

So you don't expect me to get Ed12's point when he says "she should be happy with the bf", huh? Please indulge me. What point are you making exactly? That women should kiss the feet of any guy who hires them, even if he's a jerk? Sorry, but that's not a point, that's a red pill delusion, a toxic and dubious worldview that you have swallowed without any proof or reason, and has produced an army of bitter dudes who hate women, facts, and logic. They live in a fantasy world where they are the oppressed heroes and women are the evil villains who want to ruin their lives. And they have no clue how to relate to other human beings, and they use their twisted ideology as a cover for being socially inept. I repeat that the OP should dump that loser who follows the red pill nonsense and treats her like dirt. She should find a partner who will treat her like a queen and who will appreciate her as a person, not as a prize. She should be happy, and she has the power to walk away from a relationship that is hurting her. And so should you, if you ever end up with a lady who makes you feel like you ain't worth shit.

I hope you'll snap out of your delusions and get some therapy if you have to. The red pill is a bitter placebo, and relationships are not a game of chess. They are about love, trust and compassion. And those are the things that truly matter.

basilico:
You don't get it at all.

I wouldn't say I "don't get it at all". More like I'm choosing not to get lost in the labyrinth you've built.

This woman can't remember the year she was raped, She still keeps the dress and never wore it or washed it all those years.

This is just you engaging in victim blaming by implying that Carroll's memory of the year is relevant to the validity of her claim. Many survivors of sexual assault experience trauma-related memory loss. It doesn't mean they are lying or confused.

Kinda roleplaying Linda Tripp who adviced Monica Lewinsky to preserve the blue dress that had Bill Clinton's semen. Carroll never produced that dress for forensics.

You are making a false analogy here by comparing Carroll to Monica Lewinsky, who had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton. Carroll did not keep the dress as evidence, but as a reminder of her strength and resilience. She also wore the dress publicly several times, unlike Lewinsky.

As for the Law n Order series where someone was violated in the same store's dressing room, Ste comes out with same script 7 years after it aired, mind you twas another program she used to watch.She said she joked about him dressing up in the lingerie Trump apparently went in to buy her.

Calling something a "Law and Order plot" is about as specific as blaming the weather on "the sky stuff." There is no evidence that Carroll ever watched that show, and the episode in question aired in 2012, not 2016 as you claim. Your conspiracy theory has no meat. Maybe your tinfoil hat is picking up extra signals?

Deleting her Twitter messages. You are insincere that she got death threats after Trump said she was a liar and not his type. Let her produce her full texts, You can't prove that she did not get the threats after excerpts of her book became public and before Trump responded. Because she deleted her darn texts!!!

Carroll's Twitter messages vanished? Fake news, faker than a toupee made of spun sugar. Her tweets are as present as a stubborn houseguest overstaying their welcome. Carroll did not delete her Twitter messages, but only made them private after receiving death threats and harassment from Trump supporters. Her lawsuit was not funded by Reid Hoffman, but by a nonprofit organization that provides legal support to survivors of sexual violence. Hoffman's donation was made before Carroll filed her suit and he had no prior knowledge that his funding would go to support her in particular. Your statements are about as accurate as a blindfolded archer. Let's stick to what we actually know.

I could talk on her behalf that she deserves to be heard but the coincidences are not weighing in her favor.
She has accused several others of sexually violating her.. I'll get the exact number but it's more than 5.

Another classic example of endorsing rape myths and perpetuating a culture of disbelief and stigma towards survivors. The fact that Carroll has experienced multiple instances of sexual violence does not make her less trustworthy or less deserving of justice. On the contrary, it shows the prevalence and severity of the problem of sexual violence in our society.

She used to watch the apprentice by her words that features Trump, the show with him ran for 14 seasons from 2004. He reportedly made $215m from it. Jean Carroll would have come out then and destroyed him, She never did.
She was happy to watch a show that made her violator world famous and rich.

At this point, I'm not surprised that you would blatantly ignore the psychological and social barriers that many survivors of sexual assault face. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), only 23% of sexual assaults are reported to the police, and the reasons for not reporting include fear of retaliation, shame, self-blame, distrust of the legal system, and lack of support. Carroll herself said that she did not report the assault because she blamed herself and felt that no one would believe her. She also said that she was inspired by the #MeToo movement and other women who came forward with their stories of abuse by Trump.

Kathy Griffin. George Conway. Reid Hoffman, Epstein the paedophile's good friend.
( If Trump wins Epstein children fucker's buddies will be called to account I hope). The three sworn Trump haters Add New York State, that extended the statute of limitations for sexual harrassment by a year, enabling her to sue Trump hours after it was passed. Coincidental?

Your claim is a wild shot in the dark. In fact, it is as baseless as Trump's hairpiece. Carroll is a famous writer and media star who knows a lot of big shots. But none of them had anything to do with her suing Trump or paying her lawyer. She is footing the bill herself and she doesn't want a dime from Trump. She also doesn't give a hoot about his presidency or his politics. She just wants him to admit that he did her wrong and clear her name.

You seem to know more. Tell me how would a jury find Trump Not guilty of rape but of sexual violation without forensics.

You're asking a loaded question that suggests the jury was clueless or blind. That's not the case. The jury listened to Carroll, her two buddies who backed her up, two other ladies who had similar stories about Trump, and Trump himself. The jury also got to see a picture of Carroll and Trump looking cozy in 1987, the Access Hollywood tape where Trump boasted about his groping skills, and the dress that Carroll wore when it happened. The jury compared all the evidence and decided that Carroll was telling the truth and Trump was lying. The jury also agreed that Trump insulted Carroll by saying she was a loser, and not his cup of tea. The jury's verdict was based on the most convincing evidence, which is how it works in civil cases.

Why would the judge call him a convicted rapist while he wasn't found guilty of that? The judge was a senior managing partner where her lawyer worked, he definitely knew the shining star of his former lawfirm, It's defence position that he was her mentor.

Trump got slapped with a $5 million bill for being a sexual predator and a liar in the first trial. He got slapped again with a whopping $83.3 million bill for being a liar in the second trial. The judge in the first trial made it clear that Trump had done the deed that rhymes with "grape". The jury in the second trial didn't have to waste time on that, since it was already a done deal. So, yeah, Trump is a certified rapist, and the judge was right to say so.

Plus, The judge in the first trial, Lewis Kaplan, was not a senior managing partner where Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, worked. He was a partner at a different law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. There is no evidence that he was her mentor, or that he had any conflict of interest in presiding over the case. He was randomly assigned to the case by the court's computer system.

As for the dress, it was NYT who discovered that the dress she claimed to wear then had not been designed then.

New York Times didn't unearth the dress that Carroll was wearing when she was attacked. She did, after hoarding it in her wardrobe for ages. The dress was a Donna Karan creation from 1993, and she bought it from Bergdorf Goodman, the very place where the assault took place. The dress had some DNA traces on it, which Carroll was willing to examine, but Trump chickened out of giving a sample. The dress was a badge of Carroll's bravery and resistance, as she rocked it again for the cover of her book, What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal.

So traumatic was the incidence She was writing a column about anal sex and not about " Me too" over the years.

Carroll wasn't penning a column on anal sex, but on sex and relationships in general, for Elle magazine. She didn't keep mum about her assault, but confided in two of her pals right after it happened, who both backed her up in court. She also spilled the beans in her book, which came out in 2019, before she bumped into George Conway at a shindig thrown by Kathy Griffin. Conway, a big-shot conservative lawyer and Trump basher, urged Carroll to drag Trump to court for defamation after he brushed off the assault. Reid Hoffman, the bigwig behind LinkedIn, isn't footing the bill for Carroll's lawyer, but has chipped in to the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, which helps victims of sexual harassment and assault.

Jean Carroll was attending a Kathy Griffin bash when she met George Conway, never Trumper founder of Lincoln project, who convinced her to sue. Reid Hoffman is paying her lawyer.
Kathy Griffin most infamous photo below. Jean Carroll friend.

Pointless assertion. Kathy Griffin is not relevant to the case, nor is her infamous photo of holding a fake severed head of Trump, which she apologized for. Carroll is friends with Griffin, but that does not affect her credibility or her right to seek justice.

You are using sexism, honor, and fragile masculinity to rationalize your support for Trump and your baseless dismissal of Carroll, ignoring the evidence and the arguments presented by Carroll and her lawyer, and focusing on irrelevant or false details to discredit her. You have successfully built a fortress of denial around yourself, complete with a moat of excuses and drawbridge of deflection.

I'll also have you know that you are sliding down a very slippery slope by feeding into rape culture, which normalizes and excuses sexual aggression, and protects rapists from accountability. Please, do better.

Ebonygeek:
Lol
We're all a little skeptical until we achieve sense experience. One day you'll realise the truth. Hopefully, it won't be too late by then.

Skepticism is just another sense, my friend. It helps me smell the BS coming from a mile away. But don't worry, I'll leave a seat open for you at the truth table when you finally ascend.

@Ebonygeek

3 John 1:2 KJV
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Sounds vaguely nice, but let's not forget the prosperity gospel lurking just around the corner, promising material rewards for blind faith. Again, this smacks less of genuine care and more of transactional manipulation.

b]Exodus 15:26 KJV[/b]
And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

Basically, "Be good, don't get sick, or it's your own fault." This conveniently ignores factors like genetics, environment, and the fact that plenty of good people get sick and plenty of bad people don't. Pure conditional love.

Matthew 8:7-8,16-17 KJV
And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. [8] The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. [16] When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: [17] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

The classic faith-healing gambit returns. Need I say more?

Mark 16:17-18 KJV
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Let's see... speaking in tongues, serpent handling and poison immunity? Sounds more like a cult initiation manual than a medical textbook. And where's the evidence for these "signs" happening outside of biblical anecdotes?

Psalm 41:3-4 KJV
The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness. [4] I said, Lord , be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.
If you repent and come to God with sincerity of heart, He will hear your cry and have mercy upon you.

Emotional pleas for divine intervention. Touching, sure, but hardly scientific proof of spiritual healthcare.

[b]Jeremiah 31:11 KJV
For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.

Jeremiah 31:12 KJV
Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord , for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.

A poetic vision of future utopia, not a medical guarantee. And speaking of visions, have you ever considered the possibility of confirmation bias when interpreting such things?

Luke 4:18 KJV
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

More metaphorical mumbo jumbo about "brokenhearted" and "bruised." Where are the specific diagnoses, treatment plans, and recovery rates?

1 Samuel 1:15-18 KJV
And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord . [16] Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto. [17] Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him. [18] And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight. So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad

Another anecdotal story of emotional relief. But attributing it solely to divine intervention ignores the power of human resilience, support systems, and even placebo effects.

Psalm 147:3-5 KJV
He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds. [4] He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. [5] Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Hosea 14:4 KJV
I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.

More poetic pronouncements about God's healing power. But where are the double-blind studies, the peer-reviewed research, the controlled trials? This is religious mythology, not medical evidence.

Hosea 14:8-9 KJV
Ephraim shall say , What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him , and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found. [9] Who is wise, and he shall understand these things ? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.

This convoluted passage blames all suffering on "idols" and the devil. Talk about victim blaming! Ignoring real-world causes of illnesses and attributing them to mythical entities is intellectually dishonest and unhelpful.

3 John 1:2 KJV
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Back to 3 John 1:2: Yes, God may "wish" for us to be healthy, but wishing doesn't make it so! If divine healthcare were real, wouldn't hospitals be empty and doctors unemployed?

---

Phew!!! That was a long and arduous read.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying faith can't be a source of comfort and strength. But claiming it's a guaranteed cure-all for every physical and emotional ailment is dangerous, misleading, and frankly, insulting to human intelligence and scientific progress. We have actual medicine for that, thank you very much. So, let's leave the feel-good fairy tales to Sunday sermons and focus on real-world solutions for human health and well-being. Believing in magic spells won't cure cancer, but proper medical care might. And when it comes to our health, shouldn't we be aiming for something a little more concrete than divine wishes and biblical anecdotes?

Nevertheless, I appreciate the attempt at spiritual nourishment, but this menu relies heavily on guilt, fear, and confirmation bias. I'll stick to a balanced diet of evidence, reason, and compassion. Here's a piece of advice. Don't be a mental dustbin for every half-baked theory. Skepticism's the recycling bin of the mind, turning trash into critical thought.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to consider the Religion section next time for your Sunday sermons!

Ah yes, nothing says "romance" like discussing theology on a romance section. I'm sure all the singles here are swooning over your doctrinal delights! Since I have nothing better to do, and I'm bored out of my mind, perhaps I could have some fun dismantling your post. Don't worry, I've packed enough snacks for this existential trek.

Ebonygeek:
1) The Compassionate Healing of the Sick by Christ.

Sure, the Bible has stories of Jesus healing folks. But, so do ancient Greek myths featuring Asclepius, the god of medicine. Correlation doesn't equal causation, dear. Attributing these recoveries to divinity overlooks advancements in medical science and the body's own incredible capacity for healing.

The only catch is that you need to give your life to Him.

Of course, this "healing" just happens to be transactional, LOL. Sounds suspiciously like a divine salesman offering snake oil rather than genuine compassion.

SUBPOINTS

-The Promise of healing by the Compassionate Christ.

Matthew 8:7 KJV
And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

If Jesus could magically heal, why were there still lepers and plagues rampant during his time? Seems like his healing powers had some inconvenient limitations.

Mark 9:22-23 KJV
...Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Classic faith-healing tactic: blame the sick for insufficient belief, not the magic trick's lack of efficacy. Conveniently shifts responsibility.

Hebrews 13:8 KJV
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

So why haven't we witnessed mass amputee regrowth or resurrections lately? Seems his repertoire has shrunk with time.

The only way you can experience a miracle is if you believe in Christ.

This conveniently ignores documented cases of spontaneous remission and placebo effects. Faith can be a powerful tool, but attributing every recovery to a specific deity is intellectually lazy.

Mark 10:51-52 KJV
And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight. [52] And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

The blind man received his sight. Great! But was it Jesus, or the power of suggestion, or maybe simply a pre-existing condition resolving itself? We'll never know, because anecdotes are not evidence.

John 5:14 KJV
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

So, divine healthcare has a morality clause? This reeks of manipulation and control, not genuine concern for well-being.

When you are born of God (when you become born-again and have the Spirit of God living in you), sin becomes a thing of the past.

Now that's just wishful thinking. Humans are hardwired for a range of behaviors, including those deemed "sinful." Claiming otherwise ignores basic psychology and biology.

When you pursue the things of God and live a righteous life, EVERYTHING starts to come to you naturally.

This is prosperity gospel lite. Where's the evidence beyond anecdotal testimonies and confirmation bias? Maybe hard work and smart choices have more to do with prosperity than divine food drops. Once again, correlation isn't causation.

Acts 14:17 KJV
Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

Ah, yes, the classic argument from nature. Conveniently ignores the countless famines and droughts throughout history, where God's rain (or lack thereof) didn't seem to do much for folks' hearts or stomachs.

There are millions and millions of people around the word who can testify to the fact that when you serve God, you become prosperous.

...So can millions also testify to winning the lottery. Does that prove divine intervention, or simply the persuasive power of confirmation bias? Show me statistically significant data, not feel-good stories, and then we can talk.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

I get the sentiment, but seriously? Bread is kinda crucial for, ya know, not dying. Let's prioritize basic needs before worrying about metaphysical nourishment.

The Food we eat eventually goes bad, but the sincere milk of the Word abides forever.

So, the Bible is an eternal buffet? Sounds more like a self-serving metaphor than a practical solution to hunger. And by "sincere milk," I assume you mean selective interpretation, because the Bible has plenty of contradictory and downright nasty verses.

Romans 10:17 KJV
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Again, the circular logic! Faith leads to hearing the word, the word leads to faith… doesn't that sound a bit like intellectual self-cannibalism?

John 6:27 KJV
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life

So, earthly life and its needs are expendable? That's a convenient message for the powerful to control the desperate. Let's not forget what Martin Luther King Jr. said: "No one has ever denied the poor man food and clothing while calling it religion."

John 6:63 KJV
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing

Tell that to starving children and refugees. Bodily needs matter, my friend. Spirituality won't keep your stomach full or protect you from a warzone.

Galatians 2:20 KJV
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me

Oh, the joys of mystical pronouncements! No evidence, no logic, just blind faith expected. Meanwhile, the real world still spins with all its messy needs and injustices.

1 Peter 2:9 KJV
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

Chosen by whom? Based on what metric? This reeks of exclusivity and privilege, not universal love or compassion.

People commit sin everyday ignorantly, thinking there are no consequences. My dear, you have no idea what kind of damnation awaits the soul that sins.

Fearmongering much? This whole "heaven and hell" carrot-and-stick approach feels manipulative and exploitative, not genuinely empowering.

to be continued.....

>snip<

budaatum:
I think you haven't recognised that Basilico just wants to consume your time with mulls 2000 and kraken.

You will in time.

I appreciate the concern, but sometimes wasting time might be what everyone needs. Besides, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and who knows, maybe this conversation is one of those times.