Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
You are right that Trump did not explicitly state that he likes grabbing women. However, I think one can reasonably surmise from the fact that he was having a jovial conversation (spun as "locker room talk") that Trump was at least positively impressed by the idea that sexual assault of that sort is possible to get away with when famous. If we are going to play the game of sussing out 'what Trump actually meant to say' then I don't think it is unreasonable to guess that Trump was expressing positive sentiment about grabbing women. That is why I framed his statement the way I did.
As for whether Trump was convicted of rape or not, please see the source I cited, specifically this section:
"The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1 As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Please provide a source for that quote by Carroll. Implying that such a statement somehow justifies a rape is not a good argument.
Regarding your claims about January 6th, I would encourage you to watch the videos of the event if you haven't seen them yet. I tend to believe what I see, and what I saw that day was violence. At the very least, the pushing, shoving, swinging and throwing of projectiles, weilding of weapons and shields, and physical altercations in general on Jan 6 were uncharacteristic of nonviolent political actions, historically. Most nonviolent political actions do not include those kinds of tactics. If you disagree, please explain why the video evidence of the violence happening are so often misunderstood by common viewers like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I respectfully disagree, and I encourage you to take liberals and leftists at their word when they make claims about Jan 6 being an insurrection. I can honestly report that the liberals and leftists I know share my views broadly. There is no hoax or attempt to deceive. I could easily say the same thing about the right. I could say that the right projects onto the left about election meddling when in fact the right is interfering with elections (see Trump's fake electors plot, Trump's phone asking to find votes in georgia, the recent revelations about Giuliani's election meddling, the many Republicans who have been caught in voter fraud schemes over the years, etc.). But this would not be productive because it is too easy to accuse the other side of projection. The truth is that the other side is not projecting. The truth is that the other side believes what they are saying, and to argue against the other side well, it is prudent to take them at face value.
Thanks again for reading and leaving your comments.
You are not “backing (your) opinion with facts.” There are, literally no facts in your post. It’s almost incredible. Please find me one salient fact, and I will apologize.
You are attempting to “prove” you opinions are facts, by citing the opinions and interpretation of others who believe the narrative they are given as readily as you do. Left wing, post-democracy fascists believe what they are saying…because they are protected from reality.. They call Trump a liar, but they do not even try to prove that Trump has ever lied. They pretend that an exaggeration or an understatement is a glaring lie, but you have no idea what Trump believed at the time. Maybe Trump was shocked that women let famous men grab them by the genitals. Maybe lots of things. It is very hard to prove state of mind or “true intent.” You have not even offered an argument or attempted a proof of anything.
There are Thousands of hours of footage which were kept buried for years about 1/6. Almost of that footage was peaceful and much of it showed officers peacefully opening doors for protesters. The brief moments of violence, much of it in self-defense, was all released to the main stream media. Officers inviting them in…on orders from who? Crickets.
You were shown a sliver of the story and anyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. I suspect you believed the “fine people hoax” because you saw Trump say “good people on both sides.” That video was also cropped to hide the fact that President Trump fully denounced all white supremacists and hate groups three separate times. You can not “reasonably surmise” anything when you only have a sliver of the story.
I am not interested in the style of your line of discourse about opinions and facts. You are being uncharitable to me. I can't really discuss jan 6th or any other topic further with you unless you are willing to be a more charitable debater. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
If you want to discuss how opinion articles like mine and Maxim's are written, where arguments are built on premises, that could be an interesting conversation. The first section of my essay about the economy is structured as an syllogism, for instance.
Uncharitable? What gift were you looking for? Reading this article is subject to the premise that your opinions are facts? Assuming you believe none of this and are just presenting one perspective? "Not interested in the style" is almost certainly cognitive dissonance: you can not structure an argument to refute anything or persuade, so you get defensive and call me names.
I can see there may have been some misunderstandings, so let me clarify my intentions. When I mentioned "uncharitable," I didn’t mean to imply I was looking for special treatment—just that I hoped we could both approach each other’s arguments with a bit more generosity and openness. My goal is not to assume agreement but to explore ideas constructively, where each person genuinely considers the other's perspective.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, I can see how my choice of words might come across as defensive, but I assure you that wasn’t my intention. My point about not engaging with certain topics further was more about finding common ground to have a meaningful dialogue, especially around the structure of arguments and the role of premises and logic, which I find fascinating and worthwhile to discuss.
If I came across as dismissive, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize for that. Let’s focus on where we can have an enriching conversation if you're open to it.
Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
You are right that Trump did not explicitly state that he likes grabbing women. However, I think one can reasonably surmise from the fact that he was having a jovial conversation (spun as "locker room talk") that Trump was at least positively impressed by the idea that sexual assault of that sort is possible to get away with when famous. If we are going to play the game of sussing out 'what Trump actually meant to say' then I don't think it is unreasonable to guess that Trump was expressing positive sentiment about grabbing women. That is why I framed his statement the way I did.
As for whether Trump was convicted of rape or not, please see the source I cited, specifically this section:
"The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1 As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Please provide a source for that quote by Carroll. Implying that such a statement somehow justifies a rape is not a good argument.
Regarding your claims about January 6th, I would encourage you to watch the videos of the event if you haven't seen them yet. I tend to believe what I see, and what I saw that day was violence. At the very least, the pushing, shoving, swinging and throwing of projectiles, weilding of weapons and shields, and physical altercations in general on Jan 6 were uncharacteristic of nonviolent political actions, historically. Most nonviolent political actions do not include those kinds of tactics. If you disagree, please explain why the video evidence of the violence happening are so often misunderstood by common viewers like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I respectfully disagree, and I encourage you to take liberals and leftists at their word when they make claims about Jan 6 being an insurrection. I can honestly report that the liberals and leftists I know share my views broadly. There is no hoax or attempt to deceive. I could easily say the same thing about the right. I could say that the right projects onto the left about election meddling when in fact the right is interfering with elections (see Trump's fake electors plot, Trump's phone asking to find votes in georgia, the recent revelations about Giuliani's election meddling, the many Republicans who have been caught in voter fraud schemes over the years, etc.). But this would not be productive because it is too easy to accuse the other side of projection. The truth is that the other side is not projecting. The truth is that the other side believes what they are saying, and to argue against the other side well, it is prudent to take them at face value.
Thanks again for reading and leaving your comments.
You are not “backing (your) opinion with facts.” There are, literally no facts in your post. It’s almost incredible. Please find me one salient fact, and I will apologize.
You are attempting to “prove” you opinions are facts, by citing the opinions and interpretation of others who believe the narrative they are given as readily as you do. Left wing, post-democracy fascists believe what they are saying…because they are protected from reality.. They call Trump a liar, but they do not even try to prove that Trump has ever lied. They pretend that an exaggeration or an understatement is a glaring lie, but you have no idea what Trump believed at the time. Maybe Trump was shocked that women let famous men grab them by the genitals. Maybe lots of things. It is very hard to prove state of mind or “true intent.” You have not even offered an argument or attempted a proof of anything.
There are Thousands of hours of footage which were kept buried for years about 1/6. Almost of that footage was peaceful and much of it showed officers peacefully opening doors for protesters. The brief moments of violence, much of it in self-defense, was all released to the main stream media. Officers inviting them in…on orders from who? Crickets.
You were shown a sliver of the story and anyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. I suspect you believed the “fine people hoax” because you saw Trump say “good people on both sides.” That video was also cropped to hide the fact that President Trump fully denounced all white supremacists and hate groups three separate times. You can not “reasonably surmise” anything when you only have a sliver of the story.
I am not interested in the style of your line of discourse about opinions and facts. You are being uncharitable to me. I can't really discuss jan 6th or any other topic further with you unless you are willing to be a more charitable debater. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
If you want to discuss how opinion articles like mine and Maxim's are written, where arguments are built on premises, that could be an interesting conversation. The first section of my essay about the economy is structured as an syllogism, for instance.
No apology needed. Thanks.
Uncharitable? What gift were you looking for? Reading this article is subject to the premise that your opinions are facts? Assuming you believe none of this and are just presenting one perspective? "Not interested in the style" is almost certainly cognitive dissonance: you can not structure an argument to refute anything or persuade, so you get defensive and call me names.
You can apologize now. Thanks.
I can see there may have been some misunderstandings, so let me clarify my intentions. When I mentioned "uncharitable," I didn’t mean to imply I was looking for special treatment—just that I hoped we could both approach each other’s arguments with a bit more generosity and openness. My goal is not to assume agreement but to explore ideas constructively, where each person genuinely considers the other's perspective.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, I can see how my choice of words might come across as defensive, but I assure you that wasn’t my intention. My point about not engaging with certain topics further was more about finding common ground to have a meaningful dialogue, especially around the structure of arguments and the role of premises and logic, which I find fascinating and worthwhile to discuss.
If I came across as dismissive, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize for that. Let’s focus on where we can have an enriching conversation if you're open to it.
Thanks.