What’s he supposed to do? Dress up as batman and go punch bad guys?
Well, I mean the Pope could dress up as batman if he really wanted to, but what the Pope does in his private time is his own business. But, didn’t the whole crucifixion thing that the whole religion is based on come about because of a punishment for a crime? You know that pontius pilate thing?
The Pope has never been to Epstein Island as far as I’m aware, so he’s already harder on crime than certain people we could mention.
Wait until MAGA losers find out Jesus Christ was SUPER fucking liberal.
Says the guy that, <checks notes>, has been convicted of rape, pardoned multiple people convicted of fraud, sexual assault, etc.
I wonder whom we should listen to…
He pardoned a literal war criminal. Eddie Gallagher shot at civilians so much his team fucked with his sniper equipment to make sure at least his first shot or two missed, to give people time to get away.
Don’t forget suspected prolific pedophile rapist piece of shit. I know you includes rapist, but he also raped a whole bunch of children.
“”“”“Suspected”“”“”
Nope, you can just say “rapist” and it’s factual
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db
Where’d that downvote come from you got? He was not criminally charged, yes, but in a civil court they found that he had raped her
Ummm… Neither?
Marat maybe?
While I hate to ever be in a position to defend the guy, Trump was technically never convicted of rape. He was adjudicated as having committed sexual assault in a civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll in New York, but he was never charged with, nor convicted of rape, which is a criminal charge.
This mostly has to do with the legal difference between rape and sexual assault in the state of New York.
But he was convicted of 34 other felonies, which are criminal charges.
edit: to be clear, Obviously Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. I’m just discussing the legal terminology as it pertains to NY State
No.
In an opinion issued on Wednesday, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, wrote that the trial evidence demonstrated Trump “raped” Carroll in the plain sense of the word.
“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,’” Kaplan wrote. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll-sexual-abuse-jury-judge-2023-7
Edit: it is correct to say he wasn’t convicted of rape, specifically, in that case, (partly because it was not a criminal trial, it was a civil trial) it is totally in keeping with the court’s findings to call him a rapist. The difference is a thin hope against the worst that he is that many MAGAts cling to.
No. I was correct to say that he was not convicted of rape, which you admit.
It was the judges personal opinion, not the “courts finding”, and what was being discussed, there is what I posted in my comment, the differentiation in New York State law between rape and sexual assault. clearly, the judge was frustrated in the difference between what you state as “the plain sense of the word” and the legal distinction in the state of New York.
So, you admit, I was correct, but you still wanna make an argument anyway. That doesn’t make you correct.
While many may call that rape, and I certainly do, the state of New York does not, which is why he was not convicted of rape. That’s not an argument to have with me, that’s an argument to have with New York State legislators.
Regardless of your opinion, this is an accurate representation of the fact, whether you like it or not
He raped her. It’s real simple.
If you want to polysyllabically dance about The Law, go nuts. What is your point when it is a given?
But he’s a rapist, and that’s a fact. A fact determined by a judge and jury in a court of law. End of story.
He raped her. It’s real simple.
Nobody here is arguing that. And if you think so, you need to go back and reread the comments.
If you want to polysyllabically dance about The Law, go nuts. What is your point when it is a given?
I made myself very, very clear, but a big words frighten you, I’ll make nice and simple:
Trump was never convicted of rape (a crime). He was adjudicated of having committed sexual assault and a civil case (a civil offense). legally, in the state of New York, they are not the same thing. One carries a prison sentence. The other carries a financial judgment. That’s why E Jean Carroll got $5 million from him.
The whole reason she sued him in the first place is because she couldn’t get him charged with the crime. And the burden of proof in a civil case as much lower than in a criminal case.
She won
But he’s a rapist, and that’s a fact.
Nobody is debating that here
A fact determined by a judge and jury in a court of law.
Incorrect. A jury determined that he had committed sexual assault, and that E Jean Carroll deserved $5 million in a civil case in the state of New York.
And that’s a matter of public record don’t believe me? Read the court case. Read the judges final ruling.
I made myself very, very clear, but a big words frighten you, I’ll make nice and simple:
Just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.
But he’s a rapist, and that’s a fact.
Nobody is debating that here
A fact determined by a judge and jury in a court of law.
Incorrect. A jury determined that he had committed sexual assault, and that E Jean Carroll deserved $5 million in a civil case in the state of New York.
And then again for 85 more million, yeah. So you’re saying that due to the civil nature of the case, and the expired statute of limitations on the criminal charges, when the judge and jury determined that his attacking and forcibly penetrating her vagina with his penis was - what - just “sexual assault”? (It was.)
And if I go read the court case with the letters r-a-p-e appear in the findings of fact? No? Well then he can’t have raped her can he? Except that he can, and did, and - here’s the part I think we disagree on - it was proven. In court.
So sure, it’s “just” sexual assault on the printed page but who’s fooling who? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is Allah God? Is a brontasaurus an apatasaurus?
If somebody says he wasn’t found guilty of rape, they’d better damned well understand his “sexual assault” for which he was liable was rape.
So you’re saying that…
no. you said that. all of that.
all I did was explain, repeatedly, that, in New York State, there is a legal distinction between a crime and a civil offense, and that there is also a legal distinction between rape and sexual assault. further, Donald Trump was never convicted of the crime of rape in the state of New York (nor anywhere to my knowledge). nowhere here did I nor anyone argue whether he actually did rape her.
just relax. You’re all bent out of shape for nothing.
So he’s been convicted and he’s a rapist, but he’s not a convicted rapist.
Then don’t put yourself in a position to defend him. Silence is free.
People already know that the justice system is skewed toward the wealthy.
We know that if someone has enough money, they can rape others, then offer them a payoff and an NDA in exchange for silence. We know that people who cannot afford intensive legal representation tend to take NDAs, because often a legal accusation is dragged out to the point where it is financially ruinous. It’s common practice amongst some people accused of various misdeeds to counter-sue on trumped-up claims of libel (or whatever) that are designed to force the accuser into a dire financial situation, to get them to accept an NDA. (Along with all the other reasons someone chooses not to go after a powerful assailant - threats of legal harassment, threats of violence, having been killed and dropped into Lake Michigan or the Caribbean, having your tips ignored by law enforcement, being told by law enforcement that you deserved it, etc.)This is a circumstance where the devil does not need advocates. They have paid advocates who are entirely too good at their job, plus social constructs and a legal system that helps to enforce their hegemony.
And don’t forget the lore context behind this photo. This was during the Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020. Trump’s goons tear gassed protesters outside that church so they would disperse, allowing him to get in this photo op.
I remember my first time holding a book
This guy is the antichrist.
I never believed in any of this until him. I swear he sold his soul for power.
One could argue, using 1 John, that he is one of many antichrists. I mean, he is the antithesis to Christ!
In the hours since my original comment Trump posted a photo of himself as Jesus, which is insane.
Hell of a return — his soul can’t be worth much.
What’s he supposed to do? Dress up as batman and go punch bad guys?
That’s a stupid way to fight crime, so it’s probably what Trump would expect him to do. What really helps against crime (at least the low level crime most people seem to be more concerned about than all the corporate corruption etc. that Trump is part of) are things the pope seems to be generally in favour of: Free education, housing, healthcare, basic income, etc. All that woke shit Republicans hate, probably so that they can have a certain degree of such low level crimes to scare people into giving up their rights and distracting from their own crimes.
What does the pope have to do with crime?
Pretty sure they want a crusade.
After the Roman Inquisition ended in 1908 The Pope has been weak on crime!
What’s he supposed to do? Dress up as batman and go punch bad guys?
This is brilliant - thank you for the laugh!
Trump: Bring back the Inquisition!
How much crime is in Vatican City?
Including or excluding the Catholic Church as an organization?
Statistically, Vatican City has the highest crime rate in the world.
Crime rate is measured per resident. Vatican City has fewer than 800 residents, but millions of visitors each year.
The crimes are almost exclusively pickpocketing in St. Peter’s Square.On a related note, this is also why undocumented immigrants ALWAYS increase a country’s crime rate statistic, even if they commit fewer crimes than people born there: Any crimes committed by immigrants are added to the crime rate, but their numbers don’t increase the denominator, since they aren’t counted as residents in the statistic.
So be aware of that statistical error when someone tries to use it to “prove” immigrants are criminals.
Stop trying to argue with Trump. It doesn’t matter if the crime rate in Vatican City is zero. He’ll just move the goal posts.
The only shit these assholes understand is a blow to their ego.
Like how they are in the Epstein files and that means they are child rapists.
Yeah let’s look at statistics, Donnie
40 years ago, something like this would have american catholics (hell, and non american catholics, too) calling for his head on a stake outside the white house.
Today, however, the magat catholics will just choose their lord and savior donnie dumpfuck over the pope .
I really don’t think “soft on crime” and “religion that consigns you to eternal fire for eating shellfish and mixing fabrics” go together, but what do I know?
What are you on about?
An absurdity of what the Pope being tough on crime would look like. Dressing up as batman and punching bad guys? An absurd level of toughness on crime.
But for the pontius pilate stuff, the whole crucifixion came about as an execution for the crime ginned up by the Sanhedrin (a Jewish judicial body).
They already have the popemobile… how do you know he isn’t already?
