I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you can show me.

Your nagging is unwanted, Frank. Grow a pair.

There was the claims of the accused, the access Hollywood tape, other accusers, and Trump’s deposition, none of which establish any rape or battery occurred.

Clearly they thought that either a) the evidence of what Trump did didn't satisfy the legal definition of rape or b) the evidence of rape wasn't a "preponderance" of evidence.

What evidence? There was no evidence of either rape or battery. But they went with one and not the other, for whatever reason.

He was talking about the publicist, whom he didn’t grope and kiss directly after his comments.

Clearly the jury disagreed. There was more evidence that he was guilty than there was evidence that Carroll and the others were lying.

They disagreed with her rape accusation. So it’s clear they thought she was lying.

I’m quite aware he lost. But the fact remains there is no evidence of his supposed crimes.

It obviously did, which is nonsense because the access Hollywood tape occurred a decade later and was irrelevant.

It doesn’t mean partial, either.

I guess that’s why they went from rape to battery. It’s just more likely. Utterly bonkers justice system. But thanks for your expertise.

Yes, the sordid fears of a New York judge take precedence over an individual’s right to an impartial jury.

One reason I would have found against him was because he decided not show up. Silence can be used against you in a civil trial. It's hard defending an empty chair.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because it was Donald Trump.

So then why was it not allowed in this case?

Then why would they have voir dire in civil cases?

It would prove that the DNA wasn't Trump's, that it was some other person's DNA.

If you are a lawyer, Hanover, what is your opinion on anonymous juries and the 6th amendment?

As far as I know the judge didn't allow any of it, including the admission of Trump's DNA to compare to the male DNA found on the dress.

It's evidence she doesn't have a case and one of the reasons why we have statute of limitations. She neither remembers the date nor wrote about the episode in her diary.

There was no evidence of any battery, and certainly no rape, like she claims.

She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions.

Exactly.

You can prove it in court. The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone?

I think they were all in on it. None of them can remember the year it happened. The supposed episode never appears in E. Jean Carrol’s diary. None of them spoke about it until 2019. They all hate the man.

It’s not far fetched in clown world.

That’s because I know you cannot name one reason. You don’t have any reason.

Americans have the right to an impartial jury. That’s why during voir dire jurors are often questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial. They weren’t in this case, and in an anti-Trump city. It was corrupted from the very beginning.

She didn’t know when the date was, meaning no alibi could be established. They wouldn’t accept Trump’s DNA, despite finding male DNA on the dress. Statute of limitations have long passed. The alleged incident is almost 30 years old and now conveniently starts after Trump mentions his candidacy.

Give me one reason why I should believe any of it.

There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character.

I have no interest in the sexual lives of politicians. But yeah, the conversations between males can get quite sleazy.

Yeah, pretty funny.

Liable for damages in a civil suit about a decades-old incident in a year she can't even remember. Another feather in the cap, boys.

Gender dysphoria is no act. I have no doubt it is painful and debilitating, and that those who deal with it deserve respect and compassion.

The act is in the expression, not the dysphoria. My problem is their biology betrays their claims and their desires. The fact that their gender expression is incongruous with their sex means quite simply that their feelings and expressions don't conform to the fact of their sex—or it represents some other, hidden biological fact, like neuroanatomy.

In short, the dysphoria is the problem, not the sex. All medications, surgeries, and therapy ought to be used to rectify the one and not to permanently damage the other. It's a humanitarian issue, too. Should we arrive at a cure, who are we going to blame for convincing a vulnerable people to take such drastic, and physically altering measures, from which there is no return?

I support their freedoms. I just don't support the demand that I must conform to their beliefs and act as if it they were true.

My mind is quite closed on the topic of gender and sex. The supposed fluidity of it, I think, recognizes the ease to which people can choose costumes or defy expectations in society; but the surgery aspect proves just how solid and binary it all really is. On top of that I just cannot believe that one can alter his sex with surgery and medication or by wearing clothing and applying makeup. I think it has to be admitted that, on the whole, changing gender can only go so far as engaging in acts of deception and mimicry. I think it needs to be admitted that it is all an act, of sorts.

Your calm input is always welcome in such a stormy issue. It's just a pity that so many humans are still so obsessed with fiercely conserving traditional binary sexual identity or are obsessed with fiercely declaring the 'boundaries' of their own sexual identity, as a kind of 'this far AND NO FURTHER' dictate. My personal het cis identity is NOT threatened/compromised/challenged/offended/abused etc by the non-binary sexual identity of a minority group of folks who are just trying to be who and what they are.

My identity is under threat because I am expected to concede my own eyes, conscience, and language in order to play along with a state of affairs I know not to be true. Where I live I am subject to investigation by a human rights council should I refuse to use the language they prefer, or if I refuse to treat them as the gender they are trying to express. I am forced to lie.

I appreciate the arguments. I’m going to make my case anyways.

We do worry about the future states of others, the burdens, the impositions. Life can be tough. It’s difficult to justify having a child in these interesting times, to be honest. There is loss and suffering in many conceivable future states. But someone could just as easily conceive of future states containing joy and pleasure and make the same sort of leap that birth causes pleasure. I won’t do that.

My main contention is the ethics angle. I just can’t see how refusing to have a child is anything but a self-satisfying endeavor. I can’t see that this behavior is ethical and moral insofar as it protects someone or alleviates anyone’s suffering, because one can do it alone without interacting with a single person his entire life. Just looking at this behavior is enough to prove that the suffering they are concerned with is forever their own. It all seems like a glorified justification for jerking off into a napkin. But worse, implying that parents are harming their child by conceiving him, birthing him, and nurturing him for a prolonged period of his life is unjust. I can’t abide by it.

As for the imposition of conception, looking around at the biological processes involved in it I can’t find anyone imposing anything on anyone else. Everything appears to be doing what it is willing to do. The same is true for gestation and birth. The only imposition that could arise, I think, are the ones threatening to halt this process.

Anyways, it’s probably too far off topic to go on about it.

The only way to stop birth is abortion or death of the child, which is an imposition on the child.

Being pushed out of the womb? But if he isn’t pushed out of the womb, wouldn’t suffering and death occur?

Which act is the imposition, then?

An imposition happens when we knowingly bring about a set of circumstances that affect another human being without their say in the matter.

That applies to child-having, regardless of where one stands on the ethics question.

We are knowingly bringing about a human being. For the most part the circumstances parents try hard to provide, often with great sacrifice and effort, are knowingly designed to be protecting, nurturing and life-saving, the absence of which is suffering and death. I suspect that if the child could choose between nourishment and care and none of the above, he would welcome the former before the latter.

Which act in particular is the imposition? At what point are we forcing an unwelcome act upon another human being?

It can’t be conception because there as yet no human being to impose upon. It cannot be in gestation because the child is being nurtured and nourished in a life-sustaining environment, without which is suffering and death. Should the mother worry about his consent as he dines on her placenta? Is it the cutting of the umbilical cord? It goes away naturally anyways. Breast feeding? Diaper changing? Imagine the child’s well-being if we didn’t do any of the above.

Anyways, if there is any imposition, any unethical act upon the child at any point it should at least be apparent. We should be able to say “Look, that person is imposing on another”. But it is never apparent. That’s why it’s so unconvincing.

That’s right. Trans identity is interesting because though it demands the recognition and protection and rights of its own identity, it begets the blurring and obfuscation of others, to the point where men are now celebrated in spaces dedicated entirely to women. It’s the natural progression of identity politics.

The issue is not that a man wants to dress as woman, but that he expects to be treated like one, spoken about as if he was one, and be given access to things, places, and spaces designed specifically for women. Its demand for conformity and special treatment makes transgenderism an authoritarian and anti-social ideology, which is a shame because it reflects also upon the innocent and those struggling with dysphoria.

You’ve simply reasserted the claim that his argument was a retreat, so I tried to phrase it another way that might be understandable. If that itself is a retreat then so be it. It’s retreats all the way down while the interlocutor stands firm.

It seems more of a push than a retreat, is all I’m saying, like he was being bullied into being politically correct rather than correct.