Child Rape Case Against Donald Trump

[EquALLity]

Well, that's not really fair; even unapologetic/enthusiastic meat eaters can have enough internal conflict to "care" about animal welfare and environmentalism. It's ridiculous, but people aren't always consistent. Sometimes two values that contradict each other can coreside in a person.

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. Meat-eaters don't see eating meat as harming animals, because that's how they were raised and they don't really question it.
Everyone knows pedophilia is harmful to children.

Even if he didn't care, that's not true that he wouldn't advance good policies. Maybe not for the children's sake, but an egomaniac is going to want to be regarded as a great president, and go down in history for all of the things he did, even if that means saving the children he's indifferent to.

Haha, well, he is an egomaniac. But his policies aren't good for children anyway.

Right now it's rumor, which I don't give much credence to in a presidential campaign. There are also rumors that Hillary is a reptilian alien.

I'm more concerned with Trump's running mate, which isn't rumor.

Actually, he was accused of rape by his ex-wife way before he was running for President (in 1991). They basically intimidated her into backing off.

[_Doc]

Actually, he was accused of rape by his ex-wife way before he was running for President (in 1991). They basically intimidated her into backing off.

She signed a settlement agreement to not say anything negative about Trump and she was paid. I don't know how much.

[EquALLity]

Actually, he was accused of rape by his ex-wife way before he was running for President (in 1991). They basically intimidated her into backing off.

She signed a settlement agreement to not say anything negative about Trump and she was paid. I don't know how much.

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, “You’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.”
“It is true,” Cohen added. “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”
Ivana Trump’s assertion of “rape” came in a deposition—part of the early ’90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.
The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.
“Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.
What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.
“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”
Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.
“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

Trump’s lawyer then changed tactics, lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.
“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”
“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.
When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had “felt violated” and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement.
“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”
The statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.”
Nevertheless, Cohen, Trump’s attorney, said that “there is nothing reasonable about you wanting to write a story about somebody’s usage of the word ‘rape,’ when she’s talking [about how] she didn’t feel emotionally satisfied.”
“Though there’s many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trump’s name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and I’ll be happy to serve it right up to you,” he added.
“I think you should go ahead and you should write the story that you plan on writing. I think you should do it. Because I think you’re an idiot. And I think your paper’s a joke, and it’s going to be my absolute pleasure to serve you with a $500 million lawsuit, like I told [you] I did it to Univision,” Cohen continued.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... g-sex.html

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. Meat-eaters don't see eating meat as harming animals, because that's how they were raised and they don't really question it.
Everyone knows pedophilia is harmful to children.

Actually, at least for many, and particularly the offending ones, they don't.

The consumers of child porn, even if they paid for it, say, "I didn't kidnap those kids and make them do porn, I just bought it."
And even those who molest children think it's harmless, or convince themselves that children are sexually curious beings and it's a beneficial life experience or even relationship. Look at the Man Boy Love Association.
Even going so far as to reference ancient Greece and Rome as an ideal time of free love, saying "this is how God made me", and "love can't be wrong".

Pedophiles are every bit as full of conflict and rationalization as meat eaters.

It's unfair to judge them by different standards and assume because they are demonized in the media that they are deliberately evil and do harm knowingly and without self delusion.

Actually, he was accused of rape by his ex-wife way before he was running for President (in 1991). They basically intimidated her into backing off.

Again, we don't know what happened there, and even if we did it wouldn't matter. Have you seen the images of Bill Clinton with the word "rape" on them? Whether true or not, it's hearsay and he said she said. It's inappropriate to drag this stuff out into public and use it as a literal ad hominem. We need to focus on the policies.

[EquALLity]

Actually, at least for many, and particularly the offending ones, they don't.

The consumers of child porn, even if they paid for it, say, "I didn't kidnap those kids and make them do porn, I just bought it."
And even those who molest children think it's harmless, or convince themselves that children are sexually curious beings and it's a beneficial life experience or even relationship. Look at the Man Boy Love Association.
Even going so far as to reference ancient Greece and Rome as an ideal time of free love, saying "this is how God made me", and "love can't be wrong".

Pedophiles are every bit as full of conflict and rationalization as meat eaters.

It's unfair to judge them by different standards and assume because they are demonized in the media that they are deliberately evil and do harm knowingly and without self delusion.

They don't usually love children, they just want to have sex with them (like Trump, he got the child allegedly as a sex slave, though I don't think it actually happened). I think NAMBLA is just putting on a political front; I don't think they believe their propaganda.

Again, we don't know what happened there, and even if we did it wouldn't matter. Have you seen the images of Bill Clinton with the word "rape" on them? Whether true or not, it's hearsay and he said she said. It's inappropriate to drag this stuff out into public and use it as a literal ad hominem. We need to focus on the policies.

Ad-hominem? Character is relevant when it comes to being President. And it's not hearsay about Trump's ex-wife; she blatantly accused him of rape (back in 1991, before his candidacy).

I think it would be inappropriate not to consider this.

[brimstoneSalad]

They don't usually love children, they just want to have sex with them (like Trump, he got the child allegedly as a sex slave, though I don't think it actually happened). I think NAMBLA is just putting on a political front; I don't think they believe their propaganda.

This is the equivalent of Christians saying that Atheists just hate god so they pretend not to believe in him.
Militant vegans can say the same about meat eaters, that they all secretly enjoy animal suffering, and if they didn't (like a vegan who used to be a meat eater) they would convert as soon as informed (and no matter what form that information comes in).

This goes against all of the evidence, and everything we know about human psychology; it's a massive conspiracy theory.

What you believe about people's motivations is irrelevant. You can think whatever you want, but if you're using it as an argument, you're making the same fallacy any other group does in attacking people based on secret motivations they claim not to have.
You can make assumptions about people's secret motivations all day, but you really don't know: only they do. The appropriate response is to tentatively take people at their words unless there's strong evidence otherwise. And certainly not to argue based on your personal assumptions about evil motivation you think they have deep down inside without evidence.

We don't know what Trump did, or what was going on in his head when it did it or after.
We know what he says: which now that he's up against Hillary is bat-shit crazy by comparison.

It may be effective political rhetoric to assassinate somebody's character instead of addressing the policy and actual arguments, but it's very bad form in any actual discussion.

Ad-hominem? Character is relevant when it comes to being President. And it's not hearsay about Trump's ex-wife; she blatantly accused him of rape (back in 1991, before his candidacy).

That's he said she said. Maybe she's crazy, and she accused him of rape to get a big settlement. We don't know what happened, or why. Just like the accusations against Shermer, or... Laci Green:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX226DyzEo4

An accusation is not a conviction. You know enough about criminal rights to respect that. If he was convicted of rape and there were evidence, that would be another matter, but still not enough to indict his honesty or dependability in the political sphere.

We know based on his policies that he'll be a worse president than Hillary. We also know she has more experience than he does, and Trump is an unknown since he has no track record. That should be enough to tell us who to support.

There are plenty of skeletons in the Clinton's closets too. The race shouldn't be about that.
Voting based on some notion of behavioral purity rather than actual policy is a profoundly bad idea.

I think it would be inappropriate not to consider this.

Why? Should we take every accusation as a mark of guilt against somebody and just throw out the criminal justice system, ruining lives based on the claims of anybody with an axe to grind?

In a fair system with properly administered justice it should not affect him. Not at all. Media that mention it should be dismissed as rags of yellow journalism. Attack ads are the worst of political rhetoric, and they circumvent the issues which is dangerous.
His policy choices and demonstrable beliefs or claims about reality should be the only things that affect him in this race. Likewise, Hillary's should be the only things that affect her in this race.

[Jebus]

Does it matter if a candidate is a pedophile?.

Wouldn't matter a bit unless he acts out on his urges. In fact, I would consider it an advantage and would gladly vote for a pedophile who is able to control his urges in order not to harm others.

I would never vote for a person if I knew he had had sex with children. This would be a sign of selfishness and I would hate to see a selfish person in a position of power. As mentioned later in this thread, many practicing pedophiles avoid cognitive dissonance by holding the viewpoint that children do not suffer from their actions. Regardless, I wouldn't want a person with such poor judgment in a position of power.

[brimstoneSalad]

I would never vote for a person if I knew he had had sex with children. This would be a sign of selfishness and I would hate to see a selfish person in a position of power. As mentioned later in this thread, many practicing pedophiles avoid cognitive dissonance by holding the viewpoint that children do not suffer from their actions. Regardless, I wouldn't want a person with such poor judgment in a position of power.

I get it, but if we're going for ideological purity, how could we support a carnist either? That's also an indication of selfishness or poor judgement/reasoning.

[Jebus]

if we're going for ideological purity, how could we support a carnist either? That's also an indication of selfishness or poor judgement/reasoning.

Ideological purity among politicians probably won't be found in our life time. If you are given two choices, you simply choose the lesser of two evils, in this case Hillary.

[brimstoneSalad]

If you are given two choices, you simply choose the lesser of two evils, in this case Hillary.

What about having to choose between selflessness and sound judgement?

Take somebody like Sanders, who rejects scientific knowledge and substitutes in conspiracy theories but appears driven mostly by selfless motives. I'm more concerned with policy, since that's what has the broadest effect. Even a selfish person can enact good policy to be rewarded for that. Make your constituents happy, reduce crime, improve the economy: you can point at that stuff later to secure your political career and rise to more power.