|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Phat Unplugged | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
E. Jean Carroll is White. Very good point, but the pro-rapist could very well have a sliding scale of who he favors to rape. least favorite: non tRump supporter/sisterme'h favorite: non-christian most favorite: non-white But really, it's all guess work until Phat replies. Let's continue to be fair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
To be fair. There are other allegations.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up, why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Well, not so fast, maybe it completely depends on who the rape victim is. You know, by his publicly repeated rants, I'd guess dark-skinned, non-christian immigrants? You're moving the goalposts (forgive me for using a [voice=utter disgust]sports[/voice] reference). First the "victim" in question was Phat's own sister, but then you changed it to some random female "who was just asking to be raped" (as a pro-rapist would put it, just as a pro-rapist would oppose referring to her as a "victim"). So since the violation of Phat's sister would have hit home for him, unlike the case of some "dark-skinned, non-christian immigrant", the nature of the "victim" does not enter into his calculus outside of it being more personal for him. Rather, the key question would remain as being the identity of the rapist. If it's Trump, then he'd probably be fine with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
So since the violation of Phat's sister would have hit home for him . . . Hold on there Bobalooey, we really don't know if Phat, the pro-rapist, would be upset with his sister being raped. Afterall, he is a tRump supporter, . . . so let's continue to be fair . . . Phat COULD be a 'garden-varety' pro-rapist, 'incest-loving-extraordinaire' pro-rapist, a 'child-raping-enthusiast-friend-of-Epstein' pro-rapist. We just don't know yet. I certainly hope Phat replies quickly. It would be a darn shame to keep questioning Phat's repugnant predilictions and penchants, in perpetuity. Edited by dronestar, : correct adjective
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23154 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Unless I missed something Phat said, to me the Phat/sister/rape discussion seems questionable in terms of accuracy, fairness or appropriateness.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2362 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Phat is a great example of LBJ's theory:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Rape is absolutely reprehensible. But when Trump does it (or any other of many reprehensible things) then that's perfectly fine to Trump's supporters and to anyone who would want to vote for him. That is the point. What donester was probing is the question: How far could Trump go before his supporter would say, "That's going too far!"? Specifically to dronester's point, they're fine with Trump being a serial sexual assaulter and an adjudicated rapist, but is there any point at which they would finally stand back and say: "Stop! Enough! You, sir, have gone too far!" Where does that line lie?
I have a favorite line in Er ist wieder da (2015, German: "He is back", English Title: "Look Who's Back"). The premise is that a healthy Hitler mysteriously reappears in 2015 Berlin (even he doesn't understand it) and becomes a popular TV figure which he uses to return to power. The film used the Borat technique of filming the actor in character interacting with the public. Based on a 2014 book and released in 2015, I watched it on Netflix in 2016 in the midst of that year's Presidential campaign and was shocked to see its overpoweringly strong parallels with Trump's MAGAts -- since it was filmed the year before, it was not about Trump, but rather about the disturbing rise of alt-right nationalist groups in Germany (it ends with actual footage of those groups' violent demonstrations):
Wikipedia: I haven't been able to find it in streaming, but it is on YouTube (a good place to find rare movies, including 50's and 60's Heimatsfilme):
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiiUm7v0ilo if you'd prefer to go directly to YouTube for it) Build-up for that favorite line: during the Borat-like tour of Germany with a film producer capitalizing on this "street performer who weirdly never breaks character", Hitler shoots a dog (in self-defense, since the dog, a terrier, had bitten down on his hand and refused to let go). As Hitler is rising in TV popularity, someone releases that film resulting in the German public, renowned for their love of animals, turning against Hitler -- regardless of all the massive death and destruction that he had caused, shooting a dog was crossing that final line for Germans. But then he made a comeback and became even more popular, prompting his TV producer to exclaim my favorite line, "Who could possibly stay mad at Hitler?" Back to Trump, in my notes (pending-evcforum.txt) I found the following that I had saved from the 2020 election:
An anguished question from a Trump supporter: ‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?’ The serious answer: Here’s what we really think about Trump supporters - the rich, the poor, the malignant and the innocently well-meaning, the ones who think and the ones who don't... That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought "Fine." That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, "Okay." That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, "No problem." That when he made up stories about seeing Muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, "Not an issue." That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn't care, you chirped, "He sure knows me." That when you heard him illustrate his own character by telling that cute story about the elderly guest bleeding on the floor at his country club, the story about how he turned his back and how it was all an imposition on him, you said, "That's cool!" That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw. That when you heard him brag that he doesn't read books, you said, "Well, who has time?" That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, "That makes sense." That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, "Yes!" That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man's coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, "What a great guy!" That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, "Thumbs up!" That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, "That's the way I want my President to be." That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they're supposed to be regulating and you have said, "What a genius!" That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, "That's smart!" That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was in the middle of water and you have said, "That makes sense." That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, "falling in love" with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, "That's statesmanship!" That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids, has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas - he explains that they’re just “animals” - and you say, “Well, OK then.” That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise. What you don't get, Trump supporters in 2019, is that succumbing to frustration and thinking of you as stupid may be wrong and unhelpful, but it's also...hear me...charitable. Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering. -by Florida writer Adam-Troy Castro #AdamTroyCastro
BTW, Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has stated that she knows Trump's type and she has prosecuted his type.
ADDENDUM: Since that had been written in 2019, Trump has gone on to be adjudicated a rapist, to have his business convicted of fraud, to have so grossly mismanaged our (lack of) response to COVID as to have caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, to have directed an attempt to overthrow the lawfully elected government (06 Jan 2021), to have stolen and released government defense secrets (the Top Secret classification is for information whose release would result in exceptionally grave damage to the country, but TS/SCI is far worse), etc. To us non-lawyers, those last two constitute TREASON -- as a 35-year veteran who had worked directly with classified materials, I am preparing to unload on that. By choosing to support and vote for Trump, Phat has decided that all that is just fine by him. So we have to ask him how far Trump could go that he would decide was going too far. Edited by dwise1, : ADDENDUM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Specifically to dronester's point, they're fine with Trump being a serial sexual assaulter and an adjudicated rapist, but is there any point at which they would finally stand back and say: "Stop! Enough! You, sir, have gone too far!" A million thanks dwise, I myself thought I was being overly loquacious but yet there were still some who still couldn't understand the 'appropriateness' of my posts. Surprised my posts were not censored (again). In this specific case, I believe people who are hyper-authoritarian-followers like Phat cannot conceive of ANY reason they would NOT vote for a convicted felon and rapist. And yes, even if their own sister/daughter/mother was raped by tRump, they would STILL find a reason to vote for tRump. A cult follower ALWAYS follows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Whatever happened to "Character matters."?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
The right wing pecking order view of society has taken over.
Then again, has character ever really mattered that much? I can give a list of hundreds of rogues, liars and charlatans that have been elected to office in the USA. It has only been since the days of instant media that we have been able to ush back against them. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up, why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
That was before Jesus got too 'woke' for the tRump followers.
(bloody do-gooder)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Phat writes:
Message 1186 You have failed to convince me that [tRump] is so horrible and terrible Oh, how shocking . . . a cult-member is not convinced tRump raping is so horrible and terrible. Ergo, Phat would not be so upset if his sister was raped. As astonishing as this declaration is, there are tens of millions of WOMEN (with sisters, daughters and mothers) who also feel this way and WILL vote for tRump. That’s some heavy-duty, first-class, military-grade sociopathy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23154 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dronestar writes in Message 387: Oh, how shocking . . . a cult-member is not convinced tRump raping is so horrible and terrible. Ergo, Phat would not be so upset if his sister was raped. It was a civil trial that found Trump had committed defamation. He was not found criminally guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. He was civilly found to have more likely than not lied and defamed Carroll about sexually abusing her. The standard for civil trials is far lower than for criminal trials. Had Trump been criminally charged with rape it is highly unlikely that a jury would have returned a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At present there is no statute of limitations for rape in New York, but at the time the limit was 5 years, so Carroll could not have brought criminal charges after 2000 or so. One reason she didn't bring charges at time might be that she was aware that a he-said/she-said case wouldn't sway a jury. To me the attempts to bring home the point of the seriousness of rape by personalizing the discussion are inappropriate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1482 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
To me the attempt to marginalize the point of the seriousness of rape is astonishingly inappropriate.
quote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/trump-carroll-judge-rape (By the way Percy, if tRump wins, can you please delete ALL my posts, at least until I can flee the country)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23154 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
dronestar writes in Message 389: To me the attempt to marginalize the point of the seriousness of rape is astonishingly inappropriate. I'm not disagreeing with your point, just your methods. Emphasizing the seriousness of rape by inappropriately personalizing the discussion shouldn't be done. It was a civil trial about defamation, not a criminal trial about rape. The standards of civil and criminal trials differ dramatically, as do the outcomes, dollars versus jail time. I know what the judge said, but many other jurists have also weighed in. For example, some more in-depth perspectives and discussion can be found in Fact Check: Was Donald Trump Found Guilty of Rape? Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not established, not about anything. Pointing that out is not an "attempt to marginalize the point of the seriousness of rape." It's the opposite, calling attention to the fact that rape is so serious that judging it to have occurred deserves the highest standard of jurisprudence, which is not "more likely than not" or "a preponderance of the evidence" but "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." The in passing rape determination made by the jury on their way to a decision about defamation in a civil case is not the same as being found criminally guilty of rape. We shouldn't compromise our own standards of fairness, honesty and uprightness when dealing with someone who respects none of these, because then we become just as bad as them. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025