Don’t forget found liable for rape too. Imo worse than his felony charges.
Comment on Felonies, gotta catch 'em all
niktemadur@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
One is a convicted felon, 34 times over, and there is more on the way. The other has never been suspected of any criminal act.
tHeY’rE tHE sAmE! bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe! LoL aMiRiTe
So many idiots can’t figure out who’s really rigging the game against them, even when it’s staring them in the face, blasting them with racist and fascist language and actions, with the breath of chronic bad health habits and the smell of soiled diaper.
CptOblivius@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
pyre@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
is that the terminology because of a civil case?
PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Jurors rejected E. Jean Carroll’s claim of rape. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse. But sexual abuse doesn’t sound as spicy as rape so people are content to misinform others.
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
you’ve confused the legal definitions with the layman use of the word.
To quote Judge Kaplan “clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.”
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
Idk, he’s sponsoring a genocide. I’m pretty sure that counts as war crimes. To be fair it’s not like any US president in the last half century hasn’t been some kind of war criminal.
I mean now that the other guy is a literal criminal it makes it less likely that the genocide sponsor’s refusal to remove his material support for a historically unpopular genocide will make him lose election to the literal criminal, and that’s true. But like, I just want you to understand what it is that you’re celebrating.
I don’t know a stronger way to say that the bar is in hell, but that phrase is so well worn that it’s lost any punch it ever had.
TachyonTele@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
The other guy, the one with 34 felonies, has said he’d help expand the genocide.
How do you miss these things?
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
How do you so constantly and completely deflect any and all criticism to the other guy?
I have the answer: because that’s how the two party system works to make you defend the genocide guy.
TachyonTele@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
There are exactly two options here. It’s either the life long politician that’s actually been walking back support of the genocide, or the conman convict that has proudly stated he would be happy to make the shit even worse.
Gee, I don’t know…
SalutaryFilth@r.nf 5 weeks ago
I don’t believe it’s as unpopular as you think. The one-state (final) solution has been the only acceptable answer for decades, and everyone turned a blind eye to turning Gaza into a prison while “settlers” terraform the West Bank.
The other guy moved his embassy to disputed territory, firmly claiming the whole of Jerusalem for one side. “Their 911” plays a huge part in maufacturing consent in casual observers, and “never again” was always tongue-in-cheek.
Honestly, does anyone still care about the enslavement and cultural destruction of Chinese Uyghurs? How about the Rohingya genocide?
This election comes down to narcissistic boomers who believe the world should die with them. Their pop religion tells them armageddon will happen in their lifetime and the other guy is offering a way to make it happen.
Life has been objectively getting worse for years. The end of the world (or at least the american experiment) is on the ballot - the question is whether enough voters want to burn it all down.
PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com 5 weeks ago
It’ll just get commuted to 1 civil penalty with a $3.50 fine as soon as people stop paying attention.
Alatain@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Well it was about that time I realized this judge was about eight stories tall and was a crustacean from the plethazoic era.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The other has never been suspected of any criminal act.
No crimes but war crimes
repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
So is Trump …and Obama …and pretty much all of them? It’s a war crime only when it’s done by US enemies
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
danc4498@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Funny how the republicans did their best to start investigations and all they came up with is that his crack head son was bad, which everybody already knew. Good thing I’m not voting for hunter biden.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
I’d vote for Hunter Biden if he was running against Trump. Sure he’d be a terrible President, but still better than Trump.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I’d vote for a pile of shit if it was running against Trump
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
The pile of shit does have a better foreign policy than Trump’s.
dumbass@leminal.space 5 weeks ago
Sorry man, in not running for president.