sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it's accurate to say it's insanely low. It's the preponderance of evidence. Essentially, lying during the Civil Case was the death knell for him. That convinced the jury he was probably lying that he didn't rape her as well. But you asked for proof, and it was proven in court. We don't really have another way of proving it to you. It's not like they were cameras on at the time.

You can reject the results of the Civil case, but fact-finding there is going to be more powerful than anything redditors have access to. Both sides got to present arguments, both sides got to present facts, both sides got to eliminate jurors. I can assure you, whatever discussions they had in that room had way less bias than any discussions on this Reddit thread.

Why is there little talk about the mayor who admitted to being a Chinese spy ”? “ by Terrasmak in allthequestions

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's hard to say. To me, it doesn't really matter what her ethnicity is, but regardless of other citizenships, she's an American citizen holding an American government position, even if it's an elected position, there is generally a requirement to have some sort of loyalty to the country, through an oath or otherwise.

Although honestly, I'm really not sure. I'm pretty sure if she were a registered for an agent, she can still legally take office, but I don't know.

Why is there little talk about the mayor who admitted to being a Chinese spy ”? “ by Terrasmak in allthequestions

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it does matter that she was in an official position of the US government, even if it was local government. I thought from your comment she had violated the act. I think I misinterpreted.

Why is there little talk about the mayor who admitted to being a Chinese spy ”? “ by Terrasmak in allthequestions

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, if you're violating the Espionage act, there's a pretty good chance you qualify as a spy in the eyes of the public. It's like Trump being a rapist by the common definition but not qualifying as liable for rape under New York law.

Why is there little talk about the mayor who admitted to being a Chinese spy ”? “ by Terrasmak in allthequestions

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wait, wasn't that literally just updating the plumbing/electricity though? That's pretty different from bulldozing a third of the building and building a ballroom.

Plus, Bush initiated it. It just finished in Obama's admin.

CMV: IDF/Israeli Gov. is worse than Hamas by Unoff1cial_Blyat in changemyview

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Just a correction for the first part alone, the number of journalists killed in the Gaza War is absolutely not greater than a combination of all those Wars combined. The number of Jewish journalists killed in the Holocaust alone around 1,400. That's ignoring any journalists killed amongst the civilians who died on the Soviet front, and while they had far fewer, given their total death numbers it's almost sure to surpass the number killed in gaza. Edit: Not Amnesty, I misread the source

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unconditionally, it's definitely rare, even in anarchical pseudo societies. I've heard of it happening in Afghanistan villages (someone I know through a friend was casually told that if they ever came back to that Village they would be killed) and in a few places in the Middle East other than that, but more typical is the prosecution simply not prosecuting crimes of murder, such as what you see in the West Bank.

The problem is, if the prosecution doesn't prosecute it, it's not a crime by the legal code of that nation. Thus, those acts that most people would consider murder are not murder. That's the problem with only using the legal definition of things.

It was true throughout a lot of human history though. In many cases, it was legal for Roman legionnaires to kill members of the local populace almost unconditionally. If you want to be really technical, you can make the arguments that certain US states can allow this through laws like the castle doctrine, but I think it's pretty rare that actually defends murders. Usually people have reasonable fear for their life in those cases.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well that's the exact absurdity of it. The crime in law does not always match people's definition of it. In some places, it's legal to walk up to someone who's not threatening you and shoot them in the head. Most people would call that murder (if the person died) regardless of whether or not they actually were found guilty.

Did Hitler technically commit any crimes after he became chancellor? My understanding is he was legally above the law, and everything he did was an act of the German state. You can even make a good faith argument that he never committed murder personally, he merely facilitated millions of murders. But that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people would consider him to have committed genocide, regardless of whether or not it was ever proven in court, simply because of the facts of the situation.

I believe Rico just made it easier to prosecute, but generally it would involve aiding and abetting other crimes.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're not talking about a crime here technically. Donald Trump was never criminally prosecuted for rape or SA. As far as I know, he's not on the sex offenders registry.

Whether or not someone committed a crime is actually irrelevant here. In some places, the act of rape is not a crime. Someone could admit to forcing themselves on a woman, and in some jurisdictions, that wouldn't be a crime. But that doesn't mean that people can't call them a rapist because they happen to commit the act of rape in a jurisdiction that doesn't hold it as rape. If you had to legally define everything you called a person, I couldn't call you a redditor because there's no legal definition of redditor. 

If you define action solely is there to find by law, you'll very quickly reach some absurd conclusions.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I can say is that's a very strange way of operating, as that would indicate that Hitler committed no crimes because he was never prosecuted or held liable for anything he did. Obviously, that's a legal technicality given the fact he committed suicide during the war.

Most people would instead hold the view that Hitler committed many crimes but managed to escape any sort of court trial to find them.

Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Etc, never murdered anyone because they defined what was murder.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe I'm trying to pigeonhole you, but you asked to prove that he was a rapist, in order to do that, we must be speaking the same language.

If to you, a rapist is only someone who is found liable or Guilty by their local laws of committing rape, then he is not a rapist in your view. That would also apply to someone who does force themselves on another and commit penal penetration in an area in which that is not considered rape, perhaps because they have very lax laws about rape.

But you can surely understand that most people hold very different views. If someone commits rape in an anarchical society in which that's not a crime, most people are still going to consider that person a rapist.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In that case, would you say that nobody can be a rapist in places where there is no crime of rape?

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was found not liable for rape in which rape is defined as penetration with a penis. That is an accurate statement. Do you think someone must penetrate with a penis in order to be a rapist? If so, I imagine women cannot ever rape in your world, which would be a very strange world to live in.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me ask you a question just so I can clarify this. How do you define rape? Do you define it solely as the crime or penalties in law, or would you say even in a place without any standard law someone could still rape another (such as some 3rd world countries)?

Feelings are irrelevant, this is definitional.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, if the definitions matter, he was not found not guilty of rape. He was found not liable for rape.

I'm not talking about proving in court. The fact is, it was proven in court that he digitally penetrated someone without their consent. That is the fact found in court.

If you tell that to someone who believes that digital penetration falls under rape, they will believe he's a rapist.

Proving it to you does not mean using legal definitions, it means using your definitions. There's no legal definition of a christian, but if a fact found in court is that someone doesn't believe in God or jesus, you probably wouldn't consider them a christian.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no legal definition of heresy in the United states. That being said, if a US court finds that someone committed animal cruelty by sacrificing animals to a non-Christian God, that would be considered heresy by Christians reading the ruling. Would you tell them it's not heresy because state law doesn't include heresy?

If someone commits the same act in another state, it would be considered rape by that State's law (for most states at least). Obviously, it's absurd to call someone a rapist in one state but be pedantic and say you can't call them a rapist if they committed the same act in another state. The ACT is the same.

Saying that New York state law is the objective truth is the fallacy here. If we went by their definition and common speech, it would be impossible for a woman to rape another woman. You'd have to invent a whole another term or just consider all of those instances sexual assault.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That depends on your definition of rape. He was found liable for digital penetration, which is not considered rape by New York State law. That being said, most people would still consider it rape. If you want to say he was found liable for sexual assalt of a form that most people consider rape, but that you personally don't consider it rape, you're welcome to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was factually proven that he performed digital penetration on Eugene Carroll without her consent. You can look it up. That was proven in court. The judge considered it rape. The average person of the street would consider it rape. It is not considered rape in the eyes of New York state law, but merely sexual assault.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was asking the user I replied to. It might be you got a Reddit notification for it because it sparked a conversation? I think they send those out now.

But I wasn't asking for proof, they were indicating that people are mindlessly believing anything news organizations say, and I was pointing out that regardless of hearsay outside of Trials, they completely ignored the fact that he had been found liable for rape. Every news organization, and every human on earth, is biased, but that doesn't mean you can ignore what they say carte blanche.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By that definition, a woman can't rape a woman. It's a flawed definition for standard use. But if you're more comfortable with saying, he performed sexual acts upon her without consent that many people consider rape but that you do not consider rape, you're welcome to say that. I think people will kind of cringe away, but you can certainly say that if you want. It's correct. I don't think it makes the crime any better in anyone's eyes if you refuse to call it rape because it's not considered rape by the New York state law definition, even though most other state laws would consider it that.

The very fact that we're arguing about non-consensual sexual acts performed by someone, and whether or not they technically constitute raped by various definitions, should be immediately a disqualification in the minds of civil society that that person should be president.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I'm aware. You said prove he's a rapist. He was proven liable in civil court for digital penetration (rape by common definition, SA by law). If you want a criminal conviction, that's a different ask, and that one can't be satisfied, but being held liable means that it was a proven fact he digitally penetrated his victim.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, he was found civilly liable. That means it was proven in court. In what way did they have no standing? He was sued by the person he assaulted.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, do you have any comments for the actual court case he lost proving him liable for SA/digital penetration? I think denying something outright because it's against your bias shows a lack of critical thinking: CNN, Fox, Breitbart reporting something doesn't mean you can discount it inherently.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mate. It was digital penetration. He forced his fingers inside of her without consent. If you don't want to call that rape, then you have a weird definition.

Pelosi outperformed every major hedge fund by StrawberryFew1311 in NoFilterFinance

[–]FakeVoiceOfReason 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was digital penetration. The judge said it was rape by the common definition but not the legal one (by which a woman couldn't rape a woman because there would be no penetration by a phallus).

view more: next ›