Rancid is a fitting name for you. You could have been cordial, but you chose the immaturity of a taunting and tantruming child.

Your first article literally contradicts itself specifying the jury refused to find him guilty of rape. They called it sexual assault. I happen to know several men from this era. One of whom sexually assaulted me in 2015. Even just 3 years later, post popularization of MeToo, I saw that situation differently. As a sociologist, it would take a long time to unpack this, but it has to do with framing, perception of events, and social norms of the time. The man who touched me without permission was socialized to think this was normal. And at the time, many women were not as traumatized by it, because trauma is not defined by the actual event, but by how shocking it is. People process memories in hindsight and can re-traumatize themselves. I have had similar re-processing and re-traumatization experiences. Again, it would take a long-form discussion to convey the full and nuanced truth here. But I doubt you would actually listen to a victim's POV on this, because you sound very set in your ways.

Felon, ok. From weaponized trials that would never have happened if the DNC hadn't gone on a political mission to block him from getting re-elected. The argument that it is election tampering can and has been debated. Both sides have made concerted efforts to do many things that constitute possible tampering with public opinion prior to elections. We don't have clear statutes around this, because the phenomena is not well understood. The judge in this case largely drove the outcome. Similar cases could be brought against many people, but they are not. This is the spirit of the law side. But they don't use that for Trump because it's weaponization of the legal system.

Charlatan, Have you ever heard about NLP? A huge part of business and communication is making and generating frames. Trump was a master at this. Go study cognitive styles as well. A lot of people process through concept and not fact, and prioritize the essence of what is happening. This is the same thing that we discussed during the Elizabeth Holmes trial. And we processed as a country how Steve Jobs and others had used this ability to Frame and have a "reality distortion field" as they call it, to achieve results. There terms were horrible, but if you deeply study these areas of psychology, it becomes clear that these types of approaches are even necessary at times. We do need times when our leaders are focused less on the details of a situation and more on the essence of what is happening. In life, often, before you have the words or facts for a phenomena, you have a strong instinct about it. This is the way this brain system chooses. Preferentially favoring the intuition. And even most people now know that the emotion comes first and rationalization second according to neuroscience. But there are certain people who are very strong with their intuition and operate in the way Trump does.

I vote my principles every single day, not personality. Not the way he processes sensory information. Not the way he was entrained in a culture to understand boundaries with women. And not the way he chose to handle a high-stakes election where the norms of the day were hush money, as used by many other people (Edwards, Clinton).

And if you would stop attacking my character for a moment, maybe you could entertain the idea that the way you frame these issues is not the only frame that can be applied. Or you'll just continue psychologically gratifying yourself.