Trump owns the libs once again

by being found guilty of sexual assault and defamation, and ordered to pay $5 million. Will be interesting to see whether this makes it easier for other victims to sue for damages. The dumb motherfucker has been going on about how he wasn't allowed to defend himself, but he was (of course) given ample opportunity to speak on his own behalf, and chose not to.

Wonder if his republican opponents will attack him over this. Most Republicans know that holding sexual predators accountable is a losing strategy when you're trying to woo conservative American men, and DeSantis is probably busy trying to cover his own tracks.

Anyway, a very interesting day.

Aside from Richard Nixon, who did nothing wrong, is there a recent POTUS who wasn't a sex pest? This isn't a defence of mister Trump, he is obviously a horrible entitled old man, but how far back do we have to go? Did Eisenhower do something inappropriate?

I guess Bush the latter just painted weird pictures. And Bush the first just puking on someone wasn't sexual per se. So far as we know.

Even with rape culture being as pervasive as it is, Trump stands out, given the reports of not just creepy sexual harrassment (like deliberately walking in on naked 15yo girls) but also dozens of incidents involving outright sexual assault (in some cases extremely violent, eg. what he did to his ex wife). Think he's in a league of his own among the modern presidents—even if you take eg. Clinton into consideration.

But he has a lot of competition among legislators at both the federal and state levels: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05...n-texas-house/

Clinton getting a blowjob from a consenting adult is not remotely comparable to what Trump has done.

How much consent can there be when the POTUS asks you to take his genitals in their mouth? It's fair to say mister Trump is worse, but this shouldn't be a clearance for other sex pests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Clinton getting a blowjob from a consenting adult is not remotely comparable to what Trump has done.

---

While I do not have enough information to evaluate the claims, there were far more accusations about Bill Clinton than the Lewinsky scandal. The most egregious being Juanita Broaddrick, which shares at least some similarities with the E. Jean Carroll case. There were a number of allegations where the consent or ability to consent (given the power dynamics) of Clinton's various partners can be reasonably called into question - especially Paula Jones. Certainly his pattern of behavior - irrespective of how consensual the encounters were - suggests he was at minimum a serial philanderer, but more likely guilty of the kind of sexual misconduct which appears to have been common among powerful men, as the Me Too revelations continue to demonstrate.

I have no doubt that Trump is a rapist - likely a serial rapist - and certainly guilty of repeated, serial sexual assault over many decades. I have no reason to doubt that his behavior is particularly egregious compared to other recent presidents, including Clinton. But I think there's reasonable claims that Clinton did far more than receive a consensual blowjob.

Even if they were equally bad, it's the difference between opposing civil rights in the 1950s and opposing them in the 2020s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Even if they were equally bad, it's the difference between opposing civil rights in the 1950s and opposing them in the 2020s.

---

Come on Low-key, this is a Simpsons bit. "Boys were boys back then, and everyone laughed"? Rape, as a concept, has been understood for most of recorded history, and has been used as a deliberate war crime from the Romans to the Soviets. Shit, if we want to examine Clinton's time in office, the popular HBO show Oz featured a lot of content where men used their power and influence to make other men give them blow-jobs. Everyone understood that this was humiliating and debasing someone. Bill Clinton did not just pop out of a cocoon thinking it was a-okay to fondle and proposition women.

You think the fact the MeToo movement is mostly affecting people in their 60s to 80s is just a coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You think the fact the MeToo movement is mostly affecting people in their 60s to 80s is just a coincidence?

---

Think this may largely reflect the age-distribution among people (mostly men) in power—esp. in politics and media—whose scandals are also the ones most likely to be publicized. Ofc, a long life also means more time to do twisted shit. Comedians and the like who were exposed as predators/creeps tended to be younger iirc, whereas there was something like a bimodal distribution among academics.

The NYT did a report on 200-ish dudes who were fired due to sexual harrassment etc. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...lacements.html) and I guess it would be interesting to see the age distribution among those creeps. Guessing their victims were often considerably younger and that their transgressions didn't all occur decades ago.

I've been around a lot of highly-paid professors. Very few of those under 50 were creeps. Compared to at least a third of the ones over 60.

Do you have a study about the correlation of age and the prevalence of rapists in age cohorts? That'd be fascinating to see.

It would be a very complicated analysis because younger people are more likely to commit all kinds of violent crime (poorer, less self-control, stronger). I'd look more at HR complaints.

And because rape was surely under-reported more back in the day. I realize that. But it seems like a weird assertion that, because of #metoo of all things, that younger dudes are pleasanter now. And the other problem with that assertion is that the US style of gerontocratic ruling structures biases the take.

Why? One generation was socialized into believing that no means yes (marital rape wasn't a crime in any state until the 1970s) while the other was brought up to care at least somewhat about consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I've been around a lot of highly-paid professors. Very few of those under 50 were creeps. Compared to at least a third of the ones over 60.

---

One thing I've learned over the past several years is that male academics frequently have a very incomplete picture of what their female peers are subjected to at all stages of their careers. Those over-50 creeps didn't turn into sex-pests overnight—I reckon most of them have developed a pattern of predatory or hostile behavior over several decades. What's more, they create a climate—in their own labs or at their institutions—in which younger creeps feel safe engaging in similar behavior. Even at my quaint little uni—in what is arguably Sweden's most progressive and overtly feminist town—I know of half a dozen early-career researchers and influential scientists under 50 who've been implicated in inappropriate behavior towards women or outright sexual harrassment/assault. I'm not denying that age/generation plays a role, but, afaict, this type of behavior is not uncommon among eg. academics my age. And why should it be? Men my age are notoriously untrustworthy as a group, both in and outside the workplace. It's just that very few men my age have gotten to a point in their careers where someone might think it's worth publicizing their sex-pest scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Why? One generation was socialized into believing that no means yes (marital rape wasn't a crime in any state until the 1970s) while the other was brought up to care at least somewhat about consent.

---

Again, this is a fairly general claim without any numerical data to back it up.

Media found they cannot live without the numbers that Trump gave upon them. So it means they cannot live with him and they cannot live without him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

While I do not have enough information to evaluate the claims, there were far more accusations about Bill Clinton than the Lewinsky scandal. The most egregious being Juanita Broaddrick, which shares at least some similarities with the E. Jean Carroll case. There were a number of allegations where the consent or ability to consent (given the power dynamics) of Clinton's various partners can be reasonably called into question - especially Paula Jones. Certainly his pattern of behavior - irrespective of how consensual the encounters were - suggests he was at minimum a serial philanderer, but more likely guilty of the kind of sexual misconduct which appears to have been common among powerful men, as the Me Too revelations continue to demonstrate.

I have no doubt that Trump is a rapist - likely a serial rapist - and certainly guilty of repeated, serial sexual assault over many decades. I have no reason to doubt that his behavior is particularly egregious compared to other recent presidents, including Clinton. But I think there's reasonable claims that Clinton did far more than receive a consensual blowjob.

---

The power dynamics issue is fair but it wasn't well understood by the public back then. Any credible allegations should have been investigated, and I believe they were by Kenneth Starr and the Lewinsky thing was the best he had. Now let's stop trying to toss out whataboutisms to deflect and downplay for Trump. His crimes shouldn't be normalized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

The power dynamics issue is fair but it wasn't well understood by the public back then. Any credible allegations should have been investigated, and I believe they were by Kenneth Starr and the Lewinsky thing was the best he had. Now let's stop trying to toss out whataboutisms to deflect and downplay for Trump. His crimes shouldn't be normalized.

---

Are you speaking as a forum moderator or as a poster here? But I specifically said I'm not defending Trump, but the historical precedents like the god damn Kennedies, who assuredly actually killed people. Of course Ted was shot after Chappaquiddick before he could become president, but are you telling me with a straight face you don't believe in the stuff about the Clinton White House and that one room that's referenced in an X-men movie of all fucking things?

Obviously Trump is a criminal, and he's been found liable (is that the word? I just watch a lot of SVU) as such. No one is normalizing his behaviour, because the POTUS isn't a normal position. Nor is anyone operating at high levels of US government no matter the branch.

But on the other hand, it's a really preposterous idea to say that Trump out of all the presidents, and their various dynasties, is somehow a special case. Everyone involved with Vietnam was a war criminal and then some, and they hanged some folks at Nüremberg for that back in the day. And most past POTUSes had some really weird personal shit, including criminal things. So why is any of this "normalizing" what one rapist did compared to the others? They should all be condemned, no?

I never speak as a moderator anymore. Haven't had to since Cain left.

Normalization of his crimes is the entire modus operandi of the Republican party right now. It's why they accuse Biden/Hillary/Obama/Clinton of whichever crime of Trump's is making the headlines. The whole point is to normalize this shit, to make it seem like Trump and the era of corruption he ushered in is somehow not a special case. You're drawing false equivalencies. I don't know much about JFK's scandals or potential crimes, bit those are about as relevant today as Genghis Khan's.

No, it's the opposite of normalization. It acknowledges that this type of behavior is unacceptable no matter who does it, and it also serves as a reminder of how utterly malignant Trump is even by the already-low standards to which powerful American men are held. Clinton has been accused of outright sexual assault by several women. Others have accused him of sexual harrassment—one case resulting in a big settlement. The only way acknowledging these accusations amounts to "normalization" of sexual assault and sexual harassment is if we believe such acts are okay. Nobody here believes it's okay to sexually assault or harass people. In the context of this discussion, acknowledgement of Clinton's predatory behavior does not constitute a normalization of Trump's predatory behavior. Our moral attention isn't a zero-sum game—we're nerds with a limitless supply of time to waste.

Right, "every president does things just as bad!" is the opposite of normalization.

There's a clear and present danger here, and trying to distract from it is the same as aiding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Right, "every president does things just as bad!" is the opposite of normalization.

There's a clear and present danger here, and trying to distract from it is the same as aiding it.

---

Hey man I think you should re-read what I actually wrote instead of aiding dangerous sexual predators by responding to what you imagined me writing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I never speak as a moderator anymore. Haven't had to since Cain left.

Normalization of his crimes is the entire modus operandi of the Republican party right now. It's why they accuse Biden/Hillary/Obama/Clinton of whichever crime of Trump's is making the headlines. The whole point is to normalize this shit, to make it seem like Trump and the era of corruption he ushered in is somehow not a special case. You're drawing false equivalencies. I don't know much about JFK's scandals or potential crimes, bit those are about as relevant today as Genghis Khan's.

---

I mean, it really isn't a special case. He was stupid enough to say the quiet parts out loud, but I have some sad news for you about presidents of the United States of America raping people. If you reject the Kennedies as stone age examples, we have Wild Bill over there.

The GOP isn't a monolith. The whole mess in the House is McCarthy being utterly unable to rein in the psychotic wing of his party, and this isn't exactly a new development either, Cantor got thrown out on his ass during God-Emperor Obama's reign, and Boehner went to drink wine and mow lawns in his retirement days because he saw the minority wing was uncontrollable, way back then.

I understand that Trump interrupted brunch, and that is SAD!, but Richard Nixon (who did nothing wrong) did a little treason on his way to the White House, and then there was that whole Watergate business. Ronny funded Bin Laden, and there was that whole Iran-Contra thing. GWB started a war by lying to the UN. And getting his magical Negro to do so, too!

The stone age Kennedies murdered an innocent if promiscuous girl, and no one batted an eye. Of course the Kennedy who did it was one of the ones who did not get shot and served as a Senator for decades, but sure, Stormy spanking Trump was worse somehow.

Trumps biggest crime is that he's obnoxious. It's almost as unforgivable as the fact that Nixon actually turned out to sweat like he was a human being.

Americans have these strange expectations when it comes to their presidents. When Hillary broke her word about not standing by her man and actually did stay by him, she basically became unelectable for the Presidency. St. Obama on the other hand became the best president ever in Liberal American history for not doing very much for the two terms he served. Not even when he could have. But hey, he wasn't obnoxious and better at sweat control.

It's funny that you mention that, Nixon did sweat in the presidential debate in 1960 and he lost, to a god damn Kennedy and there have been actual academic papers about that sweat

The bottom line is, ban mass media

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Trumps biggest crime is that he's obnoxious. It's almost as unforgivable as the fact that Nixon actually turned out to sweat like he was a human being.

Americans have these strange expectations when it comes to their presidents. When Hillary broke her word about not standing by her man and actually did stay by him, she basically became unelectable for the Presidency. St. Obama on the other hand became the best president ever in Liberal American history for not doing very much for the two terms he served. Not even when he could have. But hey, he wasn't obnoxious and better at sweat control.

---

Yeah, the whole thing about putting pressure on state officials to fraudulently win an election and then actively encouraging violent actors to overthrow the government are quite obnoxious.