Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/Brimm ... f85081f2e9

PhilX

If charges are laid and a case is held where he is found guilty, and the judge deems that the crimes warrant a sentence, then yes. My main thought is that tax minimisation by Trump and others is a bigger issue with larger consequences than his bullying and misogyny.

I feel that this is the main game to watch, and much of the rest, such as politicians' sexploits, is a distraction. If companies and the ultra-wealthy are to be given tax relief, let it be for venture capital investments and other such productive schemes (maybe promoting youth employment and education) rather than rewarding the wealthy for simply playing paper games and shifting the money around.

This updates the number to four women:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... -touching/

PhilX

These cases will be impossible to prove one way or the other even tho' it is clear that by his own admission this is his behaviour.

Should Trump go to jail?

No, for two reasons:

(1) Someone simply claiming that something happened should never be taken as sufficient evidence that something did happen. There needs to be physical evidence of something happening, physical evidence that implicates that the supposed perpetrator physically assaulted (in cases such as these) the supposed victim.

(2) Even if the accusations were true, and there were evidence supporting that they're true, that the incidents were nonconsensual, etc., no one should be jailed/imprisoned merely for doing those things. I wouldn't say that no one should be penalized for doing those things, but incarcerating someone for them is disproportionate punishment in my opinion.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This updates the number to four women:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... -touching/

PhilX

For one, the most recent event was 2005, and one was three decades ago. Why are they just saying something three weeks prior to the election? Oh, that's a complete coincidence.

Even if the incidents were true/were nonconsensual, they'd be morons for making their accusations public with this timing, because it makes it appear that they're just calculated to sack Trump for the election. In other words, someone arguing that they're false accusations would have no problem coming up with an obvious motive for making false accusations given the timing.

Women who suddenly come out of the woodwork to bring up ancient 'assault' accusations against famous people are a disgrace to all women. Get the fuck over it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Women who suddenly come out of the woodwork to bring up ancient 'assault' accusations against famous people are a disgrace to all women. Get the fuck over it.

So you have no sympathy that people do this because they might think they'll be taken seriously or that they can fear less repercussion from the rich and powerful? As this is clearly what has happened in the various abuse cases over here.

bobevenson wrote:As I have stated before, the AEP position on legal proceedings is that the government should be responsible for appointing lawyers for both prosecution and defense, absorbing all legal expenses, so the rich would have no advantage over the poor.

Not all litigants in a court case are poor.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:As I have stated before, the AEP position on legal proceedings is that the government should be responsible for appointing lawyers for both prosecution and defense, absorbing all legal expenses, so the rich would have no advantage over the poor.

I can see some merit in that, but how would you deal with people going crazy filing lawsuits in that situation? The expenses are one of the primary things that keep lawsuits in check a bit as things are.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Women who suddenly come out of the woodwork to bring up ancient 'assault' accusations against famous people are a disgrace to all women. Get the fuck over it.

So you have no sympathy that people do this because they might think they'll be taken seriously or that they can fear less repercussion from the rich and powerful? As this is clearly what has happened in the various abuse cases over here.

And they think they'll be taken 'seriously' a month before an election? They make a mockery of women who have suffered real and traumatic rape and abuse. As for your own historical cases over there, the English are just bat-shit insane, and love nothing better than a good witch-hunt. If men can be tried and convicted without evidence for acts that were commonplace until recently, and which women rarely complained about at the time, then there must be a hell of a lot of men tossing and turning in their beds at night, wondering if they had inappropriately handled a woman at some point in their lives, drunk or sober. You might even be one of them.
Why aren't courts filled up with gropers from the distant past who aren't 'rich and powerful' then? What's stopping women from coming forward and having every unsolicited hugger and bum-pincher charged with assault?

Fair enough, as long as they know their place then.
p.s.
I'll bet you money he's raped a few in his time.

Arising_uk wrote:p.s.
I'll bet you money he's raped a few in his time.

...then why don't THEY come forward since rape is a criminal offense beyond what the unauthorized groping testimonies had to declare...three weeks before the election? This is always the default position of the mental plebs that if one has done something not morally or conventionally acceptable you're immediately assumed of having perpetrated far worse.

Maybe someone who "thought" they were raped will come forward a week before the farce ends. Maybe Lady Macbeth already has a few candidates available if required.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This updates the number to four women:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... -touching/

PhilX

For one, the most recent event was 2005, and one was three decades ago. Why are they just saying something three weeks prior to the election? Oh, that's a complete coincidence.

Even if the incidents were true/were nonconsensual, they'd be morons for making their accusations public with this timing, because it makes it appear that they're just calculated to sack Trump for the election. In other words, someone arguing that they're false accusations would have no problem coming up with an obvious motive for making false accusations given the timing.

Certain crimes have no statutes of limitations so if this applies, then what you've stated has no relevance under the law. As to why the women are coming with these accusations at this time, I'm sure the full story will eventually come out, but for now you have four different women saying things about Trump.

PhilX