Political Memes

Nope, just the one. He since passed away himself. 😟

His kids ended up being pretty maladjusted for several years, but came out the other side OK. I did lose track of them after he died though, I would imagine that hit them hard. Like their mom it was equally sudden.

In some ways, the point isn’t just convincing people on here that Trump Is a paedophile and rapist. Generally, anyone on Lemmy capable of exhaling and inhaling knows he is.

The point is also whether you can convince such a huge male population to alter their viewpoint by women’s testimony. Though it should make sense, men have had to build up an intense emotional reaction to the possibility of “women’s testimony” and how much more powerful it is societally than theirs.

I’d definitely agree that’s fucked up. And as someone in a more stable life situation, I’d say two or three is all it takes to answer your question. But for so many people who feel out of control of their lives, whether or not I agree with the silly idea “Men are under attack” I can actually understand the sentiment of “Oh, just their word against his? It’s a conspiracy.”

Two separate things, if not even three.

The first point is rule of law, and that's what the "believe women" statement generally refers to. "Believe women" is a nice and simple statement that completely ignores all complexity in a minefield of legal complexity. Relationships (especially ones that end bad) are incredibly complicated and there are ample cases where women lied for some benefit and ample cases where men actually did what they were accused of. Turning that into blank "believe women" or "disbelieve women" would be terrible either way. It would be just as smart as "believe employers" or "believe employees" in work-related lawsuits. So rule of law dictates that judgements need to be evidence-based.

The second point is Epstein. There's ample evidence, ample victims and ample witnesses. If Epstein was still alive, there's very little doubt that he'd be convicted. Sadly he is not and the USA doesn't prosecute dead people, which in cases like this is a real issue since that also means there's much less research into potential co-perpetrators.

Third, there's Trump. In a somewhat decent time line any politician politician worthy of their position accused of a fraction of what Trump was accused (and convicted) of, Trump would have resigned years ago. Sadly Trump is not decent and the US has jack squat of safety mechanisms when it comes to top politicians that are grossly unfit for the office. That's where the Epstein-files come in. They need to be released, but not to convict Trump for anything because it just won't work. There's no justice when it comes to high-ranking politicians in the USA. It's too much of a legal backwater country to hold actually powerful people accountable.

But Trump's followers were sworn in to the Epstein files for years now. That was one of the really big topics during Trump's campaign and it has become much more than just a list of rapists/criminals. If the Epstein files are released and Trump is on them, that could actually turn his base against him, which would be much more valuable than getting him not convicted one more time.

It's less bias against women (demonstrated by male accusers of female perps having even worse odds), but rather that it's an accusation of a serious crime and thus has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is complicated by very many cases having exactly 2 witnesses (accuser and accused) and often little or no other evidence.

The usual counter to this is to claim that accuser testimony should always be believed and should itself be proof beyond a reasonable doubt because no one would ever lie about this sort of thing, but that doesn't jive with reality - for example, look at the Duke lacrosse case, or Brian Banks, or Tracy West accusing her ex (to use a few that got significant media attention), or those exonerated by the Innocence Project (a majority faced sex crime charges). For the first two of those, the accuser actually admitted to lying, (even if Crystal Mangum waited until 18 years later while in prison for an unrelated murder and Wanetta Gibson waited until the person she falsely accused had served 5 years in prison and was on the sex offender registry and partway through his 5 years of probation and then had to be secretly recorded because she didn't want to reveal to truth publicly and risk losing the damages she was awarded from the school district).

While yes, that still doesn't mean we just believe every accusation. It just means we fix the justice system first and then do it properly. All that really needs to happen is that tax money pays for lawyers, and the rich party could pay for extra legal help, but it will go equally to both sides.

Innocent till proven broke.

Yep, all of which is wrong.

Me too, but at least he will die

In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.

For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.

I like the version "Take all women seriously" over "Believe all women".

It addresses both problems - some women false report, but if you take all of them seriously, nobody (theoretically) gets away with committing a crime.

I guess it's not as catchy, though.

I agree with this. 28 different accusations of sexual misconduct (rape, sexual assault, touching, harassment) should be enough one of MANY reasons to keep Trump away from power.