2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure you've argued feminists welcome rape threats, for a start.Dodgy in what way pray tell.
So thinking that there are third wave feminists out there who have a little bit of nous is the same as taking a dodgy stance on actual rape? Are you for real?
There's a match on, lads.
I'm off work on Wednesdays anyway so will be sitting down to watch this.
Smashed by a woman. Take that, Trumpy.
Your link doesn't debunk any of that. Although the second point was an off hand assumption, could be wrong. First point is just common sense.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rape.html#_05
It's all bullshit. Every word in that post is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Thankfully the prosecution service knows better.
Apparently Christie is trying to distance himself from Drumpf now, especially as both their numbers are tanking in the polls. It appears Donald's latest antics have been a bridge too far for Christie.
The timing is obviously to do maximum damage to Trump's campaign, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they were sexually assaulted by him. It's still something that has to be taken seriously irrespective of who did it or when it was done.
Think he meant roofies there, Silvs.
I saw no mention of roofies in his exchange there. Looked like they were talking about evidence.
Unless you're a democratic nominee that a majority of women find attractive, am I right?!
coughstillbangingbimbosinhisnewyorkapartmentcough
His reference to drugs to me suggested roofies.
Regardless of the drugs he was talking about, it's a myth that most rapes leave such obvious evidence behind.
If the victim was drugged with rohypnol and raped and able to report the crime within 24 hours there will be strong evidence available via blood tests. Hair and urine samples will provide evidence even longer after that.
Physical evidence such as bruises or tearing may be left behind, too. I feel like you're picking on his use of 'most' and allowing your indignation to get the better of your argument here.
That's right. But not what hobbers was arguing. The case in that thread was of a fake rape accuser, and he took the opportunity to say all he said-she said's should be dismissed by the court.
To be fair there were two paragraphs in his response. The he said she said part is off, definitely, as I think most of those cases don't make it to court.
So, the election eh?
The second part is even more off.
The majority of rapes don't involve drugs or physical injuries. The majority of rapes are one person taking egregious advantage of a lover, friend or family member. And any physical evidence usually wears off before they can emotionally collect themselves.
Yeah can we go back to talking about the lunatic please.
That was exactly what I was arguing.
Dismissed by the CPS. Or do you think he said she saids should go before a jury in the absence of any collaborating evidence?
I guess a justice system based on that sort of white knight hysteria would succeed in getting Trump off the streets at least.
The current guidelines already let the majority of rapists walk free, it would be ridiculous to raise the bar even higher. Sometimes all there is is victim testimony, and in those cases it's up to the prosecutor to decide of they can get a conviction and the jury to decide if the person is guilty or innocent. In those cases, even if the reported rape had occurred a conviction is unlikely. But to dismiss them, and claim that in most rapes there is physical injury or drug involvement is not confirmed by a single study.
Last edited:
See above. Like I said, it seems you're taking issue with his use of 'most'. Everything else you're arguing against is qualified in his posts.
I've seen no qualification in any of his posts concerning rape. Merely a regurgitation of common myths circulated by trolls in places like 4chan.
That's because you're blinded by your indignation. For example, with respect to evidence, hobbers notes that it will be available if the victim comes forward "within a couple of days". This is undeniably true, whether it is evidence of rohypnol or any kind of physical injury. It may indeed be true that it takes some victims many days to compose themselves, which is sad, but that doesn't detract from what hobbers posted.
I've heard this a lot, and made one more attempt to prove myself wrong, but unfortunately it is not the case. In the majority of quickly reported rapes, an examination might uncover DNA evidence that people had sex, but no hard proof that it was rape. Here's an FBI report with a section on the subject and an easily digestible write of it's findings.
Didn't Grinner start a raping thread? You can take it there.
Should he lose, it being a woman that beats him will make it extra great. Beaten by a woman, on the back of women voters, after a lifetime of degrading women.
Now I just have to worry about the polls being massively off for two and a half weeks.
Ramping up the trail....
From the Guardian's live tracker...
Falling apart at the seams...
[no caption]
"The expert are not really experts"
Wow, he walked away from two interviews today...
- Status