First rule of internet debate (at the Weigantia level) is,

"If you're too dumb to mount a rational counter argument, or your counter argument is prima fascia too idiotic to bother making, just go 'Ad Hominem'"

Nice bit of introspective projection from the poster who deduced that a woman who could defend herself is a "transwoman" and referred to others as "nutjobs" while making the asinine word-twisting claim that we were victim-blaming those not trained in self-defense versus their criminal sexual assaulters.

So you're right, Stucki:

(1) "you're too dumb to mount a rational counter argument" and

(B) "your counter argument is prima fascia too idiotic to bother making," so

(C) you "just went ad hominem" with your declarations of "transwoman" and "nutjobs" and then twisted our words into an asinine victim-blaming irrational illogical and misleading counter argument that constituted a ridiculous straw man logical fallacy.

Thoughts to ponder:

(1) It's asinine and illogical to question whether or not a woman who can defend herself is a "transwoman."

(2) Your projection is hysterical. Too bad you're likely far too Neanderthal to see how you exactly resemble your own assessment.

(3) It shouldn't be the least bit surprising if your irrational and idiotic counter arguments and going ad hominem yourself has a ripple effect on a political chat board.

"If you're too dumb to mount a rational counter argument, or your counter argument is prima fascia too idiotic to bother making, just go 'Ad Hominem'"

He was found liable for sexual battery and defamation. Let's keep this at least semi-real, okay?

You want real? I already gave you real. In the State of New York, "rape" is a type of sexual battery, "okay"? For you to say he was "found liable for sexual battery" that statement could actually include "rape." As I explained, he was found guilty of sexual assault, which is also a type of "battery."

The judge walked the jury through three types of sexual battery and their definitions: rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching. For a finding of rape, the jurors needed to believe that Carroll had proven "it was more likely than not that Mr. Trump engaged in sexual intercourse by physical force." Intercourse was defined as "any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening." As I already told you, Carroll was asked if she actually saw Trump penetrate her with his penis... "intercourse." She knows he penetrated her; she said she did not see whether it was his hand or little prick (my term, not hers). Just keeping it real.

To come to a finding that Trump "sexually abused" Carroll, they needed to believe by preponderance of the evidence that Trump subjected Carroll to sexual contact by physical force.

The jury found by preponderance of the evidence that Trump "sexually abused" Carroll, also known as sexual assault by physical force.

Read the jury findings for yourself:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html

Trump was found liable for every single claim she made against him with the single exception of rape, which is a type of battery, and that finding by the jury is likely due to the fact that she admitted she didn't see his penis but did think he raped her. Trump was definitely found liable for sexual abuse... that is using physical force to penetrate her.

Rape, sexual abuse by physical force/assault, and forcible touching are all "battery." Just keeping it real.

You need sexual assault as defined by the State of New York explained more? Just let me know. :)

I suppose it's true that a VERY tiny minority of normal women are capable of fighting off a rapist attackeer, but you nutjobs appear to be implying that the huge percentage of women that are INcapable of that are somehow responsible for being successfully raped, right?

Your Neanderthal cannot help itself, right? It's either that or "old age" came for your intellect, and you were "INcapable" of fighting it off. Did you scream or "raise some sort of ruckus to draw attention"? Heh.

I know it's hard since your knuckles are obviously dragging the ground, but the post to stop digging when you're in a hole is good advice.

If only they hadn't failed to get trained in the martial arts, they's still be virgins, right?

If only you had brain, you could dispense with the straw man arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

*musical number*
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.

So, he was NOT found liable for rape or sexual assault, as Carroll alleges happened decades ago ...

He was actually found liable for sexual assault, EM. The only issue for which Trump was not found liable was rape. This is likely because E. Jean Carroll testified that she was absolutely positive that his fingers penetrated her (considered rape in some states but not all of them) but that she was not sure if he penetrated her with his "little baby man carrot" [my choice of words, not hers... with props to Russ, of course].

So, the public knows the truth that she was not raped by Donald Trump as she claimed. Is there really any wonder why this verdict won't stick to him?

The rubes of the cult don't care what he does anyway; otherwise, it will "stick to him." A jury finding by "preponderance of the evidence" that she was sexually assaulted and defamed with malice by Donald Trump but not liable for rape likely based on the fact she testified she wasn't sure if he penetrated her with his penis could also prove his prick is remarkable only for its tiny size. She only knows what she felt because she was busy fighting him off her, and she thought he raped her but testified truthfully when asked specifically if she saw his penis penetrate her.

The fact she couldn't tell his dick from his fingers doesn't mean he didn't rape her; he just wasn't found liable for that by a preponderance of the evidence. Other than that, he was found liable for sexual assault and every other claim she made against him.

Let's explore why that is.

That is, at this point in time, a silly question, isn't it?

The pertinent question that Dems should be seriously pondering a year and a half out from the next presidential election is what is it about Trump that makes Republicans and Independents think that he is the better choice over other Republicans and Biden to be the next president.

So, the public knows the truth that she was not raped by Donald Trump as she claimed. Is there really any wonder why this verdict won't stick to him?

i>Donald Trump is now liable for sexual battery and defamation against Carroll, to the tune of five million dollars.

So, he was NOT found liable for rape or sexual assault, as Carroll alleges happened decades ago ...

If only they hadn't failed to get trained in the martial arts, they's still be virgins, right?

i.e. when presented with a trans woman it makes some sense to presume she might have above average strength.

Since she was presumably born with XY chromosomes versus XX, that would at least make "some sense."

However, when presented with a woman who can handle herself in a fight, it makes zero sense to presume she might be trans. If nothing else, it's an insult to your own intelligence.

Exactly, it's Neanderthal... and also very Trumpian.

Have you never noticed that transwomen tend to be much larger than regular women?

How many "transwomen" have you observed?

That's an observable fact, not an "insult".

Are these Neanderthal "transwomen" you're observing or possibly bumpkin "transwomen"? Maybe they're just "much larger" in the mountains where you're from. :)

is that supposed to be an insult?

I don't think the Neanderthal meant to insult himself... but managed it anyway. :)

Obviously you were tough enough to easily defend yourself, (perhaps you are a 'transwoman' ??), but not every normal woman would be capable of such a vigorous defense, right?

Explain to everyone reading this what a demonstrable dumbass you are without actually using the word "ignorant."

Did it perchance occur to your wee small intellect that some lady people are actually trained in self-defense? [Spoiler alert: I am.] You do realize that it doesn't take all that much "vigorous defense" for any/every "normal woman" to use her knee in order to "kick" a male square in the genitals and/or to "kick" him off her, right?

None of this is rocket science, Stucki. Perhaps you are a Neanderthal; I'd say your posts like this one and throughout this forum and your prolific use of phrases like "raise some sort of ruckus" provide ample evidence.

Obviously you were tough enough to easily defend yourself, (perhaps you are a 'transwoman' ??), but not every normal woman would be capable of such a vigorous defense, right?

As much as I despise the man, and would normally tend to believe any women that claimed to have been mistreated by him, ya gotta wonder, wouldn't a women being raped in an upscale department store normally full of rich shoppers, raise some sort of ruckus to draw attention to her plight in order to get help???

Again with this bullshit, "Why didn't she scream?" ridiculous nonsense. Not every woman is helpless, Stucki. When it happened to me, I was too busy:

(1) at first being shocked, and then

(2) beating the shit out of my attacker, and lastly

(3) leaving as quickly as I could.

It never once occurred to me to "raise some sort of ruckus to draw attention."

Afterwards, I did make plans that the next man that attempted it would lose an appendage: Guess which one.

I hate to say it (because it is such a pessimistic thought), but in the case of Donald Trump and today's unanimous verdict in New York, Nietzsche will almost certainly be proven right once again.

A unanimous verdict of sexual assault and defamation will only make Trump stronger with a certain subset of Americans; you know who they are. Of the jury of six men and three women who took less than three hours to reach a unanimous verdict, at least two of them were actually Trump supporters.

He famously predicted that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single supporter, and for once this wasn't just empty braggadocio but seemingly the literal truth.

That wasn't so much a "prediction" but actually rhetoric that is part and parcel of the actual con job. It's literally a call for staunch and unswerving loyalty no matter what Trump does, and coupled with Trump's ridiculous and utterly asinine claim that anything unfavorable regarding himself is "fake news" and/or "political," and it takes a special kind of gullible/stupid to fall for that, but Opportunist Orange knew exactly in which Party he could exploit that.

Trump probably could get caught on video randomly shooting someone in New York City and his supporters would no doubt love it.

And Trump would call it "fake news" and claim he doesn't even know where New York City is. #SSDD

Even refusing to admit he lost an election and egging on a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol didn't harm him much politically -- which is absolutely astounding, or should be at any rate.

Because it's a cult of personality full of easy marks and gullible rubes who fell hard for the obvious hustle and will cling tightly to their confirmation bias and never admit they've been (and are being) played for fools. They exist now steadfastly in a trap of their own making because they've been defending their Orange Worship at every turn for nigh on a decade. For them, Trump's criminality has been normalized. [Spoiler alert: It's not normal.] It's just so much easier to live in their alternate universe than to face the overwhelming evidence that their icon is a con.

Can you imagine if it was a Democrat found liable by a jury for anything remotely comparable? The Sexual Assault Party would fall to the floor writhing and shitting all over themselves while their heads exploded in waves of contagion.

Juries aren't done with Trump either... just getting started.

Yeah, unless you think that Trump’s attorney failed to disqualify members of this jury as “biased against Trump” that means a not biased jury found against your Dear Leader.

the jury didn't think so.