Trump's still a rapist and a convicted felon, pendejo. He still owes over half a billion dollars in civil damages. He cannot stop lying. He sucked as president.
Traci Lords is irrelevant to this "discussion."
I can understand why you support Trump. He's a clown and you're a clown. But still: GFY and wipe your ass while you're at it.
Good lord, you're the very model of an illogical and immature fool. Have you ever successfully argued a position, for real benefits/consequences in your life? I'd wager: never
Burden of proof is on you, dipshit. But do continue screaming at the clouds.
Trump's still a rapist and a convicted felon, pendejo. He still owes over half a billion dollars in civil damages. He cannot stop lying. He sucked as president.
Traci Lords is irrelevant to this "discussion."
I can understand why you support Trump. He's a clown and you're a clown. But still: GFY and wipe your ass while you're at it.
Except you still can't/won't provide your evidence. So once again, you're just a pointless mosquito. Find something better to do on the 4th of July, dipshit.
Already did, just to refresh my memory. Maybe YOU should re-read the Wiki article! Then I also read news reports on charges laid and outcomes. And it's YOUR claims that are in need of defending & proving - not mine. Nice try though.
Get busy and provide some proof! FYI - Wiki is not proof.
And no, I'm not going to provide research for you, dipshit.
Except you still can't/won't provide your evidence. So once again, you're just a pointless mosquito. Find something better to do on the 4th of July, dipshit.
Falsehoods so easily provable that you couldn't provide evidence to support your claim! Huh!
I referred to Traci Lord's Wikipedia entry and this Wikipedia article about the related trial and conviction of a video distributor. Read them, Beaker.
Already did, just to refresh my memory. Maybe YOU should re-read the Wiki article! Then I also read news reports on charges laid and outcomes. And it's YOUR claims that are in need of defending & proving - not mine. Nice try though.
Get busy and provide some proof! FYI - Wiki is not proof.
And no, I'm not going to provide research for you, dipshit.
If you're going to cite as an example, the underage Traci Lords, you really should be aware of the facts of how she entered the business, made films, and took part in photoshoots for adult mags.
Uttering easily provable falsehoods and lies to support your narrative only illustrates your ignorance and bias on the topic itself.
Falsehoods so easily provable that you couldn't provide evidence to support your claim! Huh!
I referred to Traci Lord's Wikipedia entry and this Wikipedia article about the related trial and conviction of a video distributor. Read them, Beaker.
You're fascination with rape is beyond comprehension. Rape this, rape that, here a rape there a rape, everywhere a rape, rape ... old Mac kcar had a dream e, i, e, i, oh ....
.
The claims of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment against Trump are numerous and long-established. In one incident of a rape claim, a jury of Trump's peers believed the claim was true and awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages for Trump's defamation of her character. A second jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in further damages, basing that decision on their belief that Carroll's story of Trump raping her was true and that his statements about her after the first decision were therefore defamatory as well.
The claims of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment against Trump reveal his pattern of violent criminal behavior, abuse of power and use of threats and coercion to silence the women. Trump's sexual behavior and his behavior in defense of his predatory acts are on their own perfect demonstrations that he's unfit to be president.
Your desperate attempts to defend his rape of Carroll and your silence on the other claims of sex crimes against Trump show quite clearly that when it comes to Trump, your moral compass and ability to think rationally disappear.
Frankly, if you're not being paid to shill for Trump you're missing out on big money. It's gotten to the point where I have no respect for you or your claims. I see people like you as a clear sign that we are near the end of democracy, truth and fairness in this country.
âThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.â —Ben Franklin
Traci was 15 IIRC when she passed herself off as 18 using a doctored passport from another person.
Inaccurate/false.
kcar wrote:
People went to prison for failing to do due diligence on verifying her age.
False x 2
If you're going to cite as an example, the underage Traci Lords, you really should be aware of the facts of how she entered the business, made films, and took part in photoshoots for adult mags.
Uttering easily provable falsehoods and lies to support your narrative only illustrates your ignorance and bias on the topic itself.
WTF are you talking about ? What does this have to do with the topic which was the SCOTUS ? I don't recall making any such statements. Show me the quotes.
I'm not sure what your point is. If someone did their due diligence and was shown a falsely issued passport, I wouldn't prosecute them, particularly if they responded appropriately after the fact by removing the films. That surely is a rare case. I don't see the relevance here.
Traci was 15 IIRC when she passed herself off as 18 using a doctored passport from another person. All of her films made before she was 18 were destroyed. People went to prison for failing to do due diligence on verifying her age.
If a woman/girl tells you she's not a minor when she actually is and you have sex with her, you're still criminally liable. If you could have sex with a minor and then claim "she didn't tell me/she said she was 18" as a successful defense, it would be the perfect get-out-of-jail card and render the relevant law useless.
WTF are you talking about ? What does this have to do with the topic which was the SCOTUS ? I don't recall making any such statements. Show me the quotes. You're channeling someone else, maybe veev ? Sounds like something he would say.
Donât even have clue as to what youâre blabbing about but thanks for the shout-out! Baba-booey!
So kcar and rgio and veev who have endorsed his stuff by adding to his comments without doing any corrections to them.
No... my comment below related solely to your defending/excusing predators who say "she looked 18", by deflecting blame to parents using the supposed word of someone who had been abused. Bad parenting doesn't excuse bad actors.
But instead of opening with the "there's nothing to see here"... you engage in defending perverts and criminals. It's a reflex... because you will grasp at anything to defend the criminal insurrectionist you want back in charge. Engaging in the "see looked 18" line of defense shows there is no line that Trump could cross that disqualifies him for you.
you don't care that Trump raped and sexually assaulted women. You said that the jury got it wrong when they sided with E. Jean Carroll's statement that Trump raped her. I believe you called it "a foul tip" instead of a full strike. Classy.
WTF are you talking about ? What does this have to do with the topic which was the SCOTUS ? I don't recall making any such statements. Show me the quotes. You're channeling someone else, maybe veev ? Sounds like something he would say.
You're fascination with rape is beyond comprehension. Rape this, rape that, here a rape there a rape, everywhere a rape, rape ... old Mac kcar had a dream e, i, e, i, oh .... . Do you fantasize about it ? Did your mommy cut you off too soon ?
You have seriously gone off the reservation. You're too far gone to talk to at all anymore.
I'm not sure what your point is. If someone did their due diligence and was shown a falsely issued passport, I wouldn't prosecute them, particularly if they responded appropriately after the fact by removing the films. That surely is a rare case. I don't see the relevance here.
"Do remember I did not start this conversation nor directed its direction. I have defending myself against the scurrilous bs put forth primarily by kcar with some help from the others below...."
Forget Taylor and Baer. Katie Johnson filed the lawsuit three times. Her first attempt was marred by legal errors. The second was withdrawn without explanation. The third was dropped because Katie Johnson said that she and her family were being threatened. That's not a gold digger at work.
And yet again you fail to respond to the phone logs between Epstein and Trump regarding Trump's massage appointments. Epstein was not managing adult women AFAICT. Those logs were unsealed recently by the courts.
You still haven't responded to my mention of Ivana Trump's statement in her memoir that Trump raped her. She had the guts to publish that. She certainly didn't need money from the book: she left $34 million (mostly to her children) when she died.
Others here seem to agree with me: you don't care that Trump raped and sexually assaulted women. You said that the jury got it wrong when they sided with E. Jean Carroll's statement that Trump raped her. I believe you called it "a foul tip" instead of a full strike. Classy.
"With the Biden's we have phone records, emails from the famous certified Russian disinformation laptop, actual bank records, itineraries and meetings documented. So there is a pretty solid case taking shape."
And yet Comer won't hold a vote for impeachment. AFAICT there's no ongoing investigation into Joe Biden. Strange isn't it? It's almost like the GOP is drawing out a BS inquiry for political gain. Yet you're stuck in your Great Pumpkin patch 'cause Trump told you stay there.
You want people to take you seriously, but you don't back up your claims, do everything possible to side with Trump and see no wrong in Trump. Hell, you parrot everything he claims.
And you're always offended. Always the victim. If you're not the world's most obnoxious chatbot, you do a great imitation of one.
Your study seems to support my point. I did read much of it. I look at faces for a living. I am dealing with real faces of actual people present, not photographs. 30 years is a long time to form solid conclusions, even for a sample size of one ...
Women are relatively slightly less clueless, but everyone overestimates nevertheless. Almost by four years on average. Women are thus not excluded. The problem of overestimation, as you demonstrated, is largest with 12-14 year old girls.
"Long ago I gave up trying to figure out how young / old they are." It shows.
That is exactly what I am going to tell you. Next month I will have been selling glasses for 30 years. An easy 75% of my customers are female. Long ago I gave up trying to figure out how young / old they are. I am constantly surprised as I see their actual DOB's as part of their medical records. I have simply given up guessing the age of women. I see 12 or 14 year old's that look 21 and 70 year old's that look 45 or 50 and everything in between. Only a woman is going to have some sort of clue as to the actual age of other women. Men as a rule, are clueless. Now go ahead and tell me how often you see a female's actual DOB in the course of your everyday life and actually find out if you guess a female's age correctly.
Using facial photos of target persons aged 12–18 years, we investigated the effects of gender, age, and ethnicity of both targets (n = 240) and observers (n = 869) on the accuracy of age estimation. We also investigated the effects of targets’ facial expressions (neutral or smiling), use of makeup, and photo quality. Participants overestimated the age of the adolescents by, on average, 3.51 years. Participants overestimated the age of young adolescent girls to a greater extent than that of younger boys. Men made larger overestimations than women. Participants also estimated smiling targets as being older than targets with neutral facial expression, and the age of girls with makeup to be older than girls without makeup. Because there was considerable variation in the accuracy of estimations, and overestimates were common, we conclude that the ability of individuals to estimate the age of adolescents is generally low. This might have important legal implications.
Your study seems to support my point. I did read much of it. I look at faces for a living. I am dealing with real faces of actual people present, not photographs. 30 years is a long time to form solid conclusions, even for a sample size of one ...