Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[east-stand-nic]

"I recall Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Paul McCartney, Jon Stewart and other prominent celebrities talking about Donald Trump‘s obvious guilt because of him showing up in the Epstein files.

They never give context to what those mentions are in reference to, or that many of them were from proven false allegations that even the justice department and FBI under previous administrations had determined to be false.
They leave out the fact that some of those mentions are about Donald Trump calling authorities on Epstein. Other mentions are Epstein talking to a prominent print journalist about derailing Trump’s presidential ambitions.

So, as long as we’re leaving context out, it should probably be noted that Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Paul McCartney, and Jon Stewart are also all mentioned in the Epstein files. Have a good day."

Edited Tuesday at 09:04 by east-stand-nic

[Weston Super Saint]

Nice work. Where did you copy and paste it from? Most people will provide a source....

[tdmickey3]

22 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

"I recall Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Paul McCartney, Jon Stewart and other prominent celebrities talking about Donald Trump‘s obvious guilt because of him showing up in the Epstein files.

They never give context to what those mentions are in reference to, or that many of them were from proven false allegations that even the justice department and FBI under previous administrations had determined to be false.
They leave out the fact that some of those mentions are about Donald Trump calling authorities on Epstein. Other mentions are Epstein talking to a prominent print journalist about derailing Trump’s presidential ambitions.

So, as long as we’re leaving context out, it should probably be noted that Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Paul McCartney, and Jon Stewart are also all mentioned in the Epstein files. Have a good day."

Verbal 🤮

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

"I recall Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Paul McCartney, Jon Stewart and other prominent celebrities talking about Donald Trump‘s obvious guilt because of him showing up in the Epstein files.

They never give context to what those mentions are in reference to, or that many of them were from proven false allegations that even the justice department and FBI under previous administrations had determined to be false.
They leave out the fact that some of those mentions are about Donald Trump calling authorities on Epstein. Other mentions are Epstein talking to a prominent print journalist about derailing Trump’s presidential ambitions.

So, as long as we’re leaving context out, it should probably be noted that Whoopi Goldberg, Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Paul McCartney, and Jon Stewart are also all mentioned in the Epstein files. Have a good day."

Yeah but, yeah but….

We are talking about Trump, you giant wankpuffin. The President of the United States of America. The most powerful man on the planet who is currently using his position to bully the world and his own country whilst trousering billions of dollars. The man who is already a convicted sex offender and has many other cases outstanding.

But, again, you deflect.

Engage your brain for a change. It is entirely possible for Trump and Epstein to have had a falling out. That doesn’t preclude them previously having a close relation, which is exactly what happened. 

Think. The fact that they turned on each other has nothing to do with what happened earlier. It really isn’t hard to understand, or shouldn’t be for someone with your self proclaimed massive intellect.

Trump is not just guilty because he is all over the Epstein files. If you can look at what is going on on a daily basis and not see it, it makes you just as complicit in his abuse of power as the others in the MAGA cult.

People like you are the reason we have the likes of Trump, Farage and Brexit. Ignorant to the point that these people can stand there, show you exactly who they are, yet you still support them. 

Your ignorance has been demonstrated on a daily basis on here since you joined, yet you still think that you are the only one who “gets it.” A typical conspiracy theory sucker who thinks that you are brighter than the rest because, to you, 2 + 2 = anything other than 4.

Trump’s numerous appearances in the Epstein files are just further pieces in his dodgy behaviour jigsaw. Only people with a Trump is innocent derangement syndrome will throw in names of those who have nothing to do with what Trump is up to as evidence that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing.

You are the Saints Web’s version of Pam Bondi.

I know it all goes over your head. Perhaps you will understand this. Every one of your posts should be followed by this emoji.

🤪

Have a good day.

 

[Turkish]

19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Yeah but, yeah but….

We are talking about Trump, you giant wankpuffin. The President of the United States of America. The most powerful man on the planet who is currently using his position to bully the world and his own country whilst trousering billions of dollars. The man who is already a convicted sex offender and has many other cases outstanding.

But, again, you deflect.

Engage your brain for a change. It is entirely possible for Trump and Epstein to have had a falling out. That doesn’t preclude them previously having a close relation, which is exactly what happened. 

Think. The fact that they turned on each other has nothing to do with what happened earlier. It really isn’t hard to understand, or shouldn’t be for someone with your self proclaimed massive intellect.

Trump is not just guilty because he is all over the Epstein files. If you can look at what is going on on a daily basis and not see it, it makes you just as complicit in his abuse of power as the others in the MAGA cult.

People like you are the reason we have the likes of Trump, Farage and Brexit. Ignorant to the point that these people can stand there, show you exactly who they are, yet you still support them. 

Your ignorance has been demonstrated on a daily basis on here since you joined, yet you still think that you are the only one who “gets it.” A typical conspiracy theory sucker who thinks that you are brighter than the rest because, to you, 2 + 2 = anything other than 4.

Trump’s numerous appearances in the Epstein files are just further pieces in his dodgy behaviour jigsaw. Only people with a Trump is innocent derangement syndrome will throw in names of those who have nothing to do with what Trump is up to as evidence that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing.

You are the Saints Web’s version of Pam Bondi.

I know it all goes over your head. Perhaps you will understand this. Every one of your posts should be followed by this emoji.

🤪

Have a good day.

 

And he's back!! Coming out swinging as predicted

Why do you continue with this lie? He isnt

[hypochondriac]

It would be good if we found out that Nic was created by an AI to get soggy to reply to posts because they are the lowest hanging fruit imaginable and he doesn't have to engage with any actual arguments.

[east-stand-nic]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Yeah but, yeah but….

We are talking about Trump, you giant wankpuffin. The President of the United States of America. The most powerful man on the planet who is currently using his position to bully the world and his own country whilst trousering billions of dollars. The man who is already a convicted sex offender and has many other cases outstanding.

But, again, you deflect.

Engage your brain for a change. It is entirely possible for Trump and Epstein to have had a falling out. That doesn’t preclude them previously having a close relation, which is exactly what happened. 

Think. The fact that they turned on each other has nothing to do with what happened earlier. It really isn’t hard to understand, or shouldn’t be for someone with your self proclaimed massive intellect.

Trump is not just guilty because he is all over the Epstein files. If you can look at what is going on on a daily basis and not see it, it makes you just as complicit in his abuse of power as the others in the MAGA cult.

People like you are the reason we have the likes of Trump, Farage and Brexit. Ignorant to the point that these people can stand there, show you exactly who they are, yet you still support them. 

Your ignorance has been demonstrated on a daily basis on here since you joined, yet you still think that you are the only one who “gets it.” A typical conspiracy theory sucker who thinks that you are brighter than the rest because, to you, 2 + 2 = anything other than 4.

Trump’s numerous appearances in the Epstein files are just further pieces in his dodgy behaviour jigsaw. Only people with a Trump is innocent derangement syndrome will throw in names of those who have nothing to do with what Trump is up to as evidence that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing.

You are the Saints Web’s version of Pam Bondi.

I know it all goes over your head. Perhaps you will understand this. Every one of your posts should be followed by this emoji.

🤪

Have a good day.

 

Mandleson arrested. Thoughts on starmer having to now resign? 

[rallyboy]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

 

 

Why do you continue with this lie? He isnt

On a point of law, it's stretching it a bit to claim that someone isn't a convicted sex offender when a civil court has found them liable for sex abuse, and when they have a disturbing fifty year history in that field. 

Just saying. 

[sadoldgit]

Another Trump apologist crawls from under a rock.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/10/trump-trial-verdict-white-house-2024-run

As explained several times, the only thing they couldn’t agree on is whether she had been penetrated digitally or by his penis. I think most people understand that equals a sexual offence and therefore he is a sexual offender. As also explained many times, there are states in the US that consider both digital and penile penetration as rape. Those states would consider Trump a rapist despite not being able to determine what he used for penetration. Weird that someone still can’t understand that it is ok to call a convicted sexual offender a sexual offender.

Plenty of other allegations too along with this guilty verdict.

https://19thnews.org/2023/10/donald-trump-associates-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

 

Edited Tuesday at 14:11 by sadoldgit

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

On a point of law, it's stretching it a bit to claim that someone isn't a convicted sex offender when a civil court has found them liable for sex abuse, and when they have a disturbing fifty year history in that field. 

Just saying. 

he's never been convicted in a criminal court so by the legal definition he isn't, Give SOG boasted he used to prosecute sex offenders surely he of all people would know this.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

he's never been convicted in a criminal court so by the legal definition he isn't, Give SOG boasted he used to prosecute sex offenders surely he of all people would know this.

Not of a sex offence, true, but he is a convicted felon, having been found guilty of 34 fraud charges in New York.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Another Trump apologist crawls from under a rock.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/10/trump-trial-verdict-white-house-2024-run

As explained several times, the only thing they couldn’t agree on is whether she had been penetrated digitally or by his penis. I think most people understand that equals a sexual offence and therefore he is a sexual offender. As also explained many times, there are states in the US that consider both digital and penile penetration as rape. Those states would consider Trump a rapist despite not being able to determine what he used for penetration. Weird that someone still can’t understand that it is ok to call a convicted sexual offender a sexual offender.

Plenty of other allegations too along with this guilty verdict.

https://19thnews.org/2023/10/donald-trump-associates-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

 

Weird that someone who claims to have prosecuted rape cant understand the difference between a civil and criminal conviction

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Weird that someone who claims to have prosecuted rape cant understand the difference between a civil and criminal conviction

I guess they split them, and the thresholds, right after SOG moved over to prosecuting (with colour coded file folders from the catalogue) knife crime. 

[badgerx16]

It seems that both USN hospital ships are in dry dock, so neither of them is available to go to Greenland.

[badgerx16]

 

[sadoldgit]

8 hours ago, Turkish said:

he's never been convicted in a criminal court so by the legal definition he isn't, Give SOG boasted he used to prosecute sex offenders surely he of all people would know this.

I have never claimed let alone “boasted” that I personally used to prosecute sex offenders. That is the job of the prosecutors. I worked in the support team. Try and get your facts right. 
He was found guilty of committing a sexual offence and therefore he is a convicted sexual offender. It’s not hard to understand and I don’t get your obsession with trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[badgerx16]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I have never claimed let alone “boasted” that I personally used to prosecute sex offenders. That is the job of the prosecutors. I worked in the support team. Try and get your facts right. 
He was found guilty of committing a sexual offence and therefore he is a convicted sexual offender. It’s not hard to understand and I don’t get your obsession with trying to pretend otherwise.

 

No he isn't. A civil case cannot result in a conviction, only a judgement of liability. He has, however, been convicted of fraud.

Edited Tuesday at 23:12 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

Being convicted means being found guilty of a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. He was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury. The rest is semantics. The simple fact is that he was found guilty of committing a sexual offence by a jury in a court. 

Edited Tuesday at 23:49 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

I thought this was a joke but apparently he is flogging these watches ((only $499) on the Fox channel !

https://gettrumpwatches.com/products/fight-fight-fight-red?srsltid=AfmBOoqpwRrHDBelluij78Gv541nsZIZZIJrbLN4_6aiJ1WxJUUn-uuM

[egg]

7 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Being convicted means being found guilty of a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. He was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury. The rest is semantics. The simple fact is that he was found guilty of committing a sexual offence by a jury in a court. 

You know full well that a conviction comes from a criminal court, and that adverse findings in a civil court are not convictions.

You trying to argue that an apple is a pear because you want them to be the same, doesn't make them the same. 

[badgerx16]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Being convicted means being found guilty of a crime.

In a criminal Court, not a Civil one.

Sexual assault is a crime. He was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury.

He was found "liable" in a Court where the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond any reasonable doubt" for a criminal charge, and the only penalty is financial.

The rest is semantics.

But the semantics here are important.

The simple fact is that he was found guilty of committing a sexual offence by a jury in a court. 

No, he was found "liable". If he had been convicted he would have had to register as a sex offender.

Frm the news reports of the case;

"A federal jury has found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll".

Edited Wednesday at 08:13 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Frm the news reports of the case;

"A federal jury has found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll".

Guess that is soggy on another self imposed exile for a day or so

[badgerx16]

For the avoidance of any doubt, this is the Jury verdict form for Carroll v Trump

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23808620-jury-verdict-form-from-the-e-jean-carroll-defamation-trial/?mode=document

[Turkish]

13 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have never claimed let alone “boasted” that I personally used to prosecute sex offenders. That is the job of the prosecutors. I worked in the support team. Try and get your facts right. 
He was found guilty of committing a sexual offence and therefore he is a convicted sexual offender. It’s not hard to understand and I don’t get your obsession with trying to pretend otherwise.

 

I believe your words were "I spent much of my career prosecuting rape and sex offences" Certainly implying you did more than files the papers

Not hard to understand yet you seem to be struggling. To coin your famous line, maybe you should engage your brain.....

[egg]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

I believe your words were "I spent much of my career prosecuting rape and sex offences" Certainly implying you did more than files the papers

Not hard to understand yet you seem to be struggling. To coin your famous line, maybe you should engage your brain.....

Starmer's right hand man by the sounds of it. 

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Guess that is soggy on another self imposed exile for a day or so

Let’s hope so!

 

[Turkish]

15 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Being convicted means being found guilty of a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. He was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury. The rest is semantics. The simple fact is that he was found guilty of committing a sexual offence by a jury in a court. 

Geoffrey Boycott was convicted of a crime, he was found guilty. Funny how there were no "semantics" then. Funny how there was no "the simple fact is he was found guilty" coming from you in that case. oh no!! Just lots of excuses, lots of you judging if she was lying or not by how many bruises she had on her face!! In fact you were at pains to say you had sympathy for him!!  Such a hypocrite!!!

Edited Wednesday at 14:42 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

"USA men's ice hockey player Brady Tkachuk has distanced himself from an AI-enhanced White House video in which he appears to disparage Canadians, saying "those words would never come out of my mouth".

The video was published on the official White House TikTok account after the US beat Canada on Sunday to win gold at the Winter Olympics and is marked as using artificial intelligence.

It features a modified clip of Tkachuk speaking at a news conference for last year's 4 Nations Face-Off, during which Canadians booed the US national anthem.

Tkachuk appears to say: "They booed our national anthem, so I had to come out and teach those maple-syrup-eating [expletive] a lesson. Canada, we own you little bro."

Tkachuk is captain of the Ottawa Senators and after playing in the Canadian team's first NHL game since the Olympics, he said: "Well, it's clearly fake, because it's not my voice, not my lips moving.

"I'm not in control of any of those accounts," he added. "I know that those words would never come out of my mouth, so I can't do anything about it.

"It's not what I was saying. I would never say that. It's not who I am. So I guess I don't like that video.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/ice-hockey/articles/cqj9w4xz1l0o

 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

"USA men's ice hockey player Brady Tkachuk has distanced himself from an AI-enhanced White House video in which he appears to disparage Canadians, saying "those words would never come out of my mouth".

The video was published on the official White House TikTok account after the US beat Canada on Sunday to win gold at the Winter Olympics and is marked as using artificial intelligence.

It features a modified clip of Tkachuk speaking at a news conference for last year's 4 Nations Face-Off, during which Canadians booed the US national anthem.

Tkachuk appears to say: "They booed our national anthem, so I had to come out and teach those maple-syrup-eating [expletive] a lesson. Canada, we own you little bro."

Tkachuk is captain of the Ottawa Senators and after playing in the Canadian team's first NHL game since the Olympics, he said: "Well, it's clearly fake, because it's not my voice, not my lips moving.

"I'm not in control of any of those accounts," he added. "I know that those words would never come out of my mouth, so I can't do anything about it.

"It's not what I was saying. I would never say that. It's not who I am. So I guess I don't like that video.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/ice-hockey/articles/cqj9w4xz1l0o

 

Trump has some sad cases working for him. Can’t see it being Stephen Miller’s handywork though, he’s more into hating blacks and Hispanics. 

[Guided Missile]

Donald J Trump : Supreme Leader II

[sadoldgit]

On 25/02/2026 at 08:04, badgerx16 said:

Frm the news reports of the case;

"A federal jury has found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll".

As I say, it is all semantics. Liable, guilty, convicted. Whatever word you want to use, the jury found that he sexually assaulted her, which is the issue.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As I say, it is all semantics. Liable, guilty, convicted. Whatever word you want to use, the jury found that he sexually assaulted her, which is the issue.

Any comment on your defence of Boycott despite him also being found guilty?

[Weston Super Saint]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As I say, it is all semantics. Liable, guilty, convicted. Whatever word you want to use, the jury found that he sexually assaulted her, which is the issue.

Liable and convicted are not the same thing.  Not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out to you but add this as a +1.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Liable and convicted are not the same thing.  Not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out to you but add this as a +1.

It really is quite pathetic. He can’t admit he’s wrong and it’s even more pathetic that he uses statements like “he as convicted” as some sort of gotcha when he was arguing for weeks Boycott might not have been guilty, despite also being convicted, because SOG once got accused of giving his ex a right hander. Yet more incredible hypocrisy 

[Guided Missile]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Liable and convicted are not the same thing.  Not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out to you but add this as a +1.

To be fair, all Trump did was grab her by the pussy and she was begging for it, anyway. (Squeezing her tits doesn't count, BTW...)

[sadoldgit]

On 25/02/2026 at 12:17, Turkish said:

I believe your words were "I spent much of my career prosecuting rape and sex offences" Certainly implying you did more than files the papers

Not hard to understand yet you seem to be struggling. To coin your famous line, maybe you should engage your brain.....

What a sad individual you are. Nothing better to do with your time rather than trawl through old posts in a desperate effort to score points?

The CPS prosecutes people.  Being part of the prosecution team I was clearly a part of the process. If you want to split hairs I should have said “we” rather than I. Hardly hanging offence.

Everybody handles files and papers. The CPS. The Courts. The police. The probation service.

I was not a lawyer or Crown Prosecutor so I didn’t stand up in court and present the prosecution case or raise charges against alleged offenders.

I managed a paralegal team of caseworkers who worked in support of the prosecutors, a part of that team worked for the RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). Without the paralegals/case workers there is no case building and liaison between the CPS, the police and the courts and cases would not make it to court.

There is a lot more to bringing cases to court than filing papers, but I’m sure you understand that.

So, no boasting, just an explanation of what we did from someone who has had first hand experience of bringing prosecutions to magistrates courts and Crown courts.

But well done for getting your bite 👏

 

 

 

[egg]

46 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As I say, it is all semantics. Liable, guilty, convicted. Whatever word you want to use, the jury found that he sexually assaulted her, which is the issue.

Anyone who's apparently worked on criminal prosecutions knows that a guilty verdict only follows a criminal prosecution. It's not semantics, it's a different thing. 

[sadoldgit]

27 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

To be fair, all Trump did was grab her by the pussy and she was begging for it, anyway. (Squeezing her tits doesn't count, BTW...)

He did more than “grab her by the pussy.” Read the case.

[sadoldgit]

Just now, egg said:

Anyone who's apparently worked on criminal prosecutions knows that a guilty verdict only follows a criminal prosecution. It's not semantics, it's a different thing. 

The jury found that he sexually assaulted her. That is the issue here rather than pointless quibbling over the exact meaning of words. The jury found against him. They believe that he sexually assaulted her. It really doesn’t matter what words we use to describe his culpability. He committed  sexual assault according to a jury and the woman he attacked.

Why get so worked up about some words? You sound like another poster on here who is more interested in scoring points than dealing with what happened.

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What a sad individual you are. Nothing better to do with your time rather than trawl through old posts in a desperate effort to score points?

The CPS prosecutes people.  Being part of the prosecution team I was clearly a part of the process. If you want to split hairs I should have said “we” rather than I. Hardly hanging offence.

Everybody handles files and papers. The CPS. The Courts. The police. The probation service.

I was not a lawyer or Crown Prosecutor so I didn’t stand up in court and present the prosecution case or raise charges against alleged offenders.

I managed a paralegal team of caseworkers who worked in support of the prosecutors, a part of that team worked for the RASSO unit (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences). Without the paralegals/case workers there is no case building and liaison between the CPS, the police and the courts and cases would not make it to court.

There is a lot more to bringing cases to court than filing papers, but I’m sure you understand that.

So, no boasting, just an explanation of what we did from someone who has had first hand experience of bringing prosecutions to magistrates courts and Crown courts.

But well done for getting your bite 👏

 

 

 

Yet despite all this you still don’t know the difference between a criminal case and civil one. Perhaps that’s why your “skills” were no longer required and nothing to do with cost cutting like you claimed 

[sadoldgit]

As I say, desperate. Sitting there waiting for me to write something. Find a better hobby mate.

Things are different in the States.

By the way, I left the CPS by choice. Get your facts right.

 

Definition of liable - responsible by law. Legally answerable.

Edited 11 hours ago by sadoldgit

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

As I say, it is all semantics. Liable, guilty, convicted. Whatever word you want to use, the jury found that he sexually assaulted her, which is the issue.

And you claim to have worked for the CPS ?

"Liable" and "guilty" are not the same, and "liable" does not result in a conviction. Many cases resulting in a civil "liable" finding don't pass muster as criminal prosecutions and would never get close to a "guilty" verdict if they went to trial.

The only thing Trump has been convicted of is 34 cases of fraud.

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Definition of liable - responsible by law. Legally answerable.

"On the balance of the evidence", effectively 51/49, rather than "beyond any reasonable doubt".

[Turkish]

19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As I say, desperate. Sitting there waiting for me to write something. Find a better hobby mate.

Definition of liable - responsible by law. Legally answerable.

What an arrogant tosser. Another embarrassment for you. 

it’s not about you making an absolute cock of yourself and then being too arrogant to back down, oh no, it’s other people waiting for you to post 😂😂

Got to be tough for you, craving admiration and attention on here but with every egotistical sermon make yourself look an ever bigger bellend. I think we all know who the real narcissist is here don’t we old boy.

Edited 10 hours ago by Turkish

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"On the balance of the evidence", effectively 51/49, rather than "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Which means they think he did it doesn’t it???

[sadoldgit]

I’ll let you have the last word Turkish. I’m just enjoying the irony of the forum narcissist posting on a thread dedicated to the biggest narcissist in the Western world. Birds of a feather and all that…

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Which means they think he did it doesn’t it???

But not to the level required for a criminal conviction, which is the point people keep trying to get you to accept. There are posters on here that I think are complete twats based on their posts, but only 1 where I can prove it beyond a doubt by demonstrable evidence beyond the forum.

Edited 10 hours ago by badgerx16

[Turkish]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I’ll let you have the last word Turkish. I’m just enjoying the irony of the forum narcissist posting on a thread dedicated to the biggest narcissist in the Western world. Birds of a feather and all that…

Oh I love your posts, don’t ever stop. Glad you are realising what you are finally. It’s the first step to healing. 

[east-stand-nic]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I’ll let you have the last word Turkish. I’m just enjoying the irony of the forum narcissist posting on a thread dedicated to the biggest narcissist in the Western world. Birds of a feather and all that…

Did you miss his question about Boycott? 😁

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The jury found that he sexually assaulted her. That is the issue here rather than pointless quibbling over the exact meaning of words. The jury found against him. They believe that he sexually assaulted her. It really doesn’t matter what words we use to describe his culpability. He committed  sexual assault according to a jury and the woman he attacked.

Why get so worked up about some words? You sound like another poster on here who is more interested in scoring points than dealing with what happened.

As has been said, it was a civil  court finding on the balance of probabilities, not a criminal court where the jury were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. They're two completely different things - it isn't semantics. 

It's worth remembering that a UK High Court Judge found on the balance of probabilities in a civil case that Jonny Depp had done all sorts to Amber Heard. There's no way he'd have been convicted in a criminal court on the same facts and evidence. That's because Civil court decisions, based on little more than hunches and gut feel, are a world away from a criminal conviction. 

Edited 9 hours ago by egg