The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Doesn't really matter who leaked it - they should be fired at the very least, and potentially prosecuted.

 

But the most likely explanation for the leak was that a radical leftist leaked it knowing that the intimidation forces would be set upon the 5 who are voting to overturn it to try to get them to change their vote before the decision is made official.

Did you even read the thread?

[commando]

during the confirmation hearings all 3 trump appointees said that roe was a law that can't be overturned.   there was a legal term they used that i can't recall.....but they essentially said that they could/would not overturn abortion rights.   if they all voted to overturn.....that would be proof that they lied to congress.   it is all on tape so it would be undeniable.    but when does a republican ever get in trouble for lying?  at 1 time lying to congress was an impeachable offense.

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Did you even read the thread?

he didn't

[ActualCornHusker]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Did you even read the thread?

 

I read the part that showed up on the forum. I know in your mind conservatives are some radical group of rabid animals these days, but seriously... If it was actually leaked by a person on the conservative side, then that person is a moron. Anyone with an IQ over 50 would know what would ensue after that leak, which is hordes of radical lefties showing up at the doorstep of the supreme court to cry and whine, and the lives and safety of the 5 judges as well as their families would be in danger. It totally could be that it was someone on the right who leaked it, but MAN they'd be dumb.

[Enhance]

23 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Question: If we acknowledge that a baby in the womb is a human being, how do we reconcile that with the idea of allowing any abortions at all? I'm just genuinely interested in the rationale here.

I've struggled with this issue virtually my whole adult life. I'm generally against abortions excepting cases of rape/incest. But, I also don't feel like I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body and there are other select circumstances where I can see the argument for why someone may want one.

 

So I don't really know if there's a clean way to reconcile it, at least for me personally. I readily accept that I don't fall objectively into either the pro-life or pro-choice category, for better or for worse. Seems like most of our politicians want to make it a binary either/or situation and for whatever reason I've never been able to do that.

[Archy1221]

53 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

In late April 2016, right  began to circulate online holding that Republican presidential Donald Trump had either been sued over, or arrested for, raping a teenaged girl. One of the earliest versions of the rumor was published on 2 May 2016 by the Winning Democrats web site, which reported that woman using the name Katie Johnson had named Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in a $100 million lawsuit, accusing them of having solicited sex acts from her at sex parties held at the Manhattan homes of Epstein and Trump back in 1994 (when Johnson was just 13 years old):

The first major scandal to hit the Trump campaign besides the typical “what a racist, such a sexist, yada yada yada,” came from a lawsuit stemming from the infamous sex parties held by billionaire and known pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The woman named in the suit is Katie Johnson, who says Trump took her virginity in 1994 when she was only 13 and being held by Epstein as a slave.

Johnson says in the complaint that Trump and Epstein threatened her and her family with bodily harm if she didn’t comply with all of their disgusting demands. The Trump campaign has been on this immediately, calling it absolute nonsense and not even remotely true or possible.

Many aggregated reports cited a 28 April 2016 article that described the circumstances under which the lawsuit had been filed:

Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is fighting what could be the biggest election season bombshell yet — explosive court claims that he raped a woman when she was a teen.

The woman — identified as Katie Johnson — filed documents in a California court on April 26, accusing Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein of “sexual abuse under threat of harm” and “conspiracy to deprive civil rights,” RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

She filed the lawsuit herself — without legal representation — and is suing for $100 million.

A copy of the California lawsuit (filed on 26 April 2016) shared via the Scribd web site outlined the allegations, which included the accusation that Trump and Epstein had (over 20 years earlier) “sexually and physically” abused the then 13-year-old plaintiff and forced her “to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts” — including being “forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump’s erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm,” and being “forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe, age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump” — after luring her to a “series of underage sex parties” by promising her “money and a modeling career”:

According to RadarOnline’s initial reporting, the lawsuit filed in California on 26 April 2016 was dismissed over technical filing errors (the address listed in court documents was a foreclosed home that has been vacant since its owner died), with the plaintiff failing in her attempt to avoid incurring the cost of the litigation:

A judge recommended on April 29 that “Katie Johnson” should have to pay her own attorneys’ fees and court costs related to the $100 million lawsuit she brought against Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein over alleged sexual assault charges. Then on May 2, a U.S. District judge ordered the entire lawsuit thrown out.

“Johnson” had previously filed forms asking to be let off the hook for the costs of the lawsuit, claiming she had only $300 to her name … such an allowance — known as in forma paupers — is only given in civil rights cases in California, and the judge ruled that she “failed to state a claim for relief” on a civil rights basis, even though she “utilized the form provided by the Central District of California for civil actions.”

“Even construing the … pleading liberally, Plaintiff has not alleged any race-based or class-based animus against her, and consequently, her … allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” the judge wrote … the address listed on the paperwork leads to an abandoned property, and the phone number goes straight to voicemail.

For his part, Trump asserted that the charges were “not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated,” adding that “There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

On 20 June 2016, New York City-based blog Gothamist reported that the plaintiff had refiled a similar complaint in a New York State federal court:

A federal lawsuit filed in New York accuses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl more than 20 years ago, at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.

The suit, first reported by the Real Deal, accuses Trump and Epstein of luring the anonymous plaintiff and other young women to four parties at Epstein’s so-called Wexner Mansion at 9 East 71st Street. Epstein allegedly lured the plaintiff, identified in the suit only as Jane Doe, with promises of a modeling career and cash.

Another anonymous woman, identified in additional testimony as Tiffany Doe, corroborates Jane’s allegations, testifying that she met Epstein at Port Authority, where he hired her to recruit other young girls for his parties. Trump had known Epstein for seven years in 1994 when he attended the parties at Wexner, according to the suit. He also allegedly knew that the plaintiff was 13 years old.

Jane Doe filed a similar suit in California in April, under the name Katie Johnson, also accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. That suit was dismissed on the grounds of improper paperwork — the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned. Today’s suit confirms that the plaintiffs are one and the same.

The online outlet that first reported the second filing in New York explained that the lawsuit might be allowed to proceed even though the statute of limitations for bringing suit has expired, because (according to plaintiff’s lawyer) the plaintiff lacked the “freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time” due to her having been threatened by Trump:

It should be noted that anyone can file a civil complaint in federal court. The statute of limitations in New York for civil rape cases is five years, but [the] complaint argues that the time limit should be waived, noting that the plaintiff was too frightened to report the abuse because Trump had threatened that if she did “her family would be physically harmed if not killed.”

“Both defendants let plaintiff know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threats,” the complaint claims.

A copy of the New York-based suit was also uploaded to Scribd, and in the second filing (which asked for no specific amount of monetary damages) the plaintiff was represented by Thomas Francis Meagher, a New Jersey patent lawyer who learned of her allegations via an article published on the GossipExtra web site advertising that she was “shopping for an attorney.” In a statement attached to her filing, the plaintiff (aka “Jane Doe”) asserted:

I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.

The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.

Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,

Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.

The filing also included a statement from “Tiffany Doe” (i.e., the woman referenced in plaintiff’s statement above who brought her to the parties) attesting that:

I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.

It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests.

A video reportedly featuring “Katie Johnson” (her identity hidden through the use of facial pixillation, a long blonde wig, and an electronic voice distorter) appeared online, in which she graphically described giving Donald Trump a hand job and being raped by him:

 
There is little doubt that Donald Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein, as Trump acknowledged in a 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein:

Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Epstein had been named in multiple similar lawsuits over the previous several years, served 13 months in jail, and was registered as a sex offender for life:

Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has paid another accuser.

The 56-year-old money manager has quietly settled with Jane Doe 102, an unnamed woman who alleged in federal court in Florida that Epstein had induced her to “serve his every sexual whim” from the time she was 15 until she was 19. The woman also claimed Epstein had flown her around the world, paying her “to be sexually exploited by [his friends] … including royalty, politicians, academicians [and] businessmen.”

Epstein flatly denied those charges. But a source close to the financier confirms “the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.” The woman’s lawyer, Robert Josefsberg, wouldn’t say how much she’s getting. Epstein had in the past offered accusers a minimum of $150,000.

Epstein has settled at least two other civil suits but still faces more than a dozen from women who claim he sexually abused them as minors at his Palm Beach mansion.

As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her. She was scheduled to appear at a press conference on 2 November 2016 but didn’t show up, asserting that threats to her life kept her away. She reportedly dropped the lawsuit again on 4 November 2016 for the same reason.

I mean, the bolded pretty much sums it up

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I read the part that showed up on the forum. I know in your mind conservatives are some radical group of rabid animals these days, but seriously... If it was actually leaked by a person on the conservative side, then that person is a moron. Anyone with an IQ over 50 would know what would ensue after that leak, which is hordes of radical lefties showing up at the doorstep of the supreme court to cry and whine, and the lives and safety of the 5 judges as well as their families would be in danger. It totally could be that it was someone on the right who leaked it, but MAN they'd be dumb.

You might want to read it.

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I've struggled with this issue virtually my whole adult life. I'm generally against abortions excepting cases of rape/incest. But, I also don't feel like I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body and there are other select circumstances where I can see the argument for why someone may want one.

 

So I don't really know if there's a clean way to reconcile it, at least for me personally. I readily accept that I don't fall objectively into either the pro-life or pro-choice category, for better or for worse. Seems like most of our politicians want to make it a binary either/or situation and for whatever reason I've never been able to do that.

 

I hear you. It's not an easy topic to discuss, but to dig just a little more, if we recognize that the baby is a human being, is it really the woman's body that this has to do with?

[funhusker]

47 minutes ago, nic said:

That is only part of the shift. People that say a baby in the womb is not fully human and just a fetus until it comes out are just as nonsensical as those that say no abortion ever. A cultural shift would be for people to treat abortion like a life and death decision and do what is best for all involved. 

I agree 100% and +1'd.  However, there is not a chance in Hell that this will ever happen without Constitutional protection.   

 

To hear politicians decline to make rape, incest, and a plethora of medical conditions legal exemptions is a terrifying thing for women to hear.  Politicians push some idiotic things and some women are going to die because of their ignorance.  

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/29/ohio-extreme-abortion-bill-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancy

 

This is not a conversation about the 18 year old getting an abortion so she can go to college.  It's about allowing women who will lose the child to choose to abort instead of carrying a "dead baby crawling".  It's about allowing women to use birth control as an aid in resetting their biology to HELP get pregnant.  It's about reducing pregnancies of multiples to saves the lives of the other fetuses.  It's about not making a young girl raise the child of her rapist.  Anyone thinking elected officials will have these conversations instead of the low hanging fruit are out of their freaking minds.

[nic]

34 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Question: If we acknowledge that a baby in the womb is a human being, how do we reconcile that with the idea of allowing any abortions at all? I'm just genuinely interested in the rationale here.

If only I had the wisdom of Solomon.  

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I hear you. It's not an easy topic to discuss, but to dig just a little more, if we recognize that the baby is a human being, is it really the woman's body that this has to do with?

This is such a silly argument. If the woman's body doesn't have to do with this, then just separate the bodies.

 

There are stronger arguments that the right to life of the fetus outweighs the right to body of the woman but trying to separate those issues is ridiculous.

[Born N Bled Red]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I mean, the bolded pretty much sums it up

 

Except it don't. 

 

https://sacramento.newsreview.com/2019/10/21/wait-katie-johnson-actually-exists/

 

A California woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her a quarter-century ago when she was 13 has gone to ground, says her former attorney, deepening the mystery surrounding “Katie Johnson.”

“Recent attempts to reach … her have revealed that she has disconnected her telephone number,” Evan Goldman, a New Jersey attorney who represented Johnson in late 2016, wrote in an email.

“Katie Johnson” and “Jane Doe” are pseudonyms the woman used to sue Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in California and New York federal courts three years ago, before Trump was elected president in 2016 and before authorities say Epstein hung himself in a jail cell in August while facing child sex trafficking charges.

According to the filings, “Johnson” was an aspiring model in 1994 when, after a string of unsuccessful meetings with agencies in New York City, she was at a Port Authority bus terminal getting ready to make her cross-country trip back home. Instead, a woman told Johnson how she could make money and modeling connections attending parties. It was at these parties—allegedly featuring other underage girls and wealthy guests—that Johnson says she was forced to sexually gratify the future president on four occasions, each one escalating in its described level of depravity.

After their supposed final encounter, in which Johnson claimed she begged Trump to no avail to wear a condom, the complaint states, “Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at” the plaintiff and suggested she get an abortion.

The bombshell claims never gained as much traction as other Trump misconduct allegations, for several reasons. Johnson’s initial lawsuit, filed without an attorney, included a hinky phone number and unverifiable mailing address, and was swiftly dismissed in the Central District of California. Johnson abruptly withdrew her second lawsuit and canceled a press conference days before the election, citing fears for her safety.

The sum total was that the press didn’t know what to make of Johnson or those surrounding her, and moved on to other controversies such as the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels payoff.

But since multiple women emerged this year with shockingly similar stories about how Epstein recruited and sexually enslaved them as young girls, some of the people who believed Johnson in 2016 say her claims should be reconsidered today.

“Katie’s story mimics those that have come out in the past several months,” Goldman wrote. “She was very forthcoming and also a very reluctant person. She only decided to do something when she saw that there was a chance that Trump could become President.”

The signature and pseudonym of a California woman who sued Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein in 2016. (Photo by Raheem Hosseini)

Goldman and two other attorneys represented Johnson from Sept. 30 to Nov. 4, 2016. Before they represented her, Johnson’s first lawsuit was dismissed for failing to cite an actionable civil rights claim. It sought $100 million in damages and described in graphic detail allegations against both Trump and Epstein, a one-time financier accused of hosting underage sex parties for the obscenely rich.

SN&R corresponded via text with a person who identified as “Katie Johnson” in May 2016 and recently traced the phone number to a Southern California esthetician. Goldman said he couldn’t reveal Johnson’s true identity, but stressed that she “is and was a real person.”

“There were real threats which forced her to drop the law suit,” he added.

On the day Johnson was supposed to participate in a press conference arranged by attorney Lisa Bloom, whom the attorneys hired to conduct their media outreach, Johnson’s car and cellphone were stolen, Goldman said. “This freaked her out and that is when she decided not to go through with it.”

Bloom, the daughter of feminist civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, has come under fire recently for her behind-the-scenes work to discredit Harvey Weinstein’s accusers.

As for Johnson, Goldman says he has no way of contacting her. The attorney didn’t respond to questions about whether a blurred-out video purporting to show Johnson being interviewed was of his one-time client. But SN&R obtained what appears to be a letter from a combative “never Trump” conservative who arranged for the video to be made. The June 30, 2017 letter from Illinois political donor Steve Baer is marked “confidential,” directed to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller and copied to numerous others, including “select” media.

In the 10-page document, which includes an unblurred image of Johnson from her video interview, Baer urges Mueller to investigate the claims of the pseudonymous “Katie Johnson,” writing that his group, Freedom Partners Trust V, while skeptical that the president colluded with the Russians or obstructed justice, does believe Johnson.

“The current President of the United States raped a 13-year-old girl in 1994,” writes Baer, who has been credited with other aggressive email campaigns.

Baer could not be reached for comment.

 

[ActualCornHusker]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You might want to read it.

 

OK I read the thread and a couple tweets from the 2 guys the poster tagged as well. It's definitely an interesting theory.

 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I've struggled with this issue virtually my whole adult life. I'm generally against abortions excepting cases of rape/incest. But, I also don't feel like I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body and there are other select circumstances where I can see the argument for why someone may want one.

 

So I don't really know if there's a clean way to reconcile it, at least for me personally. I readily accept that I don't fall objectively into either the pro-life or pro-choice category, for better or for worse. Seems like most of our politicians want to make it a binary either/or situation and for whatever reason I've never been able to do that.

Somewhat my feelings.

 

My issue is that everyone seems to ignore the fact that what we have been doing ever since 1980, has drastically reduced the number of abortions in the US.  And, that's while they are legal in all 50 states.

 

 

 

I would much more be interested in studying what we are doing to cause that and keep doing it...or keep improving it.  I'm assuming it's basically education, available contraceptives and adoption options.  Those are all good things and shouldn't be controversial.  Another one that shouldn't be controversial that would help is improving healthcare...especially the cost of it.  But, for some reason, that one is a hot button that people fight against.

 

Think about all the money and energy that has been put into the political crap around R vs W and then think about if that was put towards the options that would actually just greatly reduce the need for abortions.

[ActualCornHusker]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is such a silly argument. If the woman's body doesn't have to do with this, then just separate the bodies.

 

There are stronger arguments that the right to life of the fetus outweighs the right to body of the woman but trying to separate those issues is ridiculous.

 

How is it silly? Please explain. I have a feeling which direction you'll go here but would rather you explain than me assume

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I hear you. It's not an easy topic to discuss, but to dig just a little more, if we recognize that the baby is a human being, is it really the woman's body that this has to do with?

 

The problem with that is, you will never convince everyone to believe that.  So, it becomes an extremely hot political battle, when we could be putting that effort towards things that actually matter.