28
u/H3llzyea 14h ago
They want to protect women that are their property as they see it. It’s about property rights not a person. They protect pedophiles , traitors and criminals then scream about law and order. Cowards and hypocrites are all they are oh and a disturbing amount of pedophiles.
5
28
17
u/BananasPineapple05 14h ago
It's not so much about protecting women as it is about controlling women (and their bodies).
Once you see it through that lens, it makes a lot more sense. In an evil, demented sort of way.
7
u/ThelIIusion0fSeIf 14h ago
Anyone with a double digit IQ should've been able to see right through that ruse. It was never about protecting women or even transgender people playing sports. This was all about creating an issue out of nothing that would allow Republicans to avoid facing their ABYSMAL track record on things that actually matter playing off their hateful/stupid base and their inability to engage in critical thinking.
7
6
6
u/Kobobble 14h ago
"Protect the children" And then they say nothing or have garbage excuses when ICE takes away children from their families. They never back up the stuff they claim to believe in
6
u/Heart-Logic 14h ago
Bullies, hypocrites, bigots and misogynists of the worst fascist flavour.
Don't try to understand them, don't tolerate them.
4
5
u/WildRabbitz 13h ago
I mean, they say the same thing about protecting the kids and yet somehow the amount of Republicans being caught committing sex crimes on children is astonishing.
3
u/Annual-Freedom2136 14h ago
So grown men watched other grown men attack a woman, and no one came to her defense
3
3
u/Turbulent-Society-30 14h ago
They support a billionaire pedophile. This is on brand.
1
u/GanacheSufficient292 9h ago
What court labeled Trump a pedophile? Serious question. Not your opinion, a conviction.
4
u/WitchesSphincter 8h ago
Pedophile is not a legal term, so no court ever would. But your algorithm knows this.
0
u/GanacheSufficient292 7h ago
No court has ever labeled Donald Trump a pedophile, because “pedophile” is not a legal term or a crime. Courts convict people of specific statutory offenses (sexual abuse of a minor, child sexual exploitation, etc.). Trump has zero criminal convictions for any offense involving a minor.
The only sexual-misconduct finding against him is the civil E. Jean Carroll verdict, which involved an adult woman in a civil court and a law change just to even bring the charges to court and found no criminal findings. It was also a shame trial where laws had to be changed to take him to court,
There was no physical evidence from the 1990s, no eyewitnesses to the alleged assault itself, and no criminal investigation or charges. The case proceeded only as a civil suit under New York’s temporary Adult Survivors Act, which reopened the statute of limitations.
There is no evidence of your allegations no matter how much you want it to be true. There are many names tied to JE but there is zero evidence of Trump wrongdoing.
Facts matter.
2
u/WitchesSphincter 7h ago
What about the evidence from April 1990 involving the ham sandwich?
0
u/GanacheSufficient292 7h ago
The “ham sandwich” story is real, but it has nothing to do with Epstein, 1990, or any evidence of a crime. In 1986, real-estate lawyer Steve Witkoff was working on a late-night deal involving Trump. Around 3 a.m. at a New York deli, Trump wanted a ham-and-Swiss sandwich but had no cash. Witkoff paid for it. They didn’t cross paths again for several years. When they did (around 1993–94), Trump remembered “the sandwich incident,” and the two became longtime friends. Witkoff later testified about it in Trump’s New York civil fraud trial and is now a Trump administration envoy. That’s the entire story: a 1986 deli anecdote about how two New York real-estate guys became friends. It is not from April 1990, it does not involve Epstein, and it is not evidence of anything criminal. Where do you guys get this crap?
2
u/WitchesSphincter 7h ago
And you just assume it was a literal ham sandwich? It's clearly a colloquial reference to ham sandwich why would you just pretend otherwise? Especially considering the potato salad of it all?
0
2
u/OldSchoolBubba 6h ago
1
u/GanacheSufficient292 5h ago
And?? Read before you give me a thumbs down. There was no police report from the time, no medical examination, no DNA, no photographs, and no other physical or forensic evidence from the alleged incident. The defense emphasized the decades-long delay, the lack of contemporaneous records, and inconsistencies in Carroll’s earlier public accounts of the year and details. The case was civil, so the standard was preponderance of the evidence (“more likely than not”), not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury credited Carroll’s account and found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. That is a credibility determination by civil jurors, not a finding that physical or documentary proof of the assault existed. Riddle me this: Carroll said she stated her legal fees were contingency based. But, it later came out that Reid Hoffman, a major democratic donor, provided fund for the trail. Hmmm, nothing to see here. Also funny is that in her book she lists 21 other men that "abused" her but none of them were taken to court but Trump including a CBS executive. Just Trump, what a coincidence huh. No evidence, no witnesses, no DNA, no report, no date but found liable because the jury said it might have happened. Most of this was over defamation, but I hope this doesn't happen to any of you men on here.
2
u/OldSchoolBubba 5h ago
Was he adjudicated for sexual assault? Yes. Was he forced to pay her? Yes.
You can argue it all you want but it won't change what happened or the end result.
2
u/WitchesSphincter 5h ago
It's clearly a bot. I had it arguing about ham sandwiches
1
u/GanacheSufficient292 5h ago
I'm not a bot and you ham sandwich comment was stupid just like every other comment. No facts.
0
u/GanacheSufficient292 5h ago
It won't change the court filing and thats under review, but it doesnt change the fact that there was zero evidence it even happened. Every lawyer around said it was a sham trial. You just hang on to it like its gospel. I don't really care. Clinton was a good president so who cares how many BJ's he got from Monica. Biden showered with his almost teen daughter, Obummer is probably gay and committed a crime worse than Watergate, Kennedy had girlfriends while married. They are human.
3
u/Turbulent-Society-30 8h ago
I'm not playing this game.
You think he's not a pedophile, then good for you. Be sure to be vocal and let everyone know you don't believe he's a pedophile.
1
u/GanacheSufficient292 8h ago
So your answer is he's not right it's just public opinion that says he is huh. So are Clinton and Biden ones also? Biden showered with his nearly teenage daughter and Clinton actually has images of him with children. I bet you think Hunter Biden isn't one too huh. Great conversation, your opinion is not fact.
3
u/Turbulent-Society-30 7h ago
Wow, you're giving the MAGA bingo card a good workout. Hey, how many other former presidents and unrelated people do you want to pin this on?
Keep on blaming Biden and the Clinton couple, just like Trump does. But understand, it's not the mic drop you think it is. They're not in office.
0
u/GanacheSufficient292 7h ago
Nope, jist calling out your BS! Clinton has a track record with women and there is written evidence that Joe Burdun showered with his 11 year old daughter. Shame on yoi for NOT calling that out too, but wait they aren't in office so it doesn't matter right? Liberal mentality, look the other way if its my own.
1
8h ago
[deleted]
0
u/GanacheSufficient292 7h ago
No would I want him to, what a dumbass comment. Maybe you're the ones that wants him.
3
3
u/EitherChannel4874 12h ago
"We don't want men in the ring beating up women. Let's save that for our rallies instead".
Scumbag trash.
3
u/10seWoman 8h ago
They don’t want to protect women, they want to go back to when they could use, abuse, and control women for their benefit. I can’t blame them, I’d love to have a 1950’s wife to manage the house, kids, schedules, sex, meals, etc. All I’d have to do is work? Great deal they lost.
2
2
2
u/ProjectNo864 14h ago
Heard a woman say right before his 2nd term “I personally don’t have anything against trump”.
2
2
u/Unlucky-Cup-5461 13h ago
Control the flow of information, punish dissent, encourage violence, divide the population, pump out lies and propaganda to the simple minded..
"War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength".
George Orwell
2
u/ruum-502 13h ago
When you realize protecting and controlling are synonyms for misogynist it all makes sense
2
2
1
1
u/Indespectamentations 14h ago
Why are people ok with this?
1
u/KyleJMcBride 8h ago
Only about 30-35% of US voters are okay with this. The other 65-70% either don't give a damn one way or another, or they are as disgusted as you are by it all. Find as many of that last group of people as you can and do whatever you can to stop it.
1
u/Plus-Mulberry3635 5h ago
The fact that 30% would be okay with this is still pretty disturbing and an indication that this country has serious problems.
1
1
1
u/Beechamp83 13h ago
Yeah did the guy get arrested for assault, at the rally for the law and order President, or did the authorities just come and take the lady using her first amendment rights to express her displeasure with said President.
1
1
u/Cobrakiller_12 13h ago
Conservatives have never cared about women outside of the household.
They use "protecting women" as a way of hurting people they don't like.
1
1
u/M0ebius_1 13h ago
They don't consider people who don't agree with them human beings.
Specially not women.
1
1
1
u/Dombat927 11h ago
The word "our" is doing the heavy lifting here. If they dont like the woman then that word doesn't apply
1
1
u/GanacheSufficient292 9h ago
If you watch the video in slow motion, he had her hand and did NOT punch her. Her arms are flailing and he grabbed her arm.
1
u/Ok_Ideal_6383 6h ago
This Republicans party consist of abusers, chauvinists, grifters, Nazis, terrorist, KKK and pedophiles. Vote Blue in November . If Dems win Let’s hope they don’t do anything to not certify them.
1
u/qtip4eyes 6h ago
They only protect women who 'know their place,' which is no place any sane woman would want to be.
1
u/Taomenow 4h ago
Trump was elected by this misogynistic group of stupid hicks. All ends in November..
1
1
-2
u/camaro87us 8h ago
So what's the big deal Charlie Kurt got shot all the Democrats cheered applauded and threw a party for over it a woman killed her three kids the Democrats threw a fit stating that she shouldn't be held accountable because of mental conditions a couple years back a guy did the same thing he had mental issues you guys didn't fight for him he got the death sentence so what is your gigantic problem with this
1
-2
u/GanacheSufficient292 9h ago
Apparently the woman was kicking and spitting on people. Would you be okay with that if you were on the receiving end? Also, nowhere in the video does the man in the dark shirt punch her like the media and others are saying.
-7
-26
u/Ok_Duck_232 14h ago
would have been les scandalous if a woman punched a man? whoever threw first punch is the agresor, regardless of gender and the other party, the victim, should be protected regardless if is a man or women.
18
u/Vibrantmender20 14h ago
Yes, it would have been less scandalous.
Because Republicans never brag about protecting men, the do however regularly brag about how much they do to protect women.
9
u/Indespectamentations 14h ago
I'm pretty sure this thread is about a man punching a woman. You Maga's have no problem with assaulting a woman or a child, but we already knew that.
6
u/imastirthepot 14h ago
Why do I get the feeling that women punching you is the only physical contact you ever get from them?
104
u/MetaCardboard 14h ago
None of it is ever about actually protecting women.