Sadly, Nietzsche Was Right (About Trump)
In 1888, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote a book of aphorisms which contained the following: "Aus der Kriegsschule des Lebens. -- Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker." This can be translated into English as: "Out of the war-school of life. -- What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger." In a different book he wrote in the same year, Nietzsche refined the thought a bit, speaking of "nature's lucky strokes... among men," and saying of such lucky individuals: "He divines remedies for injuries; he knows how to turn serious accidents to his own advantage, that which does not kill him makes him stronger."
I went and looked the quote up today (in order to get it right) for a very obvious reason. The jury in the New York sexual battery and defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump only needed three hours to return with a unanimous verdict against him. Donald Trump is now liable for sexual battery and defamation against Carroll, to the tune of five million dollars. But the thought virtually everyone who comments on politics immediately had was: "Will this make any difference?"
Ronald Reagan was the first man to have the label "Teflon President" used about him. No matter what bad things happened, nothing ever seemed to stick to The Gipper. But Donald Trump is much more worthy of such a moniker, since nothing seems to ever stick to him, no matter how bad or disqualifying it would at first seem. 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.
Before Trump hit the political scene, it is inconceivable that any American politician could ever have suffered the courtroom verdict Trump just heard today and gone on to have a successful political career, but Trump completely rewrote all those rules during his 2016 campaign (and since). He is currently the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, and he likely still will be next week, after this verdict sinks in (and polls have been conducted to gauge the public's reaction). 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. Trump probably could get caught on video randomly shooting someone in New York City and his supporters would no doubt love it. He'd start selling T-shirts with the image on it to fund his campaign, and it'd likely become his top seller.
Maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but not by a whole lot. But if actually committing cold-blooded murder wouldn't lose him any (or "many") supporters, who really thinks an adverse decision against Trump in a civil lawsuit is going to change any of their minds?
I remember thinking, very early on in the 2016 race (back in the summer of 2015, in fact), that Trump's comments about Senator John McCain were an automatic disqualification. This was when Trump said: "He's not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured." I figured Trump was toast at that point, since the Republican Party prided itself on reverence for anyone in the military in general, and war heroes in particular. How could Trump ever hope to convince Republicans to vote for him after denigrating McCain in such a fashion?
This was long before the Access Hollywood tape revealed to everyone Trump's true feelings towards women. By that point, I had already given up on ever again thinking: "Well, this is it, he's gone too far now -- surely Trump is toast this time, right?"
Trump seems completely immune to the political gravity that would have crashed any other mortal politician back down to Earth after such a scandal. Recently, in New York, Trump was indicted on 34 felonies which sprung from his paying hush money to an adult film star to keep quiet about having sex with Trump right after his wife had given birth. This wasn't a new revelation, but the felony charges were indeed new. And what happened to Trump politically? He rose in the polls.
In other words, Nietzsche was right.
Perhaps future criminal charges may be different. Perhaps. But even if Trump is indicted in Georgia for election fraud and racketeering, by the federal special prosecutor for refusing to turn over classified and other presidential documents, or his role in the January 6th attempted insurrection, a whole lot of his followers will shrug their shoulders and chalk it all up to (in Trump's words) a "witch hunt" against him. The only way this could change is if another GOP presidential candidate can somehow successfully convince the Republican base that all these things will mean Trump will surely lose in the general election. But so far, that's been a steep hill to climb and nobody's gotten any traction yet.
Trump personifies the Hollywood adage "there is no such thing as bad press." For a movie actor, even scandalous stores still put your name in the news. The public pays attention to you -- which is an actor's bread and butter. Trump, far more than any blockbuster film star, is a master at manipulating the media to get his face in the news in as many news cycles as possible. He simply doesn't care what puts him front and center, as long as people are tuning in to watch.
So far, this has worked wonders for him. Trump has already indicated that he'll appeal today's verdict, meaning that he won't have to pay out any of that $5 million any time soon. It was merely a civil trial, so he never faced the possibility of any jail time anyway.
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. What doesn't (metaphorically and politically) kill Donald Trump will almost surely make him stronger.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Naw, I hearby totally disagree: as Teflon Don — right after “Teflon Saint Ronnie” and thence “Bush the Younger” went ahead and SOLD SIMILAR BULLSHIT to Murica. I believe that Trump forced Murica to pay more attention to politics
…and I don’t think the old-school B.S. will fly for the Repugs. But new-school B.S. has a REAL chance, no?
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???
@stucki,
the jury didn't think so.
[3]
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.
CW
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.
CW
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
CW
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.
C. R. Stucki
3
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.
Kick
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?
is that supposed to be an insult? the presumption that any woman who is skilled in self-defense and/or martial arts must therefore somehow be "manly" betrays a major cultural deficit.
Have you never noticed that transwomen tend to be much larger than regular women? That's an observable fact, not an "insult".
It's also the most basic error in logic.
i.e. when presented with a trans woman it makes some sense to presume she might have above average strength. However, when presented with a woman who can handle herself in a fight, it makes zero sense to presume she be might be trans. If nothing else, it's an insult to your own intelligence.
C. R. Stucki
10
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.
nypoet22
11
is that supposed to be an insult?
I don't think the Neanderthal meant to insult himself... but managed it anyway. :)
C. R. Stucki
12
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. :)
nypoet22
14
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.
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?
If only they hadn't failed to get trained in the martial arts, they's still be virgins, right?
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Chris,
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 ...
“I filed this lawsuit against Donald Trump to clear my name and to get my life back. Today, the world finally knows the truth,” Carroll said in a statement Tuesday. She didn’t speak to reporters outside the courthouse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/jury-reaches-verdict-e-jean-carroll-rape-defamation-case-trump-rcna82778
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?
...who really thinks an adverse decision against Trump in a civil lawsuit is going to change any of their minds?
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.
Trump seems completely immune to the political gravity that would have crashed any other mortal politician back down to Earth after such a scandal.
Let's explore why that is.
Elizabeth Miller
21
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.
He was found liable for sexual battery and defamation. Let's keep this at least semi-real, okay?
C. R. Stucki
19
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.
Elizabeth Miller
26
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. :)
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'"
I agree, wholeheartedly, CRS! That does seem to be the first path taken, unfortunately. I try hard to not be guilty of that, myself ...
C. R. Stucki
29
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.