Does a trump victory change the view of the severity of sexual assault on society

[mids2019]

So Donald Trump, a convicted sex offender, has decisively became the most powerful man in the world for the second time.

Does this victory mean that there is a danger the severity of sexual assault may be undervalued in future as it would visibly appear that such behaviour does not limit your rise to power in any way?

Obviously many women in the US voted for trump so are quite capable of separating policies for. The man but does this not leave a social current where there is a tacit acceptance of such behaviour of a man is powerful?

I could never see such a man rise to such power in the UK but now we have to see British politicians act diplomatically towards him again maybe placing a kind of legitimacy to his behaviour.

Saw someone on an American news channel talking about this. They said being concerned about Trumps history with regards to sexual assault etc is a luxury for those who aren’t worried about inflation, job security, bills, health insurance, etc. and that for a huge amount of Americans those financial issues are the only concern and they will vote for the person they trust the most to make their personal future secure regardless of anything else.

He isn’t a ‘convicted sex offender’ though?

That, weirdly is why a lot of people voted for him..the lies that have been spread about him

I could never see such a man rise to such power in the UK

Yeah you could. Google the Westminster pedophile dossier.

I've just gone down a rabbit hole on this. Of course he is, unless you have proof for us that many major media outlets are all conspiring and lying about a court case outcome?

I think it's worrying. Very few sexual assaults are reported anyway, and for it now to be clear that, even when reported and convicted of something, someone can still run and win a US election is horrifying.

I think it's the knock on effects I'm most worried about. Most major players in private business - CEOs/Directors, know even a whiff of substantiated claims regarding SA going public will equal dismissal (if it can't be shoved under the carpet) and ruining their career. But if public perception is now 'it's fine, as long as you're doing the job better than your opposition, who cares?!' I think that's going to change how larger companies deal with it. Which will then have an impact on men feeling it's easier to get away with/won't ruin my career, so why not?

Donald Trump is not a convicted sex offender.

There was a civil claim against Trump and numerous other allegations.

I do take the point that woman were voting for economic change and hence for the benefit of their families in this case. Maybe the democrats assumed too much about how women would respond through the ballot box.

It's up to the person making the claim to provide supporting evidence.
Please proceed to list resources reporting Donald's trump sex offence conviction.

@GoldCat255 - I would love to know your source?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

There is no source for things that did not happen (Donald Trump's sex offence conviction).
You say it happened. What is your source ?

Is it semantics to compare civil cases with criminal cases. Does this means we have to view civil courts as just means for victims to get financial compensation and we ignore the judgement against the person assualting?

That is a civil case and not a criminal one. Therefore, no criminal conviction.

OK it wasn't a criminal case so it's all fine. Apologies.

Civil liability does not result in a criminal conviction, and it does not classify him as a “sex offender” under criminal law.

And yes, the media are responsible for repeating these lines and many voters have expressed how sick of it they are. The ‘convicted felon’ line is pretty spurious and I think it backfired. He was convicted of not accounting for 34 payments to Stormy Daniels over 9 years ago. Yes, it’s grim, but it’s sort of a private matter and when the media talk about ‘34 times convicted felon’ it is a gross exaggeration of what was going on, deliberately designed to smear him. I’m not fully defending him, it’s just the ‘law fare’ that has been waged against him to bring him down has been pretty relentlessly petty, and people don’t like it, it’s turned him into a hero

No, it isn't. You claimed Donald Trump is a convicted sex offender. He is not.

OK he wasn't convicted in a criminal court.

It's madness how so many women voted for him when he is legally convicted as a sexual predator let alone a felon due to his other convictions, they think he is going to save the economy when in fact they have actually been under his tax policy & if he introduces tariffs like he says they will be struggling more as prices will rise 🤷🏻‍♀️ It's madness that most felons can't get a job due to having to disclose their convictions yet here you have a multiple times convicted felon as one of the most powerful men in the world & his followers claiming his crimes etc were all a set up 🫣

I really hate to do this, it goes against the grain but when you are talking about powerful disruptive people, the question does have to be asked. Have you spent any time looking at the accuser in this case @mids2019 ?

But he was convicted, in a court, of a sexual offence? I honestly don't see what I'm missing here. Is the argument Sexual Assault is not a sexual offence?

I do take the point that a conviction didn't happen so apologies for the title but there was a successful civil case against Trump.

Convicted should be changed to found liable

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

I googled this headline so may be I did get confused about the difference between social liability Nd criminal conviction.

The case could not be tried at a criminal court as there was insufficient evidence so the civil trial required a “preponderance of evidence” standard, meaning the jury only needed to believe it was more likely than not (over 50% likelihood) that the abuse occurred, rather than the higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” required in criminal cases. This lower standard of proof allowed the jury to find him ‘liable’ without direct physical evidence.

The alleged incident occurred in the mid-90s. I obviously don’t know what happened, it was something about being in a changing room in a department store, but I really don’t think this changes most people’s view of sexual assault. I think a lot of people believe this was a case to try and bring Trump down (lawfare), so it’s not like they believe he’s a predator and ignore it, it’s more like they think the whole thing is made up because ‘People’ didn’t want him in power

I think it backfired and actually if the whole thing was made up, or even exaggerated, then those people have done more harm

Society doesn't really care about women being sexually assaulted. If it had been men I'm sure more would have been made of it.