Why do Republicans think a convicted felon, and a rapist should be President?

It is not as if it is too late for them to reject him, or for him to step down to save his Party’s dignity. Do they not have other candidates that are as qualified? Do they think that being a convicted rapist is not a big deal as long as that person is of the “correct” political persuasion?
What gives?

Because it’ll own the libs.

/ thread

/ thread

In addition to that: i suspect that a lot of them believe (or want to believe) Trump’s protestations that he’s innocent, that the judges are corrupt, that the Biden Justice department is out to keep him from being president again, etc., etc.

Also, on a technical note, he is not a “convicted rapist,” assuming you are talking about the E. Jean Carroll cases. He was found to be liable, in a civil (not criminal) case, of sexual assault. There’s no such thing as being “convicted” or “found guilty” in a civil case.

I am sure they will say this but that is willful ignorance. It’d be like coming home and finding a used condom in your bedroom you never used but your partner promised was yours.

Republicans have been gradually groomed to see these sorts of accusations as being attacks from the liberals and Democrats. Any accusation of rape from long ago is treated as suspect. It’s not that surprising that they’ve pushed it even further.

As noted above, it wasn’t actually a conviction, but civil liability, so they can say “he didn’t really do it.” And Carol was successfully cast as a liar who was out to harm Trump.

People will make excuses for anyone they genuinely like. It takes crossing a line to overcome this. By gradually pushing that line, a lot of things they would not accept are now accepted.

Trump has done enough bad stuff that something that isn’t even a conviction pales in comparison. It’s easy for them to just say “at least it wasn’t X.”

And don’t discount the fact that they push fearmongering and anger-mongering, emotions that have a way of eroding moral considerations (and logical thought).

Amazing from the, “grab her by the pussy” guy. In his own words, own voice, recorded.

Again, it is willful on the part of those who support him. They’d never let that pass if it was a dem who did it.

It’s not even a technicality. Much as I despise TFG, he is not a convicted rapist. This thread frankly has zero basis in actual fact, so there is nothing to debate. If you want to call him a rapist, fine. If you call him a convicted rapist, your credibility is on par with Fox News.

I think that is going overboard. He was proven in court to have committed rape. We unfortunately lack a good word for that concept. But it is understandable that some people mistakenly use “convicted.”

It’s a misstatement of fact, but an understandable one. Fox News, on the other hand, intentionally lies.

As odious as it sounds, you should spend a small amount of time each week tuning into Fox News or conservative radio, just so you’re aware of the narrative on the other side. From their perspective, he’s just not guilty of anything - other than being a martyr for the cause, and the unjust target of Biden’s corrupt Deep State.

A Deep State that will absolutely positively succeed in destroying our Republic forever sometime between 2024 and 2028 if Savior trump isn’t elected to stop them.

That’s the equation they’re looking at: Absolute Doom or trump: which will it be?

To a decent degree that’s how most of us are approaching the election as well. Absolute Doom or Biden: which will it be?

Whether any of us think Biden is the ideal candidate or the ideal president for 2024-2028 among plausible alternatives is immaterial at this point. When the alternative is Absolute Doom, Biden’s my guy all the way.

The difference of course is most (not all) of the LW world is rooted in reality and most (not all) of the RW world is rooted in fake propaganda.

Trump certainly has enough attributes that ought to disqualify him from consideration by any decent person - including his willingness to misstate and fabricate - that is serves little use to misstate things such as his being a “convicted rapist.”

He was found in court, under the preponderance of the evidence, to have committed rape. In other words, the court determined that there was a more than 50% chance he did it. That’s a far cry from the “beyond a reasonable doubt” needed for a criminal conviction.

Do I think that he committed rape? Absolutely. Do I think that, if he ever saw criminal charges for it, he would be found guilty? Probably. Has that happened yet? Definitely no.

As to the OP question, there are probably also a significant number of Republicans who think things like “Yeah, he probably coerced women into having sex with him, but that’s just because he’s strong and powerful. That doesn’t count as rape. Doesn’t everyone do that, if they can?”.

This, Og-dammit. A lot of the RW/redpill/incel/Tate-sphere (it’s not specifically Republican) honestly and sincerely believe that only violent forcible rape of a virtuous woman is “rape”, and that OTOH this, imposing your sexual will because you are the powerful mighty alpha male, is just the righteous way of the world from time immemorial and nowadays it’s just that the lying bitches are taking advantage of a corrupt system to make up accusations to get vengeance on the men they are sorry to have yielded to, instead of just accepting it as an occupational hazard of having been born female and moving on.

Your mistake was putting the word “think” in the thread title. Thinking is not part of the process. At no point does the typical Trump voter stop and make a rational review of the evidence in order to form conclusions.

The key here is faith. You find an authority figure and choose to follow them. You trust the authority figure to make choices for you and give you directions. You believe what the authority figure tells you and that the authority figure has your best interests at heart. You identify with the authority figure and feel that attacks on that authority figure as attacks on you personally.

Part of this faith is feeling that reality is a product of beliefs. If people believe something is true then it becomes true. So the important thing is not to work on changing reality to what you want it to be. Instead the important thing is changing what other people believe and converting them to your beliefs. Their doubt is making your beliefs untrue and if you can change their minds then what you now commonly believe would become true.

Look at the Republican response to climate change as an example of how this works. Climate change is science; it’s about the collection and observation of objective measurements and deriving conclusions from that evidence. But Republican voters don’t see it that way. They feel that people have just chosen to have a belief in climate change and that collective belief is what is causing weather problems. If these people would just stop talking about climate change then people would stop believing in climate change. And when people stopped believing in climate change, it would disappear and temperatures would go back to where they should be.

So to get back to the OP, it’s not a question of whether or not Donald Trump committed sexual assault. It’s a question of whether or not you believe he did. If everyone believed that he never committed any crimes, then that would become reality - he would not have committed any crimes. But some people refuse to believe this. They believe Trump committed crimes - and by believing this they are causing the reality where Trump committed those crimes to exist.

Now everyone agrees it would be a better reality where the President hadn’t committed crimes. But the believers don’t see Trump’s past actions as the source of those crimes. They see the beliefs of Trump’s enemies as the source of those crimes. Those enemies are making those crimes exist by choosing to believe they happened. So Trump’s enemies not Trump himself are the ones who are making these crimes happen.

Even when they weren’t seen as such, I think there’s a fairly big segment of the population that basically believes that taking what they want is the mark of a powerful man, especially ones in power. There’s also a chunk that feels like a certain level of political/governmental corruption is if not acceptable, inevitable, so men in positions of power may as well get their cut.

Combine the two, and throw in a dose of “everything thrown at this guy has to be politically motivated” thinking, and you get Trump, a whole lot of state/local politiicians in the South, etc. These two viewpoints are synergistic to an extent- if you view something like corruption as inevitable in politics, and politicians who don’t engage in it as stupid, then if someone else goes and attacks/tries that politician for that thing, you’re going to automatically view it as politically motivated, because why else would you go after them? In these folks’ eyes, the main sin is being stupid enough to get caught, not that you actually did it.

The people who say that E. Jean Carroll must be believed, are, by and large, the same people who spent decades ignoring or attacking Bill Clinton’s accusers, and who have spent years ignoring Joe Biden’s accusers. When it comes to allegations of sexual assault, both-sides-ism becomes extremely easy.

After watching Leticia James an Alvin Bragg railroad Trump, conservatives have deep suspicions about the integrity of New York’s judicial system.

Given the number of “Felon 2024” flags tshirts, etc that I’ve been seeing, I absolutely agree that for the typical trump supporter it’s absolutely about “owning the Libs” and there’s little critical thought past that. And since they are unwilling or incapable of critical thought, they also eat up everything that comes from the republican/conservative camp as absolute truth. But it’s mainly about owning the Libs and everything they stand for - progressivism, pro-immigration, diversity, civil rights, etc.

Czarcasm never said Trump was convicted of rape. Czarcasm called Trump a convicted felon. He is. He was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Czarcasm also called him a rapist. He is. He was found liable for raping E. Jean Carrol. The comma in the heading isn’t necessary but it makes the statement both entirely unambiguous and yet entirely misinterpreted by so many here.