Grateful Steve

He simply waited three weeks and lowered the previous numbers. Quietly. 🙄

President Abraham Lincoln (R) signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Conservative.
The Klan was founded by (D)emocrats.
Jim Crow laws were legislated by (D)emocrats.

I'm home, Lily!

Exactly. As well as...

When debate and discussion don't meet with their lockstep demands, they (D)enigrate...

Correction: You, and others, are having a hard time accepting the fact that my answers, which have been complete, do not match your lockstep demands and expectations.

You, and your ilk, have parroting down to a science.
Why feel the need to recruit more parrots?

Deflection noted.
The court's decision was, and remains, sexual abuse.

It depends on the respective state's laws.

I appreciate your tenacity, as disoriented as it is.
At least you don't resort to blocking, when things don't go your way. An increasingly common reaction, on BS.

But, I have to leave you now.
Maybe we can pick this up, when the case is heard on appeal.

Good luck to you. 🙂

Rape v.
the unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will

"...he’s the court..."
But, he's not the court's decision. That was only his opinion.
Memo: It was a JURY trial. 🙄

"You don’t can’t answer the question."
What is your question, this time?

I already gave you my complete opinion.

There goes that darn cognitive dissonance, again. 🙄

I read his opinion.
Again, that is only his opinion. It was not the court's decision.

Conflating continues to be a challenging issue.

conflate v.
confused with another or with each other : not properly differentiated

Have you looked at the woman??
Her looks alone provide ample scepticism, regarding her accusations. 🙄

But, again, that is only my opinion.

Not so. But, please cling to your inane beliefs.
Meanwhile...

I've already addressed your definition. Ad nauseum.

I do not believe, based on the accuser's lack of credibility, and the facts of the case, that President Trump snuck into a Manhatten department store dressing room, undetected by everyone, and raped her.

But, that is only my opinion.

It was an example.
However, if one reads this thread, no defence would seem necessary.

We'll defer to your expertise on floundering. And conflating.
Good luck, with both. 🙂

Read the case. As this will obviously be the first time, you may learn a few things.

In the meantime, I have shared enough of my opinions, regarding the court's decision, and corrected enough of your assertions\assumptions.

Read the case file. "Will you have the balls to though?"

"So, let’s get this straight, you don’t think forcefully penetrating a woman’s vagina against her will is rape..." is actually an assumption, disguised as an assertion.

That can be construed as defamation, which president Trump was found liable for.

See how that can work?

Before we go on...

Please cite, from ANY source, where I implied that I "don’t think forcefully penetrating a woman’s vagina against her will is rape."

Still waiting, for a citation that supports your previous assertion...

So, you are "asking me to share the court's decision."
The court's decision is based on "the details of the case."

Are you asking me to share the court's decision or my opinion on this case?

The "cognitive dissonance" is more obvious in your comments.

Hence, your need to conflate.

Memo: Your opinion does not change the court's decision.
No matter how troubling you find the fact that President Trump was NOT found guilty of or liable for rape.