I have been responding to you without the context of the surrounding arguments. I see now this thread has been heated. A lot of people here haven’t given your points a fair shake, and some have even gone straight to insults. I want to make clear: that’s not how I am or have been approaching you.

You’ve been defending an important principle, that justice requires safeguards like presumption of innocence and burden of proof. I respect that, and I’m not your enemy here. Where I think we’ve gotten stuck is in treating this like a contest of right vs. wrong instead of an opportunity to explore a tricky issue together.

When you said, “If you’re unwilling to come to terms on this, it’s no longer my problem,” I understand the frustration. But I see conversations differently. They aren’t problems to discard once they get hard, they are opportunities to grow, to test ideas, and to sharpen our own thinking. Even when we disagree, I learn from exchanges like this. Your pushback has made me think more carefully about how testimony is weighed in practice versus principle.

So I’d like to approach this less as sparring partners and more as fellow learners. We may not land in the same place, but if we both leave with deeper clarity, then that’s a win for both of us. That is why I have continued our discussion.

The Carroll case verdict was based on:

• Carroll’s testimony
• Testimony from two friends she told in the 1990s (contemporaneous disclosure)
• Testimony from other women describing similar experiences
• Trump’s Access Hollywood tape statements
• Trump’s deposition testimony

That’s… literally all testimony and statements. No physical evidence, no DNA, no security footage, no documents. The “shit-load more” you’re referring to IS testimony. They are different types of testimony that corroborate a pattern.

You keep saying “testimony ALONE does not convict” but then when shown cases where it does, you call them “exceptions.” How many “exceptions” do you need before acknowledging it’s an established part of our legal system?

Here’s the reality: in many sexual assault cases, especially historical ones, testimony is the primary or only evidence. That’s why courts developed extensive frameworks for evaluating credibility. Because they recognized that requiring physical evidence for crimes that typically occur in private would effectively legalize those crimes.

• State v. Michaels(1984): “The victim’s testimony alone, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
• People v. Barnes(1986): Conviction upheld based solely on victim testimony.

These aren’t “exceptions”, they’re applications of established law.

Your HOA example actually undermines your own argument. If 28 random, unconnected people from different neighborhoods, different decades, who don’t know each other, all independently accused the same HOA president of embezzlement with similar patterns… wouldn’t that be worth investigating seriously? The legal system already has mechanisms to evaluate credibility and coordination. That’s literally what discovery and cross-examination are for. That’s literally what reasonable doubt standards are for.

But it does happen sometimes under specific circumstances. So if it happens sometimes, there is precedent.

I encourage you to go find some sexual assault cases where nothing but testimony led to a conviction and give them a read. You might be surprised.

Here, I’ll help by offering one for you to read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#%3A~%3Atext%3DIn_November_2022%2C_Carroll_filed%2Cand_his_October_2022_deposition.%3Fwprov=sfla1

Can testimony alone lead to a conviction?

That’s not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.

Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.

The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).

Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don’t require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.

The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.

While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.

So while physical evidence can be powerful, it’s not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.

In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.

For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.

The only woman Donald Trump wants is to believe Maxwell. He didn’t move her to a better prison for nothing.

Nah. The same ten people that post content have just upped their game. Never stop you beautiful people!

Yeah but can you spew that nonsense at millions of people on your very own shitty platform? Gotta get on muskies level.

Nope. They are still very much happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/podcasts/the-daily/trump-family-separations.html

No. As far as I know, its the cheapest legal option. The only hurdle is that only like 10 states allow it as a legal option.

Science Vs. did a great episode on Human Composting a few years back. It’s really touching and highlights a fantastic way to convert your death into life.

Here is a link to the episode. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6reXXkhnvGxpSvnCz8wP2c

My wife came to me saying her laptop wasn’t working. She was on it last night. It was forcing a Windows account login. Shift-10 disabled so I couldn’t bypass.

Microsoft can straight fuck itself after this. Trying to brick an 8 year old laptop with a local account. Fuck that noise. My wife is gonna have to learn Linux.

It’s so much more effective when you keep things as neutral as possible. I will often ask it to tear apart my argument as though I am my opponent and use its tendency to align with the user against itself.

When I was 7, I would mow a lawn for 10$ and then ride my bike to a movie rental store and rent video games. It was about 5 miles away.

I didn’t like him either. For me, it’s Oblivion. He’s incredible in an incredibly original and beautiful film. That soundtrack though puts it through the roof.

Shhh. Don’t tell them. You’ll ruin the fun!

“This is not the pro-life party, folks.”

It never was.

I believe true patriotism isn’t just about loving your country, it’s about holding it accountable to its ideals. I love America deeply, and I honor those who sacrificed to uphold its founding principles. But I also see how words like ‘freedom’ and ‘patriotism’ have been misused, often twisted into tools for division or control. To me, being a patriot means seeking truth, learning from history, and speaking out when those values are betrayed. It’s about striving to make the country better, not pretending it’s perfect.

Tipping isn’t gratitude, it’s a system that lets corporations avoid paying workers a living wage. The barista earns a few bucks an hour, relying on tips to survive because the company doesn’t want to pay them fairly.

It’s not the barista’s fault. The corpos’ use them as leverage to perpetuate their shitty behavior. If you don’t tip, they suffer, not the business. That’s emotional blackmail dressed up as generosity.

If we keep tipping just to hold the system together, it never has to change. Real change would mean companies paying fair, livable wages up front, even if it makes the coffee more expensive. I’m fine with that and I feel others should be too.

Tipping should be a “thank you”, not a lifeline.

If we truly cared about baristas, we wouldn’t just tip, we would be be advocating for a better system that doesn’t force them to depend on tips to survive. A mass refusal to participate in this broken model is the kind of disruption that could force companies to actually pay fair wages.

Instead, we keep tipping because it feels easier and safer in the moment even though it traps workers in a cycle of dependence. I get it. It’s uncomfortable to stop doing what feels like the right thing. But sometimes, real support looks like pushing for change, not maintaining the illusion of it.