What kind of person votes for a multiple rapist?

SCOTUS just refused to hear Trump's appeal of his sexual assault and defamation of Jean Carroll conviction. This makes me revisit a question I can't really answer. 

How on earth could so many people vote for someone who is a convicted rapist, a self-confessed sexual assaulter, and a documented pedophile? I can only conclude that they either a) have no moral center at all, or b) manage to delude themselves that it's all a witch hunt lawfare lawfare lawfare babble babble babble, as the Turd just posted on Lies Social. Because how can they live with themselves otherwise? Especially as so many of them are holy rollers and preach the gospel of Christian morality, which last time I looked, frowns on rape.

Imagine if Biden or Obama had been accused--not even convicted, just accused--of rape at any point in their careers. The firestorm of righteous Republican indignation would have consumed them and at the very least, ended their political lives. I guess, though, that Republican rape is OK? It's just swell to "grab 'em by the pussy," as long as you're wearing a red baseball cap??

People wonder why I loathe Trumpers so passionately. This is why. I can tolerate political differences, opposing points of view; I'm mildly nauseated by that TRUMP sign down the street, but it's their right to display it. But casual, gleeful, boastful violence against women? Tacit or even explicit endorsement thereof? No. No. NO.

I'm sure that Miller will respond by insulting me, in order to deflect attention from his shame. I also expect "WHAT ABOUT HUNTER, HUH?????" from stupid Tom. Expecting otherwise would be like expecting pigs not to shit in their pigpen. But I'd like to hear from anyone who has Trumper friends or relatives, and how those people have managed to rationalize the horrible moral failings and outright crimes of the multiple rapist and felon they support. Do they maintain the feeble fantasy that he's innocent of every charge and crime and that it's all lawfare? Because I truly don't see how anyone with a shred of common decency could live with themselves if they didn't concoct some kind of excuse/rationalization.

Might be a bit of a nitpick, but convicted isn't really the right word.

Convicted means found guilty in a criminal trial. 

Trump was found liable in a civil trial. 

As to your question I would speculate it's mostly "b". Mixed with some peer pressure. 

Yeah, I realize the distinction, but it's more semantic than real. He raped her. The court found that he was liable, which means that in their judgment, he performed the act that he was accused of. And yes, the burden of proof is less in a a civil trial; a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. All that said, I doubt that any reasonable person thinks that Trump didn't do what he was accused of and sued for doing.

And I suppose that the above distinction does support the b) phenomenon, wherein people say that hey, he wasn't convicted of a crime. But again, how could anyone think that he hasn't done what thirteen women (not just Carroll) have accused him of and he's openly bragged about?

People have asked me why I despise Trumpers so much. This is why. They support a horrible and loathsome man with terrible character. Politics ain't got nothing to do with it. He's an awful human being and shames our country every day he goes on breathing. May that end soon!

I didn't grow up in a MAGA family or live in a MAGA community, but I can't imagine "peer pressure" that would induce me to not only condone rape but also vote for an admitted multiple rapist. But obviously, that pressure exists, because if nothing else, the moral corruption that I mention couldn't possibly exist in ALL Trump supporters, right? Not tens of millions of people, right?

...right?

 Where is your proof that "he raped her"?  

A most notable case of that was the OJ Simpson trial. 

Today most people, even his fan base, pretty much "know" OJ did it.  

So, for OJ's case as a parallel, call it b),

mixed with c) fame and fortune. 

and d) better lawyers.

And even throw in e), some questionable investigative work, difficult to overcome in such cases.

I don't know, I wasn't there in either case.

Candy

It's not "my proof"; it's the court's determination. Obviously, we'll never know for certain what happened. But THIRTEEN women have accused Trump of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault, so yeah...they could all be lying. They could. Yeah. Sure.

It's called "preponderance of evidence."

 What a "court determines" is not actual proof - it is a judgement made in the absense of actual proof. So I say again - where is your proof?

The jury decided that there was actual proof that Trump sexually assaulted this women. Because of Trump's tremendous stupidity, he forced the judge to rule that Trump's actions were indeed rape as it is colloquially defined. He is a rapist according to a jury verdict and the judge's ruling. Now he lost his appeal to the Supreme Court so it is irrefutable proof. 

That Simpson trial was a farce. If he had walked into a bar with her severed head tucked under her arm, chortled to all, "I offed the bitch!," and bought everybody a round of drinks, he would still have been acquitted. That trial was cast as a racially motivated "witch hunt" and was a foregone conclusion. And yeah, of course he did it.

If you're drawing a parallel to Trump's deeds, yes, c), he's famous, but I'm not sure if that helped or hurt him in the Carroll trial; d) Trump's lawyers were demonstrably worse than Simpson's; OJ had that guy, Johnny Cochran I think was his name, who pulled that sly "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" stunt (a masterly deflection from the evidence at hand), while Trump just had the usual slobbering lackey who had been chosen for his fealty to Trump rather than his ability; e), the parallel isn't apt here because while the police/detective work in the Simpson case was shoddy, the Trump trial was civil, so no "investigative work" was done; there was no criminal prosecution.

All that aside...no one has been tasked with showing their loyalty to OJ the murderer, while people have been tasked (or tasked themselves) with showing their loyalty to Trump the rapist.

As I said, we cannot know for certain what happened. There is no "my proof." It's simply very, very likely that a man accused by thirteen women of sexual assault is guilty of that offense.

You can "say again" until you turn purple and pop like an overripe zit, but I wasn't the judge. I am simply relying on the court's verdict as being overwhelmingly likely to be correct. But as I already said, it's POSSIBLE that Carroll and the other twelve women were making it all up.

And that's what MAGA has to keep telling themselves; otherwise, they have to admit that they're rape supporters.