West Ham Online

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 18:28

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:41

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:32

If that was proven and not just some conspiracy theory I’d call him a sick cսnt.

difference is that you know Trump sexually abused women and you defend it. So who’s the sick cսnt?

Not true, I already told you it was a kangaroo court. Or do you not know what that means ffs?

Oh it was only sexual assault not rape.
oh oh it was a kangaroo court.

lol

proven sexual abuser of women. Upheld via appeal as well. And you can’t even bring yourself to criticise him. Defending a known sexual predator. 

collyrob wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 23:14 Can you two cunts just text each other privately.

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:41

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:32

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:26

Thats right Starmer likes rent boys I forgot. 

You defend kiddy fiddlers. Sick cսnt!

If that was proven and not just some conspiracy theory I’d call him a sick cսnt.

difference is that you know Trump sexually abused women and you defend it. So who’s the sick cսnt?

Not true, I already told you it was a kangaroo court. Or do you not know what that means ffs?

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:32

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:26

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:24

Sexually abusing women isn’t tolerable either. Difference is you defend a proven sexual abuser of women.

No I don’t wish Starmer was the same. Why would I want a PM who sexually abused women? 

Thats right Starmer likes rent boys I forgot. 

You defend kiddy fiddlers. Sick cսnt!

If that was proven and not just some conspiracy theory I’d call him a sick cսnt.

difference is that you know Trump sexually abused women and you defend it. So who’s the sick cսnt?

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:26

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:24

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:20

I like the idea of protecting British kids from the scourge of immigration and Islam.

Ban all Pakistani men and Halal they’re inhumane.

Trump has banned people from certain fucked up countries from entering the USA to protect the US people. It’s common sense. Which is why I like him, he has a backbone and puts America first.


Deep down you wish Starmer was cut from the same cloth.
I prefer Trumps tolerance level over yours and Starmers I bet the kids in the UK do too.

Difference here is I care about the kids all you care about is the Pakistani rapists and how they’re perceived.
In your world if someone has brown skin they are off limits from any criticism. Well that doesn’t apply in my world. I’ll continue to call it as it is.

There is an obvious problem with Pakistani men and Muslim men on how they’re perceived treat women and children and it’s not fucking tolerable.

Sexually abusing women isn’t tolerable either. Difference is you defend a proven sexual abuser of women.

No I don’t wish Starmer was the same. Why would I want a PM who sexually abused women? 

Thats right Starmer likes rent boys I forgot. 

You defend kiddy fiddlers. Sick cսnt!

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:24

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:20

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:56

hahaha look at you dance around it. He’s a proven sexual abuser of women, which was upheld via appeal as well.

I’m not comparing. I’m pointing your rank hypocrisy constantly bringing up grooming gangs while championing a proven sexual abuser of women.

You like the idea of castrating rapists but not sexual abusers?

I like the idea of protecting British kids from the scourge of immigration and Islam.

Ban all Pakistani men and Halal they’re inhumane.

Trump has banned people from certain fucked up countries from entering the USA to protect the US people. It’s common sense. Which is why I like him, he has a backbone and puts America first.


Deep down you wish Starmer was cut from the same cloth.
I prefer Trumps tolerance level over yours and Starmers I bet the kids in the UK do too.

Difference here is I care about the kids all you care about is the Pakistani rapists and how they’re perceived.
In your world if someone has brown skin they are off limits from any criticism. Well that doesn’t apply in my world. I’ll continue to call it as it is.

There is an obvious problem with Pakistani men and Muslim men on how they’re perceived treat women and children and it’s not fucking tolerable.

Sexually abusing women isn’t tolerable either. Difference is you defend a proven sexual abuser of women.

No I don’t wish Starmer was the same. Why would I want a PM who sexually abused women? 

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 17:20

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:56

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:52

I know enough to know a kangaroo court when I see one.

First off it was a civil court not a criminal court, much easier to get a verdict. Secondly it was held in the most Democratic city in the most Democratic state in the country, with a bias Judge and Jury and a plaintiff who couldn’t remember what year the so called assault took place so Trump couldn’t even provide an alibi in his defence. 

To say the whole episode was sketchy would be an understatement. Typical Democrat bullshit pulled before an election.

nothing new, we already know how dirty the Dems are.

For you to compare that to the countless number of grooming gang convictions in criminal courts all over the UK is pretty pathetic and stupid, even by your standards.

hahaha look at you dance around it. He’s a proven sexual abuser of women, which was upheld via appeal as well.

I’m not comparing. I’m pointing your rank hypocrisy constantly bringing up grooming gangs while championing a proven sexual abuser of women.

You like the idea of castrating rapists but not sexual abusers?

I like the idea of protecting British kids from the scourge of immigration and Islam.

Ban all Pakistani men and Halal they’re inhumane.

Trump has banned people from certain fucked up countries from entering the USA to protect the US people. It’s common sense. Which is why I like him, he has a backbone and puts America first.


Deep down you wish Starmer was cut from the same cloth.
I prefer Trumps tolerance level over yours and Starmers I bet the kids in the UK do too.

Difference here is I care about the kids all you care about is the Pakistani rapists and how they’re perceived.
In your world if someone has brown skin they are off limits from any criticism. Well that doesn’t apply in my world. I’ll continue to call it as it is.

There is an obvious problem with Pakistani men and Muslim men on how they’re perceived treat women and children and it’s not fucking tolerable.

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:56

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:52

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:16

Lol keep dancing.

id happily see ALL sexual abusers castrated. Can you say the same?

I know enough to know a kangaroo court when I see one.

First off it was a civil court not a criminal court, much easier to get a verdict. Secondly it was held in the most Democratic city in the most Democratic state in the country, with a bias Judge and Jury and a plaintiff who couldn’t remember what year the so called assault took place so Trump couldn’t even provide an alibi in his defence. 

To say the whole episode was sketchy would be an understatement. Typical Democrat bullshit pulled before an election.

nothing new, we already know how dirty the Dems are.

For you to compare that to the countless number of grooming gang convictions in criminal courts all over the UK is pretty pathetic and stupid, even by your standards.

hahaha look at you dance around it. He’s a proven sexual abuser of women, which was upheld via appeal as well.

I’m not comparing. I’m pointing your rank hypocrisy constantly bringing up grooming gangs while championing a proven sexual abuser of women.

You like the idea of castrating rapists but not sexual abusers?

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:52

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:16

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 15:24

Let’s be clear before you post make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Lol keep dancing.

id happily see ALL sexual abusers castrated. Can you say the same?

I know enough to know a kangaroo court when I see one.

First off it was a civil court not a criminal court, much easier to get a verdict. Secondly it was held in the most Democratic city in the most Democratic state in the country, with a bias Judge and Jury and a plaintiff who couldn’t remember what year the so called assault took place so Trump couldn’t even provide an alibi in his defence. 

To say the whole episode was sketchy would be an understatement. Typical Democrat bullshit pulled before an election.

nothing new, we already know how dirty the Dems are.

For you to compare that to the countless number of grooming gang convictions in criminal courts all over the UK is pretty pathetic and stupid, even by your standards.

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 16:16

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 15:24

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 14:11

Let’s be clear, neither is acceptable.

I’d happily see both castrated. Would you?

Let’s be clear before you post make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Lol keep dancing.

id happily see ALL sexual abusers castrated. Can you say the same?

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 15:24

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 14:11

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 14:09

Get back to me when you know the difference between rape and sexual abuse.

Let’s be clear, neither is acceptable.

I’d happily see both castrated. Would you?

Let’s be clear before you post make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about.

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 14:11

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 14:09

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:54

 

Hilarious is actively supporting a proven sexual abuser of women but then making everyone one of your posts a protest about rape.

Irony is off the charts.

Get back to me when you know the difference between rape and sexual abuse.

Let’s be clear, neither is acceptable.

I’d happily see both castrated. Would you?

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 14:09

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:54

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:42

What’s hilarious is you not knowing the difference between rape and sexual abuse.

 

Hilarious is actively supporting a proven sexual abuser of women but then making everyone one of your posts a protest about rape.

Irony is off the charts.

Get back to me when you know the difference between rape and sexual abuse.

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:54

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:42

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:40

Yeh because sexually abusing women is way more acceptable? 
Hilarious that your defence is “he doesn’t rape women, he only sexually abuses them”.

What’s hilarious is you not knowing the difference between rape and sexual abuse.

 

Hilarious is actively supporting a proven sexual abuser of women but then making everyone one of your posts a protest about rape.

Irony is off the charts.

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:42

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:40

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:32

I thought you said it was rape? Do you ever get anything right?

Poor Goose, so clueless.

Yeh because sexually abusing women is way more acceptable? 
Hilarious that your defence is “he doesn’t rape women, he only sexually abuses them”.

What’s hilarious is you not knowing the difference between rape and sexual abuse.

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:40

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:32

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 08:18

Look how desperate you are to defend a proven sexual abuser of women. He lost the appeal btw.

Your double standards on this are fantastic to watch.
”castrate them” unless you worship them then it’s okay because it’s only sexual assault.

I thought you said it was rape? Do you ever get anything right?

Poor Goose, so clueless.

Yeh because sexually abusing women is way more acceptable? 
Hilarious that your defence is “he doesn’t rape women, he only sexually abuses them”.

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:34 Stats don’t lie and they aren’t racist.

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 13:32

goose wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 08:18

Nutsin wrote: ↑06 Jul 2025, 02:02

One of these days you’ll get something right.

## Context of the E. Jean Carroll Case
E. Jean Carroll alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. She filed a civil lawsuit in November 2022 under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which allowed claims beyond the statute of limitations. The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse (not rape under New York’s narrow penal law definition) and defamation for calling her claims a “hoax” and “con job.” Trump was ordered to pay $2 million for battery and $3 million for defamation. A separate defamation lawsuit resulted in an $83.3 million award in January 2024. Both verdicts are under appeal.

Poor Goose

Look how desperate you are to defend a proven sexual abuser of women. He lost the appeal btw.

Your double standards on this are fantastic to watch.
”castrate them” unless you worship them then it’s okay because it’s only sexual assault.

I thought you said it was rape? Do you ever get anything right?

Poor Goose, so clueless.