Melania Trump: Women who say they're victims 'need evidence'

This is sure to trigger a lot of people, regardless of their political alignment

I’ll never forget how good she looked on Inauguration Day. Michael was probably on suicide watch after being made to take so many photos standing next to an actual biological woman.

Attached: 1AE9FDEF-DE3C-4D69-80FF-5B56ACD2AA08.jpg (598x960, 79K)

>mfw this, in 2018, is a controversial and radical position

How far as a country we have fallen. Brown people and women can't into civilized society, so it's no wonder our most basic and fundamental rights are being eroded.

The Gods smile upon Melania Trump.

Attached: empress-melania.jpg (2016x3500, 991K)

Then she’ll have to break out the “I don’t really care, do u?” jacket

Maybe she's mad Trump can't tell the difference between the Baltic states and her homeland of Slovenia 1000 miles away.

Attached: 1536275938684.jpg (600x315, 43K)

She's right. Women fucking get away with everything nowadays and it is bullshit.

The consequences for lying need to actually be legitimate legal fucking consequences. You get busted for making up a rape claim out of spite? Cool now you’re gonna face as many years in prison as the person you falsely accused would have.

'unsolvable' or false claims are over 20 perc. so shes right, cant assume

Fuck that stupid whore! Rape is nearly impossible to prove. Tfw she gets raped, karma. Fake slut plastic surgery gold digger foreigner gtfo

Based Melania

truly /ourgal/

Roastie alert

Attached: A05DE81C-0788-4F86-971C-56A8A5262570.jpg (636x634, 100K)

Melanie is blessed by numers, Kek was right since the very start, lets praise our God Emperor!

Ever tried to go to the Polica right after rape and not 30 years later?

good for her

>This is somehow controversial.

wtf that maids outfit is surely shooped.

Because if you have to support your claim that someone raped you..you might eventually have to support your claim that 6 million Jews were gassed

I agree. We should really rescind all the money to those boys who accused priests of rape, totally unfair to the priests. Why isnt Trump doing something about this huge injustice to obviously innocent priests?!

You will never know this feel, but that's okay because at least one soul in this universe does and he so happens to be /our guy/

Attached: 1539646228172.jpg (2178x1344, 191K)

a rabbi's hands typed this post

We live in a time where men's right to due process is violated when accused of a crime by women, who can literally stab a man in the heart for rejecting her advances and get away with it by crying abuse.

>have no argument
>j-j-j-jews!!!!11

why am i not surprised that a trumpcuck would defend little boys being touched by old men? fucking perverts

Attached: 1534877735908.png (683x913, 847K)

Is she harboring some internalized misogyny or something? Everyone knows that evil white men came up with the ludicrous idea of innocent until proven guilty. I stand by people of color and grab my pitchfork to take down the patriarchy.

WE ARE WOMAN, HEAR US ROAR!

Attached: STRONKWOMAN.jpg (625x1024, 207K)

hell yeah! all those little boys accusing priests is BULLSHIT!!!! JUSTICE FOR OLD MEN ACCUSED OF TOUCHING LITTLE BOYS! MEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RAPE LITTLE BOYS!

Attached: 1536069998952.jpg (808x773, 95K)

hahaa get fucked cunts! you are property again!

based flotus

Attached: melania slams puny journo.png (1256x900, 164K)

Are tears evidence?

Attached: 1478654934736.jpg (285x288, 12K)

>Get raped.
>Can't prove it.
>Oh, ok, don't want to ruin this guy's life or anything. Other people can't conclude he's a rapist based on this evidence, so I guess I'll just let it go!

Absolutely! You never hear about Rabbis or Imams touching children. You know why? Because it never happens.

(Not sarcasm at all.)

Attached: 1516418885569.jpg (736x670, 49K)

>cant prove it
>based on this evidence

what fucking evidence? are you a chink or a sand turd?

Attached: canadianbride.jpg (625x415, 89K)

>Be dumb
>Get raped
>Cant prove it
>Didnt happen

Nice self-portrait. And I didn't defend anything, libtard.

Learn what words mean. Testimony is literally evidence. That's like by the legal definition. What kind of a potato are you?

Isn’t that the same logic the left uses to argue against the death penalty?

>Be a strong woman
>Get drunk
>Niggers pull a train on you
>You feel like a dirty whore the next day
>Tell mother
>Mother tells the police you were raped
>Police take niggers into custody
>Niggers provide video of you happily sucking and fucking each one of them
>Charges dropped

She genuinely seems like she adores hm.

>Testimony is literally evidence
not when there is nothing but one persons word against another you dumb chink. then its like just testimony, its not like evidence.

This post is triggering me.

you know how hard is it to rape someone without leaving evidence?

No, learn what words mean. This is tedious and was covered in my first post. Evidence is not proof. Learn what words mean, you ignoramus.

Based and checked.

A testimony on its own isn’t sufficient evidence to go to trial when the imposed sentence is severe

Literally based for defending men.

Also, post brown girls.

Attached: 1539926458255.jpg (750x746, 148K)

When did I say a rape leaves no evidence? A rape can leave no proof. Someone can rape, leave semen, leave no bruises, and claim it was consensual. Or leave bruises and claim the victim hurt themselves. How are those things proof of rape? They are not.

ikr?

Attached: 1541424269557.gif (725x616, 3.14M)

>A rape can leave no proof.
kill every leaf, no one in this country deserves to live, they're either kikes, queerbeckers, or raping sandniggers.

that looks like single mom miley cyrus with carmella bing.

When did I say it was? Learn how to follow a conversation. I correctly used a word to refer to a concept. And potatos take issue with it because they think evidence means proof.

stop posting, you're not intelligent, your argument is grade school level and you make it difficult for the rest of us to have a proper conversation.
No joke, kill yourself

What is my argument?

>the point
>your head

Attached: 1518401347380.jpg (866x900, 124K)

>get called out for being a pantywaisted faggot
>n-n-n-no u

SAD

Attached: 1534877122584.jpg (1194x1194, 767K)

So you’d be comfortable sentencing someone to probably a very a long if not indefinite prison stay for a crime without proof? How would you make your decision? How much the accuser cried in court?

exactly

How? I asked you one question and this is literally how you responded. That is actually sad

Attached: 0C8E2948-B92A-4F66-B822-2FF0B9F66DC6.jpg (800x708, 165K)

Holy shit journos eternally BTFO

Correct, that is what you do. The only alternative is to assume men are guilty until proven innocent. Will you assume the same for women? If not, that would be a double standard in our legal system based on sexual discrimination. Enjoy watching civilization fall apart.

Melania should be president of the usa

No shit Sherlock

your question was nonsensical. what does this have to do with the death penalty? you trumpcucks are eager to disparage rape victims when its convenient for you. if you're going to go all in on that argument, you may as well own the fact that you are defending pedophiles who touch little boys. i'd imagine that turns you on though, little freak. i assure you the rest of the world is just fortunate your DNA is destined to die off with you, since your infertile little cock cant make its way into a woman, kek (pic very related)

Attached: 1534876952564.jpg (1741x876, 143K)

this is the crigiest post i've seen this month

Why are you assuming I'd be comfortable with anything? In the post you are responding to, I am correcting word usage. But to answer your question, yeah, the idea that we need proof to the most autistic degree is irrational. You realise almost all murders and rapists are convicted without proof? It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We got your DNA, person says you did it, we haven't established a motive for that person to lie, that person doesn't have a history but you do, your story is stupid and full of holes in court, evidence enough for me.

Yeah, I didn't make much of an argument. Maybe in my first post. I didn't get an opportunity to talk about the issue at hand because people got triggered by word usage.

And you. I'm still waiting for a response. Or did you proper conversation consist of coming here, shitting on one poor little leaf, and then fucking off? Guess my efforts to destroy your proper conversation worked.

>'need spankings'
Fixed that for you.

except it's impossible "prove" a rape happened sometimes. Rape doesnt just involve penetration. It's amazing how incels move goal posts. melania is just a gold digging bitch. she probably doesnt even sleep in the same bed as her small willy'd husband. lol :D

>rape doesn't require penetration
>stop moving goal posts
wew lad

>Correct, that is what you do.
Nah. Let's give a different example. Someone raped my daughter. Gets away with it. I kill them and happily go to jail. I fully understand that the legal system can't make my actions legal because that would be irrational. But reality isn't fair and there are glitches that can't be accounted for by the heuristics which we put into law. It can be moral to go beyond the law. That is my opinion and you are free to disagree. Similarly, if I was raped, I don't care if I can prove it or not. It does harm him to make the accusation. And it is moral for me to use the knowledge that I have despite the fact that others can't have it.

>The only alternative is to assume men are guilty until proven innocent.

This does not logically follow. If I'm the victim, I have certainty that the person is guilty. I'm not assuming anything. The legal system can't do anything until it has proof beyond reasonable doubt. But I'm not some law cuck.

So the plan is everyone takes the law into their own hands?

No, the plan is I do it. My prescriptive advice is to keep it illegal so that is use sparingly. We have a comfortable level of vigilante just as things are.

Common smart-ass response: "What if everyone thought like that?"

Well, I think they already do to a large degree. But suppose not. Suppose me having my world view affects the world and the consequences are bad. Then I change my prescriptions. Very simple. But in reality, I don't expect my opinion to affect a significant portion of people, so I expect I won't have to change a goddamn thing.

>You will never have a smart wife who is willing to shitpost with you, and always has your back
Why even live

I’m not fluent in retarded person but Hopefully you’ll be comprehend what I’m getting at this time around.

By the left’s logic the Death Penalty should be outlawed because even one falsely convicted person being to death is too many.

But in the case of rape it’s fine to ruin a couple innocent people’s lives or imprison them if it means punishing actual rapists in the process

>rape doesn't just involve penetration

am I raping you right now ? over the internet ? excuse my penis. i dont know the current definition

So it's ok for you to take the law into your own hands. If too many other people did it though, it would be bad. And then you wouldn't want to do it anymore. Your principle is contingent on whether or not it starts to be universalized.

The question is "where do you draw the line?" Who are you to say we have a comfortable level of vigilantism were we are? What if I say we have too much? What metric did you use to reach that conclusion? What stats did you look at?

Sounds like she hates white women who claim to be victims on reddit

/OURGAL/

that is pretty much how it goes. I've been a victim of crimes I can't prove. I think a lot of people have but we're able to think ahead more than one step and realize that that allowing us to ruin the lives of the perpetrators without a fair trial is the road to barbarism.

she must like being in front of cameras now
that she gets to keep her clothes on. i can
see why she doesn't leave trump.

>So it's ok for you to take the law into your own hands.
Depends. It could be. If it was right.

>If too many other people did it though, it would be bad.
No, it could be bad. Not would. As I said, I think this is already basically what people do.

>Your principle is contingent on whether or not it starts to be universalized.
No, it is contingent on it being universalized and also sucking when it does.

>Who are you to say we have a comfortable level of vigilantism were we are? What if I say we have too much? What metric did you use to reach that conclusion? What stats did you look at?

You are free to disagree. Like with all things. You think you don't make moral assumptions if you assert that everyone make accusations only if they can prove them? You think with enough questioning of your beliefs that I can't assert they're based on some underlying metrics that vary on continuous scales leading to Sorites paradox? I could do this too. It is a common debate strategy to find a continuous scale and question where the line is. But it is cherry-picking. I look at an apple and I see it. Even though apples don't exist.

My belief that we have a comfortable level of vigilantism is because it is not a significant enough problem for it to even be worth a conversation. And we, like, have seen an exponential rise in our standards of living in the West. I don't see evidence that it has become a problem. But you are right, I don't have stats. Like many things. Can you look them up and confirm it's nothing? Additionally, you think we might be headed to societal collapse based on your previous posts. So, while we're on with the stats, how do you know we're heading for a societal collapse? And, please, don't start making arguments of the same form I am without realising it.

Attached: annoyabitchwitdis6.jpg (432x768, 87K)

Based best FLOTUS.

>that hand placement
>that chin
Who knew Selma Hayek has a thing for androgynous trannies?

>your viewpoint is wrong because of your motivations for marriage and the size of your husbands penis

Attached: Deceptithot.png (525x477, 165K)

I disagree. It's barbarism if the court proves guilty without reasonable doubt. I as a citizen have no obligation to a person who fucking raped me. And citizens have no obligation to think a certain way about an investigation.

But let's move on. How do you know you can't prove it? An interesting thing no one has thought of is that maybe evidence emerges during the investigation? What if other people know about the crime? What if police search nearby cameras you didn't know of? What if the perp confesses because he's a dumbass?

You are attempting to obfuscate the issue by placing the burden of proof on me. You made the original claim, it is on you. I'm questioning your claim, it is not on me. Attacking the integrity of my beliefs is a non-sequitur and another attempt at diversion. Your original claim was that it may be moral for you to suspend the rule of law based on how much vigilantism currently exists in the world and if it would have a positive or negative effect. Don't try to backtrack it.

> But you are right, I don't have stats.
You admit you don't know if more vigilantism would make the quality life worse or if less would make it better, but you have already decided it would be moral for you to engage in. You don't see evidence it has become a problem? What research have you done? Your answer: none. You can't keep making claims to knowledge and not backing them up. Baseless claims are useless. You are not moral by definition.

Also, please don't resort to the childish tactic of putting words in my mouth and trying to strawman me. Were on god's green earth did I say we were heading toward societal collapse? Jesus man, you can't just make stuff up.

>You are attempting to obfuscate the issue by placing the burden of proof on me.

Well, no, I asked you to prove a separate thing you implied was true. I also asked you tongue-in-cheek to find stats that prove me right, not prove me wrong. That's not shifting the burden of proof.

>Your original claim was that it may be moral for you to suspend the rule of law based on how much vigilantism currently exists in the world and if it would have a positive or negative effect. Don't try to backtrack it.

>You admit you don't know if more vigilantism would make the quality life worse or if less would make it better, but you have already decided it would be moral for you to engage in. You don't see evidence it has become a problem? What research have you done? Your answer: none. You can't keep making claims to knowledge and not backing them up. Baseless claims are useless. You are not moral by definition.

So here you clearly don't understand statistics. Let's clear something up before moving forward. Hypothetically, say there are two kinds of events gun owners can encounter. Shoot an intruder or murder their kids. On average, they are more likely to shoot their kids. Let's assert that defending a home has +1 utils and killing a kid has -1 utils. Then should no one own a gun?

I say: No. Maybe I as an individual will 1. train to use a gun and 2. am mentally stable. So maybe the odds are different for me as an individual. And no statistic will change this.

Same situation with accusations lacking proof. Maybe you assert they are bad on average. But why do the averages apply to a situation where I have 100% certainty I am accusing the corect person?

Vigilante justice: Maybe it is bad on average. Why am I in the lower tail? Why am I in the average?

Vigilante justice: If I am a famous individual with influence, maybe by acting I motivate more people to do it. Then the average applies. But not necessarily to an individual.

>Enjoy watching civilization fall apart.
I think civilization falling apart counts as societal collapse.

this

nope