Maybe they're not so much "low information" as not sticking their fingers in their ears over the subsequent legal ruling by the presiding judge that the jury's finding that Mr Trump "sexually abused" Ms. Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally - in other words, that Mr Trump did in fact "rape" her as that term is commonly used and understood outside the context of New York Penal Law when tossing out Trump's countersuit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.54...
I don't think it's "extremism" to suggest that a legal ruling that somebody forcibly penetrated their victim for sexual gratification might be a stain on their character.
I don't think it's "extremism" to suggest that a legal ruling that somebody forcibly penetrated their victim for sexual gratification might be a stain on their character.