So... Trump Molested 2 Women...
-
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
The email server was dumb, but not illegal.
No smoke without fire though, right?
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
You see there IS evidence against Trump
I never said there wasn't.
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
You just choose to ignore them because you have a bias against Clinton
What have I said that shows a bias against Clinton? You seem to be under the misconception that I'm defending Trump simply because I pulled you up on your arguments. I pulled you up on your arguments to show you they were pretty hypocritical. I'm not making any comments on Clinton or Trump, not am I giving an opinion on who is guilty or not guilty of what. I was simply pointing out the glaring flaw in your reasoning and why people might not take your arguments seriously.
Your reasoning seems highly flawed as well since you seem to put sex crimes on the same level as running email servers. I don't. She was also cleared of any wrong doing. Trump has not. His response was to pay 4 women to testify against her husband who isn't even running.
-
Nah, treason is though.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Treason? What treason? Is there an investigation open I haven't heard about? Are you implying that running a private email server is treason?
-
Your reasoning seems highly flawed as well since you seem to put sex crimes on the same level as running email servers. I don't. She was also cleared of any wrong doing. Trump has not. His response was to pay 4 women to testify against her husband who isn't even running.
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Your reasoning seems highly flawed as well since you seem to put sex crimes on the same level as running email servers.
I did no such thing, you're simply grasping at straws in yet more ad hominem fallacies. I will say once again, I am not making any statement about Trump or Clinton, I am merely commenting on your bias arguments.
-
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Your reasoning seems highly flawed as well since you seem to put sex crimes on the same level as running email servers.
I did no such thing, you're simply grasping at straws in yet more ad hominem fallacies. I will say once again, I am not making any statement about Trump or Clinton, I am merely commenting on your bias arguments.
I did no such thing. The only thing you have said so far that I agree with is that I am biased against sexual predators. Weird though. Paul Ryan and John McCain seem to agree with me.
-
Treason? What treason? Is there an investigation open I haven't heard about? Are you implying that running a private email server is treason?
You clearly don't know anything about ATCs, ATOs, NIST standards, classification, federal statutes, accountability, conflict of interests, or use of a federal position for personal gain. That's just about the server, not even pay-to-play. Or Benghazi. Failure to prosecute does not even imply innocence; it implies favoritism. But feel free to keep pretending that you know something.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
I did no such thing. The only thing you have said so far that I agree with is that I am biased against sexual predators. Weird though. Paul Ryan and John McCain seem to agree with me.
No, you are biased against Trump as (to repeat my initial comment) you assume he is guilty without having been convicted (even saying he is a sexual predator with no evidence at all) yet in the same breath you assume Clinton is innocent. Your desperate attempts to silence me with the growing implications that I must support sexual predators if I don't allow you to spout biased nonsense isn't going to work I'm afraid, I find your tactics quite laughable. Why don't you just be done with it and call me Hitler?
-
No, you are biased against Trump as (to repeat my initial comment) you assume he is guilty without having been convicted (even saying he is a sexual predator with no evidence at all) yet in the same breath you assume Clinton is innocent. Your desperate attempts to silence me with the growing implications that I must support sexual predators if I don't allow you to spout biased nonsense isn't going to work I'm afraid, I find your tactics quite laughable. Why don't you just be done with it and call me Hitler?
I'm confused. Have you heard there are tapes out? The tapes were doctored? I find your "no evidence" line laughable. Have you heard there are now 4 women coming out? Have you heard that their stories were debunked by Trump *employees*? LOL Have you heard Trump debunked the stories as well? You know, by saying one of the women were too ugly to molest? And by remembering in vivid detail the day 30 yrs ago? I'm not calling you Hitler or anything else. I do suggest you read up on sociopath behavior though. Trump of course. Not you. Where did you get that I am trying to "silence you"?? You still have not explained why you don't have these same feelings about Trump though.
-
jesarg wrote:
The odds of Trump committing a sex crime while in office are practically zero. He has no history of such things, and the current story is artifically manufactured and already discredited.
The Access Hollywood tapes are manufactured? Ok... :doh: The Howard Stern tapes are manufactured? Ok... :doh: The tape of him making a sexual comment about an underage girl is manufactured? Ok... :doh: The tape of him making sexual comments about his daughter is manufactured? Ok... :doh: Sexual assault is a sex crime last time I checked. Did he do it? Well, along with the tapes, his attitude, his ego, etc. I'd believe it. Apparently the NYT did as well since they just issued a statement saying they stand by it and are not retracting.
jesarg wrote:
On the other hand, the odds of Clinton committing bribery, abuse of power, money laundering, and other misdeeds while in office are extremely high. She has a long history of such things, and numerous reasons to continue. Furthermore, these crimes would hurt ordinary Americans far more than any sex crime would.
She does? I wasn't aware she's been convicted or charged with any crime. I also wasn't aware there was any evidence of such things. No open investigations either. Thanks for bring me up to speed.
jesarg wrote:
However, most major media sources side with Clinton
I agree with this.
jesarg wrote:
how insane and surreal the stories end up being
You lost me again. Tapes. BTW, speaking of all the stuff you accuse Clinton of, where are Trumps tax records? Still being "audited" I guess? Why doesn't he let them release The Apprentice tapes? Or waive his NDAs? Oh yeah, that's right, since according to EVERYBODY who worked on the show, they are filled with n-bombs, sexist, racist, homophobic and anti-disability rants. More manufactured stuff I guess? :zzz:
jesarg wrote:
Outside these delusional narratives
Again. You lost me. Trump says he won both debates. Nobody agrees with him. Trump says he is leading in the polls. Only Rasmussen agrees with him. Every other polling company says Clinton is up 5 to 10 points. They must be in bed with her. Trump says the election is rigged. The media is definitely biased against him. That's no
Talking crudely is generally not illegal. Committing physical actions generally is. If guilty of physical actions, Trump would have been investigated / charged ages ago, especially considering the new alleged actions occurred in public with numerous witnesses. A simple analysis of the allegations shows them to be baseless. Many items the FBI publicly revealed about Clinton's activities are unambiguously crimes; the abnormal part is the lack of charges filed as a result. Furthermore, many known activities of the Clintons (such as their Haiti donation scandal) never received proper investigations for political reasons. The other items you mentioned are largely irrelevant (and partially inaccurate). The media uses them to distract from real Clinton scandals (orders of magnitude more heinous than both real and manufactured accusations against Trump). We should discern which issues are most important to discuss (independent of what corrupt media sources push in our face). As a side note, the DNC is full of racist / sexist / homophobic / crude talk. It's just never reported on, thanks to a cozy connection with the media. If you like condemning that sort of language, you can start with condemning the hypocritical Democratic politicians with their fake tear shedding over political incorrectness (AND the media for selectively ignoring their faults).
-
Talking crudely is generally not illegal. Committing physical actions generally is. If guilty of physical actions, Trump would have been investigated / charged ages ago, especially considering the new alleged actions occurred in public with numerous witnesses. A simple analysis of the allegations shows them to be baseless. Many items the FBI publicly revealed about Clinton's activities are unambiguously crimes; the abnormal part is the lack of charges filed as a result. Furthermore, many known activities of the Clintons (such as their Haiti donation scandal) never received proper investigations for political reasons. The other items you mentioned are largely irrelevant (and partially inaccurate). The media uses them to distract from real Clinton scandals (orders of magnitude more heinous than both real and manufactured accusations against Trump). We should discern which issues are most important to discuss (independent of what corrupt media sources push in our face). As a side note, the DNC is full of racist / sexist / homophobic / crude talk. It's just never reported on, thanks to a cozy connection with the media. If you like condemning that sort of language, you can start with condemning the hypocritical Democratic politicians with their fake tear shedding over political incorrectness (AND the media for selectively ignoring their faults).
I'm not a woman, so I can't comment on how they think / feel, but its pretty well established that they often take years / decades to come forward on celebs / powerful people. So the fact that nobody reported it back then is irrelevant. Does it 100% prove he's guilty? Ok, well, no. Do you believe that Sandusky is a child molester? All of them took years to come forward. Note, that were are now up to accuser #5. That's not irrelevant. Also, much like everything else Trump has claimed in the past, his latest claim also appears to be B.S. He claimed he sent a PI to Hawaii and would prove O was not born in the US and that he would soon reveal 100% proof. He of course never did. And it was even debunked that he did ANYTHING. He even later claimed he didn't start the birther movement. Now his latest claim was that he had 100% proof he didn't molest these women and both he and Pence said they would reveal it shortly. "In a few hours". Much like his tax records, nothing but vaporware (so far). Where's the proof he claims he has? He's also said he is going to sue NYT and People. Much like all his other claims, nothing but talk. Writers said specifically interviewed him earlier in the week. Ok... so why did the story get out? Not sure how much you know about law, but you can get an emergency injunction in a few hours. Trump had days to do so. Why didn't he get one? With all his lawyers. More of his empty threats like how he is going to jail Clinton when he wins which is unconstitutional by the way.
-
You clearly don't know anything about ATCs, ATOs, NIST standards, classification, federal statutes, accountability, conflict of interests, or use of a federal position for personal gain. That's just about the server, not even pay-to-play. Or Benghazi. Failure to prosecute does not even imply innocence; it implies favoritism. But feel free to keep pretending that you know something.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Nathan Minier wrote:
Failure to prosecute does not even imply innocence; it implies favoritism.
Last time I checked it could also mean they have no case.
Nathan Minier wrote:
But feel free to keep pretending that you know something.
Speaking of pretending to know stuff... the NYT writers claimed they talked to Trump several days before they published the article. I'm smart enough to know about emergency injunctions. Why isn't Trump and his lawyers? Umm... oh yeah, that's right... because it would all come out and/or he would have to perjure himself under oath. We're now up to 5 victims btw. Trump (and now Pence) have been claiming for almost 2 days now that they are going to release 100% proof of Trumps innocence... what happened to that? Oh yeah... he doesn't have such proof. But lets forget about your bias against Clinton for a second... SERIOUS QUESTION... If Trump was found guilty of molesting 5 women, do you still believe he is fit for president? Should he go to jail? Last time I checked it was sexual assault and he would have to register as a sex offender for life. I just want to make sure that if you think Clinton should be jailed, then you feel the same about Trump... cuz at a Trump rally last night, many Trump supporters stated flat out on camera "we don't care if he's guilty, he's still awesome".
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Failure to prosecute does not even imply innocence; it implies favoritism.
Last time I checked it could also mean they have no case.
Nathan Minier wrote:
But feel free to keep pretending that you know something.
Speaking of pretending to know stuff... the NYT writers claimed they talked to Trump several days before they published the article. I'm smart enough to know about emergency injunctions. Why isn't Trump and his lawyers? Umm... oh yeah, that's right... because it would all come out and/or he would have to perjure himself under oath. We're now up to 5 victims btw. Trump (and now Pence) have been claiming for almost 2 days now that they are going to release 100% proof of Trumps innocence... what happened to that? Oh yeah... he doesn't have such proof. But lets forget about your bias against Clinton for a second... SERIOUS QUESTION... If Trump was found guilty of molesting 5 women, do you still believe he is fit for president? Should he go to jail? Last time I checked it was sexual assault and he would have to register as a sex offender for life. I just want to make sure that if you think Clinton should be jailed, then you feel the same about Trump... cuz at a Trump rally last night, many Trump supporters stated flat out on camera "we don't care if he's guilty, he's still awesome".
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
I just want to make sure that if you think Clinton should be jailed, then you feel the same about Trump... cuz at a Trump rally last night, many Trump supporters stated flat out on camera "we don't care if he's guilty, he's still awesome".
Don't mistake me for a Trump supporter. I just knew who he was when this all started, just like everyone else should have, as absolutely detest that I have to vote for the guy. That's something that I hold against every Hillary supporter out there, and I'm not likely to forgive a single one of you for it any time soon.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
I just want to make sure that if you think Clinton should be jailed, then you feel the same about Trump... cuz at a Trump rally last night, many Trump supporters stated flat out on camera "we don't care if he's guilty, he's still awesome".
Don't mistake me for a Trump supporter. I just knew who he was when this all started, just like everyone else should have, as absolutely detest that I have to vote for the guy. That's something that I hold against every Hillary supporter out there, and I'm not likely to forgive a single one of you for it any time soon.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Well, we're now up to _9_ victims, and _20+_ corroborators, unless there's been more since I last checked. Good news though, Trump & Pence did finally release their "100% proof" :). Trump claims he couldn't have assaulted the woman on the plane (apart from the fact that she's too ugly to rape), because the arm rests on the plane (I want to say a bombardier or something like that) are fixed and don't move! Oh boy... glad he cleared that up! 10 seconds later, everybody on the planet dug up the manual for the plane and lo and behold the arm rests DO move :doh:. MEANWHILE, Trump tweets out that he was not impressed with Clintons ass in the 2nd debate. Sheesh. If you detest Trump so much, why are you voting for him? You seriously put the email server above sexual assault? They are both 2 faced liars, that's a politicians job. You think Trump isn't going to do paid speeches after he loses? If you hate both the candidates, then either vote for one of the others (I can't even think of their names, Johnson somebody?) or not vote at all? EDIT: Oh yeah, and aside from Trump berating Clintons ass, he now also claims she is on PEDs.
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Failure to prosecute does not even imply innocence; it implies favoritism.
Last time I checked it could also mean they have no case.
Nathan Minier wrote:
But feel free to keep pretending that you know something.
Speaking of pretending to know stuff... the NYT writers claimed they talked to Trump several days before they published the article. I'm smart enough to know about emergency injunctions. Why isn't Trump and his lawyers? Umm... oh yeah, that's right... because it would all come out and/or he would have to perjure himself under oath. We're now up to 5 victims btw. Trump (and now Pence) have been claiming for almost 2 days now that they are going to release 100% proof of Trumps innocence... what happened to that? Oh yeah... he doesn't have such proof. But lets forget about your bias against Clinton for a second... SERIOUS QUESTION... If Trump was found guilty of molesting 5 women, do you still believe he is fit for president? Should he go to jail? Last time I checked it was sexual assault and he would have to register as a sex offender for life. I just want to make sure that if you think Clinton should be jailed, then you feel the same about Trump... cuz at a Trump rally last night, many Trump supporters stated flat out on camera "we don't care if he's guilty, he's still awesome".
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Last time I checked it could also mean they have no case.
As well as that someone is covering it up.
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
If Trump was found guilty of molesting 5 women, do you still believe he is fit for president?
No
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Should he go to jail?
yes
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
I just want to make sure that if you think Clinton should be jailed, then you feel the same about Trump
As foreigner I can only say... I don't like neither of them. So yes... for me they can both be jailed. :)
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I'm confused. Have you heard there are tapes out? The tapes were doctored? I find your "no evidence" line laughable. Have you heard there are now 4 women coming out? Have you heard that their stories were debunked by Trump *employees*? LOL Have you heard Trump debunked the stories as well? You know, by saying one of the women were too ugly to molest? And by remembering in vivid detail the day 30 yrs ago? I'm not calling you Hitler or anything else. I do suggest you read up on sociopath behavior though. Trump of course. Not you. Where did you get that I am trying to "silence you"?? You still have not explained why you don't have these same feelings about Trump though.
Again I'm perplexed at your line of questioning. Once more I will say that I am neither defending nor attacking Trump nor Clinton so what evidence there is of what is literally irrelevant. With Trump you think "guilty until proven innocent" and with Clinton you think "innocent until proven guilty". That's all I'm pointing out.
-
Again I'm perplexed at your line of questioning. Once more I will say that I am neither defending nor attacking Trump nor Clinton so what evidence there is of what is literally irrelevant. With Trump you think "guilty until proven innocent" and with Clinton you think "innocent until proven guilty". That's all I'm pointing out.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Again I'm perplexed at your line of questioning. Once more I will say that I am neither defending nor attacking Trump nor Clinton so what evidence there is of what is literally irrelevant. With Trump you think "guilty until proven innocent" and with Clinton you think "innocent until proven guilty". That's all I'm pointing out.
I keep pointing out that whether you like it or not, Clinton *has* been proven innocent. Cleared of all charges. No open investigations. She did nothing wrong. The fact that you choose to ignore that fact... :). Trump has not been cleared of anything and the evidence against him is piling up and his defense makes him look even stupider and look more guilty. If Clinton was actually charged or convicted of something, then I guess she should go to jail too. I never said Bill never ruined that dress (we weren't talking about Bill, I know, but I'm pointing out that I am not JUST biased against Trump). It's been proven that he did. And he got punished for it.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Again I'm perplexed at your line of questioning. Once more I will say that I am neither defending nor attacking Trump nor Clinton so what evidence there is of what is literally irrelevant. With Trump you think "guilty until proven innocent" and with Clinton you think "innocent until proven guilty". That's all I'm pointing out.
I keep pointing out that whether you like it or not, Clinton *has* been proven innocent. Cleared of all charges. No open investigations. She did nothing wrong. The fact that you choose to ignore that fact... :). Trump has not been cleared of anything and the evidence against him is piling up and his defense makes him look even stupider and look more guilty. If Clinton was actually charged or convicted of something, then I guess she should go to jail too. I never said Bill never ruined that dress (we weren't talking about Bill, I know, but I'm pointing out that I am not JUST biased against Trump). It's been proven that he did. And he got punished for it.
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Clinton has been proven innocent. Cleared of all charges
Incorrect, but don't let the truth get in the way of a biased argument.
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Trump has not been cleared of anything
Which brings me full-circle to my first post. The important thing is that Trump has not been found guilty of anything yet you are posting as if he has. Trump is a rich and powerful man with many rich and powerful friends. The chances of him being prosecuted for misdemeanours are slim. It's not fair, but it's how the world works. Clinton is also very rich and powerful with many rich and powerful friends...but of course the reason she wasn't prosecuted is because she is completely innocent. Right?
-
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Clinton has been proven innocent. Cleared of all charges
Incorrect, but don't let the truth get in the way of a biased argument.
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
Trump has not been cleared of anything
Which brings me full-circle to my first post. The important thing is that Trump has not been found guilty of anything yet you are posting as if he has. Trump is a rich and powerful man with many rich and powerful friends. The chances of him being prosecuted for misdemeanours are slim. It's not fair, but it's how the world works. Clinton is also very rich and powerful with many rich and powerful friends...but of course the reason she wasn't prosecuted is because she is completely innocent. Right?
She was investigated over the email server and it was determined that there was nothing prosecutable. Case closed. She's "innocent". Do I think she's 100% squeaky clean? No. No politician is. Hell, I think we'd be hard pressed to find ANYBODY that's 100% squeaky clean and never broken a law in their life. Do I think should she be in prison like Donald says she should be? After she gets convicted of something, sure. So now you'll point out that Donald wasn't convicted of anything either. Correct, he wasn't. Is there a ton of evidence that indicates he's a sociopath and a predator? Absolutely. I've "convicted" him of being a sociopath, not a rapist. Being a sociopath isn't a jailable offense, but it does disqualify you from being president imo. I've also "convicted" him of being extremely immature and erratic. That too disqualifies you from being president. Does that clear things up?
-
She was investigated over the email server and it was determined that there was nothing prosecutable. Case closed. She's "innocent". Do I think she's 100% squeaky clean? No. No politician is. Hell, I think we'd be hard pressed to find ANYBODY that's 100% squeaky clean and never broken a law in their life. Do I think should she be in prison like Donald says she should be? After she gets convicted of something, sure. So now you'll point out that Donald wasn't convicted of anything either. Correct, he wasn't. Is there a ton of evidence that indicates he's a sociopath and a predator? Absolutely. I've "convicted" him of being a sociopath, not a rapist. Being a sociopath isn't a jailable offense, but it does disqualify you from being president imo. I've also "convicted" him of being extremely immature and erratic. That too disqualifies you from being president. Does that clear things up?
SledgeHammer01 wrote:
She was investigated over the email server and it was determined that there was nothing prosecutable. Case closed. She's "innocent".
Again, incorrect. The FBI stated there was evidence that the law was probably broken, however the decision was taken not to prosecute. That's the reality...the FBI think "She's guilty but we'll never get a conviction so won't waste our time". The way you are framing it (that she was "cleared" and "innocent") is that she was charged, went to court and successfully argued she was not guilty. If the police see you going 5mph over the limit but decide to not pull you over and ticket you, does that mean you have not broken the law? No, it means you were let off.