Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Maddermax wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To tell the truth, I would love it if Clinton and Trump were left at the gate come election night with someone else getting the vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Is there any evidence Mr Trump assaulted these women beyond those women's accusations

So you're going with sharia law here? unless 3 people witness the rape it never happened?

here's a fun read for you:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

that's your wanna be president, a serial pedophile and rapist.

That applies to Clinton, also, with Hillery covering up for him.

oh ya I keep forgetting because bill is accused of it as well, that totally exonerates trump, and I guess because jeffry dalmer killed and ate a bunch of people that makes it ok for trump to do it as well?

Not only do the accusations against Bill Clinton exonerate Trump of his accusations, but they also convict Hillary, as everyone knows the accusations against a Husband are always the fault of the wife, right guys?

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

 Nurgle wrote:
So has the forum decided who is satan for today? Trump? Clinton? Daniel the Pumpkin shagger?

I think Daniel is looking like a better candidate than the other two. He isn't hurting anyone and actually helping farmers by using their produce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To tell the truth, I would love it if Clinton and Trump were left at the gate come election night with someone else getting the vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Is there any evidence Mr Trump assaulted these women beyond those women's accusations

So you're going with sharia law here? unless 3 people witness the rape it never happened?

here's a fun read for you:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

that's your wanna be president, a serial pedophile and rapist.

That applies to Clinton, also, with Hillery covering up for him.

oh ya I keep forgetting because bill is accused of it as well, that totally exonerates trump, and I guess because jeffry dalmer killed and ate a bunch of people that makes it ok for trump to do it as well?

Not only do the accusations against Bill Clinton exonerate Trump of his accusations, but they also convict Hillary, as everyone knows the accusations against a Husband are always the fault of the wife, right guys?

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

Do you have any evidence for that? At all? What specific things did Hillary do? Of the Trio that Trump has put in the centre of his scorched earth campaign, one doesn't allege anything of Hillary, one alleges that Hillary told her "Happy to meet you, I appreciate everything you do" during a campaign event and took that as a threat, and the last alleges that she stole her book manuscript, left a cat skull on her porch and vandalised her car, with no evidence for those actions (or if those actions were instigated by Hillary), which are completely believable.

So the evidence is non existent, and the accusations against Hillary specifically don't amount to a hill of beans. Right wing paranoid dreams.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/hillary-clinton-bill-accusers-jones-willey-broaddrick

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

Exactly. The accusations against Clinton are accusations that have never been proven (despite plenty of effort to catch them by their political opponents), and there isn't any history of them saying "I can rape people and cover it up because I'm powerful". The accusations against Trump are also unproven, but there's that ugly evidence of Trump bragging about being able to do exactly what he was accused of.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

And who'll ever forget, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

In point of fact, both candidates are equally guilty. Both used their positions of power, if accusations are to be believed.

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

And who'll ever forget, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

In point of fact, both candidates are equally guilty. Both used their positions of power, if accusations are to be believed.

No, no they are not "equally guilty". That's BS.

One is a candidate is has said he sexually assaults women and that he walks in on beauty pageant contestants while they're naked on tape, and has a dozen accusers showing he did exactly what he says he does. The other candidate is not accused of sexually assaulting anyone and has been a promoter of women's rights.

One of these things is not like the other.

Relapse wrote:


And who'll ever forget, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

In point of fact, both candidates are equally guilty. Both used their positions of power, if accusations are to be believed.

Cheating is not sexual assault. It was consensual sex (albeit from a position of power, but, IIRC, she was the one who imitated it, so that point may be mot).

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

And who'll ever forget, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

In point of fact, both candidates are equally guilty. Both used their positions of power, if accusations are to be believed.

No, no they are not "equally guilty". That's BS.

One is a candidate is has said he sexually assaults women and that he walks in on beauty pageant contestants while they're naked on tape, and has a dozen accusers showing he did exactly what he says he does. The other candidate is not accused of sexually assaulting anyone and has been a promoter of women's rights.

One of these things is not like the other.

Actually the other candidate is a proven liar and is accused of covering for her equally lying husband.

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

And who'll ever forget, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

In point of fact, both candidates are equally guilty. Both used their positions of power, if accusations are to be believed.

No, no they are not "equally guilty". That's BS.

One is a candidate is has said he sexually assaults women and that he walks in on beauty pageant contestants while they're naked on tape, and has a dozen accusers showing he did exactly what he says he does. The other candidate is not accused of sexually assaulting anyone and has been a promoter of women's rights.

One of these things is not like the other.

Actually the other candidate is a proven liar and is accused of covering for her equally lying husband.

that's just you believing the lies from trump, go to the fact check sites hillary is running an honest campaign, where as trump hasn't made a true statement yet, except that he'd have sex with his daughter.

At least she's got enough respect for people's intelligence to not lie about things that can be disproved by scrolling back through half a dozen of her own Twitter messages.

I don't know why, but that's one of the things that bothers me most about Trump. Does he think we're all stupid? Lazy? Too apathetic to use the scroll wheel? Whichever it is, he's not as right as he wants to be, but way more right than I'd like.

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If they're true and she knew and helped cover them up they are.

That's a lot of ifs.

About as solid ifs as the ones against Trump. I don't give a damn about either candidate, but to demonize one and put the other on a pedastal when both are accused of involvement(in Clinton's case, covering up her husband's activities) in sexual abuse is wrong.

Not really. Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape (the whole reason that woman are coming out), whereas we don't have any recording of HRC talking about covering up sexual assault.

And who'll ever forget, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

In point of fact, both candidates are equally guilty. Both used their positions of power, if accusations are to be believed.

No, no they are not "equally guilty". That's BS.

One is a candidate is has said he sexually assaults women and that he walks in on beauty pageant contestants while they're naked on tape, and has a dozen accusers showing he did exactly what he says he does. The other candidate is not accused of sexually assaulting anyone and has been a promoter of women's rights.

One of these things is not like the other.

Actually the other candidate is a proven liar and is accused of covering for her equally lying husband.

Ah, from "they're equally guilty" to "well, she's a liar".

And back to "she covered for Bill" without an ounce of evidence. "Woman doesn't want to believe husband had affair, is worst person in the world". Ah yes, the wife is always just as guilty as the husband. I'm sure that line of attack is really effective.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
At least she's got enough respect for people's intelligence to not lie about things that can be disproved by scrolling back through half a dozen of her own Twitter messages.

I don't know why, but that's one of the things that bothers me most about Trump. Does he think we're all stupid? Lazy? Too apathetic to use the scroll wheel? Whichever it is, he's not as right as he wants to be, but way more right than I'd like.

He just assumes that the type of voter who might vote for him really doesn't care. If he lies one moment they'll cheer the point he made. If he directly contradicts him self in the very next sentence, they'll cheer again for that point. Truth means nothing, only feelings. Truth can be manufactured in the right wing bubble easily enough.

You know there was more to the Trump/Bush conversation than just what the MSM reported?

Evidently they were talking about groupies, but that doesn't fit the narrative.

Context is everything.

xraytango wrote:
You know there was more to the Trump/Bush conversation than just what the MSM reported?

Evidently they were talking about groupies, but that doesn't fit the narrative.

Context is everything.

so that makes it ok to sexually assault them? And where's the clip that shows they were talking about groupies?

so far 9 women and 3 children claim to have been raped by him.

xraytango wrote:
You know there was more to the Trump/Bush conversation than just what the MSM reported?

Evidently they were talking about groupies, but that doesn't fit the narrative.

Context is everything.

Got a source for that? Because it certainly sounds like he was talking about anyone and everyone, so long as they've got the requisite grabbable anatomy.

And why is sexually assaulting groupies any better than sexually assaulting other people?

Hm, seems like bragging and lewd jesting, but nothing really serious.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Rr7CO59HY

Also "they just let you", sounds fairly consensual actually.

xraytango wrote:
Hm, seems like bragging and lewd jesting, but nothing really serious.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Rr7CO59HY

Also "they just let you", sounds fairly consensual actually.

ya and bill cosby didn't rape anyone either, the girls accepted the drinks, it was consensual.

because we should always take the word of the rapist about if it was consensual or not.

That is literally everything that has been reported on, except for the verbal equivalent of Billy Bush drooling all over the bus floor. Nothing in there indicates they were talking about 'groupies', and nothing in your post indicates why that would matter.

Oh, and 'the Donald' is the douchiest nickname ever.

If you don't see how 'you can grab them by the [term you can't say on Dakka but apparently will get you all kinds of apologists if you say it while running for President], coupled with woman after woman coming forward to complain about it having happened to them despite what he said on national television...I don't know how to explain it. Lots of people with a lot of patience have made far more eloquent cases than I have, but I'll try. He's conflating 'they just let you' with 'I've gotten away with it so far'. Just because no one went public about his actions absolutely does not mean they were consensual.

xraytango wrote:
Hm, seems like bragging and lewd jesting, but nothing really serious.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Rr7CO59HY

Also "they just let you", sounds fairly consensual actually.

Seriously? Of all the things, that's the thought you come away with from watching that video?

xraytango wrote:
Also "they just let you", sounds fairly consensual actually.

"Why didn't they fight back harder"

I am just curious, what is the penalty in the US For destroying evidence that has been subpoenaed?

Also, what is the penalty for lying under oath?

On another note, what is the penalty for leaking classified intelligence?

Just curious, for a friend.

SemperMortis wrote:
I am just curious, what is the penalty in the US For destroying evidence that has been subpoenaed?

Also, what is the penalty for lying under oath?

On another note, what is the penalty for leaking classified intelligence?

Just curious, for a friend.

What, you have access to Dakka but not Google? Do your own homework if you want to make a point.

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I am just curious, what is the penalty in the US For destroying evidence that has been subpoenaed?

Also, what is the penalty for lying under oath?

On another note, what is the penalty for leaking classified intelligence?

Just curious, for a friend.

What, you have access to Dakka but not Google? Do your own homework if you want to make a point.

OK, I googled it

Lying under oath: Perjury; results, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Tampering/Destroying evidence entails

A person who is convicted of the crime under federal law may face a prison sentence of not more than 20 years, a fine, or both. (18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

Leaking classified intelligence or hiding ownership of classified intelligence: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Weird

SemperMortis wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I am just curious, what is the penalty in the US For destroying evidence that has been subpoenaed?

Also, what is the penalty for lying under oath?

On another note, what is the penalty for leaking classified intelligence?

Just curious, for a friend.

What, you have access to Dakka but not Google? Do your own homework if you want to make a point.

OK, I googled it

Lying under oath: Perjury; results, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Tampering/Destroying evidence entails

A person who is convicted of the crime under federal law may face a prison sentence of not more than 20 years, a fine, or both. (18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

Leaking classified intelligence or hiding ownership of classified intelligence: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Weird

and what happens say if a murder that everyone is convinced is guilty is found innocent because the glove didn't fit?
what happens when the DA doesn't have enough evidence to indite someone?
what about if after an investigation no wrong doing was found?

oh ya they're innocent because they haven't been proven to be guilty.

and what happens say if a murder that everyone is convinced is guilty is found innocent because the glove didn't fit?
what happens when the DA doesn't have enough evidence to indite someone?
what about if after an investigation no wrong doing was found?

oh ya they're innocent because they haven't been proven to be guilty.

I could debate the merit behind the investigation being sub par at best, something along the lines of the evidence being destroyed and the witnesses/accessories all being given immunity agreements but I wont.

What I will say though is that a number of people on this site are perfectly happy to accept Hillary's innocence on a number of different crimes because they didn't press charges or what have you, but that same groups is more then happy to jump on Mr. Trump for his alleged Sexual assaults, for which their is still no evidence beyond the victim saying it happened.

have a good night

SemperMortis wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I am just curious, what is the penalty in the US For destroying evidence that has been subpoenaed?

Also, what is the penalty for lying under oath?

On another note, what is the penalty for leaking classified intelligence?

Just curious, for a friend.

What, you have access to Dakka but not Google? Do your own homework if you want to make a point.

OK, I googled it

Lying under oath: Perjury; results, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Tampering/Destroying evidence entails

A person who is convicted of the crime under federal law may face a prison sentence of not more than 20 years, a fine, or both. (18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

Leaking classified intelligence or hiding ownership of classified intelligence: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Weird

Better look up the punishment for rape, though that doesn't fit the narrative of your great leader does it?

Perhaps we should all start calling Trump supporters as "worshippers" since they rely so very much on blind faith. Perhaps "cultists" would be better?

SemperMortis wrote:
What I will say though is that a number of people on this site are perfectly happy to accept Hillary's innocence on a number of different crimes because they didn't press charges or what have you, but that same groups is more then happy to jump on Mr. Trump for his alleged Sexual assaults, for which their is still no evidence beyond the victim saying it happened.

There's a pretty big difference in that Clinton has not boasted about how she can do whatever she wants with classified information (or any other crimes she has been accused of) because nobody can touch her, while Trump has proudly bragged about how he can sexually assault women because he is rich and powerful. One involves unproven accusations, the other involves simply trusting a person when they say "I did it".

Pfft, I think there are very few people who actually think Hillary is "innocent". There is a wide area between "innocent", "dirty, but not prosecutable", and "guilty". Ideally, you'd want someone in category one. I don't think she's innocent, even if what she did didn't rise to the level of a criminal offense. "It wasn't a crime, but it was bad judgement" isn't a great excuse in a presidential candidate. I went to caucus for her primary opponent, after all.

Part of the reason that Donald Trump gets less of a presumption of innocence is because, holy fething gak, he says he does stuff like that with his own mouth in his own words, how do you not get this.

The foremost questions that need to be answered for the Trump debacle are:

Where is the police report?
Why come forward now, not 30+ years ago?
Where are any of the witnesses to these attacks?
What did these victims think to accomplish by not responding to these allegations sooner?
Isn't this all a little conveniently timed after Anderson Cooper's questions?