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.

xraytango wrote:
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?

All answered more than once in this very thread! But do carry on.

So why don't you link me to them, I really don't keep up with this thread, or dakka in general.

And there is no need for a condescending tone, thanks.

Can we please not do the "they must be lying, they didn't go to the police" thing? There are very good reasons why people don't speak up when something happens, and being afraid to say anything does not mean that nothing ever happened.

The foremost question that needs to be answered about the Trump debacle is why there are people who think a presidential candidate who thinks that kind of behaviour is acceptable, even normal , is worth defending.

xraytango wrote:
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?

If someone rich and famous grabbed my junk, I'm not entirely sure I'd go to the police. Not as an immediate reaction, especially if (as in the case of some of his accusers), I had a job that put me in the public eye and the grabber was someone as (in)famously litigious as Trump, or if my job depended on being in the grabber's good graces. That wouldn't make it consensual or right, but a lot of people aren't interested in seeing their names dragged through the mud by the sort of person who gets up at three in the morning to make tweets about fictional sex tapes.

If I see the grabber up on national television, though, denying that they've ever grabbed anything belonging to anyone - especially after that footage that you posted earlier hit the news - I think that just might make me mad enough to hunt down a reporter and say 'Er, ACTUALLY...' especially if the grabber was in the running for President of the United States.

So yes, I would say that these testimonies absolutely have something to do with Anderson Cooper's questions, but not in the conspiratorial way you're implying - and that they have far, far more to do with Donald Trump's words and actions.

The Trump campaign has just picked a fight with the Ohio GOP chair, 4 weeks before the election.

Luckily Ohio isn't a crucial state for this election at all, so I'm sure it won't hurt Donald at all.

The Trump campaign is falling apart.

Trump is increasingly desperate and is lashing out right and left in the way he often does, e.g. Twitter war with ex-beauty queen.

His unsubstantiated claims, accusations and pointless, self-defeating feuds are being cranked up in power and volume.

 Maddermax wrote:

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.

No, they're equally guilty. Both have been caught out. If you want to believe a liar, that's up to you. The fact that she helped jack up the Middle East is a huge point against Clinton, also.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

Like people do with Clinton.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

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

Not to mention the husband's cozy private chats with the AG who suddenly decides to stop the investigation.

"You lied about murdering someone in court! That's perjury!"

"Yeah, but you once lied about stealing a lollipop, so don't you dare judge me! You're just as bad!"

Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The foremost question that needs to be answered about the Trump debacle is why there are people who think a presidential candidate who thinks that kind of behaviour is acceptable, even normal , is worth defending.

Honestly I rarely see anyone defending Trump, only people saying they don't want Hillary.

I don't think there's many ardent Trump supporters to worry about voting him in.... it's all the people who don't support him but support Hillary even less.

The deck is always stacked against the victims in sexual assault. I remember back home there was someone known throughout the whole church community as not just someone who does (alleged) sexual harassment (eg, allegedly, dropping his pants when a woman came to the door but was also (alleged...) to be a paedophile inside his own family with his daughters (multiple)

As far as I know he never saw a day in prison, not a one. Instead the children had to fight tooth and nail in the legal system to be granted into the guardianship of their oldest sister.

I believe the father still retained various rights and custody of some family members at the time I knew members of the family (unsurprisingly it was a big family)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Trump campaign is falling apart.

Trump is increasingly desperate and is lashing out right and left in the way he often does, e.g. Twitter war with ex-beauty queen.

His unsubstantiated claims, accusations and pointless, self-defeating feuds are being cranked up in power and volume.

The chickens have well and truly came home to roost for the GOP.

They created the conditions for somebody like Trump, they need to accept responsibility for this debacle.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

Obama, and by extension, Clinton, has pretty much put many of them out of a job with new regulations. Right or wrong as right or wrong as these regulations are, I think she's reaping what was sown there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Trump campaign is falling apart.

Trump is increasingly desperate and is lashing out right and left in the way he often does, e.g. Twitter war with ex-beauty queen.

His unsubstantiated claims, accusations and pointless, self-defeating feuds are being cranked up in power and volume.

The chickens have well and truly came home to roost for the GOP.

They created the conditions for somebody like Trump, they need to accept responsibility for this debacle.

Very true. How people could have been stupid enough to pick him is beyond me.

Relapse wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

Obama, and by extension, Clinton, has pretty much put many of them out of a job with new regulations. Right or wrong as right or wrong as these regulations are, I think she's reaping what was sown there.

If that were true, and it mostly isn't, in your experience, is the Secretary of State often responsible for issuing domestic energy regulation?

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

Obama, and by extension, Clinton, has pretty much put many of them out of a job with new regulations. Right or wrong as right or wrong as these regulations are, I think she's reaping what was sown there.

If that were true, and it mostly isn't, in your experience, is the Secretary of State often responsible for issuing domestic energy regulation?

It is when your entire basis for an arguement is "she did something just as bad" or "Grrr Clintons grrr"

A lot of users here on DakkaDakka have lost credibility with me, if you don't believe that Trump did what he did, does not matter, Just the way Trump deals with crisis in this campaign should be enough to get the alarm bells ringing. the way denies things that are on record, the way he attacks people who disagree with him.

If you really think that Trump, will help common man, then by all means vote for him, but get ready to drink some cyanide Kool aid (That is a Jim Jones reverence by the way)

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

Obama, and by extension, Clinton, has pretty much put many of them out of a job with new regulations. Right or wrong as right or wrong as these regulations are, I think she's reaping what was sown there.

If that were true, and it mostly isn't, in your experience, is the Secretary of State often responsible for issuing domestic energy regulation?

As I said, right or wrong. We have a lot of people here losing their jobs in coal mining and that's what I hear. In their minds, Clinton is in lock step with Obama and will continue what is perceived as his attack on coal.
No point arguing this with me, I'm just a messenger here.

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

Obama, and by extension, Clinton, has pretty much put many of them out of a job with new regulations. Right or wrong as right or wrong as these regulations are, I think she's reaping what was sown there.

If that were true, and it mostly isn't, in your experience, is the Secretary of State often responsible for issuing domestic energy regulation?

As I said, right or wrong. We have a lot of people here losing their jobs in coal mining and that's what I hear. In their minds, Clinton is in lock step with Obama and will continue what is perceived as his attack on coal.
No point arguing this with me, I'm just a messenger here.

you should remind the other side that coal is a dying industry, I'm sure those who made horse carriages blamed the president for their loss of jobs as well. those car things, such a fad. When you live in the past you'll get forgotten there.

Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its unclear to me how somebody in the States could vote for Trump.
I've a TV report about cole miners. The majority of them seems to vote for Trump. What is he supposed to do for them? The white middle/lower class seems to love him. Scary.

The white middle class is beginning to feel the demographic transition from whites being an absolute majority in the US to being simply the largest group in the US. Trump tells them that he'll throw out the dark-skinned people and return manufacturing jobs from China and Mexico to white Americans. There is a direct material benefit so they support him. Trump also positions himself as an outsider which many are increasingly sympathetic to after decades of the same bunch of people all enforcing the same policies.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/15/media/donald-trump-media-journalists/index.html

At one of his events on Friday, Trump said he will "stop" the "sick media."
"The media is, indeed, sick, and it's making our country sick, and we're going to stop it," he said.
He did not specify how.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/15/media/donald-trump-media-journalists/index.html

At one of his events on Friday, Trump said he will "stop" the "sick media."
"The media is, indeed, sick, and it's making our country sick, and we're going to stop it," he said.
He did not specify how.

Thanks.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/15/media/donald-trump-media-journalists/index.html

At one of his events on Friday, Trump said he will "stop" the "sick media."
"The media is, indeed, sick, and it's making our country sick, and we're going to stop it," he said.
He did not specify how.

So he is going to stop media companies who are in reality little more then political cheer leaders from calling themselves news companies Goodbye Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and a host of others.

Would it really be terrible if the news companies actually reported news instead of creating outrage over perceived slights?

xraytango wrote:
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?

It really doesn't make them any less a comment on the man, does it? Perhaps if there wasn't his own words, admitting to his own lewd behavior, then these witnesses might be viewed with an aside glance, but that's really not the case here, now is it?

SemperMortis wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/15/media/donald-trump-media-journalists/index.html

At one of his events on Friday, Trump said he will "stop" the "sick media."
"The media is, indeed, sick, and it's making our country sick, and we're going to stop it," he said.
He did not specify how.

So he is going to stop media companies who are in reality little more then political cheer leaders from calling themselves news companies Goodbye Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and a host of others.

Would it really be terrible if the news companies actually reported news instead of creating outrage over perceived slights?

So you're cool with the state determining what "news" is?

SemperMortis wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/15/media/donald-trump-media-journalists/index.html

At one of his events on Friday, Trump said he will "stop" the "sick media."
"The media is, indeed, sick, and it's making our country sick, and we're going to stop it," he said.
He did not specify how.

So he is going to stop media companies who are in reality little more then political cheer leaders from calling themselves news companies Goodbye Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and a host of others.

Would it really be terrible if the news companies actually reported news instead of creating outrage over perceived slights?

It would be terrible if our government starts to decide what is news and what companies are allowed to report.

 djones520 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is now also saying that he will shut down the liberal media. Every time I think he maxed out his dictator impersonation, he manages to kick it up another level.

Source?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/15/media/donald-trump-media-journalists/index.html

At one of his events on Friday, Trump said he will "stop" the "sick media."
"The media is, indeed, sick, and it's making our country sick, and we're going to stop it," he said.
He did not specify how.

So he is going to stop media companies who are in reality little more then political cheer leaders from calling themselves news companies Goodbye Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and a host of others.

Would it really be terrible if the news companies actually reported news instead of creating outrage over perceived slights?

So you're cool with the state determining what "news" is?

Hell no, but I would love for these fake news companies to get the hell out of the business. Independent review is basically the responsibility of the consumer at this point. And if you judge the average person, this is to much for them to handle. How many on here are DIE HARD democrats and will never vote republican and vice versa? Politics in the US has stopped being Politics and has become a National Sport. YAY MY TEAM WON! Absolute garbage.

Well, that is the people's responsibility. The state has zero fething business being involved with that.

Trump hates how the media operates? Well he's got billions of dollars. Let him start his own news media company that adhere's to how he thinks news should be reported, and lets see how well it does.