Trump's Denial of Groping

[Delta1212]

 

 

"now outraged by Donald's private ( he thought ) remarks" is a pretty clear reference to the carpe vaginum boast.

Fair enough.

[imatfaal]

 

 

"now outraged by Donald's private ( he thought ) remarks" is a pretty clear reference to the carpe vaginum boast.

 

carpe vaginam (sing)

carpe vaginas (pl)

[swansont]

 

carpe vaginam (sing)

carpe vaginas (pl)

 

 

Noted.

[Airbrush]

We can all agree that most if not all effective politicians will lie as needed, if they can get away with it. I would like my president to be good at lying. Trump shows how bad a liar he can be IF he is experiencing emotional turmoil (or whatever a megalomaniac narcissist feels). After stuttering and stammering, juggling sentence fragments, he finally answered by saying:

 

"And women have respect for me. And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I will make this country safe.

 

See how far removed he is? He says no by saying "And I will tell you no, I have not..." extra words to distract the reader then immediately jumps to his policy points to evade what he just said, like a coward (or like a politician). Most of his words are "I will tell you", "believe me" (please believe me because I'm on your side), "ok?" (as self-approval), "give me a break", and hyperbole ad nauseam. He is a carnival huckster who wants the ultimate thrill, constant attention as president. Are you entertained?

Edited October 14, 2016 by Airbrush

[geordief]

 

carpe vaginam (sing)

carpe vaginas (pl)

cui boner?

[Ophiolite]

 

You claimed there was no evidence, which is not true. There are eyewitnesses, who were the targets of the assault, and eyewitness testimony is admissible as evidence.

I missed the point where I made such a claim. I specifically addressed your incomplete statement which did not refer to witnesses, a fact I was unaware of.

[MigL]

The point is that there's a tawdriness to this election that hasn't been seen before.

Its not about who is more capable of being president ( we all know who that is ), its become about which candidate is willing to sink lower and dish more dirt about the opponent.

 

Frankly, as your Canadian neighbour, I feel embarrassed for you guys.

[John Cuthber]

The point is that there's a tawdriness to this election that hasn't been seen before.

Its not about who is more capable of being president ( we all know who that is ), its become about which candidate is willing to sink lower and dish more dirt about the opponent.

 

Frankly, as your Canadian neighbour, I feel embarrassed for you guys.

Yes, but do you accept that there's a real difference between the irrelevant - but legal- actions of Bill and the illegal activities that Trump claims to have taken part in?

[MigL]

Yes, John, there is a difference between the PROVEN, immoral acts of B. Clinton, and the ALLEGED illegal acts of D. Trump.

( please note the emphasis )

 

P.S. Did I point out the emphasized words ?

 

P.P.S. In case you missed it, none of D. Trump's offenses have been proven, its all accusations and innuendo, so far ( not that I wouldn't put it past the Jackass ). And you know what they say about unproven accusations and innuendo levelled against H. Clinton ( see Swansont, what's good for the gander is good for the goose ).

B. Clinton's immoral acts, on the other hand are proven by a DNA stained blue dress, which will probably never get dry-cleaned

[John Cuthber]

Did you see my earlier post on this?
It was right at the bottom of a page- so you may have missed it.

I posted it in response to your assertion that there was no evidence against Trump. Here it is again

"Setting aside, for the minute, the fact that Bill's not standing so his actions are irrelevant,

There are women who say Trump did it and he says he did it.

More importantly, while what Trump did was (perhaps) immoral; what Trump says he did was illegal.

Do you accept that it's not "puritanism" to uphold the law- especially as it applies to contenders for the highest office in government?"

If he says he's a sex-pest, and others are prepared to say they are the victims, then I'm not sure I need DNA before I believe him.

[MigL]

Very well forget about Bill.

 

If Hillary is innocent of accusations because no charges were brought to bear for the deletion of classified e-mails, then until charges are filed against Donald is he also not innocent ?

Or do you want to apply different standards to the two candidates because one is the better option ( or lesser of two evils ) ?

Its only for traffic laws that 'you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent', not for criminal laws

[John Cuthber]

Hillary was investigated and found innocent.

Trump has admitted to criminal behaviour but this has not yet been investigated.

Legally, he's innocent of a criminal offence- but he has said he did it.

Prior to the completion of the investigations, Hillary was legally innocent of a criminal offence- and she didn't say she had done it. (and this was subsequently found to be the case)

There's a difference: a confession.

(It might be simply that Hillary is bright enough not to claim to be crooked)

 

Perhaps the most interesting point is that someone who thinks it's "Clever" to brag about their criminality is considered a viable Republican candidate-( I guess the magic underwear guy was busy or something).

Why didn't the Republicans notice that he's an arse?

[Delta1212]

They did. That's what made him popular in the first place.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Delta1212

[swansont]

I missed the point where I made such a claim. I specifically addressed your incomplete statement which did not refer to witnesses, a fact I was unaware of.

Apologies. It was MigL's claim. That's what I was rebutting.

Very well forget about Bill.

 

If Hillary is innocent of accusations because no charges were brought to bear for the deletion of classified e-mails, then until charges are filed against Donald is he also not innocent ?

Or do you want to apply different standards to the two candidates because one is the better option ( or lesser of two evils ) ?

Its only for traffic laws that 'you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent', not for criminal laws

 

We're not in court, and the situations are not directly comparable. There is evidence that Trump is guilty of the acts he said he never did. Hillary was investigated and it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to go to trial. You would have to make the case that with a half dozen (or perhaps more) witnesses/accusers, a prosecuter would still not indict Trump. Care to try?

 

P.P.S. In case you missed it, none of D. Trump's offenses have been proven, its all accusations and innuendo, so far ( not that I wouldn't put it past the Jackass ). And you know what they say about unproven accusations and innuendo levelled against H. Clinton ( see Swansont, what's good for the gander is good for the goose ).

If I, or any random person, said he was an assaulter of women, without these women having come forward, and without his boast, these would be on equal footing. But there are the eyewitnesses, who were assaulted. That's why it's not innuendo. It's not necessary to infer anything, or try and connect any dots.

[Raider5678]

The thing they're guilty of is usually not sexual assault, though.

Bill Clinton......

Hillary was investigated and found innocent.

Trump has admitted to criminal behaviour but this has not yet been investigated.

Legally, he's innocent of a criminal offence- but he has said he did it.

Prior to the completion of the investigations, Hillary was legally innocent of a criminal offence- and she didn't say she had done it. (and this was subsequently found to be the case)

There's a difference: a confession.

I would like to clarify two things. One, Hillary WAS found guilty of being careless with highly sensitive documents, they decided to attribute this to plain laziness and not press charges because as far as they know, nothing was hurt. Saying she was innocent and saying the no charges were pressed are not the same thing.

 

Second, the mad RUSH of people suddenly coming forward, is insane. If you automatically assume they are ALL telling the truth, then your biased. And as for eye witnesses..... screw them. Almost all the "victims" said he did it when nobody was looking or wouldn't notice. Yet, there's eye witnesses. Tons of them. And for some reason, you don't come forward with this until now? Like really???? They could have just said this in the beginning and he would have been FINISHED. Not ONE came forward, until now. Including eye witnesses. You can't honestly tell me, you believe all of them.

 

And do not mistake me, I do not like Trump. I do not like Hillary. I do not like the Electoral College. I do not like the government. That, is my stance. If there's proof, that Trump did it, I would still rather him then Hillary. My reasoning, is political, not moral. If we did moral, then our government would never have anyone elected.

[rangerx]

If there's proof, that Trump did it, I would still rather him then Hillary. My reasoning, is political, not moral. If we did moral, then our government would never have anyone elected.

 

A criminal conservative president is better than any liberal president in general? Or just Hillary?. Who cares about the rule of law, so long as a Republican is in charge... right?

 

The height of indoctrination by propaganda, right there folks.

Edited October 14, 2016 by rangerx

[Phi for All]

And do not mistake me, I do not like Trump. I do not like Hillary. I do not like the Electoral College. I do not like the government. That, is my stance. If there's proof, that Trump did it, I would still rather him then Hillary. My reasoning, is political, not moral.

 

Can you please tell us why your "reasoning" led you to prefer Trump politically? This is the part that has always been indefensible.

 

He's not a good businessman, he has the slimiest of reputations there as well. He denounces "the system" that has made him wealthy, and expects his base to believe he wants that to change, because he's looking out for them. Are you thinking he's clever because he's been pulling the wool over YOUR eyes pretty good?

 

He barely understands politics, and it's clear he has little interest in learning. He claims he will help the working class, but his tax plan gives benefits only to the wealthy and actually burdens the middle and poorer classes with higher taxes (like they're the ones who haven't been paying their fair share). Unless you're a fellow billionaire, how on Earth can you believe the man represents you with his plan?

 

He has been condemned by many world leaders that we've enjoyed great relationships with, and praised by some of the worst despots and strongmen dictators. I can't think of anything he's even remotely right about that he has a viable solution for. He opposes trade agreements, but would replace them with some kind of malleable, whatever-Donald-says-goes sort of yuge-deal-that-he-can-change-whenever-he-feels-like-it negotiations.

 

His plans to encourage jobs and keep our borders safe are ridiculous, but appeal to his base's sense of vengeance and face-spiting. They'll help him push the plunger because it's better for us all to die than for a brown person or a goddamn woman to beat a white man at anything.

 

Crime was at record lows until he started campaigning. He starts preaching hate, crime goes up some, and he points to that and says he's the one who can fix it. He's so transparently manipulative.

 

It's chilling that white supremacy extremists have been given such a dramatic voice, and one that consumes so much undeserved attention and exposure. His policies mirror those of David Duke. Why is that acceptable to so many Republicans? Can you really just gold-plate a turd like the KKK platform and put the word "Trump" on it?

 

So please, I'm VERY interested in knowing what your strictly political reasons are for voting for Donald Trump.

[DrmDoc]

And do not mistake me, I do not like Trump. I do not like Hillary. I do not like the Electoral College. I do not like the government. That, is my stance. If there's proof, that Trump did it, I would still rather him then Hillary. My reasoning, is political, not moral. If we did moral, then our government would never have anyone elected.

 

Curious, what political reasoning exactly? There doesn't appear to be anything presidential about Trump, his manner, temperament, or his agenda. I don't like politics or politicians much either but do like Hillary for the stability, maturity, temperament, and competence she portrays and would most likely bring to the presidency. By the way, the Electoral College should have been abolished ages ago. It was instituted on the presumption of an ignorant voting populace but now serves to potentially thwart the majority will of our citizenry as it has done at least twice before in America's history.

Edited October 15, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Airbrush]

Trump's boastful confession to Billy Bush about how he gropes and kisses women at will, has the tone of the wise old Hollywood star explaining the ways of the world to the young Billy Bush.

 

"This is what I do to women because I'm a star, you can too, just be bold like I am bold. Fortune favors the brave."

 

He is actually advocating or coaxing​ sexual assault. Almost like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, except Billy Bush is not a minor, just a young star, who should realize that he also can grope and kiss women.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Airbrush

[geordief]

Trump's boastful confession to Billy Bush about how he gropes and kisses women at will, has the tone of the wise old Hollywood star explaining the ways of the world to the young Billy Bush.

 

"This is what I do to women because I'm a star, you can too, just be bold like I am bold. Fortune favors the brave."

 

He is actually advocating or coaxing​ sexual assault. Almost like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, except Billy Bush is not a minor, just a young star, who should realize that he also can grope and kiss women.

Interesting. Like he is grooming Billy Bush and expanding his circle of compliant and dependent admirers.

 

If it is "locker room talk" (and most men in locker rooms must surely be ashamed for that aspersion to be cast) then it is also encouraging others to take advantage of their celebrity to basically molest the women in their entourage.

[rangerx]

A reasonable person would dismiss "locker room talk" provided the content in truth. Among peers, it's often based upon the reality of recurring incidents and only used with utmost discretion as to bring levity or consolidation to what may have been a difficult scenario or task.

 

Trump was knowingly "miked up" as the guest host of popular television show, being transported to an arranged appointment. Trump was not in a locker room scenario, where it is inferred they're not carrying a wire because you see them naked or near to naked. Nor was Bush a close friend or frat buddy. He was in a professional setting, transported in a vehicle not contracted by himself.

The pre-text to the Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape may not rise to criminal activity, but it it certainly demonstrates an expression.of sexual behavior with undue regard.

 

After all his so-called evidence claimed forthcoming adds up to little more than shaming the victim. You know that thing Republicans have been parroting for the last TWENTY + YEARS makes Hillary unfit for the same candidacy to this day.

 

Then when caught red-handed, defered to the liberal value.

 

Trump's a liberal. The conservatives who know that jumped ship long a go and some flee with wet feet. As the waterline nears the scuppers, we watch from the shore as surrogates bail frantically as their deplorable basket sinks to the bottom of the sea.

[Arete]

My reasoning, is political, not moral.

 

 

While I share your displeasure at the fact that this election has sunk to the level of monkeys flinging poo at each other, one of the reasons personal attack has featured so heavily is the fact that Trump is hopelessly outgunned in matters of policy. Many of his policy positions are naive and juvenile. For e.g.

 

1) Immigration policy that is unconstitutional and financially unfeasible.

2) Taxation policy that would cause spiraling national debt.

3) Foreign policy that would significantly weaken the US strategically and destabilize the global economy

 

etc.

 

Many of his policies are so bad that his own party disavows them and he would likely face bipartisan opposition if elected. His politics are fundamentally flawed.

 

The only logical argument I can see for a Trump vote is as a middle finger to the Washington establishment, I get it, partisan politics and special interest lobbyists seem to matter more than the people, and you want to throw a delusional, narcissistic orange wrench into the machine and shake that thing up. However as someone who works on old cars as a hobby - throwing your tools at things tends to make it worse, rather than better.

 

Facilitating change would best done strategically, with bipartisanship and expertise. Trump represents none of these attributes.

[John Cuthber]

 

And as for eye witnesses..... screw them.

Thanks for clarifying your perspective.

Can I ask what you are doing on a science web site?

[swansont]

Bill Clinton......

Who is not running for president.

 

My reasoning, is political, not moral. If we did moral, then our government would never have anyone elected.

What are his qualifications? What are his policies? Those are the elements of political reasoning.

 

Here's a twitter thread on the differences between the two regarding their reactions to events. Trump gets rattled when surprised or forcefully challenged. Hillary does not. As the writer puts it, both reactions are normal — lots of people get rattled in similar circumstances — but it is not presidential

https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/786996286666919944

 

Trump is a bully. His false bravado comes out when he's comfortable and in a position of advantage, which is not the job description of being president.

While I share your displeasure at the fact that this election has sunk to the level of monkeys flinging poo at each other,

Technically only one monkey (or possibly orangutan) is flinging poo

[MigL]

Agree with Arete's assessment.

Can't wait for this month to end.

Its like watching Michael Scott of Dunder-Miffland ; you cringe at some of the things said and are embarrassed for him.

 

Incidentally, what old cars, Arete ?