Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

you want your commander bad chief

Preserved for all time.

Credit goes to my phone.

[SalmonGod]

Its not just accusations, either.  Hasn't it been mentioned on here recently that he admitted to invading beauty pageant dressing rooms to perv, and that girls as young as 15 were involved?  I mean at this point hasn't he basically admitted guilt to being a pedophile?

[Max™]

That's some amazing logic you've cooked up where a woman demanding the right to not be touched or have sexual comments made to her is THEM being aggressive.

You want to talk about rights, what about a man's right to free speech? Ever since democrats got up on their high horses about sexual assault, all I've heard from them is how we need to control what people can and cannot say. You all keep trying to make this issue about actions, but it's actually about words, and in this country people are allowed to say whatever they feel like saying no matter how crass.

I have yet to hear democrats say people need to be prevented from saying certain things over this.

As was pointed out above, the 1st prevents the GOVERNMENT from DOING diddly about what you can say, shall not be infringed, not shall be enshrined, shall be defended in all forums, public or otherwise, just that the government will not step in and decide saying x or y is now illegal.

There is no credible evidence that Donald Trump harassed anybody. All he did was have a private conversation with a friend on a bus, and now Hillary's party are turning it into a far bigger issue than what it really is. Honestly, the amount of slander and lies that have come out in the recent days is far more disgusting than Trump's overly honest dialogue.

Ok, see, when someone is bragging about doing stuff to women and laughing about it with a wingman, and then women come forward saying that they did this to them before, the default assumption here isn't "oh well there is obviously no connection between him casually bragging about sexual assault and these accusations of sexual assault because that's just how guys talk", it's "oh shit, he wasn't just being a sleazebag with no idea about normal guy conversations?"

If we were talking about someone with a proven record of trustworthiness and honesty, a pillar of good judgement, who had never had someone say he touched them inappropriately without asking permission... having that recorded conversation and accusations show up would not paint the dude in a good light, and we'd have to be really careful about how we handled it.

In this case though, there is nothing trustworthy or honest or indicative of forethought about Trump, whatsoever.

[smjjames]

Its not just accusations, either.  Hasn't it been mentioned on here recently that he admitted to invading beauty pageant dressing rooms to perv, and that girls as young as 15 were involved?  I mean at this point hasn't he basically admitted guilt to being a pedophile?

He's even made comments in the past about 10 and 14 year old girls that he'll be 'dating them in a couple years'.

Honestly, I don't know why none of this came out during the primaries..... the oppo research was right there but... I dunno... (rhetorical question btw)

Funny how the nastier stuff tends to come out in the general.

That's some amazing logic you've cooked up where a woman demanding the right to not be touched or have sexual comments made to her is THEM being aggressive.

You want to talk about rights, what about a man's right to free speech? Ever since democrats got up on their high horses about sexual assault, all I've heard from them is how we need to control what people can and cannot say. You all keep trying to make this issue about actions, but it's actually about words, and in this country people are allowed to say whatever they feel like saying no matter how crass.

I have yet to hear democrats say people need to be prevented from saying certain things over this.

As was pointed out above, the 1st prevents the GOVERNMENT from DOING diddly about what you can say, shall not be infringed, not shall be enshrined, shall be defended in all forums, public or otherwise, just that the government will not step in and decide saying x or y is now illegal.

There is no credible evidence that Donald Trump harassed anybody. All he did was have a private conversation with a friend on a bus, and now Hillary's party are turning it into a far bigger issue than what it really is. Honestly, the amount of slander and lies that have come out in the recent days is far more disgusting than Trump's overly honest dialogue.

Ok, see, when someone is bragging about doing stuff to women and laughing about it with a wingman, and then women come forward saying that they did this to them before, the default assumption here isn't "oh well there is obviously no connection between him casually bragging about sexual assault and these accusations of sexual assault because that's just how guys talk", it's "oh shit, he wasn't just being a sleazebag with no idea about normal guy conversations?"

If we were talking about someone with a proven record of trustworthiness and honesty, a pillar of good judgement, who had never had someone say he touched them inappropriately without asking permission... having that recorded conversation and accusations show up would not paint the dude in a good light, and we'd have to be really careful about how we handled it.

In this case though, there is nothing trustworthy or honest or indicative of forethought about Trump, whatsoever.

Not to mention that there are so many recordings of him saying stuff like that. Sure, a lot of it was probably pushed aside due to it being Howard Stern the shock jock and percieved as just bullshitting around, but now those words are being seen in a different light, and there are many other sources besides Howard Stern's radio show.

I get it about Republicans falling in line and politicians supporting their nominee no matter what, but there's gotta be some moral point where the nominee is just too toxic no matter the political consequences.

[Folly]

Really? What about all the people who've come out and accused him of harassing them? It's not just about what he said on that tape. It's that stuff in conjunction with the accusations against him.

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

[SalmonGod]

Really? What about all the people who've come out and accused him of harassing them? It's not just about what he said on that tape. It's that stuff in conjunction with the accusations against him.

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

You're blatantly ignoring so much of what people are saying.  See my last post.

[smjjames]

Really? What about all the people who've come out and accused him of harassing them? It's not just about what he said on that tape. It's that stuff in conjunction with the accusations against him.

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

Define credible evidence.

Also, Hillary isn't the one who smeared the video all over national news. Stop perpetuating that conspiracy where Hillary and the media are in cahoots with each other.

Oh, and, are you going to try to claim that the video is completely fabricated? Because that's the kind of tin-foil hat territory you're going into.

[nenjin]

Really? What about all the people who've come out and accused him of harassing them? It's not just about what he said on that tape. It's that stuff in conjunction with the accusations against him.

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

Define credible evidence.

I'll take a stab at this: physical evidence from 5 to 10 years ago that no one can possibly provide, which creates an unreachable burden of proof and allows people like Folly and Trump supporters to go "Nope nope nope nope nope." It's climate change denier logic only in a different arena.

Put another way: "PROVE to me that the sky is blue, because I refuse to trust the shared experience and eyes of the entire human species."

[smjjames]

Really? What about all the people who've come out and accused him of harassing them? It's not just about what he said on that tape. It's that stuff in conjunction with the accusations against him.

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

Define credible evidence.

I'll take a stab at this: physical evidence from 5 years ago that no one can possibly provide, which creates an unreachable burden of proof and allows people like Folly to go "Nope nope nope nope nope." It's climate change denier logic only in a different arena.

Yeah, I was thinking that myself, or videos (which counts as physical evidence I believe). I was going to say 'How often do you think sexual assault is on video/shown in photographs?' but decided 'Define credible evidence' was a better retort.

[Starver]

WSJ is breaking the original story, but since they're behind a paywall, have the CNBC write-up.

Within that story is embedded the thing with the letter from Melania's lawyers to Stoynoff telling her that it is a lie that they are(/were) friends, near as I can tell with the awful nested embedding of Tweets¹...

What?  Is that it?  All the appearance of a legal challenge to the base story but going absolutely nowhere near it and plucking what can only be the lowest hanging fruit on a tree that would be fully ripe for harvesting if there was actually anything wrong with the original accusations...


¹ Which, by the way, always malforms on a mobile platform to give me the message "mobile.twitter.comhttps’s server DNS address could not be found.", for reasons you can all guess, unless I jump through hoops to 'demobile' the site before continuing.  Someone should fix that rather obvious oversight in the site scripting...

[Mephansteras]

Lots of questionable stuff seems to have gone on around this, but there was a lawsuit against him back in 1997 alleging sexual assault. So this isn't all brand new stuff.

[Descan]

decrying someone who wants to control the literally most powerful political position on the planet for their words and actions as not someone who deserves to have that control =/=  controlling free speech

like holy fuck

do you also think it's against free speech for people to shun someone who goes "let's go lynch that n*****r in the oval office!" and not want to vote for him?

another tick against the "alt-right troll" box there, good work on that. couple more and we'll have bingo

[Sergarr]

... bloody fuck. Just noticed trump's palm beach speech. Conspiracies of international bankers, folks. After america's sovereignty.

If that sounds familiar to you, you might just know some german.

Aaand another point towards "Trump is a Russian puppet" - conspiracy theories like that are incredibly popular over here, to the point that I was encountering things like that in 40+ year old Soviet books written about WW2, which have "proven" (with no real proofs of course) that these "international bankers" were trying to intentionally sabotage lend-lease by giving direct orders to Churchill in order to destroy USSR.

[Max™]

Really? What about all the people who've come out and accused him of harassing them? It's not just about what he said on that tape. It's that stuff in conjunction with the accusations against him.

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

Define credible evidence.

I'll take a stab at this: physical evidence from 5 to 10 years ago that no one can possibly provide, which creates an unreachable burden of proof and allows people like Folly and Trump supporters to go "Nope nope nope nope nope." It's climate change denier logic only in a different arena.

Nah man, don't lump them in there, folks who like to follow the actual behavior of the arctic ice each year, or dig into the methods and statistics behind past climate reconstructions, or people like me who get frustrated about basic freaking errors like trying to calculate dynamics from averaged power, never mind the trend of adjusting observed and recorded temperatures after the fact, often years later.

See, even though I'm out on the far end and don't even agree with the "denier" crowd on major starting assumptions, if they've been saying something and it turns out it was wrong, when you show them, they say "whoops, guess I was wrong" surprisingly quickly. They don't like when you start trying to kick the base out from under the whole house of cards like I and a few other "Slayers" try to do, but they get damn rigorous when they're trying to math you into a hole in the ground, whether they can see the flaws in where they're working from or not.

No, putting out a false equality and argument for fairness before judgement is not something I encountered arguing with folks over on wuwt or talkshop or spencer's site, let's not start lumping them in with people defending an indefensible scumbag until they do. I haven't been over there in a long time though, as I've said before, I have trouble walking away even when it is clear that things are going nowhere.

They may well be making similar sort of statements about Trump, there are lots of dumbass rightwingers in that crowd for sure, but it is far from a monolithic group. Still, they're really big on observations, repeatable experiments, quality data, and mathematical rigor. There's a reason one of the big projects they (and everyone else, wherever you fall on the subject should) all agree on is the surfacestations one, going and making sure that things like a stevenson box built in a grassy field years ago hasn't wound up with a parking lot and air conditioners built around it in the intervening time while remaining labeled as a rural site. Bad data helps nobody learn anything.

[Starver]

You mean all the people who waited until after Hillary smeared Trump's video all over national news, and then came forth utterly unsubstantiated claims against Trump? Like I said, no credible evidence.

"The Saville Effect"...  Something you may or may not be aware of, from that side of the pond...   Famous person ('good with kids', role-model, children's charity campaigner) turns out to have been kiddy-fiddling for decades. The victims feel powerless, don't know what happened perhaps, don't get a chance to tell anyone in some cases (terminally ill patients are involved, maybe worse..!) and the few times that anything was said were rebuked for "being silly", as were any adults they told who actually believed them, and potentially some conscious covering up too.  All the time, hiding in plain sight as a very odd individual seeking ample refuge in his sheer audacity...

Once the dam broke (after the guys death, much lauded and mourned and his life celebrated) and some people got their messages finally taken notice of, other more timid (or more easily intimidated) individuals pipe up.   Probably some Munchausens amongst them, but not all of them, by a long way.

For Trump, it wasn't vulnerable kids he was preying upon (mostly!), but with the advantage of power even professional and independent women were somewhat cowed.  "That was just me, right? A minor misundetstanding, perhaps? If I made a fuss it wouldn't help anyone, perhaps I'll just chalk it down to 'experience' and move on".  Later: "It wasn't just me...  Perhaps I should tell my story..."

Again, there'll be tales told (exagerations, perhaps a bit of unbidden and unwarramted bandwagon leaping) and if those victims were motivated to support Trump they might have remained 'content' to stay quiet, so obviously(!) they are biased against Trump, but that doesn't change the drift. His wandering hands (and eyes, and libido) have come back to haunt him, and that's perfectly fair.

Everyone makes mistakes. And if you then try to become President of the United States you need to acknowledge those mistakes. Show how you're sorry, how that was a younger you, let the electorate decide whether they minded whether you made them, inhaling or not, hell even if they don't mind that you continue to make such mistakes, if you're otherwise qualified enough to make for a good choice despite still stumbling over some not-really-approved-of behaviour.  "This guy regularly bathes in virgins'-blood, but boy is he able to create 100% employment, cool down all overseas conflicts, repair the hole in the ozone layer, give every child a cute puppy that never poops/grows old/has a mute button for parents to use and ensure that my pizza always arrives on time for half the price without even ripping off Papa Leoni or his workers in the process..."

Trump has none of that going for him. As you (Folly) realise, and I'm sure that neither has Clinton, but even if we have to talk about least worst candidate, this practically proven scandal is hopefully a further nail in a coffin that, were it to be then cremated, would yield up a goodly quantity of scorched ironmongery in the process that needs sifting out...