• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump caught on a hot mic talking about groping women

ZiprHead said:
Jarhyn said:
I just love how the right is trying to go after Hillary by attacking her husband, as if he makes one lickspittle of difference, especially since it wasn't Hilary doing any of the rape... Especially after Drumpf just proudly declared that he sexually assaults bunches of women.

Seriously, put Bill in jail. He probably belongs there. Truth be told so does Hillary. But I'd sooner elect her than Hitler.
Click to expand...

What should Hillary be put in jail for?
Click to expand...

Corruption, largely related to the bribes speeches she has given for wall Street and banking conglomerates and with respect to that appalling anticompetitive bullshit going on during the DNC. Between her organization's illegal polling place behaviors and what IS a breech of security using obsolete and insecure technologies for the handling of classified data, yeah, she belongs in jail. Will she go there? No.

Does Hitler Trump deserve to be in jail for being a con artist, child molester, tax evader, etc? Hell yes he does. Is she just as bad as him? Hell no. I'm voting for her. But if things had been polite and respectful and above all if the DNC and media had remained neutral in this primary season, it would be Bernie Sanders vs Trump and I wouldn't have to taste bile every time I think about the election.
 
Jarhyn said:
Corruption, largely related to the bribes speeches she has given for wall Street and banking conglomerates and with respect to that appalling anticompetitive bullshit going on during the DNC. Between her organization's illegal polling place behaviors and what IS a breech of security using obsolete and insecure technologies for the handling of classified data, yeah, she belongs in jail. Will she go there? No.

Does Hitler Trump deserve to be in jail for being a con artist, child molester, tax evader, etc? Hell yes he does. Is she just as bad as him? Hell no. I'm voting for her. But if things had been polite and respectful and above all if the DNC and media had remained neutral in this primary season, it would be Bernie Sanders vs Trump and I wouldn't have to taste bile every time I think about the election.
Click to expand...

Sanders lost because more people legitimately voted for Clinton.
 
Rhea said:
J842P said:
You know, I find it interesting how people on left treat a potential rape victim who has said contradictory statements when that woman is accusing Bill Clinton. Clearly, the case is more complicated than "a sworn affidavit proves Clinton accuser wasn't assaulted". Here is a description of the events:

I mean, can you imagine what the reaction of the posters in this thread would be if a certain, infamous "rape denier" were making the argument that Juanita Broadderick is clearly untrustworthy, and plus, her sworn affidavit proves she wasn't raped. Clearly, she was is in it for the money and fame.
Click to expand...

Since the 90s, I have felt that this particular accusation rings completely possible.

It is completely consistent, in my (limited) experience, for a rape victim to act this way. And I reject the comments that say she was probably lying. Because it just doesn't seem like the "probable" has any support. And that is not good for society to put a victim through all of that.

What ruins Broaddrick's public case is tying it to others that do not have that level of evidential support. And in particular, the 44 million dollars (FORTY FOUR MILLION!!!) spent on trying to tie this to Clinton by pulling in every other thing. Has any rapist been investigated _SO_ thoroughly? It is false to say he got off lightly. Years and YEARS and millions of dollars. Stupidly bringing in, as the one thing they had sufficient evidence for, that he lied about getting a consensual blow job.

All that investigation and that was the only thing they could prove?

Jaunita Broaddrick may be telling the truth about Bill Clinton. I believe her claim merits that level of benefit of the doubt to proceed. But there was simply not enough evidence to win the prosecution. And sometimes the guilty guy does go free. If I could say there was a standard for all rape accusations to involve thousands of investigators and tens of millions of dollars, public trials, a full-time special prosecutor and no quarter despite the social position of the accused... well, that seems like overkill, but that's a pretty outstanding effort on behalf of a rape victim. If the guilty goes free despite leaving no stone unturned - that's a decent effort on her behalf.

It is outstandingly wrong and counterproductive to blame Hillary Clinton for this, however. And that harms Broaddrick's case considerably. I continue to believe that her case sounded reasonable against Bill Clinton. But double jeopardy laws say you can't try him twice for the same crime. And logic says you can't blame his wife.
Click to expand...

^^^ beautifully said.
 
Rhea said:
It is outstandingly wrong and counterproductive to blame Hillary Clinton for this, however. And that harms Broaddrick's case considerably.
Click to expand...

What harms all those women's credibility as voices against sex abuse is them doing that press event with Trump, an admitted abuser who has his own accusers.

I continue to believe that her case sounded reasonable against Bill Clinton. But double jeopardy laws say you can't try him twice for the same crime. And logic says you can't blame his wife.
Click to expand...

He was never tried nor charged.
 
Jarhyn said:
ZiprHead said:
What should Hillary be put in jail for?
Click to expand...

Corruption, largely related to the bribes speeches she has given for wall Street and banking conglomerates
Click to expand...

So, when Clinton does it, it's illegal, but when Trump and just about every other candidate does it, it's no big deal? Or is it because Trump charges about twice as much as Hillary for his speeches that makes Hillary giving speeches illegal?

Jarhyn said:
and with respect to that appalling anticompetitive bullshit going on during the DNC.
Click to expand...

What appalling anti-competitive bullshit did Hillary engage in during the primary, and how was it illegal? Please be specific.

Jarhyn said:
Between her organization's illegal polling place behaviors
Click to expand...

This would be news to me, what illegal polling place behavior has Hillary Clinton engaged in?

Jarhyn said:
and what IS a breech of security using obsolete and insecure technologies for the handling of classified data,
Click to expand...

The technology used was not obsolete, nor insecure. It was likely less secure than the official channels of communication, but that does not make it insecure. Her private server was not hacked. Also, she used the same setup as previous Secretaries of State. What she did was not even against policy when she took office as the Secretary of State.

Jarhyn said:
yeah, she belongs in jail.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said above supports this conclusion.
 
Trump is such an unattractive man. It's a good job he has (some) money otherwise he'd be a sad loner playing X-Box in the basement of his parent's house. That reminds me of someone, can't remember who.
 
KeepTalking said:
Jarhyn said:
Corruption, largely related to the bribes speeches she has given for wall Street and banking conglomerates
Click to expand...

So, when Clinton does it, it's illegal, but when Trump and just about every other candidate does it, it's no big deal? Or is it because Trump charges about twice as much as Hillary for his speeches that makes Hillary giving speeches illegal?

Jarhyn said:
and with respect to that appalling anticompetitive bullshit going on during the DNC.
Click to expand...

What appalling anti-competitive bullshit did Hillary engage in during the primary, and how was it illegal? Please be specific.

Jarhyn said:
Between her organization's illegal polling place behaviors
Click to expand...

This would be news to me, what illegal polling place behavior has Hillary Clinton engaged in?

Jarhyn said:
and what IS a breech of security using obsolete and insecure technologies for the handling of classified data,
Click to expand...

The technology used was not obsolete, nor insecure. It was likely less secure than the official channels of communication, but that does not make it insecure. Her private server was not hacked. Also, she used the same setup as previous Secretaries of State. What she did was not even against policy when she took office as the Secretary of State.

Jarhyn said:
yeah, she belongs in jail.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said above supports this conclusion.
Click to expand...

Thanks, you saved me the trouble.
 
LOCK HER UP!

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE BROKE ANY LAWS!
 
TSwizzle said:
Trump is such an unattractive man. It's a good job he has (some) money otherwise he'd be a sad loner playing X-Box in the basement of his parent's house. That reminds me of someone, can't remember who.
Click to expand...

Julian Assange?

No, wait, that's the Ecuadorian Embassy basement.
 
Jarhyn said:
ZiprHead said:
What should Hillary be put in jail for?
Click to expand...

Corruption, largely related to the bribes speeches she has given for wall Street and banking conglomerates and with respect to that appalling anticompetitive bullshit going on during the DNC. Between her organization's illegal polling place behaviors and what IS a breech of security using obsolete and insecure technologies for the handling of classified data, yeah, she belongs in jail. Will she go there? No.

Does Hitler Trump deserve to be in jail for being a con artist, child molester, tax evader, etc? Hell yes he does. Is she just as bad as him? Hell no. I'm voting for her. But if things had been polite and respectful and above all if the DNC and media had remained neutral in this primary season, it would be Bernie Sanders vs Trump and I wouldn't have to taste bile every time I think about the election.
Click to expand...

Such charges would have to be demonstrated and proven in a court of law. As far as the media is concerned, all one has to do is 'accuse' and without proving anything else. Though the amount of mudslinging is natural when candidates wish to divert attention from themselves.
 
blastula said:
What harms all those women's credibility as voices against sex abuse is them doing that press event with Trump, an admitted abuser who has his own accusers.
Click to expand...
That's true. One has to wonder; if being a rapist (based on a credible accusation, not a conviction) is evil to those women and they DESPISE Clinton for being one, then why would they stand with trump - another rapist - and participate in re-victimizing his victims? It seems like if rape is that wrong to them, they would despise both men equally. Certainly not spend the evening with a man in the middle of a rape trial himself?

And so that doesn't make sense to me.


I continue to believe that her case sounded reasonable against Bill Clinton. But double jeopardy laws say you can't try him twice for the same crime. And logic says you can't blame his wife.
Click to expand...

He was never tried nor charged.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to read about why the 1992 accusation did not result in charges. Do you have a link?
 
Rhea said:
That's true. One has to wonder; if being a rapist (based on a credible accusation, not a conviction) is evil to those women and they DESPISE Clinton for being one, then why would they stand with trump - another rapist - and participate in re-victimizing his victims? It seems like if rape is that wrong to them, they would despise both men equally. Certainly not spend the evening with a man in the middle of a rape trial himself?

And so that doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... whatever could a billionaire and his billionaire backers give them that they would take in exchange for this? It's a mystery.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Rhea said:
That's true. One has to wonder; if being a rapist (based on a credible accusation, not a conviction) is evil to those women and they DESPISE Clinton for being one, then why would they stand with trump - another rapist - and participate in re-victimizing his victims? It seems like if rape is that wrong to them, they would despise both men equally. Certainly not spend the evening with a man in the middle of a rape trial himself?

And so that doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... whatever could a billionaire and his billionaire backers give them that they would take in exchange for this?
Click to expand...

Hollow promises that only a fool would believe, that's what.
 
On Broaddrick's case:

From what I can gather, she declined to press charges in 1992. This is, of course, consistent with the behavior of rape victims. They know the trial is a horror and they may choose to avoid that.

That's a reasonable decision.
Also, times change. And by 1998, things may not seem so self-damaging to press charges/testify.
So now a decision can be made to press charges. ANd that would also be a reasonable decision.

If she still wants to press charges against bill Clinton, she should do so.

But her attack against Hillary Clinton has no merit, from what I can find.
"Broaddrick said that weeks after the alleged rape, she met Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser for Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton allegedly thanked her for "everything you are doing in Bill's campaign." As Broaddrick tells it, she tried to leave the event but Hillary Clinton grabbed her arm and told her, "Do you understand everything you do?"

Broaddrick took that as a threat that implied she should keep quiet."
Click to expand...

It could be a threat. But it's too subtle to be certain.
It could be an actual acknowledgement of her silence as a benefit. The second repeat being an admission that Clinton knows something happened and really wants Broaddrick to know what she is appreciating.

And, I can't find any reason for Broaddrick to know, infer or assume that Hillary Clinton actually knows what actually happened. For all she knew Bill had told her it was consensual, and that, while furious, Hillary was glad it did not become public. Broaddrick has no idea what Hillary's been told. Logic would assume Bill told her it was consensual, not rape. Obviously. And would make Hillary's comment quite un-threatening.

So again, it's not reasonable to blame Hillary Clinton for any of this. Nor to try to tear down her career over it without a trial.

As for a trial for Bill. It may be that your earlier reluctance used up the legally available time. And that sucks. I wish the conditions had been better for all rape victims over the years, and we can continue to improve it. But as unjust as that is, it is NOT something for which Hillary Clinton should pay the invoice.

in my opinion.
 
Her story that Hillary threatened her is a bit nutty. But I agree she could be telling the truth about Bill even though it doesn't look like there's evidence to prosecute. Most actual rapes or sexual assaults can't be proved in court because of evidence problems. It could also be a case of a false accusation. We can't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom