"He pushed me up against the wall, had his hands all over"

Post Reply New Topic

This is who Republican members support? Even Republican congresspeople seem sane now with the many distancing, and I didn't think that before this election. And no, pointing elsewhere in the hopes that people's attention span is as small as those who watch his shows won't work... he also abuses his contestants, by the way.

I was wondering earlier, considering the similarity in sleaziness between him and Jimmy Savile (with the difference no one found out until after his death)... if all was so public like Drumpf's is now, would Republicans elect an American Savile? (Then I guess, instead of just encouraging their grand/children to grope, they also...)

I'm not attempting logic... it's a land of feeling, not freedom, clearly.

Reason would tell you the crime is monstrous.
Logic would tell you to investigate before applying reason.
Reality has shown that so far most of these alleged claims were made by people who are HRC staffers or tied to the Clinton Foundation.

If there are women who have been assaulted by the man, they deserve all the support they can get.
However, please see above.

P.S. Stop seeking attention and contain your arguments to existing threads.
There are threads already for this topic.

Tell me how Harth, involved in beauty pageants, is involved with them. Unless, of course, his rival is also some involved in the business... oh, yeah, Hillary must be lesbian otherwise she can't be into women like an orangutan is... any other conspiracies? Cite your sources, at any rate.

Last edited by Mootoo on 18 Oct 2016, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Many women certainly won't give a s**t as long as they're not personally the victims.

Here's one - Wanted a favour, got rejected, so made a claim.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/trump ... -in-april/

One is a Hilary staffer who's story shows inconsistencies with both the alleged perpetrator and the fact that armrests on planes did not go up in that section of the aircraft at the time the assault allegedly took place. Oh, and did I mention they were a staffer?
http://www.subjectpolitics.com/hoax-tru ... make-puke/

A witness:
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp ... ult-claim/

The grope at a concert has now turned into a "nudge" which means sweet FA:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10 ... -happened/

One of the claims was PLAGIARISED from another assault case!
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=42622

So...do you really need me to continue?
This was just me typing "Trump assault hoax" in Twitter and picking the first few stories.
It took little time to search, read, and verify against what evidence was corroborated.

For the record it is just as easy to view the WikiLeaks and confirm it was not the Russians that have done hacking but the NSA. But most people just won't look and will listen to whatever they are told because it is easier to do so, and makes them look like good people in their minds.

That's a series of National Enquirer/Daily Mail-esque tabloids (New York Post) at best, random right-wing blogs (the rest) at worst. Daily Caller has slightly higher verification standards than the rest, though even they have a hard global warming denialist stance that's pretty untenable scientifically. I would take it with a grain of salt, and look for a better source for the rest. And you'll notice the Caller's claim is the least out-there/conspiratorial of the ones you've cited, and only of relevance to one woman.

I'd also like a source on the NSA claim, especially since I see no real motive for them in hacking into and publicizing Hillary Clinton's dirty laundry. Russia's leadership openly supports Trump and Putin tacitly admitted to the DNC leak. The American intelligence community's leadership has come out heavily against Trump.

Last edited by Pravda on 18 Oct 2016, 3:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

'Fancy Bears' are the NSA and they hacked their own Olympians' records?

Fair enough, but when the news sites you give credibility to won't report anything that has been confirmed as evidence (or a hoax) then what do you have?

I don't think it's fair to dismiss any news sources because of their political leaning or because of how many people look at them as a means of leverage in a debate. What should matter are the facts first and foremost.

How would you know something's been "confirmed as evidence" based on potentially faulty reporting? Sources that will just take any crap that suits their political leaning aren't ones I'd trust the claims of.


I think it's fair to dismiss news sources based on their verification standards, which is the main thing affecting whether or not their information is credible. Tabloids have low standards by definition, blogs usually do too and generally even lower. The evidence to back up the claims made in the ones you've linked are scant.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016 ... ed-emails/

Look. The Obama administration has never bothered to put Russia in its place until now, just before the election. And why would you not want two superpowers with nukes to work together? It's utter madness. No one cared about Russia until right now because it's convenient. The same goes for anything pro or anti Trump and Clinton. This is why the election cycle always makes me disappointed.

And do you know why the intelligence community is heavily against Trump? WikiLeaks confirms they were colluding with the Clinton campaign!

Breitbart is also a tabloid-level site, pretty far from a credible source. It was founded on the name of a guy who made s**t up and destroyed peoples' careers with doctored video for a living.

Several examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart ... ey_Sherrod (What I'm referring to.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart ... s.22_story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart ... etta_Lynch


The Obama administration has been pursuing the same policy as it was in 2014. Which is careful and slow containment, as opposed to McCain/Romney-esque saber-rattling or Trump-style appeasement.

They were tacitly ignoring each-other when Russia was bombing ISIS. Now ISIS are on the retreat and are even losing Mosul, so the temperature is back up on Russia.


In terms of trade, I do. I'd also like reform in Russia and an end to their anti-America saber-rattling, but you have to be careful about that so as to not destabilize the area. Considering the Russia Reset, that careful balance is mainstream Democratic policy. Which makes sense, foreign policy establishments of rationally-acting states (including the US and Russia) usually opt for the least risky path, which that is.


There were a lot of stories on and panic about Russia related to the Ukraine debacle in 2014..


...yes, nobody really cared about candidates for President until they were running for the office.


Even if true, and I'd like a source on that (though quiet backing wouldn't surprise me considering the risks Trump presents), this contradicts the "NSA aired Clinton's dirty laundry" narrative.

Well if an NSA whistleblower claims to have all of the emails which are slowly trickling through info dumps via WikiLeaks, what conclusion would you make?

John Podesta was stupid enough to leave his passwords and his full credit card info in his emails. He did not perform 2 part authentication on some of his devices. Next to 0 of the emails were cryptic or encrypted. There were no secure servers for the emails. The FBI are sharing some of the emails, Anonymous' Guccifer 2.0 (not Russian by the way) had the DNC leaks, and then there's the above. I really don't see where Russia comes into this (although it does favour them) and it's not like Russia hse to do anything - America's intelligence agencies and its own people are cannibalising on these emails already.

Back to topic, not directed at any one individual:
Victims of sexual assault should not be trivialised for party point scoring. To blindly accept allegations because it favours one party over another and hoping the claims are real in order to discredit someone is downright unhealthy thinking if you ask me. Whether it's Clinton's or Trump's accusers. I won't say more than that because this is touchy ground, and frankly both camps in this forum will only make it a messy subject.

I'm sure they do have all of the emails, and all of yours, and all of mine. This isn't evidence that they did the leaking, which seems to have no motive behind it considering the intelligence community leadership have all come out saying Trump is a major risk.


It is traceable to Russia, and "it was just a lone hacktivist" has been a common Russian data-swiping limited hangout in the past. See: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccif ... r-own-hack or http://www.businessinsider.com/security ... ign-2016-6

Not to mention, Putin's response was "I didn't do it, but if we did it, then we did the American people a service." That sounds like OJ Simpson-level "if I did it..." tacit admission to me. Sourcing: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/ ... -dnc-hack/ and http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/p ... ack-227668


They would actively like a President who has a vested financial interest in Russia's stability and who seems to admire Russia's leadership, which is to say they would actively like Trump elected. If the election-related tumult causes more instability in their rival power, all the better for them.

Do you know what this means? It means that Trump has ZERO chance of getting elected. This means that "splitting the progressive vote" is no longer an issue.

Vote for Jill Stein.

Trump is guilty of hearsay nonsense(hmmmm, really odd they wait till now to report these oh so traumatic events) and a potty mouth, it does not compare to the crimes perpetrated by Bill and Hillary Clinton. If the DNC is willing to pay mentally ill homeless people to start fights with Trump supporters in line at their rallies then why wouldn't they pay these women to lie which they clearly are.

Here's a better quote, "put some ice on it"

that's what Bill told Juanita Broaderick after he raped her

"Trump is guilty of hearsay nonsense" - unsubstantiated opinion, not fact
"oh so traumatic events" -- minimization
"potty mouth" - minimization
"it does not compare to..." - minimization and bias
"why wouldn't they pay these women to lie which they clearly are " - bias
"here's a better quote...." bias - if you believe Juanita Broaderick's accusations, you should at least consider that the accusations against Trump may be valid. It doesn't seem like you have seriously considered that possibility.

I know you have your reasons for not believing but I think you are on the wrong side of this issue. There is more evidence against Trump than there is against the Clintons. Most likely they are both guilty.