• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It’s Worse Than P***y Grabbing

And what do you interpret that as meaning? Bill Clinton could not care less if she were able to pay her legal bills or not, even if that is true. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

And it seems you were, indeed, aware of the non consensual nature of his attempts with Paula Jones after all.

I'm aware of the allegation that failed in court, yes.
 
I'm aware of the allegation that failed in court, yes.
Failed in court... HE settled, HE paid, HE perjured himself, twice, HE suborned perjury, HE was disbarred, HE was impeached... HE did not want a guilty verdict in a court of law as a sitting president.

Its amazing the feats, the somersaults and other gymnastics of the mind you liberals are willing to perform in order to fool yourselves, for what? Yep, once that crack is allowed to appear in the fools gold armor plating, you begin to notice the base metal beneath ... then the whole illusion collapses, the whole false world you are accustomed to inhabiting just... evaporates. Saw it happen with my brother.

Starts getting harder and harder to walk around with your hands over your eyes, yano.
 
Failed in court... HE settled, HE paid, HE perjured himself, twice, HE suborned perjury, HE was disbarred, HE was impeached... HE did not want a guilty verdict in a court of law as a sitting president.

Its amazing the feats, the somersaults and other gymnastics of the mind you liberals are willing to perform in order to fool yourselves, for what? Yep, once that crack is allowed to appear in the fools gold armor plating, you begin to notice the base metal beneath ... then the whole illusion collapses, the whole false world you are accustomed to inhabiting just... evaporates. Saw it happen with my brother.

Starts getting harder and harder to walk around with your hands over your eyes, yano.

"Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages."

Dismissed before trial, no damages.

Cite your allegations.
 
Stick to the facts.

We have Trump, on tape, bragging about forcing himself on women.

On the other hand, the only allegations with any evidence against President Clinton are extramarital affairs. Since they were consensual, they're quite a bit different.

Focus on the facts. Don't get distracted by confirmation bias.

Exactly!
 
No, it doesn't, you don't understand Heller.

Do you think that the government should ignore cases where women are sexually harassed or assaulted ?

I didn't state that... and neither has Trump.
 
No those are his own words. You sir have fallen and been duped by a reality tv idiot like Trump. I'm glad folks like you will lose when trump loses, trump supporters deserve it.

He said he was going to enact policies to allow women to be sexually assaulted? Including appointing justices who believe this way????
 
He said he was going to enact policies to allow women to be sexually assaulted? Including appointing justices who believe this way????

Yeah, seriously. Trump isn't the first sex predator to run for office. We forget LBJ, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton? :lamo (I am sure there are many others).
 
He said he was going to enact policies to allow women to be sexually assaulted? Including appointing justices who believe this way????

You obviously don't know what enabling means, look in a dictionary and get back with me when you do.
 
"Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages."

Dismissed before trial, no damages.

Cite your allegations.
Damages, I am sure you are aware, is completely separate from the allegations... but, source, link?
 
You obviously don't know what enabling means, look in a dictionary and get back with me when you do.

So... you are claiming it was his own words that he would enact policies that would allow women to be sexually assaulted and appoint justices who believe this way, but when asked for you to point where/when he said this out, you ask me to look up a word in the dictionary?

Again, you have nothing but assumptions and baseless speculation based upon how YOU perceive his past actions and statements relating to his PERSONAL sexual activities, and not that of criminal law/civil law.
 
Ah, the old "ignore Trump's lack of respect for women's rights, focus on hyperbolic nonsense about war with Russia."

Hyperbolic? I don't think you're paying attention to the news recently. I mean, we are already in a proxy war with Russia ala Cold War style and things are getting much, much worse.
 
Stick to the facts.

We have Trump, on tape, bragging about forcing himself on women.

On the other hand, the only allegations with any evidence against President Clinton are extramarital affairs. Since they were consensual, they're quite a bit different.

Focus on the facts. Don't get distracted by confirmation bias.

Does $850K always get paid out "only extramarital affairs"?
 
Then it sounds like you care more about gun rights then women's rights.

Are any laws going to be passed that limits women's rights? No? Then this statement kinda falls flat.
 
So... you are claiming it was his own words that he would enact policies that would allow women to be sexually assaulted and appoint justices who believe this way, but when asked for you to point where/when he said this out, you ask me to look up a word in the dictionary?

Again, you have nothing but assumptions and baseless speculation based upon how YOU perceive his past actions and statements relating to his PERSONAL sexual activities, and not that of criminal law/civil law.

Post #33 again get back to me when you know what that means.
 
Can you point to me where Hillary said she'd ban firearms ? (Hint: i have a stronger case than you do, find another argument).

She wants Heller overturned, which deals with the ability of the Federal government to ban firearms on a federal level.

She has stated that she wants to ban assault rifles like her Husband did in the 90s.

You have suggestion and innuendo, assumptions based upon non-policy related statements to suggest ... something... ... which you can't even come out and state in a post yet.

Im still waiting, on both threads, for you to state which SPECIFIC "women's rights" you feel are in jeopardy from a Trump administration, and support that with evidence, not suggestion, that it should be a concern.

Don't forget she wants weapons manufacturers to be held liable for their products working as intended, which in itself would constitute a de facto gun ban via bankruptcy.
 
No, it doesn't, you don't understand Heller.

Do you think that the government should ignore cases where women are sexually harassed or assaulted ?

Has that happened? If there is enough there to have a trial there will be a trial. It's nice that you want to have one in your head and have the conviction already decided but that's not the criteria for due process.
 
You obviously don't know what enabling means, look in a dictionary and get back with me when you do.

I did and it showed a picture of Hillary Clinton.
 
Are any laws going to be passed that limits women's rights? No? Then this statement kinda falls flat.

Lol, do you think the president passes laws ??

Did you ever take any course that covered basic civics ?
 
Don't forget she wants weapons manufacturers to be held liable for their products working as intended, which in itself would constitute a de facto gun ban via bankruptcy.

LOL de facto gun ban ?? Oh the hysteria !! If a bartender is partially responsible for serving a drunk driver, a gun provider could be partially responsible.
 
Has that happened? If there is enough there to have a trial there will be a trial. It's nice that you want to have one in your head and have the conviction already decided but that's not the criteria for due process.

I was explaining how women's rights can pertain to public policy. It's not nice for you to go off on a meaningless tangent.
 
Lol, do you think the president passes laws ??

Did you ever take any course that covered basic civics ?

You're the one that made the statement, so I suppose you should ask yourself that question.
 
Back
Top Bottom