• 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!

She is not my type!

I didn't read the whole tread. Someone must have said this already, but it's probably worth repeating. The interesting part of the "she is not my type" comment, is that he seems to be implying that if she were his type, it would have been OK to rape her.

It's like saying "this is a lie because I don't rape women who are not my type. I only rape the ones who are my type."
 
beefheart said:
Just noting that the conservatives will always believe something against a democrat, but never against their cult leader....

As for Broaddrick, by all means, it should be looked into and taken seriously.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
I'll just note that when you overgeneralize about any group, e.g. conservatives, you lose credibility.
Click to expand...

lurchadams said:
Miss Note, I'm curious how you feel about trump's defence when denying the allegation saying that, "she's not my type".

Are you not at least a little bit ashamed of him for saying that? Think about how rape survivors all over the world must have felt when they heard that!
Click to expand...

That is as telling as anything could be to me.

I mean, seriously? This allegation is wrong because I wouldn't feel like raping her? That's his response? Not "rape is terrible, but I absolutely reject this accusation. It did not happen. I do not know her."

But..."eh, not my type"



That said, when someone openly brags about grabbing women by the *****, about walking up to women and kissing them because some will let a celebrity do anything (query what "let" covers, ie, a celebrity having the money to bury you in lawsuits thus lawyers' fees if you come forward), and then on top brags about walking in on minors in their dressing rooms because one owes the beauty pageant they are changing for....

....when one does something that ugly, one probably isn't all that innocent regarding 16 accusations of sexual assault. The likelihood that they are all malicious BS fabricated to take down a man, especially when that man claims to not know the majority of accusers, is absurdly low.





That said, the good beefheart did overgeneralize a little. "Most conservatives" would work better than "the conservatives." But to be fair, at this point it's not much of a difference.

The vast majority, be they openly "conservative" or "independent", defend the slimeball. A tiny fraction of them defend the slimeball on policy while claiming to despise his slimeiness. The latter isn't incredible. I can understand the idea of, say, putting the point of having a president who nominates judges/SCOTUS justices who happen to generally rule in ways that conservatives like in cases involving relevant policies. I think Bernie is a loon, but I'm voting Bernie over Trump if he's the nominee, and SCOTUS appointments will be part of that. That's crappy IMO, but valid. It's pragmatism based on one's priorities. SCOTUS really does have a far longer arm than congress or, really, anyone else. It's logical, if morally questionable, to back a policy to put in 'conservative' justices no matter what.

That said, it does get murkier and murkier when they defend him more and more, however. Are they sure they don't like him that much?



Also that said, there is an overwhelming pattern played out on DP and comments/forums everywhere:

- Woman accuses Dem after X years ---> Dem is guilty, must step down, it's horrible, liberals are hypocrites if they don't say he should. (Franken, for example, or the far worse "Hollywood Liberal" Weinstein).

- Woman accuses GOP after X years ---> All to be ignored, delay means lies, more accusations proves conspiracy rather than indicates guilt, having so much as a hearing on an accused nominee is an affront to justice, etc etc etc.

People are happily destroying democracy to "win".
 
Last edited:
Did anyone see the Anderson Cooper interview?
 
Mr Person said:
That is as telling as anything could be to me.

I mean, seriously? This allegation is wrong because I wouldn't feel like raping her? That's his response? Not "rape is terrible, but I absolutely reject this accusation. It did not happen. I do not know her."

But..."eh, not my type"



That said, when someone openly brags about grabbing women by the *****, about walking up to women and kissing them because some will let a celebrity do anything (query what "let" covers, ie, a celebrity having the money to bury you in lawsuits thus lawyers' fees if you come forward), and then on top brags about walking in on minors in their dressing rooms because one owes the beauty pageant they are changing for....

....when one does something that ugly, one probably isn't all that innocent regarding 16 accusations of sexual assault. The likelihood that they are all malicious BS fabricated to take down a man, especially when that man claims to not know the majority of accusers, is absurdly low.





That said, the good beefheart did overgeneralize a little. "Most conservatives" would work better than "the conservatives." But to be fair, at this point it's not much of a difference.

The vast majority, be they openly "conservative" or "independent", defend the slimeball. A tiny fraction of them defend the slimeball on policy while claiming to despise his slimeiness. The latter isn't incredible. I can understand the idea of, say, putting the point of having a president who nominates judges/SCOTUS justices who happen to generally rule in ways that conservatives like in cases involving relevant policies. I think Bernie is a loon, but I'm voting Bernie over Trump if he's the nominee, and SCOTUS appointments will be part of that. That's crappy IMO, but valid. It's pragmatism based on one's priorities. SCOTUS really does have a far longer arm than congress or, really, anyone else. It's logical, if morally questionable, to back a policy to put in 'conservative' justices no matter what.

That said, it does get murkier and murkier when they defend him more and more, however. Are they sure they don't like him that much?



Also that said, there is an overwhelming pattern played out on DP and comments/forums everywhere:

- Woman accuses Dem after X years ---> Dem is guilty, must step down, it's horrible, liberals are hypocrites if they don't say he should. (Franken, for example, or the far worse "Hollywood Liberal" Weinstein).

- Woman accuses GOP after X years ---> All to be ignored, delay means lies, more accusations proves conspiracy rather than indicates guilt, having so much as a hearing on an accused nominee is an affront to justice, etc etc etc.

People are happily destroying democracy to "win".
Click to expand...

Rape is motivated not by "attraction" to someone but by hatred and violence of the victim.

That's why what trump said what so ignorant and disgusting.
 
lurchadams said:
Rape is motivated not by "attraction" to someone but by hatred and violence of the victim.

That's why what trump said what so ignorant and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It is a crime of violence, of domination, of depersonalization. It is terrible.

However, I disagree in that it is not *the* reason, but rather *yet another* reason to despise him.
 
ludin said:
actually no. most rape cases they have DNA, finger prints, they have other evidence sources or witnesses that corroborate what is being said.
Click to expand...

No.

:shrug:



They collect DNA, at which point it necessarily becomes he said/she said. The reason should be obvious to a legal expert such as yourself: if there's DNA, "it wasn't me" isn't an argument. The only argument is consent at that point, unless perhaps there is a fluke and it produced evidence that the alleged victim slept with X>1 guys that night, or other unlikely evidence. Consent = he said/she said.

Guess what: rapists try like anything to avoid witnesses. Date rape is the most common sort. Stranger rape is quite rare. How many people surreptitiously start recordings when they bring someone into their apartment, just in case they decide not to want to have sex but get raped, such that there will be something you're willing to call "evidence" (a video, but then you'd probably also call that faked if it involved a GOPer).

You just don't know what you are talking about. Stop. I'll save you the embarrassment of eviscerating the rest of your swill.






Ok, ok. One little thing.

ludin said:
Mr Person said:
Will there be a criminal trial? Probably not. But guess what, Mr. Darrow, whether or not one supports a politician has nothing to do with the standards of evidence in criminal trials in which the government seeks to strip a citizen of his freedoms. There is no "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" here.
Click to expand...

which is anti-american and anti-freedom.
Click to expand...

You have never in your life applied "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to an accusation against a Democrat. You are not fooling anyone. That you think you might is sad.

But it's like I said, isn't it? The point isn't to make the winning argument. It's to say something, anything, in defense of Trump, collect likes, and solidify Might Makes Right. Trouble is, I think the swing voters are going to react differently in 2020, when Hillary won't be the candidate.

:2wave:

(And if I'm wrong, America is lost)
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Indeed. It is a crime of violence, of domination, of depersonalization. It is terrible.

However, I disagree in that it is not *the* reason, but rather *yet another* reason to despise him.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think I said that his "not my type" statement was the only reason to be disgusted with him.
 
snakestretcher said:
As far as Trump is concerned any woman is fair game. Power and money and no sense of decency or moral standards will do that. He really is the lowest form of bottom-feeding scum.
Click to expand...

Why now? Is she writing a book? Is she looking for attention?
Is her attorney Michael Avenatti?
 
Outlook said:
Why now? Is she writing a book? Is she looking for attention?
Is her attorney Michael Avenatti?
Click to expand...

Sexy might sell her book.
I have an idea. We all start writing. Now, in order for the book to sell, it has to be something juicy. In order to promote the book, we have to accuse some famous person of something. If it is for political expediency, even better. The publisher will lead us in the right direction. After all, he/she shares in the profit.
The shame is, what about women who are being raped? Do they think it is sexy? May be they should be writing a book about the impact of false accusations.
 
beefheart said:
So, you don't believe any of the 16 women who have made claims against Trump, but you believe Juanita.

right....
Click to expand...

Actually, I have never stated one way or another what I believe about any of these women.
 
Do any of you realize how easy it is to be accused?
Does it matter who you are? Does your political persuasion matter?
Just think for a minute. You go about your daily life and something pops up, et voila, whooosh.
What would you want us to think about you? Be honest, please.
I know, you would never. You didn't, for sure. But here we are.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trump is proving, yet again, to be quite a moron. By asserting (or at least heavily implying) that "she is not my type" then there must be a "type" (of women?) which he would (gladly?) sexually assault/forcibly rape. He certainly did not rule out the possibility that he would commit such crimes on the right "type" (of victim).
Click to expand...

Yep. A stupid, and unnecessary thing to say.
 
lurchadams said:
Miss Note, I'm curious how you feel about trump's defence when denying the allegation saying that, "she's not my type".
Click to expand...

I think it was stupidly cavalier and entirely predictable.

lurchadams said:
Are you not at least a little bit ashamed of him for saying that? Think about how rape survivors all over the world must have felt when they heard that!
Click to expand...

I'd have to be emotionally invested in Trump to experience shame. I'm not, so I don't.

And I don't need to think about "rape survivors" think; I myself have experienced rape.

And BTW, I don't characterize myself as a "survivor" or "victim."

And also BTW, it's "Ms," not "Miss." I'm not 12.
 
nota bene said:
I think it was stupidly cavalier and entirely predictable.



I'd have to be emotionally invested in Trump to experience shame. I'm not, so I don't.

And I don't need to think about "rape survivors" think; I myself have experienced rape.

And BTW, I don't characterize myself as a "survivor" or "victim."

And also BTW, it's "Ms," not "Miss." I'm not 12.
Click to expand...

I'm very sorry to hear about that, Ms. Note. Bless you and I wish you well.

Thank you for responding to my post. I didn't expect you to.
 
Lovebug said:
Does she have a foreign accent?
Click to expand...

Nope, but neither did Marla Maples with whom he was having an affair while married to Ivana Trump. Nancy O'Dell doesn't have a foreign accent and that didn't prevent him from "moving on her like a b****".
 
ElChupacabra said:
Nope, but neither did Marla Maples with whom he was having an affair while married to Ivana Trump. Nancy O'Dell doesn't have a foreign accent and that didn't prevent him from "moving on her like a b****".
Click to expand...

Cigars, my friend, cigars.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Clinton? He looked like an idiot for denying something he later had to admit he did. That powerful men commit adultery doesn't make it ok.
Click to expand...

Yes, and?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trump is proving, yet again, to be quite a moron. By asserting (or at least heavily implying) that "she is not my type" then there must be a "type" (of women?) which he would (gladly?) sexually assault/forcibly rape. He certainly did not rule out the possibility that he would commit such crimes on the right "type" (of victim).
Click to expand...

He probably thought he was in a locker room with that interviewer when he said that.
 
Mr Person said:
That is as telling as anything could be to me.

I mean, seriously? This allegation is wrong because I wouldn't feel like raping her? That's his response? Not "rape is terrible, but I absolutely reject this accusation. It did not happen. I do not know her."

But..."eh, not my type"



That said, when someone openly brags about grabbing women by the *****, about walking up to women and kissing them because some will let a celebrity do anything (query what "let" covers, ie, a celebrity having the money to bury you in lawsuits thus lawyers' fees if you come forward), and then on top brags about walking in on minors in their dressing rooms because one owes the beauty pageant they are changing for....

....when one does something that ugly, one probably isn't all that innocent regarding 16 accusations of sexual assault. The likelihood that they are all malicious BS fabricated to take down a man, especially when that man claims to not know the majority of accusers, is absurdly low.





That said, the good beefheart did overgeneralize a little. "Most conservatives" would work better than "the conservatives." But to be fair, at this point it's not much of a difference.

The vast majority, be they openly "conservative" or "independent", defend the slimeball. A tiny fraction of them defend the slimeball on policy while claiming to despise his slimeiness. The latter isn't incredible. I can understand the idea of, say, putting the point of having a president who nominates judges/SCOTUS justices who happen to generally rule in ways that conservatives like in cases involving relevant policies. I think Bernie is a loon, but I'm voting Bernie over Trump if he's the nominee, and SCOTUS appointments will be part of that. That's crappy IMO, but valid. It's pragmatism based on one's priorities. SCOTUS really does have a far longer arm than congress or, really, anyone else. It's logical, if morally questionable, to back a policy to put in 'conservative' justices no matter what.

That said, it does get murkier and murkier when they defend him more and more, however. Are they sure they don't like him that much?



Also that said, there is an overwhelming pattern played out on DP and comments/forums everywhere:

- Woman accuses Dem after X years ---> Dem is guilty, must step down, it's horrible, liberals are hypocrites if they don't say he should. (Franken, for example, or the far worse "Hollywood Liberal" Weinstein).

- Woman accuses GOP after X years ---> All to be ignored, delay means lies, more accusations proves conspiracy rather than indicates guilt, having so much as a hearing on an accused nominee is an affront to justice, etc etc etc.

People are happily destroying democracy to "win".
Click to expand...

I used a bit of a broad brush, but was aiming it more at the Trump cultists that post here. There is nothing he can do that is bad to them, we have seen that. That is why they are cultists....
 
Lovebug said:
Do any of you realize how easy it is to be accused?
.
Click to expand...

Easy to accuse? I would say "dangerous to accuse". Wrongful abasing of a person's name is punishable by law and gives jail time as well as degrading of one's reputation, not to mention that with Trump, saying something that is degrading to him has resulted in strong actions from him, starting with lashing out mercilessly to the person with degrading words but more importantly by being sued by him. He sues everyone for just about anything. He sued Bill Maher because the show host put up a picture of an orangutan with orange hair saying it was Trump.

“He sues,” said Barbara Res, the Trump Tower construction manager and a former executive vice president of the Trump Organization. “That’s his M.O. He sues.”

“It’s just another tool in his war chest,” said Jack O’Donnell, the former president of the Trump Plaza casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. “He uses it to wear people out, whether it’s financially or emotionally.”

“He’s used litigation historically to keep hostile forces at bay and to delay reckonings,”

If nothing else, Trump has had an abundance of practice. His exhaustive history of weaponizing the courts started in 1973, when DOJ sued Trump and his father for racist rental policies in their fiefdom of outer-borough apartment buildings. Trump responded by hiring Roy Cohn, the notorious judicial and political fixer who’s been called “pure evil,” “a legal executioner,” and “one of the most despicable people in American history.” Cohn and Trump sued the feds right back—for $100 million. “The countersuit was bull****,” said Elyse Goldweber, one of the prosecutors involved. But it extended the timetable of the case and turned it into a public relations skirmish as much as a matter to be settled purely in court. Nearly two years later, Trump and his father signed a consent decree pledging to change their ways, “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated,” as DOJ put it. Trump, unchastened, insisted it was a win—a precursor to one of his most telltale maneuvers. Furthermore, for the government, the aftermath was galling. With Cohn at the point, the Trumps for years dragged their feet, exasperating subsequent prosecutors and effectively defanging the enforcement of the decree. As a whole, it would prove to be a singular font of so much of what was to come.

“Trump claims he went to Wharton business school,” presidential historian Doug Brinkley said. “What he did was attend Roy Cohn University.”

“Everything Trump does is steeped in Roy Cohn’s mentoring and teaching,” Cohn cousin David Lloyd Marcus said. “Roy knew that you could threaten to litigate, and that often that was enough. But also Roy knew that you could tie up things in the courts for years. Years. This is all right from the Roy playbook.”

A voracious pupil of the ruthless attorney, Trump has sued or been sued at least 4,000 times, according to the yeoman’s work of reporters from USA Today. He has sued people over unpaid royalties in licensing deals. He has sued Miss Pennsylvania. He has sued Bill Maher. He has sued the creator of Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune. He has sued Scotland. He has sued New Jersey. He has sued New York City, and he has sued New York state. He has sued Palm Beach. He has sued an architecture critic from Chicago. He has sued the secretary of the Interior and the National Indian Gaming Commission. He has sued people for using his surname in businesses … even though it was also their surname. He has sued and been sued by his first ex-wife. He has sued and been sued by Steve Wynn. He has sued and been sued by longtime business partners. “Just another lawsuit filed by Trump as a diversionary tactic,” a spokesman for one of those partners once said, “attempting to intimidate and to substitute publicity for substance.” He has threatened to file countless lawsuits he then hasn’t filed.
Click to expand...

If you think that accusing Trump even with reason is easy, you are not thinking. Saying anything negative about Trump has been a sure way to get attacked by words and legal action to the nth degree.

Funny though, he has not yet sued any of the women that are accusing him even though he publicly said he would. I wonder why? Could it be because it would open up Pandora's box to proof of what he is being accused of? Knowing Trump, if these accusations were unfounded, he would have already attacked them in every which way shape or form that was at his disposal. Nonetheless, the only thing he has actually done is a very dovish statement saying "they lie".

That, in and of itself, is proof to me that he did sexually molest these women.

Then again, why am I telling you this? You are just going to find some crazy excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom