- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 122,485
- Reaction score
- 19,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
thats a Dem ploy
try harder:2wave:
24 women accuse trump of sexual misconduct.
24!!!!!
thats a Dem ploy
try harder:2wave:
I guess you could read the lawsuit
She filed a lawsuit? Can you link to it?
I gave a link already. 2 women have sued him
19 lies are still 19 lies...simple as that:lol:
But this woman hasnt, right? Oh, and you never answered the question as to when this supposed attack took place.
It does not matter how many "friends or family" one may have told. Why? Their story may be a complete fabrication. People often exaggerate the encounters they have with "famous" people. Over time, depending on their feelings for such individuals, the stories may grow in the telling.
Now I don't know if any of these stories are true or not. What I do hold to is that a person should be presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. That does not mean they are, in fact, innocent.
It just means if you don't at least bring charges to seek to show guilt, then IMO your naked allegation remains just that...an unproven assertion and the accused retains the benefit of the doubt.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by four women: Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Leslie Millwee[1] accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993. The Jones allegations became public in 1994, during Clinton's first term as president, while Willey's and Broaddrick's accusations became public in 1999, toward the end of Clinton's second term. Millwee did not make her accusations until 2016.
As you say, "No evidence...." Innocent until proven guilty.
Source for that claim?
Im so over this entire farce accusations that are now being used to simply take down people as a political hit job. Majority of these cases are unproven beyond he says/she says, and almost all of them happened 20-30 years ago as if somehow it was ok for that long and only now it really bothers them.
In a simple answer, the reason why none of it affects Trump is because none of these women are credible because it either did not happen or they want attention/money to keep silent about a 1 night stand(stormy Daniels). People will do just about anything for some self pity and 15 minutes of fame.
The question is, are this womans accusations factual. You have zero evidence that they are. You cant argue that similar accusations, that havent been proven, lend any weight to this accusation. If she has no evidence that this attack occurred, there is no reason to believe that it did.
Im so over this entire farce accusations that are now being used to simply take down people as a political hit job. Majority of these cases are unproven beyond he says/she says, and almost all of them happened 20-30 years ago as if somehow it was ok for that long and only now it really bothers them.
In a simple answer, the reason why none of it affects Trump is because none of these women are credible because it either did not happen or they want attention/money to keep silent about a 1 night stand(stormy Daniels). People will do just about anything for some self pity and 15 minutes of fame.
Im so over this entire farce accusations that are now being used to simply take down people as a political hit job. Majority of these cases are unproven beyond he says/she says, and almost all of them happened 20-30 years ago as if somehow it was ok for that long and only now it really bothers them.
In a simple answer, the reason why none of it affects Trump is because none of these women are credible because it either did not happen or they want attention/money to keep silent about a 1 night stand(stormy Daniels). People will do just about anything for some self pity and 15 minutes of fame.
And his 'not being a moral man' is not evidence that this womans accusation is true. She doesnt need to prove her claim to the left, they will believe anything that casts Trump in a negative light. I am going to need a little more
You cannot argue the figures and the facts. Only 5% (or less) of rape allegations have been found to be false, Meaning that in Trump's case that would mean that perhaps 1 of the 19 allegations is false. What about the other 18?
In addition, didn't he personally say that he likes to grab them by the *****?
As it is, it is likely there are more women that were assaulted by Trump but that have not come out because they do not want the negative publicity or the fact that he will not be prosecuted. You cannot argue the numbers.
The Russia collusion accusation didn't work, so now they are trying the rape accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but evidence is required.
The Russia collusion accusation didn't work, so now they are trying the rape accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but evidence is required.
The Russia collusion accusation didn't work, so now they are trying the rape accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but evidence is required.
Hey, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Yourself included.
Nonetheless, I like to guide my life by probabilities and not by fantasies. If I believed that I could win the lottery (13 million to 1 shot), I would invest every penny that I earned given that when I won I would have more money that what I spent. The reality is that winning the lottery is mostly fantasy and if you do that, probabilities are that you will go broke, starve, be unable to house and feed your family, etc.
Then again, there are many people that do believe they are going to win the lottery and continue trying. I once met a man that spent an average of $100 a week playing the lottery and when I met him he had been doing for a couple of years and still had not won.
So it's "probabilities" vs "fantasies," eh? Where does law fit in? Evidence? Proof?
Fun read: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac00/0132a8e3a45cc246badd533aff4b22d14584.pdf
Show me one other case in history where a man was accused 19 times of the same type of crime that was ultimately proven innocent.
Common sense and probabilities tear your story down.
So it's "probabilities" vs "fantasies," eh? Where does law fit in? Evidence? Proof?
Fun read: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac00/0132a8e3a45cc246badd533aff4b22d14584.pdf
That doesnt even remotely begin to answer the question as to whether or not THIS accusation is true or not.