The right is responsible for Ann Coulter because they buy her books a lot and get her on the best seller list. But that doesn't really happen because they're bought in bulk by think tanks to get her on the best seller list. So how are they responsible? You've contradicted yourself.
The right is responsible for Ann Coulter because they buy her books a lot and get her on the best seller list. But that doesn't really happen because they're bought in bulk by think tanks to get her on the best seller list. So how are they responsible? You've contradicted yourself.
Don't think I ever used the word responsible about her at all. My discussions about her have been confined to why exactly she is someone who deserves the prestige of speaking on a college campus, and then comparing her media profile to someone like Lena Dunham, and how it is infinitely larger. It certainly is some right-leaning group who wants her there. But as to her books, yeah. They are nothing but collections of her syndicated columns. And she (like many AM radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh) are essentially subsidized to inject the poison they spew into the American blood stream. Limbaugh's radio show is actually given away for free to many radio stations all across the country. He doesn't make 20+ million a year because Goldbond itch cream and Lifelock have that big of an advertising budget. There are corporations willing to eat the cost of his show to have his message on the air. Same with someone like Coulter.
You have never had your father pull you to the side and urge you to keep watch of your drink before you go to a party with friends, because he's afraid someone might slip something in while you're not looking.
You have never had to worry about walking alone at night, never had to listen for the faintest of footsteps behind you or count the number of houses and businesses in your immediate area and wonder how many might come to help if you screamed loud enough.
You haven't been threatened with rape and death by an anonymous player in an online game immediately after your real name is used--a very feminine name that gives away your gender.
You haven't been taught to be afraid.
I have.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you implying that men never have clonidine poured into their drinks? Or maybe that men are not the prime victims of robberies and homicides? Perhaps preadolescent gamers suddenly become polite and forgiving around males?
Just because men aren't commonly taught to be afraid, doesn't mean men have nothing to fear.
She deserves the prestige because she was invited by the students who wanted her there. She's being denied that right, so they claim, because of the repeated incidents of mobs from the other political persuasion attempting violence damaging property and shutting them down. Which is worse, Mean Words or overblown responses to those mean words that actually hurt people?
If you were truly concerned about Trump and women, You would actually look at his conduct for women in general. But if you only look at one incident in isolation and exaggerate the ramifications of it as a criticism, Then I'm afraid i don't believe your interested in discussion but just want to attack Trump.
1. The majority of White women voted for Trump, so an appeal to 'I am a woman' does not hold water with me at all since i have to weigh it against them, present a reasoned argument.
2. Allegations of abuse that come up coincidentally simultaneously at the end of the election almost on the same day, On a fortuitous moment for the Democrat party, pushed by the Democrat party, And more importantly those people get refuted repeatedly by eye-witnesses and even their own family members, And have no Eye-Witnesses corroborating them is not credible. I have noted that throughout this thread, those who made this a point have done little to nothing to actually elaborate on them but treat allegations as proof of misconduct itself. I also note how quickly the MSM dropped this, very strange for an industry built around sensationalizing these sorts of things, unless they could find nothing but how sketchy these women's allegations were.
3. His comments centered around boasting about asking a woman to go furniture shopping and being rebuffed, and then crudely saying that rich glamour women around rich men are easy. While this shows his dim view of these sorts of glamour women, It is hardly the exaggerated sin or crime that virtually everyone who hates Trump has made it out to be.
4. He evidently has no problem hiring women and rewarding them for effectiveness, Notable that he was somewhat unique in hiring women for high positions in an industry where that was rare, which even the MSM reported.
5. He has had difficulties in his first marriage after like 10+ years, But strangely always left them on good terms that they mingle now.
6. He has done an unusually good job with his kids and daughters, They are all seemingly very well spoken, conduct themselves well without any controversy in their life.
7. He has created executive orders to help promote women in business and entrepreneurial roles in America.
8. He has personally saved many women's lives personally when he hears of their problem in the news, seemingly randomly.
As to Ann Coulter, this is a classic case of tunnel-visioned people sensationalizing the 'threat' of someone because this person they find disagreeable, exaggerating any incidents around this person and making some event far more 'important' then what it really would be (trivial).
Did the place accept her and agree for her to speak? Fine, Let her speak, Let the students make up their mind and get done with it.
What is the fuss all about? And who really cares about Ann Coulter.
The only real concern is this systematic organized violent retaliation marches that Antifa might do.
The obfuscation about Trump's comments on the Access Hollywood tape continues to be absolutely stunning. It's not what he said, it's what he said about ACTIONS he engaged in. Furthermore, (and the most important point) is that he wasn't aware he was being recorded, so he was being completely candid because he wasn't worried anyone besides Billy Bush was ever going to hear it. Besides talking about "furniture shopping" (which was his tactic for trying to sleep with a married woman mind you), he ADMITS to a.) kissing women without their permission and b.) grabbing their genitals without permission. HIS words, and what do you know, those just so happen to be the EXACT actions the 12 women who came forward accused him of.
You provide no examples of these women being refuted by eyewitnesses or family members, and basically slut-shame "glamour women" (whatever the hell that means). One of these women simply had the unfortunate luck of having to sit next to Trump on an airplane.
It's not what Trump said in and of itself. It's actions he is bragging about and admitting to that EXACTLY match those described by his accusers. Most of these women were not going to come forward, but the kicker was when he took to the stage in the second debate and denied the actions he admitted to on tape, and called all the women who had come forward to that point liars, which was simply a bridge too far even for those of them that didn't want to get involved. But to not believe a DOZEN women is par for the course in America. As I've said before, we operate under the "Bill Cosby Rule", in which at least 30 women have to accuse you of the EXACT same behavior to be taken seriously.
And for the last time, it's "Democratic" Party. Calling them the "Democrat" Party is the same as calling the Republican Party the "Republic" Party.
1. The majority of White women voted for Trump, so an appeal to 'I am a woman' does not hold water with me at all since i have to weigh it against them, present a reasoned argument.
There was, the majority of white women voted for Trump.
He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.
And if white women voted for him then they screwed up and voted against their own interests.
Since he's become president he's done all he can to harm women. President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that would allow states to withhold federal money for family planning services, such as birth control, from Planned Parenthood clinics and many other women’s health centers. Planned Parenthood, which provides life saving healthcare for women, receives no federal funds for abortion.
He's had ivanka say something about maternity leave but he's said contradictory things like women should not get maternity leave at all. It's clear that nobody has less respect for women than Donald Trump.
And he almost undoubtably lost some women voters with that, admittedly pretty crude and distasteful yet i've personally heard worse, videotape. Did he not get a disproportionate percentage of young voters as well, or was it just a big drop in young voters who traditionally voted left?
Trump did in fact win the majority of white women's votes. However, he lost the majority of women's votes.
It would be like saying "lots of men liked Clinton" because she got the majority of black men's votes. It's true, but adding race is introducing a conflicting variable.
What people don't take into account when it comes to voting is people vote for what they think and feel is right for them. How I choose who I vote for in England is for who I think is right for my family.
The worst people are the ones who don't vote. Then are critical of who gets voted in. In the UK I voted conservative and I voted remain. It's what I believe was the right choice for me and my family at the time.
Trump did in fact win the majority of white women's votes. However, he lost the majority of women's votes.
It would be like saying "lots of men liked Clinton" because she got the majority of black men's votes. It's true, but adding race is introducing a conflicting variable.
Then he said I mean the most electoral votes. Nope, less than Obama and others. Then he said the most votes as a Republican. Nope. Uh, Landslide! No. “Well, no I was told — I was given that information.” - Trump Feb 16, 2017
Which is really funny because he has to add all those qualifiers to make it sound impressive. If coming in 46th out of 58 and losing the popular vote is a "landslide" then the word has no meaning. It is also funny that he is so insecure that he feels the need to defend his slim margin of victory. It is further funny that he had to correct this because what he had before was even more wrong than it is now.
Let's consider his impressive sounding "28 years by a republican" figure. First of all there has only been ONE Republican President, George W. Bush, in the time he is counting. Bush had the whole Florida recount disaster during one election. And Trump had to qualify his boast as "Republican" because he didn't beat the margin of victory of the Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. So if you don't count the other party then yeah he beat the last Republican.
A win for Trump is impressive at all given the blanket opposition he faced from the media as well as the very large anti Trump contingent within his own party, many of which compromised the worst aspects of the GOP in my view. He definitely won by winning over large parts of the center.
You'd do well to retract your statements that i am slut-shaming anyone.
So because we have one British man who disputes the account of one of the victims, the other eleven who came forward are untrustworthy?
It's pointless to play He-Said-She-Said. The problem is the number of accusations that appeared, and the fact that Trump himself admitted his crimes on tape.
I won't say that you are slut-shaming. I will say that you, like so many other people in this country, are immediately casting the victim as a liar and the predator as innocent with no evidence of the like. We have no proof that Trump is guilty, but we have no proof that his accusers are lying either.
It's this deep level of skepticism that has kept victims of sexual assault--both men and women--from coming forward. Once again: there is no such thing as a "good time" for the victim to speak out. Any such accusation--especially when aimed at a presidential candidate--deserves attention, because all too often it's the victims who are risking themselves and their reputations by going to the press.
That's not an anti-Trump sentiment. It's not even an anti-Republican sentiment. It's a standard that's been applied to Bill Clinton, to John Edwards, to Ted Cruz, to Bill O'Reilly, and now to Seattle's mayor Ed Murray. Why Trump should somehow be immune is lost on me.
No, An accusation requires proof and evidence otherwise it cannot be claimed as valid.
It does not stand on its own.
You say i am claiming an accuser is a liar? No, merely that their accusation cannot be taken as true until evidence comes forth.
That there is counter-evidence for some of the accuser's doubly means we cannot take it on face value alone.
Remember this, in as much as you want to believe these accusers as victims, A falsely accused person of a crime is also a victim.
Your perspective is one where your own suspicion you take as fact, I don't indulge in treating suspicion as fact because that harms more innocent people then it would ever help.
Your free to be as suspicious as you want about Trump for whatever reason you have, The moment you believe he is guilty however is where your in the wrong.
I also note, quite revealingly, that everyone in this thread that likes to talk about this, Doesn't go into detail at all about these accusations, why is this?
Details Jessica Leeds: Daughter is involved with Joe Biden, talks about being groped in an airplane more then a century ago, her details don't match the airplane and an eyewitness disputes her claim.
Rachel Crooks: Family friend went after he on facebook calling her a liar, subsequently she closed her facebook down.
Kristin Anderson: She didn't actually come forward, the MSM chased her down for the story
Mindy McGillivray: Who has a history with drunken violence, Remarks she was in some busy club when she felt a nudge and didn't know who it was, she turned around and amongst a crowd of people one of them was Trump. And she would jokingly laugh about this years later with her Family, Hmmmmm.
Summer Zervos: Her own family cousin refutes her story, also she actually has history with Trump and asked him to sponsor her chain of restaurants. Hmmmmm.
How very odd that the details of these 'accusers' don't live up to the hype, Perhaps this is why those who want to attack Trump rarely want to actually discuss in detail the accusations in the first place?
You blame liberals for "allowing" Lena Dunham to represent us. Yet I've heard nothing but criticism of the woman coming from the left.
I barely knew who Lean Dunham was until I heard about the scandal involving her book, and all the liberals in the comment section in Buzzfeed where I first heard about it were castigating her. What exactly did I as a liberal do wrong?
I've heard a lot of praise for her (and crickets when she does something dumb). Actually I am glad you brought this up you have just underlined a major problem with the left. Who is the face of the left? Who represents it? ...and what do you do about it?
I mean I already know who represents me on face value by most of my opposition and the media. According to them it is Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos and "literally Hitler". Milo in particular considered the "queen of alternative conservatives/right" regardless of outright saying he isn't their leader or spokesperson. So if we were not happy with these defaulted choice we would be kicking up a stink about it. We would be calling out the media or minor personalities every time they claimed this and their will be topics trending about how he misrepresents us..... but yeah that won't happen since 2 of the 3 are just ducky and one is hilarious so I will happily keep all 3 >.>
Actually I believe the people on the VERY far-right have already done this. Disassociating themselves from people like myself because they didn't want PJW, Milo, Lauren Southern, Trump etc to represent them. Hence they call us the "lite-right" and have their own distinct representation from people such as Richard Spencer.
I don't know if Trump is guilty of crime of sexual assault, but what needs to be said:
I will say that you, like so many other people in this country, are immediately casting the victim as a liar and the predator as innocent with no evidence of the like. We have no proof that Trump is guilty, but we have no proof that his accusers are lying either.
But this is how in dubio pro reo works. Otherwise anyone can be accused of anything and found guilty - and there's nothing governments would like more. You can say that this is an instance how the rule backfires, but I wouldn't be eager to abandon it.
Details Jessica Leeds: Daughter is involved with Joe Biden, talks about being groped in an airplane more then a century ago, her details don't match the airplane and an eyewitness disputes her claim.
This is the first problem when confronted with sexual assault allegations. Nicely highlighted in this one post.
So since a person couldn't remember mundane details about an incident that happened over close to a century ago, means that everything about that event need a to be dismissed.
What's important is what was said, how both acted, what actually happened.
Pulling in a third source, and just taking what they say at false value is also inappropriate. What are there motives from coming forward in a highly public setting? It is also HIGHLY inappropriate for a third party to go to the media to refute claims. The victim and and accuser needs a fair trail, which neither get if it is done through the media. If this person wanted to tell his side of the story, he should have done it if/when this story went to trial. Not before, because everyone involved gets cast in a negative light.
Rachel Crooks: Family friend went after he on facebook calling her a liar, subsequently she closed her facebook down.
This is what Nonnahwriter means when she says it tears family and their personal life apart.
And ya, if you are getting bombarded with negative comments about yourself on social media for coming forward with an allegation it is a good thing to close where that negativity is coming from. She doesnt have to stand up to anyone but the courts, and her choosing to ignore people us on that medium to harass her doesn't prove that she lying.
And once again, third party and you need to question their motive. Was this guy a Trump supporter and thought she was attempting to tar and feather Trump, so he wanted to do the same? What does he gain, for coming forward and refuting the claims publically except in an attempt to shame her?
Kristin Anderson: She didn't actually come forward, the MSM chased her down for the story
Just because a victim doesnt come forward, doesnt mean a crime wasn't committed.
As Nonnah said, coming forward with this type of allegations is damaging to them personally.
Many think that suffering isnt worth it. What if that person is found not guilty? Would it have been worth it?
Mindy McGillivray: Who has a history with drunken violence, Remarks she was in some busy club when she felt a nudge and didn't know who it was, she turned around and amongst a crowd of people one of them was Trump. And she would jokingly laugh about this years later with her Family, Hmmmmm.
This is probably the first that may not be proven. It doesnt discount the other 10.
Summer Zervos: Her own family cousin refutes her story, also she actually has history with Trump and asked him to sponsor her chain of restaurants. Hmmmmm.
Thier past dealings or relationships have nothing to do with allegations.
Details Jessica Leeds: Daughter is involved with Joe Biden, talks about being groped in an airplane more then a century ago, her details don't match the airplane and an eyewitness disputes her claim.
This is the first problem when confronted with sexual assault allegations. Nicely highlighted in this one post.
So since a person couldn't remember mundane details about an incident that happened over close to a century ago, means that everything about that event need a to be dismissed.
What's important is what was said, how both acted, what actually happened.
Pulling in a third source, and just taking what they say at false value is also inappropriate. What are there motives from coming forward in a highly public setting? It is also HIGHLY inappropriate for a third party to go to the media to refute claims. The victim and and accuser needs a fair trail, which neither get if it is done through the media. If this person wanted to tell his side of the story, he should have done it if/when this story went to trial. Not before, because everyone involved gets cast in a negative light.
You say it is inappropriate for a witness to go public? Then it is just an inappropriate with your argument for her to go public, Thats quite the double-standard.
As to her 'mundane details', Yes they are important because if it ever went to trial they are all we can go by to validate her claims, that her 'details' conflict with the airline itself is not anyone's problem but her own.
It is interesting you complain about 'dismissal' when your..dismissing her yourself.
This is what Nonnahwriter means when she says it tears family and their personal life apart.
And ya, if you are getting bombarded with negative comments about yourself on social media for coming forward with an allegation it is a good thing to close where that negativity is coming from. She doesnt have to stand up to anyone but the courts, and her choosing to ignore people us on that medium to harass her doesn't prove that she lying.
And once again, third party and you need to question their motive. Was this guy a Trump supporter and thought she was attempting to tar and feather Trump, so he wanted to do the same? What does he gain, for coming forward and refuting the claims publically except in an attempt to shame her?
You can question the 'third party' who was related to her and refuted her. But the moment you 'question' the third party, you sure should question the 'accuser' with the same skepticism.
I notice that you question the refuters motives, But none for the accuser?.
Thier past dealings or relationships have nothing to do with allegations.
Actually they do, per your own argument 'What are there motives from coming forward in a highly public setting?'
Of course you failed to investigate any further into the matter, that the person who refuted her is her own cousin, and claimed that she enthusiastically sought out Trump to endorse her chain of restaurants.
Again i ask the question, why do i not see anyone elaborating further into these accusations? It seems there is a pattern of not wishing to investigate further, indeed in your entire post you didn't actually post any new evidence confirming anything.
Also, alot of these women donated to Hillary. Quite the web we've got here.
So many of these women are connected to Hillary, They came forward almost simultaneously during the latter-end the competition with her and Trump (Not Trump during Primaries), No witnesses can confirm them instead refute them, every extra investigation does not give us more material to support their claim but actually evidence that seems to show their accusation to be flawed, And when Hillary lost they all but disappeared, Most worryingly the Mainstream media completely dropped this (and they are no friends to Trump).
Comments
I do not blame all liberals for Lena Dunham. Even though Dunham "represents" liberals.
I do not blame all conservatives for Ann Coulter. Even though Coulter "represents" conservatives.
I do not blame all Muslims for Osama bin Laden. Even though bin Laden "represents" Muslims.
I do not blame all black people for Malcom X. Even though Malcom X "represents" black people.
I do not blame all white people for Strom Thurmond. Even though Thurmond "represents" white people.
I do not blame all Germans for Hitler. Even though Hitler "represents" Germans.
I do not blame all Russians for Putin. Even though Putin "represents" Russians.
Again, this is the very opposite of a double standard.
Just because men aren't commonly taught to be afraid, doesn't mean men have nothing to fear.
But if you only look at one incident in isolation and exaggerate the ramifications of it as a criticism, Then I'm afraid i don't believe your interested in discussion but just want to attack Trump.
1. The majority of White women voted for Trump, so an appeal to 'I am a woman' does not hold water with me at all since i have to weigh it against them, present a reasoned argument.
2. Allegations of abuse that come up coincidentally simultaneously at the end of the election almost on the same day, On a fortuitous moment for the Democrat party, pushed by the Democrat party, And more importantly those people get refuted repeatedly by eye-witnesses and even their own family members, And have no Eye-Witnesses corroborating them is not credible.
I have noted that throughout this thread, those who made this a point have done little to nothing to actually elaborate on them but treat allegations as proof of misconduct itself.
I also note how quickly the MSM dropped this, very strange for an industry built around sensationalizing these sorts of things, unless they could find nothing but how sketchy these women's allegations were.
3. His comments centered around boasting about asking a woman to go furniture shopping and being rebuffed, and then crudely saying that rich glamour women around rich men are easy.
While this shows his dim view of these sorts of glamour women, It is hardly the exaggerated sin or crime that virtually everyone who hates Trump has made it out to be.
4. He evidently has no problem hiring women and rewarding them for effectiveness, Notable that he was somewhat unique in hiring women for high positions in an industry where that was rare, which even the MSM reported.
5. He has had difficulties in his first marriage after like 10+ years, But strangely always left them on good terms that they mingle now.
6. He has done an unusually good job with his kids and daughters, They are all seemingly very well spoken, conduct themselves well without any controversy in their life.
7. He has created executive orders to help promote women in business and entrepreneurial roles in America.
8. He has personally saved many women's lives personally when he hears of their problem in the news, seemingly randomly.
Did the place accept her and agree for her to speak? Fine, Let her speak, Let the students make up their mind and get done with it.
What is the fuss all about? And who really cares about Ann Coulter.
The only real concern is this systematic organized violent retaliation marches that Antifa might do.
You provide no examples of these women being refuted by eyewitnesses or family members, and basically slut-shame "glamour women" (whatever the hell that means). One of these women simply had the unfortunate luck of having to sit next to Trump on an airplane.
It's not what Trump said in and of itself. It's actions he is bragging about and admitting to that EXACTLY match those described by his accusers. Most of these women were not going to come forward, but the kicker was when he took to the stage in the second debate and denied the actions he admitted to on tape, and called all the women who had come forward to that point liars, which was simply a bridge too far even for those of them that didn't want to get involved. But to not believe a DOZEN women is par for the course in America. As I've said before, we operate under the "Bill Cosby Rule", in which at least 30 women have to accuse you of the EXACT same behavior to be taken seriously.
And for the last time, it's "Democratic" Party. Calling them the "Democrat" Party is the same as calling the Republican Party the "Republic" Party.
But Mr Gilberthorpe claimed that not only did Mr Trump not touch Ms Leeds as she alleges, but that “it was she that was the one being flirtatious.” When Mr Trump rose to go to the loo, Mr Gilberthorpe said, Ms Leeds had confided in him that “She wanted to marry [Mr Trump].”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-sexual-assault-groping-allegations-anthony-gilberthorpe-jessica-leeds-a7362761.html
Accusers Cousin denies her allegations on Trump
You'd do well to retract your statements that i am slut-shaming anyone.
And if white women voted for him then they screwed up and voted against their own interests.
Since he's become president he's done all he can to harm women. President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that would allow states to withhold federal money for family planning services, such as birth control, from Planned Parenthood clinics and many other women’s health centers. Planned Parenthood, which provides life saving healthcare for women, receives no federal funds for abortion.
He's had ivanka say something about maternity leave but he's said contradictory things like women should not get maternity leave at all. It's clear that nobody has less respect for women than Donald Trump.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/
The real 'shy Trump' vote - how 53% of white women pushed him to victory
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/white-women-donald-trump-victory
Looking specifically at white women, they favoured Mr Trump, with 53% supporting him compared with 43% for Mrs Clinton.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37922587
The trend however is that Democrats are losing the young vote and the Republicans are gaining significantly.
2 Elections from now, If the trend is the same and it could flip completely.
It would be like saying "lots of men liked Clinton" because she got the majority of black men's votes. It's true, but adding race is introducing a conflicting variable.
Freed Egyptian American prisoner returns home following Trump intervention
An Egyptian American charity worker who was imprisoned in Cairo for three years and became the global face of Egypt’s brutal crackdown on civil society returned home to the United States late Thursday after the Trump administration quietly negotiated her release.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freed-egyptian-american-prisoner-returns-home-following-trump-intervention/2017/04/20/d569fe1e-2608-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name:page/breaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.e224247c9817
Having a working relationship with Egypt has its benefits.
The worst people are the ones who don't vote. Then are critical of who gets voted in. In the UK I voted conservative and I voted remain. It's what I believe was the right choice for me and my family at the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/18/us/elections/donald-trump-electoral-college-popular-vote.html
Then he said I mean the most electoral votes. Nope, less than Obama and others. Then he said the most votes as a Republican. Nope. Uh, Landslide! No. “Well, no I was told — I was given that information.” - Trump
Feb 16, 2017
His official White House Biography says Which is really funny because he has to add all those qualifiers to make it sound impressive. If coming in 46th out of 58 and losing the popular vote is a "landslide" then the word has no meaning. It is also funny that he is so insecure that he feels the need to defend his slim margin of victory. It is further funny that he had to correct this because what he had before was even more wrong than it is now.
Let's consider his impressive sounding "28 years by a republican" figure. First of all there has only been ONE Republican President, George W. Bush, in the time he is counting. Bush had the whole Florida recount disaster during one election. And Trump had to qualify his boast as "Republican" because he didn't beat the margin of victory of the Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. So if you don't count the other party then yeah he beat the last Republican.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/12/donald-trump/donald-trumps-electoral-college-victory-was-not-ma/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/killed-shooting-russian-intelligence-agencys-office-46932121
You know pissing of Russia doesn't seem like a good idea for ISIS.
It's pointless to play He-Said-She-Said. The problem is the number of accusations that appeared, and the fact that Trump himself admitted his crimes on tape.
I won't say that you are slut-shaming. I will say that you, like so many other people in this country, are immediately casting the victim as a liar and the predator as innocent with no evidence of the like. We have no proof that Trump is guilty, but we have no proof that his accusers are lying either.
It's this deep level of skepticism that has kept victims of sexual assault--both men and women--from coming forward. Once again: there is no such thing as a "good time" for the victim to speak out. Any such accusation--especially when aimed at a presidential candidate--deserves attention, because all too often it's the victims who are risking themselves and their reputations by going to the press.
That's not an anti-Trump sentiment. It's not even an anti-Republican sentiment. It's a standard that's been applied to Bill Clinton, to John Edwards, to Ted Cruz, to Bill O'Reilly, and now to Seattle's mayor Ed Murray. Why Trump should somehow be immune is lost on me.
It does not stand on its own.
You say i am claiming an accuser is a liar? No, merely that their accusation cannot be taken as true until evidence comes forth.
That there is counter-evidence for some of the accuser's doubly means we cannot take it on face value alone.
Remember this, in as much as you want to believe these accusers as victims, A falsely accused person of a crime is also a victim.
Your perspective is one where your own suspicion you take as fact, I don't indulge in treating suspicion as fact because that harms more innocent people then it would ever help.
Your free to be as suspicious as you want about Trump for whatever reason you have, The moment you believe he is guilty however is where your in the wrong.
I also note, quite revealingly, that everyone in this thread that likes to talk about this, Doesn't go into detail at all about these accusations, why is this?
Details
Jessica Leeds: Daughter is involved with Joe Biden, talks about being groped in an airplane more then a century ago, her details don't match the airplane and an eyewitness disputes her claim.
Rachel Crooks: Family friend went after he on facebook calling her a liar, subsequently she closed her facebook down.
Kristin Anderson: She didn't actually come forward, the MSM chased her down for the story
Mindy McGillivray: Who has a history with drunken violence, Remarks she was in some busy club when she felt a nudge and didn't know who it was, she turned around and amongst a crowd of people one of them was Trump.
And she would jokingly laugh about this years later with her Family, Hmmmmm.
Summer Zervos: Her own family cousin refutes her story, also she actually has history with Trump and asked him to sponsor her chain of restaurants.
Hmmmmm.
How very odd that the details of these 'accusers' don't live up to the hype, Perhaps this is why those who want to attack Trump rarely want to actually discuss in detail the accusations in the first place?
They are not normal poll's.
Voting statistics on elections are always based on exit poll's because many States don't have voter ID for voting.
I mean I already know who represents me on face value by most of my opposition and the media. According to them it is Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos and "literally Hitler". Milo in particular considered the "queen of alternative conservatives/right" regardless of outright saying he isn't their leader or spokesperson. So if we were not happy with these defaulted choice we would be kicking up a stink about it. We would be calling out the media or minor personalities every time they claimed this and their will be topics trending about how he misrepresents us..... but yeah that won't happen since 2 of the 3 are just ducky and one is hilarious so I will happily keep all 3 >.>
Actually I believe the people on the VERY far-right have already done this. Disassociating themselves from people like myself because they didn't want PJW, Milo, Lauren Southern, Trump etc to represent them. Hence they call us the "lite-right" and have their own distinct representation from people such as Richard Spencer. Sure if she is a negative asset for us.... but she isn't?
Also Comparing Ann Coulter to Lena Dunham? For real? ...yeah you can take Lena, I will choose Ann
But this is how in dubio pro reo works. Otherwise anyone can be accused of anything and found guilty - and there's nothing governments would like more.
You can say that this is an instance how the rule backfires, but I wouldn't be eager to abandon it.
Now lets take a look at these so called counter-claims. This is the first problem when confronted with sexual assault allegations. Nicely highlighted in this one post.
So since a person couldn't remember mundane details about an incident that happened over close to a century ago, means that everything about that event need a to be dismissed.
What's important is what was said, how both acted, what actually happened.
Pulling in a third source, and just taking what they say at false value is also inappropriate. What are there motives from coming forward in a highly public setting? It is also HIGHLY inappropriate for a third party to go to the media to refute claims. The victim and and accuser needs a fair trail, which neither get if it is done through the media. If this person wanted to tell his side of the story, he should have done it if/when this story went to trial. Not before, because everyone involved gets cast in a negative light. This is what Nonnahwriter means when she says it tears family and their personal life apart.
And ya, if you are getting bombarded with negative comments about yourself on social media for coming forward with an allegation it is a good thing to close where that negativity is coming from. She doesnt have to stand up to anyone but the courts, and her choosing to ignore people us on that medium to harass her doesn't prove that she lying.
And once again, third party and you need to question their motive. Was this guy a Trump supporter and thought she was attempting to tar and feather Trump, so he wanted to do the same? What does he gain, for coming forward and refuting the claims publically except in an attempt to shame her? Just because a victim doesnt come forward, doesnt mean a crime wasn't committed.
As Nonnah said, coming forward with this type of allegations is damaging to them personally.
Many think that suffering isnt worth it. What if that person is found not guilty? Would it have been worth it? This is probably the first that may not be proven. It doesnt discount the other 10. Thier past dealings or relationships have nothing to do with allegations.
But you forgot that allegations aren't automatically true.
Interesting when people in this thread conveniently don't give any details. You say it is inappropriate for a witness to go public? Then it is just an inappropriate with your argument for her to go public, Thats quite the double-standard.
As to her 'mundane details', Yes they are important because if it ever went to trial they are all we can go by to validate her claims, that her 'details' conflict with the airline itself is not anyone's problem but her own.
It is interesting you complain about 'dismissal' when your..dismissing her yourself. You can question the 'third party' who was related to her and refuted her.
But the moment you 'question' the third party, you sure should question the 'accuser' with the same skepticism.
I notice that you question the refuters motives, But none for the accuser?. Actually they do, per your own argument
'What are there motives from coming forward in a highly public setting?'
Of course you failed to investigate any further into the matter, that the person who refuted her is her own cousin, and claimed that she enthusiastically sought out Trump to endorse her chain of restaurants.
Again i ask the question, why do i not see anyone elaborating further into these accusations?
It seems there is a pattern of not wishing to investigate further, indeed in your entire post you didn't actually post any new evidence confirming anything.
Also, alot of these women donated to Hillary.
Quite the web we've got here.
So many of these women are connected to Hillary, They came forward almost simultaneously during the latter-end the competition with her and Trump (Not Trump during Primaries), No witnesses can confirm them instead refute them, every extra investigation does not give us more material to support their claim but actually evidence that seems to show their accusation to be flawed, And when Hillary lost they all but disappeared, Most worryingly the Mainstream media completely dropped this (and they are no friends to Trump).
That doesn't pass the smell-test to me.