There is and never has been any chance of a criminal element to this. The statute of limitations had run out on many of them, the others were never going to go anywhere. Investigate it how?? Who is going to do the investigating?? Sexual assault is often he said/she said. The women told their stories. They didn't stick around for money or book deals or extended fame. They told their stories to let people know what he did to them, and then it was exit stage right. Many only came forward because of what they viewed as an attack on the other alleged victims when he denied engaging in the behavior in a Presidential Debate.
If we're going to talk about follow-up, let's discuss Trump saying he was going to sue these women after the Election. Yet another broken promise, and for a very simple reason: it would have opened him up to a cross-examination and a deposition. But I'm well aware that it is impossible to hold Trump accountable for anything he says because whether he was serious or not depends on the direction of the wind, what day it is, and whether the moon is in the seventh house.
This was and is never going to be proven in a court. The issue is the behavior described by the women and the words out of Donald Trump's OWN mouth describing and bragging that he engaged in the EXACT same behavior.
Even though we can never know for 100% certainty, why would anyone believe that 12 separate women are lying their asses off (and opening themselves up to both the wrath of Trump supporters and possible legal action) for NO monetary gain, and believe Donald Trump, who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is willing to lie about nearly ANYTHING for ANY reason over and over and over again for the past 18 months.
How interesting the discussion isn't about evidence but theories and suspicions of how Trump could hurt them.
why isn't anyone interested in investigating the actual accusations or accusers in detail? Surely if we go through pages of it, its prudent?
Oh another one.
Karen Virginia is actually a writer for Huffington Post, an outlet that likes to write about how 'Voting for Trump is a Hate Crime', endorsed Hillary and put a disclaimer on the end of every page that he is a horrible monster.
That's honestly quite the absurd coincidence (barely reported too), Even stranger is when Huffington Post...Didn't do any further investigation? for one of their own writers? more detail to corroborate her accusation? No witnesses and everyone stops? MSM never asked if she talked about this to anyone in that organization?
Another of the women strangely, Asked Trump for money and she would promote his 2016 election campaign? He refused, and when some outlets asked her about it, she confirmed it.
What? And she was trying to negotiate with him in the past to host a beauty pageant but he refused.
That's a little bit too strange for my tastes.
I never realized how interesting this thing was, Sure is alot of 'coincidences' and yet no evidence confirming any allegation but witnesses refuting it.
Second Document of US Declaration of Independence found On Friday two Harvard University researchers announced they had found a parchment copy of the declaration, only the second parchment manuscript copy known to exist besides the one kept in the National Archives in Washington DC. Professor Danielle Allen and researcher Emily Sneff presented their findings on the document, known as “The Sussex Declaration”, at a conference at Yale on Friday, and published initial research online. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/21/declaration-of-independence-sussex-england-rare?CMP=twt_gu
I love you guys! It's seriously like witnessing a verbal boxing match with you two. I can't even chime in very often since both of you clearly have a lot more evidence to back up your opinions than I have the patience to research. Kudos to civilized discussion!
So Trump and budget director Mick Mulvaney are "offering" to fund Obamacare dollar for dollar for money spent on the border wall. First of all, Obamacare is the law of the land, and if the Trump Administration refuses to fund it, they would be purposefully sabotaging the program and putting the health of millions of Americans at risk, but let's also review what was said at EVERY Trump rally during the campaign:
Trump: What are we gonna do??
Crowd: BUILD A WALL!!
Trump: Who's gonna pay for that wall??
CROWD: MEXICO!!!!
The idea that Mexico was going to pay for this wall was the central theme of Trump's campaign. And no amount of claiming now that it was not meant to be taken literally or that Trump voters actually didn't REALLY think this would be the case can change the fact that he will be held to account for this stance and claim.
Huffpo just deleted two of their approved articles after they got criticized to hell and back. One calling for white men not to vote for 20 years? The other calling for Trump voters to die first if war breaks out. Huffpo will never investigate source material if it either condemns Trump or supports their radical feminist agenda. Now time for some "inconvenient truths"
So no Nonnahswriter both my genitalia and the genitalia of any future leader is not a determining factor of who I personally vote for. Sorry Hillary but this means I don't care much for your imaginary glass ceiling
But it does. It does because the way a man lives in this world is vastly different from the way a woman lives.
Yes, because men and women are not equals right? Oh wait...
You have never had to worry about what you're wearing before you leave the house. Never had to worry about whether your shirt was cut too low, or your shorts are too high, or if your legs were too hairy and needed to be shaved, all to avoid someone cat-calling or harassing you.
Yes I have
I have had to worry about outfits being to revealing, I do have to shave my body to fit in with society, I do have to worry about harassment against me, I have been cat called (and my ass pinched). I think you should reserve the worry for females in the middle east daring to not dress according to sharia they get it much worse then males and females here in the west.
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.
Yes I have (well not the father part)
My drink got spiked while I wasn't looking, I just didn't have a father to warn me of it unfortunately. This is a touchy one for me so I won't go into detail but yeah don't pretend this is a woman-only issue.
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.
Again, yes I do worry
Maybe not so much now that I am a half decent martial artist. Still I have had mugging (if not outright murder attempts) on me during the night. The night is less safe for any human being since the dawn of time.
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.
YES I DEFINITELY HAVE!
I have been threatened with both, but eww no feminine name used by me. The only difference is us non-SJW men and women don't have a cry about mere banter in a video game.
Yet again... Yes I have (getting tired of saying this now).
This is the reason why I am get more and more daring, fearless, accepting and push myself the older I get. It is a method I try use to UNLEARN being afraid which I have been taught as a child. I strongly recommend you do the same if you need to unlearn your fear.
I have no idea why you think all these examples only effect women. I thought the left were supposed to be champions against sexist stereotypes? These issues you mentioned effect everyone... it's just the rest of us men and women are not whining snowflakes about it all.
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).
That doesn't pass the smell-test to me.
I am going to speak in general terms as all my arguments above were generalized. I, nor anyone else here is putting Trump or anyone else on Trial, so we do not have to prove anything. That is would the judicial system is for. That is why I am not digging deeper into the issues, because frankly I do not care enough to do so. What I do care about is:
1. A person coming forward with an allegation of a crime against them is not inappropiate unless they decide to hold a press confress or something as stupid to do it. If they go to the authorities to announce the alleged crime it isn't inapproprioate. Using the media in attempt to find more victims though to strengthen the case against accused is appropriate however, as many victims of assualt feel alone and isolated and do not want to be dragged though the mud alone.
2. A person coming forward through the media and not courts disclaiming the allegations is highly inappropriate as it doesn't allow a fair trial to take place, regardless of who makes the comments or why.
3. An eyewitness, from your accounts already said they were on the same flight. Mundane details only come into question in these types of trials if one party refutes something from happening. "She was never in my bedroom" but then she is able to tell the courts how the room is laid out, what colour the curtains are or what is on the nightstand. Other details, especially from such a long time ago (how many planes has she been on since?) Can get jumbled. All this person knows is that she was sitting next to Trump on a flight and X happened.
4. There is a difference between questioning motives and dismissing an argument because of alleged motives. You are dismissing everything because of what one person is saying or because of the other persons alleged motives.
5. Nothing is confirmed because nothing has gone to trial. He is still alleged to have sexually assaulted these women. Just because there is no concrete evidence (which is extremely hard to obtain in any sexual assualt case) does not mean that he did not do it. It also does not mean he is guilty, but the allegations remain until it is settled in court, or forgotten.
6. With all that said, I highly doubt any of this will actually go to trial. Trump, as he has proven in the past with other court procedures will try his hardest to bury this and keep it buried. But just because it isnt being blasted through he media anymore doesnt mean the allegations have disappeared.
7. Trump has said, paraphrasing, that he gets away with this type of behaviour. If anything good comes from this is that he will never be able to get away with this type of behaviour again.
Huffpo just deleted two of their approved articles after they got criticized to hell and back. One calling for white men not to vote for 20 years? The other calling for Trump voters to die first if war breaks out. Huffpo will never investigate source material if it either condemns Trump or supports their radical feminist agenda. Now time for some "inconvenient truths"
Wow that's cool. Huffpo deleted some articles that were not valid. That's the integrity that news on the left has. You never see that in right wing media. Do you remember the retractions or removal of articles on PizzaGate or Obama's birth certificate on Breitbart or Hillary's health? Hahaha.
HuffPo does not have integrity. They published the article about denying votes to an entire category of people based on race. They defended the article. It was only taken down after it was found that the person who published it was not actually a south african feminist but a guy who used a false name to prove a point about HuffPo. Which they did with flying colors in my view.
HuffPo does not have integrity. They published the article about denying votes to an entire category of people based on race. They defended the article. It was only taken down after it was found that the person who published it was not actually a south african feminist but a guy who used a false name to prove a point about HuffPo. Which they did with flying colors in my view.
hey they got lied to and took it down, when has breitbart or conservative review or any right wing media ever done that? Instead they leave their false stories up such as pizzagate.
So it seems this is proof that Huffpo has some integrity that the right's media doesn't.
The 100 days thing is rather arbitrary. But hey Trump made all kinds of promises and attached himself to it, such as this "contract with america" so let's see how he's done, I guess he's got a couple more days technically so maybe he'll make it. Or maybe he'll come out on Fox News on the 100th day and say "ha fooled you"
Already in damage control, he tweeted about how little he's accomplished. The one thing he pointed to appears to be that he was given a list of Supreme Court judges and then he picked one. Then the Senate had to change the rules to get his ideological religious corporatist confirmed. Impressive undermining of Democracy bub.
Then I apologize. I made assumptions about you that I shouldn't have, and for that I am sorry.
I'm also sorry that those things happened to you. No one should have to endure those experiences and especially not in silence. I'm not interested in writing someone off as a "whiny snowflake" just because they dared to speak up or denounce bad behavior or unfairness in society.
Keeping quiet or just "dealing with it" doesn't make you tougher than anyone else. Sometimes, it's just the opposite.
I never read his pledge directly, but some of those are pretty LOL-worthy.
25 million new jobs? That would be something like -3% unemployment in 10 years. If that's combined with throwing out millions of illegals, that's probably more like -8%.
4% GDP growth rate? The last time we had that was 2003. Before that, 1996-1999, before that 1994, 1992, 1987, 1983-1985.
Just to be clear, half of the years REAGAN was in office that Republicans love to tout as such a prosperous time, we didn't achieve 4% growth. One of those years was also a -%. 3 of 8 years Clinton was in office, also touted by the left as such a prosperous time, we didn't achieve 4% growth.
That is an absurdly high benchmark. Even more, literally impossible, not just improbable, if America's population shrinks from mass deportation.
Oh, so the trillion dollar infrastructure plan was to be over 10 years, or 100B/year. And be revenue neutral? Yeah, and fairies flutter around my unicorn frappe.
"Replacing Obamacare with HSA, insurance across state lines, and "letting states manage (tiny) Medicaid funds". Also rapid approval of over 4,000 drugs."
Yeah, we know how the first part of that went. And you know what you get with rapid drug approvals? So many lawsuits over side-effects that we get hours of commercials for them. "Did you or anyone you know take Sopsouhystil? If so, you may be entitled to legal compensation..."
I could go on and on, but I just want to recap with something.
It calls for so much tax deductions and so much spending, and yet it's going to magically make everything great and wonderful? 3 of those 10 bullet points directly call for either tax cuts, tax deductions, or tax incentives. 6, possibly 7 or 8, of those 10 points involve more spending. Only 1 could be argued to actually make more revenue.
Oh, nope, not done yet. You want to repatriate trillions of dollars that multi-national corporations have stashed away at a 10% tax rate?
Let's say, for sake of argument, that it was 30 trillion among all those corporations (which already sounds high). That's only 3 trillion dollars of government revenue. Sure, there's then 27 trillion dollars injected into the 16T economy, and that MIGHT result in an extra 1% increase per year GDP growth.
Other people have done budgetary analyses on Trump's proposals before the election, and 3 trillion dollars wouldn't pay for even a quarter of the massacre.
Well, North Korea seems to be pissing everyone off into America's camp.
I do love their purple prose.
"remains a shock brigade of the US master" LOL "a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK" more LOL
The question about North Korea boils down to what type of dictator Kim Jong Un is. If he is simply interested in keeping power and self-preservation, then other countries have nothing to worry about, because any move against South Korea, Australia or the west coast of the US would be tantamount to committing suicide. If he is an ACTUAL madman, then there could be a problem. All recent history points to the former being the case.
North Korea would be able to make one strike on any of those targets, and it would be the only shot they would get. They would then subsequently be obliterated in short order.
In the meantime, even though it was buried by the news media, Keystone XL sprung a massive leak, because OF COURSE it did. The story is always the same with these pipelines. Oil companies promise safety, and they malfunction almost as soon as possible. You can bet your bottom dollar the EXACT same situation will play out with the Dakota Access pipeline as well.
If you read the article, you'll find that TransCanada, at time of the article (which is a few weeks old) couldn't even pinpoint the SOURCE of the leak in their own pipeline. And that boils down to one thing: not wanting to invest in the safety mechanisms that would allow them to be able to do so and contain it quickly. They originally reported 187 gallons being spilled to federal authorities. Turns out they were only off by 16,813 gallons. Personal responsibility. That's the political mantra I always hear from those who support these types of projects. What a crock.
"remains a shock brigade of the US master" LOL "a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK" more LOL
If the North Korean dictator wasn't so unhinged and possessing weapons that i have to worry, I'd almost consider him a world-class troll.
"remains a shock brigade of the US master" LOL "a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK" more LOL
If the North Korean dictator wasn't so unhinged and possessing weapons that i have to worry, I'd almost consider him a world-class troll.
If Trump wasn't so unhinged and possessing weapons that i have to worry, I'd almost consider him a world-class troll.
Huffpo just deleted two of their approved articles after they got criticized to hell and back. One calling for white men not to vote for 20 years? The other calling for Trump voters to die first if war breaks out. Huffpo will never investigate source material if it either condemns Trump or supports their radical feminist agenda. Now time for some "inconvenient truths"
Wow that's cool. Huffpo deleted some articles that were not valid.That's the integrity that news on the left has. You never see that in right wing media. Do you remember the retractions or removal of articles on PizzaGate or Obama's birth certificate on Breitbart or Hillary's health? Hahaha.
Not valid? They passed the approval process. They deleted it AFTER the right wing (so called "fake news" outlets) did the fact checking for them.
Hillary wobbling about wondering what planet she was on is unfortunately very real (and kinda funny.. gah now I feel evil).
To be fair though to her I disagree with criticism of her about due to health. Who cares if Hillary has the CON score of a slug. The Clinton females definitely aren't the epitome of bodily health but it just isn't a necessary prerequisite to be a functional president. So with the exemption of looking embarrassing it is a non-issue
Huffpo just deleted two of their approved articles after they got criticized to hell and back. One calling for white men not to vote for 20 years? The other calling for Trump voters to die first if war breaks out. Huffpo will never investigate source material if it either condemns Trump or supports their radical feminist agenda. Now time for some "inconvenient truths"
Wow that's cool. Huffpo deleted some articles that were not valid.That's the integrity that news on the left has. You never see that in right wing media. Do you remember the retractions or removal of articles on PizzaGate or Obama's birth certificate on Breitbart or Hillary's health? Hahaha.
Not valid? They passed the approval process. They deleted it AFTER the right wing (so called "fake news" outlets) did the fact checking for them.
Hillary wobbling about wondering what planet she was on is unfortunately very real (and kinda funny.. gah now I feel evil).
To be fair though to her I disagree with criticism of her about due to health. Who cares if Hillary has the CON score of a slug. The Clinton females definitely aren't the epitome of bodily health but it just isn't a necessary prerequisite to be a functional president. So with the exemption of looking embarrassing it is a non-issue
Someone flashed a camera phone in her face when she turned around, she was a bit startled, and she made what she thought at the time was a funny motion with her head. That's all that happened. It had nothing to do with health, or seizures. I could link dozens of Youtube videos of Alt-right types diagnosing her with seizures over watching a video. Lunacy.
Look, what you are saying in your last paragraph is that female Hillary supporters are a.) unattractive and b.) overweight. I don't really care to be honest. But it's not as if we on the opposite side of the spectrum couldn't make jokes forever and a day about the physical attributes of Trump, or Chris Christie.
Again, it makes no difference to me. The inevitable response is going to be that you were trolling and making a joke. Fine. But when you post things such as that, THAT is what feeds into the stereotype of people of your particular current political leanings having a streak of misogyny motivating their views. And yours are really nothing compared to what one can read in places like Youtube comment sections or places like the RPG Codex. You are free to continue to make them.
Maybe you find them funny and it's just a joke, maybe you actually believe it. I have no idea. But this is what I mean by owning what you say. People can probably discern of my views that I have a genuine belief much of the Republican base has a problem with racism, that I am deeply distrustful of law enforcement and could be viewed as "anti-law enforcement" and that I am often a apologist for the Democratic Party because I believe the alternative is so awful. But I will own all those views and admit to them. I won't pass them off as a joke, or try to run from them. The same is going to apply to the comments you make about the physical attractiveness and weight of Hillary voters. And IF people interpret that as anti-woman, that will not be unreasonable.
Edit: when re-reading that paragraph, I suppose it is possible you are only talking about Hillary and Chelsea. But since there is absolutely no way you can make a claim that Chelsea Clinton is unhealthy or overweight, I don't have a clue why that would be. So "Clinton females" either means you are discussing Hillary, her daughter, and her granddaughter (which would really be no better) or you are referring to female Clinton voters. And that is me going out of my way to be fair to you on this.
Hillary had serious health issues to which we don't know the causes, and they would only get worse.
Neither Bernie nor Trump had any sort of seizures or fainting spells and they hit the trail far harder then she ever did.
Her choice of running mate was incredibly poor, I can't even see how Tim Kaine would have been useful in any fashion if she won the Presidency.
I was hoping they'd pick someone like Joe Biden.
I personally would have rather had Biden as the actual nominee over both Hillary AND Bernie, mostly because Joe Biden is he kind of personality that is almost impossible not to like, and even his most ardent rivals on the Hill would attest to it. I think the death of his son really put an end to those hopes, even though he regrets not running now. I'm also not sure he relished a fight with Hillary. I found (what turned out to be) unfounded rumors about his son asking him to run on his deathbed really distasteful. That said, Biden's speech at the Democratic Convention rivaled that of Michelle and Barack Obama's. It was really good.
I was not inspired by Tim Kaine as Hillary's VP pick. And Hillary herself is not very charismatic or magnetic. But still things would have been better with them. Would things have been good? Maybe, maybe not. She was not a perfect candidate but at least she'd be better than the bragging fool we got. At any rate she lost, she's out of the picture.
Trump is in the picture and he's got his own problems. It seems likely he had dealings with Russian agents to help himself get elected. At the least there is a lot of evidence that several people close to Trump and in his campaign have had treasonous dealings.
It is highly likely that Trump and friends shared disdain for government, regulations, paying taxes, and their greed probably led them to seek extracurricular business dealings. And when shady opportunity appeared it's not a stretch to imagine they probably thought they were only making too good to be legal deals with criminals, but it turned out they were dealing with actual Russian agents. Oopsie, right?
In the meantime, even though it was buried by the news media, Keystone XL sprung a massive leak, because OF COURSE it did. The story is always the same with these pipelines. Oil companies promise safety, and they malfunction almost as soon as possible. You can bet your bottom dollar the EXACT same situation will play out with the Dakota Access pipeline as well.
If you read the article, you'll find that TransCanada, at time of the article (which is a few weeks old) couldn't even pinpoint the SOURCE of the leak in their own pipeline. And that boils down to one thing: not wanting to invest in the safety mechanisms that would allow them to be able to do so and contain it quickly. They originally reported 187 gallons being spilled to federal authorities. Turns out they were only off by 16,813 gallons. Personal responsibility. That's the political mantra I always hear from those who support these types of projects. What a crock.
That was last year, actually, which is why I couldn't find much from this year.
In the meantime, even though it was buried by the news media, Keystone XL sprung a massive leak, because OF COURSE it did. The story is always the same with these pipelines. Oil companies promise safety, and they malfunction almost as soon as possible. You can bet your bottom dollar the EXACT same situation will play out with the Dakota Access pipeline as well.
If you read the article, you'll find that TransCanada, at time of the article (which is a few weeks old) couldn't even pinpoint the SOURCE of the leak in their own pipeline. And that boils down to one thing: not wanting to invest in the safety mechanisms that would allow them to be able to do so and contain it quickly. They originally reported 187 gallons being spilled to federal authorities. Turns out they were only off by 16,813 gallons. Personal responsibility. That's the political mantra I always hear from those who support these types of projects. What a crock.
That was last year, actually, which is why I couldn't find much from this year.
But still, yeah...
Hmmm....yes. Though apparently I wasn't the only one according to this article in the National Observer:
As for the original, I knew I was looking for something I had heard happened in April, though I still haven't adjusted to seeing 2017 as the new year yet apparently. So it now appears that the company that runs Keystone XL had a 17,000 gallon spill LAST April, and the company that runs the Dakota Access Pipeline had a 2 MILLION gallon spill in Ohio THIS April. And one in North Dakota (where I live, and the oil industry is running rampant) of nearly 13,000. This is good to correct though, not only for accuracy's sake, but because they are happening so often that multiple incidents are taking place on a yearly basis.
Someone flashed a camera phone in her face when she turned around, she was a bit startled, and she made what she thought at the time was a funny motion with her head. That's all that happened. It had nothing to do with health, or seizures.
So I just imagined her wobbling up stairs, being escorted by health staff, thrown into an ambulance with her own supports saying she has pneumonia etc etc?
You can flash a camera in my face all day and night it won't make someone carry me lol. So yes she was sick and/or is just outright frail as hell but it isn't an issue so I don't get why it makes you upset?
Look, what you are saying in your last paragraph is that female Hillary supporters are a.) unattractive and b.) overweight. I don't really care to be honest. But it's not as if we on the opposite side of the spectrum couldn't make jokes forever and a day about the physical attributes of Trump, or Chris Christie.
No I am not (well maybe Chelsea is but still I never admitted to that till now lol).
What I am saying Hillary's health isn't good at all. If I were to roll up a Hillary in DnD I would give her a CON score of about 2. To be fair Trump isn't doing much better munching on all those chocolate cakes and ketchup with steaks... still he has yet to be defeated by a few stairs so I would give him a CON of 6.
This has nothing to do with being overweight or ugly (or imaginary misogyny). Most bodybuilders on the planet who I admire with insanely good looks are very unhealthy on the inside due to their lifestyle choices. Ironically many bodybuilders also struggle with merely walking up stairs.
[Regarding the edit]:
Yes btw I was talking about Hillary and her daughter and yes I can make that claim. Sure I cannot "prove" anything regarding Chelsea without running a few tests on her. Even so I she ticks all the boxes for me for what is almost always a unhealthy person and as such is the type of person I will offer free one-on-one training and nutritional plans for. I do this for free as my hobby and I have yet to get my assessment of someones physical capabilities wrong (I suppose their is a first for everything). Again I repeat, this isn't a criticism of either of their ability to be presidential material but rather just an observation from a decent eye for poor lifestyle choices regarding personal health. Make what you will of it
However unfortunately as I mentioned in my Dunham post appearance matters even in politics as we live in a superficial world. It worked in Trudeau's favor and it worked in Hillary's detriment, our feelings on the matter won't change that fact.
Someone flashed a camera phone in her face when she turned around, she was a bit startled, and she made what she thought at the time was a funny motion with her head. That's all that happened. It had nothing to do with health, or seizures.
So I just imagined her wobbling up stairs, being escorted by health staff, thrown into an ambulance with her own supports saying she has pneumonia etc etc?
You can flash a camera in my face all day and night it won't make someone carry me lol. So yes she was sick and/or is just outright frail as hell but it isn't an issue so I don't get why it makes you upset?
Look, what you are saying in your last paragraph is that female Hillary supporters are a.) unattractive and b.) overweight. I don't really care to be honest. But it's not as if we on the opposite side of the spectrum couldn't make jokes forever and a day about the physical attributes of Trump, or Chris Christie.
No I am not (well maybe Chelsea is but still I never admitted to that till now lol).
What I am saying Hillary's health isn't good at all. If I were to roll up a Hillary in DnD I would give her a CON score of about 2. To be fair Trump isn't doing much better munching on all those chocolate cakes and ketchup with steaks... still he has yet to be defeated by a few stairs so I would give him a CON of 6.
This has nothing to do with being overweight or ugly (or imaginary misogyny). Most bodybuilders on the planet who I admire with insanely good looks are very unhealthy on the inside due to their lifestyle choices. Ironically many bodybuilders also struggle with merely walking up stairs.
[Regarding the edit]:
Yes btw I was talking about Hillary and her daughter and yes I can make that claim. Sure I cannot "prove" anything regarding Chelsea without running a few tests on her. Even so I she ticks all the boxes for me for what is almost always a unhealthy person and as such is the type of person I will offer free one-on-one training and nutritional plans for. I do this for free as my hobby and I have yet to get my assessment of someones physical capabilities wrong (I suppose their is a first for everything). Again I repeat, this isn't a criticism of either of their ability to be presidential material but rather just an observation from a decent eye for poor lifestyle choices regarding personal health. Make what you will of it
However unfortunately as I mentioned in my Dunham post appearance matters even in politics as we live in a superficial world. It worked in Trudeau's favor and it worked in Hillary's detriment, our feelings on the matter won't change that fact.
I can't believe I'm discussing this, but I honestly don't feel like there is much of a choice here. I'm not going to demean Chelsea Clinton by posting pictures of her to prove it, but there is absolutely no visual evidence (which is ALL you could possibly have) that she is anything but a perfectly normal weight. This is so reminiscent of people on the right calling Michelle Obama "Moo-chelle", somehow implying that SHE was overweight, which was equally as nuts. It tells me that even the the visual perception of some people is being warped by how they feel about people politically, which is actually pretty frightening. This is an absolutely ridiculous topic, but I am simply flabbergasted that people would make these claims about either of these women.
Hell, even in regards to Hillary herself, there is absolutely no basis to say her health "isn't good at all". For one thing, she is almost 70 years old. She caught pneumonia. I mean, burn the witch I guess. God forbid someone take ill for any reason. I'm being as nice as possible about this, but honestly, this is conspiratorial nonsense. And why is Chelsea brought into this at all?? She has never run for any public office. I have criticized Ivanka on policy issues (because she is fair game with a West Wing office), but I would never disparage her appearance. She's beautiful. But you MUST realize how subjective attractiveness to different people. Saying Chelsea Clinton isn't is nothing more than a personal opinion. As for Hillary, again, she is 70 years old. The pictures of Hillary when she and Bill were in college show me someone I would have no trouble believing many people would find very attractive.
Again, I can't believe I'm even talking about this, and the entire premise is insulting to everyone we are talking about. I don't really have anything else to add.
There still isn't any evidence of Russia collusion of any sort. There still remains more evidence of pay-for-play by middle eastern countries to Clinton through her foundation.
It's Macron/Le Pen to the surprise of literally no one who paid a little attention. The PS and LR are both disqualified and they brought it upon themselves. That's what happens when you mock people for too long.
I'm pretty pissed because now I have to choose between Rothschild's gofer and the neo-nazis lite.
I would advise the Macron camp to start actively fighting back against the inevitable Russian interference and being pro-active on hacking attempts immediately.
Comments
If we're going to talk about follow-up, let's discuss Trump saying he was going to sue these women after the Election. Yet another broken promise, and for a very simple reason: it would have opened him up to a cross-examination and a deposition. But I'm well aware that it is impossible to hold Trump accountable for anything he says because whether he was serious or not depends on the direction of the wind, what day it is, and whether the moon is in the seventh house.
This was and is never going to be proven in a court. The issue is the behavior described by the women and the words out of Donald Trump's OWN mouth describing and bragging that he engaged in the EXACT same behavior.
Even though we can never know for 100% certainty, why would anyone believe that 12 separate women are lying their asses off (and opening themselves up to both the wrath of Trump supporters and possible legal action) for NO monetary gain, and believe Donald Trump, who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is willing to lie about nearly ANYTHING for ANY reason over and over and over again for the past 18 months.
why isn't anyone interested in investigating the actual accusations or accusers in detail? Surely if we go through pages of it, its prudent?
Oh another one.
Karen Virginia is actually a writer for Huffington Post, an outlet that likes to write about how 'Voting for Trump is a Hate Crime', endorsed Hillary and put a disclaimer on the end of every page that he is a horrible monster.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/karenavirginia-567
That's honestly quite the absurd coincidence (barely reported too), Even stranger is when Huffington Post...Didn't do any further investigation? for one of their own writers? more detail to corroborate her accusation?
No witnesses and everyone stops? MSM never asked if she talked about this to anyone in that organization?
Another of the women strangely, Asked Trump for money and she would promote his 2016 election campaign? He refused, and when some outlets asked her about it, she confirmed it.
What? And she was trying to negotiate with him in the past to host a beauty pageant but he refused.
That's a little bit too strange for my tastes.
I never realized how interesting this thing was, Sure is alot of 'coincidences' and yet no evidence confirming any allegation but witnesses refuting it.
Second Document of US Declaration of Independence found
On Friday two Harvard University researchers announced they had found a parchment copy of the declaration, only the second parchment manuscript copy known to exist besides the one kept in the National Archives in Washington DC. Professor Danielle Allen and researcher Emily Sneff presented their findings on the document, known as “The Sussex Declaration”, at a conference at Yale on Friday, and published initial research online.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/21/declaration-of-independence-sussex-england-rare?CMP=twt_gu
This is pretty neat.
@vanatos
I love you guys! It's seriously like witnessing a verbal boxing match with you two. I can't even chime in very often since both of you clearly have a lot more evidence to back up your opinions than I have the patience to research. Kudos to civilized discussion!
So Trump and budget director Mick Mulvaney are "offering" to fund Obamacare dollar for dollar for money spent on the border wall. First of all, Obamacare is the law of the land, and if the Trump Administration refuses to fund it, they would be purposefully sabotaging the program and putting the health of millions of Americans at risk, but let's also review what was said at EVERY Trump rally during the campaign:
Trump: What are we gonna do??
Crowd: BUILD A WALL!!
Trump: Who's gonna pay for that wall??
CROWD: MEXICO!!!!
The idea that Mexico was going to pay for this wall was the central theme of Trump's campaign. And no amount of claiming now that it was not meant to be taken literally or that Trump voters actually didn't REALLY think this would be the case can change the fact that he will be held to account for this stance and claim.
I have had to worry about outfits being to revealing, I do have to shave my body to fit in with society, I do have to worry about harassment against me, I have been cat called (and my ass pinched). I think you should reserve the worry for females in the middle east daring to not dress according to sharia they get it much worse then males and females here in the west. Yes I have (well not the father part)
My drink got spiked while I wasn't looking, I just didn't have a father to warn me of it unfortunately. This is a touchy one for me so I won't go into detail but yeah don't pretend this is a woman-only issue. Again, yes I do worry
Maybe not so much now that I am a half decent martial artist. Still I have had mugging (if not outright murder attempts) on me during the night. The night is less safe for any human being since the dawn of time. YES I DEFINITELY HAVE!
I have been threatened with both, but eww no feminine name used by me. The only difference is us non-SJW men and women don't have a cry about mere banter in a video game. Yet again... Yes I have (getting tired of saying this now).
This is the reason why I am get more and more daring, fearless, accepting and push myself the older I get. It is a method I try use to UNLEARN being afraid which I have been taught as a child. I strongly recommend you do the same if you need to unlearn your fear.
I have no idea why you think all these examples only effect women. I thought the left were supposed to be champions against sexist stereotypes? These issues you mentioned effect everyone... it's just the rest of us men and women are not whining snowflakes about it all.
1. A person coming forward with an allegation of a crime against them is not inappropiate unless they decide to hold a press confress or something as stupid to do it. If they go to the authorities to announce the alleged crime it isn't inapproprioate. Using the media in attempt to find more victims though to strengthen the case against accused is appropriate however, as many victims of assualt feel alone and isolated and do not want to be dragged though the mud alone.
2. A person coming forward through the media and not courts disclaiming the allegations is highly inappropriate as it doesn't allow a fair trial to take place, regardless of who makes the comments or why.
3. An eyewitness, from your accounts already said they were on the same flight. Mundane details only come into question in these types of trials if one party refutes something from happening. "She was never in my bedroom" but then she is able to tell the courts how the room is laid out, what colour the curtains are or what is on the nightstand. Other details, especially from such a long time ago (how many planes has she been on since?) Can get jumbled. All this person knows is that she was sitting next to Trump on a flight and X happened.
4. There is a difference between questioning motives and dismissing an argument because of alleged motives. You are dismissing everything because of what one person is saying or because of the other persons alleged motives.
5. Nothing is confirmed because nothing has gone to trial. He is still alleged to have sexually assaulted these women. Just because there is no concrete evidence (which is extremely hard to obtain in any sexual assualt case) does not mean that he did not do it. It also does not mean he is guilty, but the allegations remain until it is settled in court, or forgotten.
6. With all that said, I highly doubt any of this will actually go to trial. Trump, as he has proven in the past with other court procedures will try his hardest to bury this and keep it buried. But just because it isnt being blasted through he media anymore doesnt mean the allegations have disappeared.
7. Trump has said, paraphrasing, that he gets away with this type of behaviour. If anything good comes from this is that he will never be able to get away with this type of behaviour again.
So it seems this is proof that Huffpo has some integrity that the right's media doesn't.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-trump-hasn-promised-100-days-article-1.3086613
Already in damage control, he tweeted about how little he's accomplished. The one thing he pointed to appears to be that he was given a list of Supreme Court judges and then he picked one. Then the Senate had to change the rules to get his ideological religious corporatist confirmed. Impressive undermining of Democracy bub.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/04/23/north-korea-threatens-to-strike-australia.html
Malcolm Turnbull: I trust the 'wisdom and judgment' of Trump and Pence
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/20/malcolm-turnbull-says-he-trusts-the-wisdom-and-judgement-of-trump-and-pence
Well, North Korea seems to be pissing everyone off into America's camp.
Then I apologize. I made assumptions about you that I shouldn't have, and for that I am sorry.
I'm also sorry that those things happened to you. No one should have to endure those experiences and especially not in silence. I'm not interested in writing someone off as a "whiny snowflake" just because they dared to speak up or denounce bad behavior or unfairness in society.
Keeping quiet or just "dealing with it" doesn't make you tougher than anyone else. Sometimes, it's just the opposite.
25 million new jobs? That would be something like -3% unemployment in 10 years. If that's combined with throwing out millions of illegals, that's probably more like -8%.
4% GDP growth rate? The last time we had that was 2003. Before that, 1996-1999, before that 1994, 1992, 1987, 1983-1985.
Just to be clear, half of the years REAGAN was in office that Republicans love to tout as such a prosperous time, we didn't achieve 4% growth. One of those years was also a -%. 3 of 8 years Clinton was in office, also touted by the left as such a prosperous time, we didn't achieve 4% growth.
That is an absurdly high benchmark. Even more, literally impossible, not just improbable, if America's population shrinks from mass deportation.
Oh, so the trillion dollar infrastructure plan was to be over 10 years, or 100B/year. And be revenue neutral? Yeah, and fairies flutter around my unicorn frappe.
"Replacing Obamacare with HSA, insurance across state lines, and "letting states manage (tiny) Medicaid funds". Also rapid approval of over 4,000 drugs."
Yeah, we know how the first part of that went. And you know what you get with rapid drug approvals? So many lawsuits over side-effects that we get hours of commercials for them. "Did you or anyone you know take Sopsouhystil? If so, you may be entitled to legal compensation..."
I could go on and on, but I just want to recap with something.
It calls for so much tax deductions and so much spending, and yet it's going to magically make everything great and wonderful? 3 of those 10 bullet points directly call for either tax cuts, tax deductions, or tax incentives. 6, possibly 7 or 8, of those 10 points involve more spending. Only 1 could be argued to actually make more revenue.
Oh, nope, not done yet. You want to repatriate trillions of dollars that multi-national corporations have stashed away at a 10% tax rate?
Let's say, for sake of argument, that it was 30 trillion among all those corporations (which already sounds high). That's only 3 trillion dollars of government revenue. Sure, there's then 27 trillion dollars injected into the 16T economy, and that MIGHT result in an extra 1% increase per year GDP growth.
Other people have done budgetary analyses on Trump's proposals before the election, and 3 trillion dollars wouldn't pay for even a quarter of the massacre.
"remains a shock brigade of the US master" LOL
"a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK" more LOL
North Korea would be able to make one strike on any of those targets, and it would be the only shot they would get. They would then subsequently be obliterated in short order.
In the meantime, even though it was buried by the news media, Keystone XL sprung a massive leak, because OF COURSE it did. The story is always the same with these pipelines. Oil companies promise safety, and they malfunction almost as soon as possible. You can bet your bottom dollar the EXACT same situation will play out with the Dakota Access pipeline as well.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/keystone-pipeline-leak-worse-than-thought
If you read the article, you'll find that TransCanada, at time of the article (which is a few weeks old) couldn't even pinpoint the SOURCE of the leak in their own pipeline. And that boils down to one thing: not wanting to invest in the safety mechanisms that would allow them to be able to do so and contain it quickly. They originally reported 187 gallons being spilled to federal authorities. Turns out they were only off by 16,813 gallons. Personal responsibility. That's the political mantra I always hear from those who support these types of projects. What a crock.
Hillary wobbling about wondering what planet she was on is unfortunately very real (and kinda funny.. gah now I feel evil).
To be fair though to her I disagree with criticism of her about due to health. Who cares if Hillary has the CON score of a slug. The Clinton females definitely aren't the epitome of bodily health but it just isn't a necessary prerequisite to be a functional president. So with the exemption of looking embarrassing it is a non-issue
Look, what you are saying in your last paragraph is that female Hillary supporters are a.) unattractive and b.) overweight. I don't really care to be honest. But it's not as if we on the opposite side of the spectrum couldn't make jokes forever and a day about the physical attributes of Trump, or Chris Christie.
Again, it makes no difference to me. The inevitable response is going to be that you were trolling and making a joke. Fine. But when you post things such as that, THAT is what feeds into the stereotype of people of your particular current political leanings having a streak of misogyny motivating their views. And yours are really nothing compared to what one can read in places like Youtube comment sections or places like the RPG Codex. You are free to continue to make them.
Maybe you find them funny and it's just a joke, maybe you actually believe it. I have no idea. But this is what I mean by owning what you say. People can probably discern of my views that I have a genuine belief much of the Republican base has a problem with racism, that I am deeply distrustful of law enforcement and could be viewed as "anti-law enforcement" and that I am often a apologist for the Democratic Party because I believe the alternative is so awful. But I will own all those views and admit to them. I won't pass them off as a joke, or try to run from them. The same is going to apply to the comments you make about the physical attractiveness and weight of Hillary voters. And IF people interpret that as anti-woman, that will not be unreasonable.
Edit: when re-reading that paragraph, I suppose it is possible you are only talking about Hillary and Chelsea. But since there is absolutely no way you can make a claim that Chelsea Clinton is unhealthy or overweight, I don't have a clue why that would be. So "Clinton females" either means you are discussing Hillary, her daughter, and her granddaughter (which would really be no better) or you are referring to female Clinton voters. And that is me going out of my way to be fair to you on this.
Neither Bernie nor Trump had any sort of seizures or fainting spells and they hit the trail far harder then she ever did.
Her choice of running mate was incredibly poor, I can't even see how Tim Kaine would have been useful in any fashion if she won the Presidency.
I was hoping they'd pick someone like Joe Biden.
Trump is in the picture and he's got his own problems. It seems likely he had dealings with Russian agents to help himself get elected. At the least there is a lot of evidence that several people close to Trump and in his campaign have had treasonous dealings.
It is highly likely that Trump and friends shared disdain for government, regulations, paying taxes, and their greed probably led them to seek extracurricular business dealings. And when shady opportunity appeared it's not a stretch to imagine they probably thought they were only making too good to be legal deals with criminals, but it turned out they were dealing with actual Russian agents. Oopsie, right?
But still, yeah...
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/04/11/analysis/oil-didnt-seep-surface-last-week-transcanadas-keystone-pipeline
I think what I was actually looking for was one of these two incidents:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/two-weeks-rover-pipeline-leaked-drilling-fluid-ohio-wetlands/
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2017/03/28/445843.htm
As for the original, I knew I was looking for something I had heard happened in April, though I still haven't adjusted to seeing 2017 as the new year yet apparently. So it now appears that the company that runs Keystone XL had a 17,000 gallon spill LAST April, and the company that runs the Dakota Access Pipeline had a 2 MILLION gallon spill in Ohio THIS April. And one in North Dakota (where I live, and the oil industry is running rampant) of nearly 13,000. This is good to correct though, not only for accuracy's sake, but because they are happening so often that multiple incidents are taking place on a yearly basis.
You can flash a camera in my face all day and night it won't make someone carry me lol. So yes she was sick and/or is just outright frail as hell but it isn't an issue so I don't get why it makes you upset? No I am not (well maybe Chelsea is but still I never admitted to that till now lol).
What I am saying Hillary's health isn't good at all. If I were to roll up a Hillary in DnD I would give her a CON score of about 2. To be fair Trump isn't doing much better munching on all those chocolate cakes and ketchup with steaks... still he has yet to be defeated by a few stairs so I would give him a CON of 6.
This has nothing to do with being overweight or ugly (or imaginary misogyny). Most bodybuilders on the planet who I admire with insanely good looks are very unhealthy on the inside due to their lifestyle choices. Ironically many bodybuilders also struggle with merely walking up stairs.
[Regarding the edit]:
However unfortunately as I mentioned in my Dunham post appearance matters even in politics as we live in a superficial world. It worked in Trudeau's favor and it worked in Hillary's detriment, our feelings on the matter won't change that fact.
Hell, even in regards to Hillary herself, there is absolutely no basis to say her health "isn't good at all". For one thing, she is almost 70 years old. She caught pneumonia. I mean, burn the witch I guess. God forbid someone take ill for any reason. I'm being as nice as possible about this, but honestly, this is conspiratorial nonsense. And why is Chelsea brought into this at all?? She has never run for any public office. I have criticized Ivanka on policy issues (because she is fair game with a West Wing office), but I would never disparage her appearance. She's beautiful. But you MUST realize how subjective attractiveness to different people. Saying Chelsea Clinton isn't is nothing more than a personal opinion. As for Hillary, again, she is 70 years old. The pictures of Hillary when she and Bill were in college show me someone I would have no trouble believing many people would find very attractive.
Again, I can't believe I'm even talking about this, and the entire premise is insulting to everyone we are talking about. I don't really have anything else to add.
It's Macron/Le Pen to the surprise of literally no one who paid a little attention. The PS and LR are both disqualified and they brought it upon themselves. That's what happens when you mock people for too long.
I'm pretty pissed because now I have to choose between Rothschild's gofer and the neo-nazis lite.