Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[CapelDodger]

What's amusing about all of the desperate shrieks "Bill Clinton is a rapist" is that the alt-right has been notorious for claiming there are way too many false rape accusations in our society, yet many of them are willing to accept this one on faith.

Another amusing point is that the right have long derided the term "enabler" as PC BS and now it's being levelled at Hillary Clinton. It's the only way to rope Bill in, and without that they're fresh out of ideas. But not out of snacks, you can depend on that.

 

[CapelDodger]

If only there was a way that someone could simply write down the name of the person they wanted to vote for, rather than picking one of the names already on the ballot.

If only the 2nd Amendment folk would save them the trouble. Trump won't drop out, so drop Trump. So to speak.

 

[Garrison]

In both the Willey case and the Broaddrick case, there is quite a bit of contemporaneous corroborating evidence. Broaddrick apparently told five friends about the rape immediately afterwards, and she had the wounds to show that she had been attacked. Furthermore, Bill Clinton himself has never denied the attack happened. The only official denial that has ever been made is through his lawyer.

Oh no, he used a lawyer??? Well there's all the proof you need he's guilty!

 

[Stacko]

NC absentee ballot stats as of 10/9 2012 v 2016. Obama lost in 2012 by less than 100,000 votes.

[IMGw=640]http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/rfstack/000000_68.jpg[/IMGw]

The Republicans probably should have had a field operation (and not nominated a reality star bigot).

 

[BobTheCoward]

Here is a weird question

Tim O'Brien is the author of Trump nation. He reviewed Trump tax returns in 2005 as part of a libel case. He has a court gag order.

Is he a bad human being for not breaking the gag order? Should he be pilloried for this?

For Trump supporters, I am interested in the question in the abstract. If you reversed the scenario, how would you feel about someone letting a gag order from stopping them from saving the nation?

 

[MikeG]

Sorry to nitpick the metaphor (it's in my nature, what can I say?) but bull elephants can't rut until they're mature, and Trump is far from that.

And I'll nitpick the bits you missed: elephants don't rut (that's deer), and nor do they have a season (ie they all come into oestrus at variable times throughout the year). [/nitpick]

 

[dasmiller]

Here is a weird question

Tim O'Brien is the author of Trump nation. He reviewed Trump tax returns in 2005 as part of a libel case. He has a court gag order.

Is he a bad human being for not breaking the gag order? Should he be pilloried for this?

For Trump supporters, I am interested in the question in the abstract. If you reversed the scenario, how would you feel about someone letting a gag order from stopping them from saving the nation?

I'm a fan of rule-of-law. I can't advocate breaking the law to affect an election, even if it will hurt a candidate that I don't think should be on the ballot.

That way lies anarchy.

ETA: I might feel differently if I thought that the court order was politically motivated and, thus, corrupt and illegal. But I don't think that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I believe the preferred term among Trump supporters is Dolchstoßlegende

How about a Defenestration out of the Trump Tower?

 

[Babbylonian]

Here is a weird question

Tim O'Brien is the author of Trump nation. He reviewed Trump tax returns in 2005 as part of a libel case. He has a court gag order.

Is he a bad human being for not breaking the gag order? Should he be pilloried for this?

For Trump supporters, I am interested in the question in the abstract. If you reversed the scenario, how would you feel about someone letting a gag order from stopping them from saving the nation?

Court orders should be treated as binding by any citizen. Still, I'd want to explore the possibility of appealing to have the gag order vacated if I thought the release of information was important enough.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm a fan of rule-of-law. I can't advocate breaking the law to affect an election, even if it will hurt a candidate that I don't think should be on the ballot.

That way lies anarchy.

ETA: I might feel differently if I thought that the court order was politically motivated and, thus, corrupt and illegal. But I don't think that.

What about violating the order and turning yourself in? In essence, saying the terms of the court order are acceptable and you are adhering to them.

 

[phiwum]

That would be sexual assault. As far as I know, there is only one credible allegation of that. From Jill Harch. And it's pretty much "he said, she said" as most of these allegations are. She also had a contract dispute with him, later dated him, and even later supported his candidacy. Although I do in fact believe her story, by accepted standards of proof, it remains an allegation with far less evidence than either Kathryn Willey's or Juanita Broaddrick's allegations against Bill Clinton.

By and large, I agree that Harsh's claims, by themselves, are hard to confirm.

One bit of evidence in her favor is this: what she claimed he did mirrors pretty well what we later discovered he claims he does more or less regularly. That's circumstantial, admittedly, but pretty persuasive nonetheless.

 

[phiwum]

I agree. Just as Democrats turned a blind eye towards Bill Clinton's misogyny and unsavory sexual proclivities. And then, as unwelcome and inexorable evidence mounted (much as Bill mounted an unwilling Juanita Broaddrick), Democrats circled the wagons and protected Bill Clinton. They put partisan loyalty above principle, even though removing Bill from office was no great loss for the cause since Al Gore would have became President. I never quite understood this. I guess Democrats were acting more out of spite towards Republicans than anything else.

How about it was this: some Democrats didn't feel that perjuring oneself regarding sexual relations should be sufficient grounds to remove one from office?

I'm somewhat ambivalent. Perjury is pretty important, but I'm not sure whether the nation would have been best served by removing Clinton from office. That said, I don't think it's stupid or biased to think otherwise, by and large. This seems to be a point on which reasonable persons of good will may disagree, I think.

 

[dasmiller]

Court orders should be treated as binding by any citizen. Still, I'd want to explore the possibility of appealing to have the gag order vacated if I thought the release of information was important enough.

Oh, I'd certainly support that. As expeditiously as possible.

 

[dasmiller]

What about violating the order and turning yourself in? In essence, saying the terms of the court order are acceptable and you are adhering to them.

No, I still fear that slippery slope.

 

[Cain]

In both the Willey case and the Broaddrick case, there is quite a bit of contemporaneous corroborating evidence. Broaddrick apparently told five friends about the rape immediately afterwards, and she had the wounds to show that she had been attacked. Furthermore, Bill Clinton himself has never denied the attack happened. The only official denial that has ever been made is through his lawyer.

Yeah, she "immediately" told five friends, but then attended a Clinton fundraiser weeks later because she was "still in denial." As for Bill Clinton speaking through a lawyer, I wouldn't be shocked if he did have sex with her.

 

[phiwum]

Yep, I always said that she was wrong. It is way higher than half.

Right, but you are not exactly a dispassionate observer. You rather enjoy imputing the worst beliefs, motives and actions to Republicans.

It is not particularly persuasive. The world is not split into two groups: decent and law-abiding on the one side and Republicans on the other. Honest, decent, concerned persons sometimes happen to be conservative. Weird, huh?

 

[johnny karate]

In both the Willey case and the Broaddrick case, there is quite a bit of contemporaneous corroborating evidence. Broaddrick apparently told five friends about the rape immediately afterwards, and she had the wounds to show that she had been attacked. Furthermore, Bill Clinton himself has never denied the attack happened. The only official denial that has ever been made is through his lawyer.

We get that you believe Bill Clinton committed rape. However, your personal beliefs are of no objective value in determine the reality of what actually happened.

And your attempts at deflection still ignore that basic difference between second party allegations of sexual assault and someone openly admitting that they commit sexual assault.

 

[jimbob]

Right, but you are not exactly a dispassionate observer. You rather enjoy imputing the worst beliefs, motives and actions to Republicans.

It is not particularly persuasive. The world is not split into two groups: decent and law-abiding on the one side and Republicans on the other. Honest, decent, concerned persons sometimes happen to be conservative. Weird, huh?

Yes, and they didn't endorse Trump, warning that he was a potential disaster for the country and their party.

 

[Hokulele]

Right, but you are not exactly a dispassionate observer. You rather enjoy imputing the worst beliefs, motives and actions to Republicans.

It is not particularly persuasive. The world is not split into two groups: decent and law-abiding on the one side and Republicans on the other. Honest, decent, concerned persons sometimes happen to be conservative. Weird, huh?

Personally, I believe the truly troubling split that has been highlighted this entire election cycle is between moderates and extremists within both parties, rather than the traditional "conservative/liberal" or even "Democrat/Republican" splits. It really does make me long for a third "moderate" party option, as many of my personal positions would be considered conservative, although most align with liberal philosophy (at least by American standards), and seeing decent options get marginalized by the outer fringes within the major parties is very disturbing to me.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yet again... the Bill Clinton analogy has nothing to do with whether he is running right now. He' a case study precedent of someone who got elected into office... and committed such vulgarities while there. Yet the argument as it is right now is that we shouldnt elect someone who speaks of women this way. Thats the double standard.

How is that a double standard? Were we not supposed to elect Bill Clinton for things he did after he was elected? Or are we supposed to elect Trump despite his admitted behavior, revealed prior to the election, because Clinton was accused, after having been elected, of behaving similarly?