• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
Surely, Fast Eddie B said not a darned thing to suggest that perjury was evidence that Clinton is a "known sexual predator".

And your second sentence seems rather beside the point.
Click to expand...

It will depend on who he defines as "they".

It's just as dismissive to claim the charge was perjury, not a consensual BJ. The charge being echoed on the right is that Bill is a "known sexual predator." The BJ was consensual, the other charges have never been substantiated and there is reason to suspect Jones' motivation and Broaddrick's memory. I don't know about the groping of Wiley. And no, Hillary didn't laugh at a 12 yr old rape victim, nor did she threaten Broaddrick (as evidenced by what Broaddrick claimed was a veiled threat).

So what is the point of saying the consensual BJ wasn't the issue when it is certainly the charge being made today?
 
CapelDodger said:
This rigging accusation is getting out of hand. It could actually see the RNC renounce him.
Click to expand...

He could order his minions to start breaking the windows of "globalists and international bankers" in the event they steal the election from him, and the RNC still wouldn't renounce him.
 
Minoosh said:
It's happened to me and it's not acceptable. I'm saying it's not in the same league as Bill Cosby. I've known men who behave like this, but I don't think they (necessarily) need to be locked up. A punch in the nose, certainly. Public humiliation, definitely.
Click to expand...

Jail. Or an NFL place kicker kick to the nuts (which may cause expiration). His choice.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It will depend on who he defines as "they".

It's just as dismissive to claim the charge was perjury, not a consensual BJ. The charge being echoed on the right is that Bill is a "known sexual predator."
Click to expand...

There is a subtle tense change above.

When "they" went after Clinton (that is, when he was impeached by Congress on the grounds of what Starr found), the explicit issue clearly was perjury. Today, Trump and co. are making much hay out of claims that Clinton is/was a sexual predator. That claim is, of course, a little lacking evidence.

But it's clear from context that Fast Eddie B was referring to Starr and/or Congress and the actual original debate. At least, I can't find a reasonable way to read his post aside from that.

The BJ was consensual, the other charges have never been substantiated and there is reason to suspect Jones' motivation and Broaddrick's memory. I don't know about the groping of Wiley. And no, Hillary didn't laugh at a 12 yr old rape victim, nor did she threaten Broaddrick (as evidenced by what Broaddrick claimed was a veiled threat).

So what is the point of saying the consensual BJ wasn't the issue when it is certainly the charge being made today?
Click to expand...

Er, because Tony Stark was saying the issue was about a consensual BJ? Trace the thread back and you'll see.
 
Who cares what Bill did?

Is Trump's wife (which ever one he had, while shagging everything that moved behind their backs) a sex whore?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
This went pretty far afield.

It was suggested that they went after Bill for a bj.

They went after him for lying about it under oath. Which is why he can no longer practice law. NOT for getting a bj.

And, again, I don't think I ever mentioned perjury.
Click to expand...
Bill's law licence was only suspended for five years. The perjury was in the Paula Jones case, and it wasn't even material to the case; at least, the judge in first instance dismissed the case because they didn't think what Bill did rose to the level of tort.

As to a previous poster who mentioned Bill lying to the American public about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky ("I did not have sex with that woman"): by then you had most people in the rest of the world, including me, rolling their eyes that your Congress went on a witch hunt into his bedroom (*) to prevent the president from functioning. In other countries someone could have made it gone away with saying "OK, I had sex with her. So what? What's that of your business?" but with the prudish attitudes in (significant segments of) American society, I can't really fault him for trying to lie his way out of it.

(*) okay, okay, it was the Oval Office.
 
ABC has Clinton up by only 4. There are enough contra-indicating polls that Democrats should beware of assuming it's in the bag. It's not over til it's over. GOTV
 
Chill? Other than a personal preference for Clinton over Trump (and dinner as the stakes of a bet), i don't really have a horse in this race.

However, given that the polling isn't showing a wild 20 point advantage, the orange circus clown scare aside, and high profile failures of polling (Brexit? ), one shouldn't be overconfident.

If i win my bet, dinner is surf n turf. If i lose, it's fast food!
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
There is a subtle tense change above.

When "they" went after Clinton (that is, when he was impeached by Congress on the grounds of what Starr found), the explicit issue clearly was perjury. Today, Trump and co. are making much hay out of claims that Clinton is/was a sexual predator. That claim is, of course, a little lacking evidence.

But it's clear from context that Fast Eddie B was referring to Starr and/or Congress and the actual original debate. At least, I can't find a reasonable way to read his post aside from that.

Er, because Tony Stark was saying the issue was about a consensual BJ? Trace the thread back and you'll see.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you limit the "when" they went after Clinton to the Monica Lewinsky affair. They had been going after Bill a long time before then and for everything under the sun. That Bill was ever put in that position was the result of a non stop witch hunt. Ken Starr was supposed to investigate Whitewater, not Bill Clinton's sex life. They had no business issuing a subpoena to Monica Lewinsky forcing her to answer those questions. Neither did they of Bill. Whitewater was a real estate development in Arkansas and the investigation was about corruption while he was Governor.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Analogy.

You go to court for a simple stop sign violation. You tell the judge you weren't driving that day. The state produces photographic evidence that you were, in fact, the driver. The judge may cite you for contempt of court or perjury and have you cool your heels for a few nights in jail. It would be wrong to say you went to jail for running a stop sign. You went to jail for lying about it under oath...
Click to expand...

First of all, stop sign cameras don't record the face of the person driving they record the license plate number. This does raise an interesting (if off-topic) issue, though.

Criminal defendants in the U.S. have 5th amendment rights not to self-incriminate. Doesn't that mean defendants have the right to plead Not Guilty and assert they are innocent of the charges? That the burden is on the state to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. What good would it be to have those rights if defendants who are convicted are then charged with perjury? If that was a common practice wouldn't it violate the Constitution?

I tried to find instances where that has happened -- for traffic violations -- but I couldn't really find any. I found one case from the UK where a repeat offender had been charged with perjury. And thirty years ago Florida apparently planned on charging drivers who lied with perjury but that not only involved habitual offenders, I think it also involved offenders who had been diverted to a special program and had agreed to testify truthfully in any future proceedings..
 
Jimbo07 said:
ABC has Clinton up by only 4. There are enough contra-indicating polls that Democrats should beware of assuming it's in the bag. It's not over til it's over. GOTV
Click to expand...

I'm glad they are reporting it as close. Even though I don't really believe that it is The media has an interest in it being close as to keep people interested.

But I'm a big believer that when you take a 2 touchdown lead in the second half you step on your opponent's throats to destroy any thoughts of a comeback.
 
There's something that bothers me maybe more than the fact Trump has stuck his hand up various women's skirts. He told Howard Stern that troubled women are better in bed. You wouldn't want them permanently, but in the short term, go with the damaged woman, she'll be great in the sack. The subject was Lindsey Lohan and Stern was asking something classy like, "Would you do her?"

I hear the "piece of ass" audio a little differently than most people - Stern says, "Can I say this?" etc. Donald responds with a clipped "yeah," not with what I interpret as enthusiastic agreement. More like, "yeah, you could say that, let's move on." Stern was baiting him and didn't get much response, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Jimbo07 said:
Chill? Other than a personal preference for Clinton over Trump (and dinner as the stakes of a bet), i don't really have a horse in this race.

However, given that the polling isn't showing a wild 20 point advantage, the orange circus clown scare aside, and high profile failures of polling (Brexit? ), one shouldn't be overconfident.

If i win my bet, dinner is surf n turf. If i lose, it's fast food!
Click to expand...
After the EU referendum I will never sleep soundly again. That said, I think Trump has hit a ceiling, and he's not even reaching out to voters beyond his core. He's hardly running a campaign at all by any normal measure. I'm not sure there's a word for what he is running.

Trump can only pile on the crazy in the next few weeks. It's all he knows, and it ain't gonna help him.

Not that I'm taking any bets. See my first sentence. :eek:
 
acbytesla said:
I'm glad they are reporting it as close. Even though I don't really believe that it is The media has an interest in it being close as to keep people interested.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, like they're nodding off. :rolleyes:

But I'm a big believer that when you take a 2 touchdown lead in the second half you step on your opponent's throats to destroy any thoughts of a comeback.
Click to expand...
I'm with you there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom