|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 15 2016 07:29 Nevuk wrote:So Trump's bombshell proof that he wasn't guilty of the airplane thing is a british character witness by the name of Anthony Gilberthorpe. A guy who also claimed that he supplied young boys to people in british government when he was 17. Show nested quote +
Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.
The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.
“I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign.
In an exclusive interview arranged by the campaign, Gilberthorpe said he was on the flight — in either 1980 or 1981— where Jessica Leeds claimed Trump groped her.
Gilberthorpe, 54, said he was sitting across the first class aisle from the couple and saw nothing inappropriate. Leeds was wearing a white pantsuit, he said, while Trump was wearing a suit and cuff-links, which he gave to his British flight companion.
Indeed, Gilberthorpe claimed, Leeds was “trying too hard” in her attempt to win Trump over.
“She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom.
There was no kissing, but the “shrill” Leeds was “very much in your face” with the real estate developer.
Gilberthorpe made headlines in 2014, when he went public with a claim that as a 17-year-old he procured boys (some who “could have been” underage”) for sex parties with high-ranking British politicians.
‘If there’s evidence Trump’s done it, sure, hang him from the post, but I was there, I was in a position to know that what she said was wrong, wrong, wrong.’
Gilberthorpe has no evidence to back up his claim — just his self-described excellent memory.
“What she said about Trump is wrong,” he told The Post. “I mean, no decent human being could sit by and have a woman go on television and tell the United States of America — accuse an individual of sexually molesting. It’s wrong for Trump, it’s wrong for me. But you know something else? It’s wrong for the American people,” he said.
Leeds alleged this week in interviews with The New York Times and CNN that Trump groped her, touching her “wherever he could find a landing spot.”
“The guy in the seat across the aisle could see. And I kept thinking, maybe the stewardess is going to come and he’ll stop, but she never came,” Leeds told CNN.
That allegation infuriated Gilberthorpe, a retiree living in northwest England, who said, “That I sat there — eyes bulging — and not intervening is nonsense.”
“If there’s evidence Trump’s done it, sure, hang him from the post, but I was there, I was in a position to know that what she said was wrong, wrong, wrong,” he said.
He immediately recognized Leeds when he saw video of her in The Times earlier this week holding up a younger picture of herself.
“Undoubtedly it was her,” he said. “I have a good photographic memory. I recognized her.”
He said he contacted the Trump campaign because he didn’t like that Leeds said that another passenger sat by while she was molested.
At a rally Friday in North Carolina, Trump claimed all allegations against him are “100 percent totally and completely fabricated.”
Speaking of Leeds, Trump said, “When you looked at the horrible woman last night, you said ‘I don’t think so.'”
Gilberthorpe is even challenging Leeds to a public confrontation.
“I will go to head to head with her — I will meet her again. I will see her eyes across the table with my eyes and I will challenge her on the points she made. And I’ll tell you what, I would do this whether it was for Trump, for Clinton, for Obama, or for any man who’s been accused of sexually molesting someone when I know he did not,” he said.
Leeds could not immediately be reached for comment.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/
I love this because the main defense against these accusations was 'why are they coming forward after xx years' . So it's preposterous that someone that was groped by Trump years ago would come forward after seeing a huge news story about him bragging about groping women, but it's not preposterous that a guy that was on an uneventful flight many years ago "contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account"due to a massive news story.
|
On October 15 2016 07:50 Plansix wrote:
I don't think this is all Clinton's doing. I don't think the Post or the Times told her about the story. I bet they knew that the sexual assault claims were out there, but didn't know how to broach the issue. But the women coming forward all at once, that is all in response to Trump denying the charges live on TV. Even if Clinton's people knew about all of the, they wouldn't risk contacting them or trying to coordinate the release. It also doesn't match up to what the Times has said about the story. They knew about the two women in their story for about 6 months, but both were not willing to go on the record until Trump flat out denied ever sexually assaulting a women.
I think the Clinton campaign had an idea of what cards other groups had to play, and they set them up.
|
On October 15 2016 07:50 Plansix wrote:
I don't think this is all Clinton's doing. I don't think the Post or the Times told her about the story. I bet they knew that the sexual assault claims were out there, but didn't know how to broach the issue. But the women coming forward all at once, that is all in response to Trump denying the charges live on TV. Even if Clinton's people knew about all of the, they wouldn't risk contacting them or trying to coordinate the release. It also doesn't match up to what the Times has said about the story. They knew about the two women in their story for about 6 months, but both were not willing to go on the record until Trump flat out denied ever sexually assaulting a women.
If that's so, it is hilarious. But I will choose to put on my tin foil hat and pretend house of cards is real.
|
On October 15 2016 06:52 farvacola wrote:
...that would prevent what would come alongside the implementation of the UBI, namely the privatization of many government provided services. With a few select exceptions (turnpikes for example), the quality of the service privatized usually declines or the government version is simply superior...
ok I can understand that and it is a new perspective in this context thank you . yes there is indeed massive "structural" difference between USA and Europe and then especially other parts of the world I probably know next to nothing about
|
On October 15 2016 07:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 06:25 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 06:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:44 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2016 05:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess. I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria? Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand. If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now. I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts. Oh really? Because you said: arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda And you also said: she wants to arm Alqaeda So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly. Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it. A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C It seems you are not that smart, The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you? Nice backtrack. So you started by saying the helping the rebels is helping alqaeda and now you're backtracking to helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels. So the real issue you have is that right now the rebels don't have enough resources to be able to both say no to help from Alqaeda and continue fighting. Which makes this a resource scarcity discussion and not a "Syrian Rebels are Alqaeda" discussion. Dude i said that if you send weapons to the rebels you will be helping Alqaeda, if the rebels are able to break the siege it will be due to Alqaeda help, they are the most competent forces among the rebels, if they are able to win in Aleppo Alqaeda will be seen as the heroes and their street cred will go trough the roof. I don't think the rebels would turn their backs on them as it would culminate in more infighting. Alqaeda is playing the long game, and that's the scary part. They are gaining more and more influence with each victory they are able to achieve in Syria. PS: Many rebel factions were about to merge with Al-Nusra before the last big offensive in Aleppo but were pressured by both the americans and russians not to. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/567363-why-did-jabhat-fatah-al-sham-fail-its-attempted-merger-with-syrian-rebels If you simply walk over to the rebels and dropped cratefuls of weapons and ammo, then yes you will be helping alqaeda. For you to actually help arm the rebels you need to provide them enough support that they do not need alqaeda--a much broader and complex project than just leaving crates full of weapons for whoever is just passing by. It would mean resources and possibly manpower. It would mean air support, eyes on the ground, etc... Its messy, difficult, and complex. Sounds like a lot of work. Just giving weapons and training, on the other hand, is pretty cheap, easy, and under-the-radar but has the downside of biting you in the ass a few years down the road.
I hate that I don't trust any administration to not fall back on that lazy answer. "Lets help ___" "Oh shit that's a lot of work" "Just dump guns over there, let them figure it out" "Oh shit, why does ____ have the guns instead?" is an all too common conclusion.
|
|
|
The funnier one recently, and I can't remember which surrogate, was a spokeswoman claiming the alleged plane groping couldn't have happened
because the particular plane in question on that day did not have armrests that could be moved up in first class.
Ok, maybe also tied with this
Campaign needed more Jaws, anyways, thanks Huckabee.
|
On October 15 2016 08:34 Danglars wrote:
The funnier one recently, and I can't remember which surrogate, was a spokeswoman claiming the alleged plane groping couldn't have happened
because the particular plane in question on that day did not have armrests that could be moved up in first class.
It was Katrina Pierson
|
I love how he claims he knows it was her because he has photographic memory. How convenient.
|
On October 15 2016 08:36 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 08:34 Danglars wrote:
The funnier one recently, and I can't remember which surrogate, was a spokeswoman claiming the alleged plane groping couldn't have happened
because the particular plane in question on that day did not have armrests that could be moved up in first class. It was Katrina Pierson
Hey hey, she came prepared with names of plane types from that time aight ? Dont be talking down about my girl Katrina
|
“Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you,” Trump said of Jessica Leeds, one of two women told their stories to the New York Times. Leeds says Trump sexually assaulted her in the '90s while they were on a first class flight to New York.
...
"When [Hillary] walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn’t impressed," said Trump. "But she walks in front of me, and she takes a question, and then she walked back. And that was the end of that, no problem. Then she said the next day I invaded her space. Give me a break."
It was not clear what he meant by the remarks.
Of one of the women -- it was not clear which -- Trump said: "When you looked at that horrible woman last night you said I don't think so. I don’t think so."
...
Trump, in what appeared to be an attempt to paint the accusers that have spoken out as a result of the "biased" media, also unveiled a new line of attack. He invoked Carlos Slim, a businessman and shareholder in the New York Times.
“He comes from Mexico,” Trump said. "He's given many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiative... We are not going to let foreign corporations and their CEO decides the outcome.”
Yahoo
The race is over.
|
On October 15 2016 08:50 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +“Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you,” Trump said of Jessica Leeds, one of two women told their stories to the New York Times. Leeds says Trump sexually assaulted her in the '90s while they were on a first class flight to New York.
...
"When [Hillary] walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn’t impressed," said Trump. "But she walks in front of me, and she takes a question, and then she walked back. And that was the end of that, no problem. Then she said the next day I invaded her space. Give me a break."
It was not clear what he meant by the remarks.
Of one of the women -- it was not clear which -- Trump said: "When you looked at that horrible woman last night you said I don't think so. I don’t think so."
...
Trump, in what appeared to be an attempt to paint the accusers that have spoken out as a result of the "biased" media, also unveiled a new line of attack. He invoked Carlos Slim, a businessman and shareholder in the New York Times.
“He comes from Mexico,” Trump said. "He's given many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiative... We are not going to let foreign corporations and their CEO decides the outcome.” YahooThe race is over.
The race was over when the trump tapes came out. This shit is meaningless.
|
So this statement by this dude saying he knows Trump didn't grope a girl on a plane. Am I the only one who is reminded of the doctor's note praising Trump's amazing health? Over the top and extraordinary, strangely so.
|
Trump's relationships with women are astonishingly excellent, one might say
The Carlos Slim stuff shows again that Donald Trump is so vengeful that he can't possibly imagine that someone he insults can still treat him fairly, like the Mexican judge.
|
United States42024 Posts
The healthiest candidate for President ever, I think it was.
|
On October 15 2016 09:07 Nyxisto wrote:
The Carlos Slim stuff shows again that Donald Trump is so vengeful that he can't possibly imagine that someone he insults can still treat him fairly, like the Mexican judge.
He's spent his whole life treating women and minorities unfairly, so the assumption that it's impossible for them to treat him fairly back is just wired into his brain at this point.
|
On October 15 2016 05:46 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:42 Buckyman wrote:On October 15 2016 05:39 Rebs wrote:On October 15 2016 05:37 Piledriver wrote:
You missed the part where they report back to Hillary Clinton like faithful lapdogs - "Hammer Dropped". You missed the part where neither one of those men are a part of the DNC. You all missed the part where it's casually glossed over that she couldn't endorse Sanders without resigning from the DNC (aka the establishment that was allegedly improperly biased against Sanders). You are just pulling it out of your arse now. Where the heck does it suggest she couldn't endorse sanders without resigning? There are plenty people who endorsed Sanders.
I suppose this was never cleared up. The rules say she can't endorse, as none of the leadership of the DNC was to endorse before the convention. If you were in a leadership position and you were going to favor a candidate, you were supposed to resign (if you had honor and integrity, and/or wanted to follow the rules).
There's a reason DWS didn't come out and endorse Hillary publicly, it's because she wanted the appearance of being impartial, but only Hillary supporters believe that she was.
|
Oh... boy.
So another apprentice candidate (Jennifer Murphy) said that he kissed her randomly, but that in her case, she was totally OK with it, he was a good man, and she was voting for him (she said it to Erin Burnett a bit ago).
|
On October 15 2016 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 05:46 ragz_gt wrote:On October 15 2016 05:42 Buckyman wrote:On October 15 2016 05:39 Rebs wrote:On October 15 2016 05:37 Piledriver wrote:
You missed the part where they report back to Hillary Clinton like faithful lapdogs - "Hammer Dropped". You missed the part where neither one of those men are a part of the DNC. You all missed the part where it's casually glossed over that she couldn't endorse Sanders without resigning from the DNC (aka the establishment that was allegedly improperly biased against Sanders). You are just pulling it out of your arse now. Where the heck does it suggest she couldn't endorse sanders without resigning? There are plenty people who endorsed Sanders. I suppose this was never cleared up. The rules say she can't endorse, as none of the leadership of the DNC was to endorse before the convention. If you were in a leadership position and you were going to favor a candidate, you were supposed to resign (if you had honor and integrity, and/or wanted to follow the rules). There's a reason DWS didn't come out and endorse Hillary publicly, it's because she wanted the appearance of being impartial, but only Hillary supporters believe that she was.
It is also possible to have an internal opinion and an external opinion.
As a person, you could want to say no on helping a KKK member in the emergency room. But as a doctor, you're able to keep your private opinion private and your professional/public opinion professional/public. Much like being in customer support means you need a public persona of being nice to everyone, when your private persona wishes everyone died in a car fire while their family was being slowly eaten by rabid dogs while all their exes watch while being boiled in a mild acid.
Some people jumped ship so they could get on the Bernie bandwagon. They will suffer whatever consequences come from betraying your allies. Some people elected to remain impartial and prevent her private opinions from dictating what her public opinions would be.
|
On October 15 2016 09:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2016 05:46 ragz_gt wrote:On October 15 2016 05:42 Buckyman wrote:On October 15 2016 05:39 Rebs wrote:On October 15 2016 05:37 Piledriver wrote:
You missed the part where they report back to Hillary Clinton like faithful lapdogs - "Hammer Dropped". You missed the part where neither one of those men are a part of the DNC. You all missed the part where it's casually glossed over that she couldn't endorse Sanders without resigning from the DNC (aka the establishment that was allegedly improperly biased against Sanders). You are just pulling it out of your arse now. Where the heck does it suggest she couldn't endorse sanders without resigning? There are plenty people who endorsed Sanders. I suppose this was never cleared up. The rules say she can't endorse, as none of the leadership of the DNC was to endorse before the convention. If you were in a leadership position and you were going to favor a candidate, you were supposed to resign (if you had honor and integrity, and/or wanted to follow the rules). There's a reason DWS didn't come out and endorse Hillary publicly, it's because she wanted the appearance of being impartial, but only Hillary supporters believe that she was. It is also possible to have an internal opinion and an external opinion. As a person, you could want to say no on helping a KKK member in the emergency room. But as a doctor, you're able to keep your private opinion private and your professional/public opinion professional/public. Much like being in customer support means you need a public persona of being nice to everyone, when your private persona wishes everyone died in a car fire while their family was being slowly eaten by rabid dogs while all their exes watch while being boiled in a mild acid. Some people jumped ship so they could get on the Bernie bandwagon. They will suffer whatever consequences come from betraying your allies. Some people elected to remain impartial and prevent her private opinions from dictating what her public opinions would be.
What was clear, is that you could be fully on board with Hillary (not just personally, but with co-workers) and that's the violation. There are some separate arguments being made different people.
There's the DNC did nothing wrong, they were impartial, its all preposterous, camp
There's the DNC showed favoritism, favoritism is what's expected, Hillary earned it.
There's the DNC showed favoritism, favoritism is against the rules, it doesn't matter, she won anyway.
And a few more variations. I don't have time to hash it out, just to clear up, openly supporting Hillary around colleagues from a DNC leadership position was fine, doing the same as a Sanders supporter was not. Don't have time to argue whether that's another instance of dishonestly manipulating the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
