Who Won the Debate?

[Larry Cotrell]

Let's face the facts. Trump is a pervert.  If it doesn't violate your conscience to vote for a pervert, then... I don't even know what to say.

However, Hillary is worse in regard to policy.

I'll be thinking and praying a lot before I vote, but I can't picture myself voting for either one. At this point, I like McMullin.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Guest Godless]

8 hours ago, yjacket said:

Lol, right okay.  Look, you're telling me that about basically a year of "vetting" that this stuff is just now coming out.  Give me a break. This is a calculated takedown.

Come on man, you've got to have better info. that that

" The Entertainment Tonight video was just released on CBS News. You can't see Trump in the video, which was recorded around Christmas time inside Trump Tower. CBS says he was looking at a group of 10-year-olds walking past him when he made the comment, and you see the group of girls on a nearby escalator right after the comment. "

Give me a break.  looking at a 25 year old tape in which, he isn't visible where CBS (who is confirmed in bed with Clinton) says he was looking at them.

Could he be a predator, sure; I've learned in life to never be surprised by what people do-but if that is your evidence, you are going to have to do a lot better than that!

And now there are multiple women accusers . . . oh right.  This is as clear a political takedown as I've seen.

You don't think, CBS, NBC, etc. were looking for accusers over the last 6 months? But now, 3 weeks before an election they come out? These women didn't have any thought to contact the news media prior to this last week.  They didn't contact the media when Clinton attacked him in the first debate? They couldn't simply contact the corrupt journalist who are in bed with the Clinton Campaign 3 weeks ago?  But now, simply b/c he denied it on national TV, now they come out?

This is a takedown of the highest degree, coordinated and planned.  Get him to deny on TV that he ever sexually assaulted women, give it a few days then find several to corroborate.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't-but regardless this is a targeted, planned, political takedown.  And yes, I've witnessed a few locally and the news media can be extremely harsh.  This is why non-politicians don't stand a chance.  If you don't kiss the ring of whoever the party boss/bosses are they control the media they will take you down.  I've seen good people I've worked with get elected to office, not kiss the ring and walk right into a trap and get taken out by their own party.

I'm actually at the point, that you know what, if he gets elected and is a predator, then you legitimately will have a trial and he will go to prison and/or impeached.  I'd rather have that scenario happen, knowing that if he did something illegal he will be prosecuted, than have a corrupt two-faced, very sick, completely immune from any scrutiny President.

And if you don't think she's physically ill, watch the left portion of her neck at :07.  Something is very, very wrong.  Neck muscles/nerves do not involuntarily spasm that much.  Maybe the news media should actually dig into her health?

 

Some people (not me) might say that some of the accusations against Bill Clinton were conveniently timed. Does that mean the accusations lack merit? Here's the thing about sexual harassmentment and sexual assault, it often goes unreported out of fear of public humiliation and retaliation. Sometimes a woman just wants to move on from the experience without getting the law involved. This is especially true when the guilty party is in a position of power (like a governor or a billionaire). So yes, it's 100% believable that these women waited this long to step forward. I won't deny that the media facilitated it, but that doesn't mean the accusations are false. That's for a court to decide, and that decision should be made before we allow the man to have a chance to sit in the white house. 

 

You'll believe that, but won't believe the Clinton corruption coming out of her e-mails

When have I ever said that? I don't like Clinton, but I'll take yet another corrupt politician over the irrational, toxic pervert that is Donald Trump. It's not the ideal outcome of this election, but in my view it is the best one by a longshot.

[yjacket]

7 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

However, Hillary is worse in regard to policy.

Not only is it worse in regard to policy; she is a corrupt crook. She is a criminal, she broke the law and is above the law.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

That's for a court to decide, and that decision should be made before we allow the man to have a chance to sit in the white house. 

When have I ever said that? I don't like Clinton, but I'll take yet another corrupt politician over the irrational, toxic pervert that is Donald Trump. It's not the ideal outcome of this election, but in my view it is the best one by a longshot.

Bull; how many lives have been destroyed b/c of false accusations.  I'm really sick of how all a woman has to do is cry "rape" with no actual you know proof, with something that it can never be proven b/c it turns into a he said she said.  This is the new wave, you don't like a man, just cry rape, don't like a fraternity just claim they made racists comments. Everyone fawns over these people.  Get drunk have an encounter with a guy, regret is the next day and claim he date raped.

Are there perverts, yes, but come on that this comes out 3 weeks before an election? You're going to believe the news media that has already been proven to be in bed with the Clinton Campaign? We already know they are corrupt, just exactly how corrupt are they?

Hey I was at this party one time and this big shot grabbed my butt . . . .really that is your evidence? 3 weeks before an election? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Clinton will never be prosecuted, she could have someone wacked and it wouldn't matter-she's not just "another" corrupt politician, she is evil incarnate.

Trump may be a sexual pervert and if he is one, will certainly be tried and convicted If he is tried, convicted and impeached then Pence would be the next President and the establishment Republicans would be rejoicing.  Hillary is a criminal and will never be tried.

Edited October 13, 2016 by yjacket

[anatess2]

On 10/13/2016 at 7:01 AM, Godless said:

Some people (not me) might say that some of the accusations against Bill Clinton were conveniently timed. Does that mean the accusations lack merit? Here's the thing about sexual harassmentment and sexual assault, it often goes unreported out of fear of public humiliation and retaliation. Sometimes a woman just wants to move on from the experience without getting the law involved. This is especially true when the guilty party is in a position of power (like a governor or a billionaire). So yes, it's 100% believable that these women waited this long to step forward. I won't deny that the media facilitated it, but that doesn't mean the accusations are false. That's for a court to decide, and that decision should be made before we allow the man to have a chance to sit in the white house.

Bill Clinton has been accused and tried and settled and lost license, etc. etc. etc. over his sexual predation well before he ran for the White House.  Hillary shielded Bill on all that all throughout their political careers.

So, you are saying that anybody running for President is guilty until proven innocent?  You mean, all we have to do to beat Hillary Clinton is to accuse her of raping some 10-year-old boy and have somebody in the media run with an unsubstantiated story?  Really?  I mean, because, you know... an FBI investigation of clear mishandling of classified material is not enough to do that... but hey, you get accused of groping women... that trumps FBI investigations... you don't even have to have done it - just accused of doing it.  Give me a break.

Donald Trump is a public figure.  VERY public.  Not just ordinary public.  His troubles with his marriage, his business dealings, the Miss Universe, the Apprentice... the press has shown they have no problem splashing his name on tabloids.  You are saying that after all these years of sexual predation that not a single woman took the opportunity of his many years of being splashed on tabloid magazines to make the accusation?  They didn't take the opportunity back in June 2015 when he declared his candidacy?  They didn't take the opportunity back in June 2016 when he became the nominee?

And how exactly does a guy as press-covered as Donald Trump manage to octopus-grope women in airplanes, in bars, all these public places these women are talking about WITHOUT a single reporter or even a single person seeing it and - as a spectator, not even an embarrassed victim - not make hay of any of it?

That's how Republicans lose elections. They're the only ones that are susceptible to dirty gutter campaign strategies.  You can accuse a Democrat of raping women or leaving them to drown in the river or attending ultra racist churches or even cheating a fellow Democrat out of the primaries - they still stay a cohesive force... because they are united in their objective to defeat Republicans.

[yjacket]

And now there are e-mails that show a friendly relationship between Federal Judge Richard Leon and John Podesta

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2811

And this is the same judge that was involved in the State Dept. release of e-mails:

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/judge_wonders_if_release_of_hillary_clinton_emails_is_being_deliberately_delayed.html

And that's only one, I've seen other in the batches that indicate a very friendly relationship.  

Lol . . .all you've got to do is read between the lines.  That e-mail was January of this year.

This is now possible collusion between the Court system and the Clinton Campaign.

Man, this system is corrupt and what does the MSM do . . .nothing.

This should be a huge story, someone should be asking Judge Richard Leon about his personal relationship with John Podesta and isn't that a conflict of interest considering he is involved in the Clinton e-mail case????

[Blueskye2]

4 hours ago, yjacket said:

And now there are e-mails that show a friendly relationship between Federal Judge Richard Leon and John Podesta

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2811

And this is the same judge that was involved in the State Dept. release of e-mails:

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/judge_wonders_if_release_of_hillary_clinton_emails_is_being_deliberately_delayed.html

And that's only one, I've seen other in the batches that indicate a very friendly relationship.  

Lol . . .all you've got to do is read between the lines.  That e-mail was January of this year.

This is now possible collusion between the Court system and the Clinton Campaign.

Man, this system is corrupt and what does the MSM do . . .nothing.

This should be a huge story, someone should be asking Judge Richard Leon about his personal relationship with John Podesta and isn't that a conflict of interest considering he is involved in the Clinton e-mail case????

Correlation is not causation. Conspiracy theories aren't facts. That letter is between two professors talking about a request from a student to audit a class. 

Friendly relationships between people is not an indication that crimes are being committed. Trump's sister is a federal judge, working in the appeals court. (Someone call the FBI!)

Edited October 15, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And how exactly does a guy as press-covered as Donald Trump manage to octopus-grope women in airplanes, in bars, all these public places these women are talking about WITHOUT a single reporter or even a single person seeing it and - as a spectator, not even an embarrassed victim - not make hay of any of it?

The same way Bill Clinton did, I suppose.

[lonetree]

On 10/13/2016 at 8:04 AM, yjacket said:

Bull; how many lives have been destroyed b/c of false accusations.  I'm really sick of how all a woman has to do is cry "rape" with no actual you know proof, with something that it can never be proven b/c it turns into a he said she said.  This is the new wave, you don't like a man, just cry rape, don't like a fraternity just claim they made racists comments. Everyone fawns over these people.  Get drunk have an encounter with a guy, regret is the next day and claim he date raped.

Are there perverts, yes, but come on that this comes out 3 weeks before an election? You're going to believe the news media that has already been proven to be in bed with the Clinton Campaign? We already know they are corrupt, just exactly how corrupt are they?

Hey I was at this party one time and this big shot grabbed my butt . . . .really that is your evidence? 3 weeks before an election? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Clinton will never be prosecuted, she could have someone wacked and it wouldn't matter-she's not just "another" corrupt politician, she is evil incarnate.

Trump may be a sexual pervert and if he is one, will certainly be tried and convicted If he is tried, convicted and impeached then Pence would be the next President and the establishment Republicans would be rejoicing.  Hillary is a criminal and will never be tried.

^(italicized)This happened earlier in the year in a high profile Canadian celebrity case. Thankfully, the case was decided in favour of the accused.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-sexual-assault-trial-ruling-1.3505446

Edited October 16, 2016 by lonetree

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The same way Bill Clinton did, I suppose.

Except, people talked about Bill and sued Bill all throughout his career... The press just buried it well and Hillary fought it off as a Republican witch hunt.

[Just_A_Guy]

More Trumpkin bait-and-switch. First you ask how a star like Trump manages to assault a woman without some third party seeing it; I point out that a sitting AG/Governor/President managed to pull it off, and you say "well, but people were *talking* about Clinton the whole time!"

I think I've made the point that it's possible for a public figure to commit sexual assault without corroborating witnesses immediately coming forward.  As for public perceptions--We know what Trump does to people who say things he doesn't like; and Trump certainly has no shortage of acolytes who are willing to attribute this whole thing to a "witch hunt".

[Blueskye2]

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The same way Bill Clinton did, I suppose.

And Bill Cosby. 

[Blueskye2]

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

and Trump certainly has no shortage of acolytes who are willing to attribute this whole thing to a "witch hunt".

I should find this interview that you just reminded me about. The interviewee repeatedly uses "Trump surrogates", but Freudian slip or something, says one time "Trump sycophants".  He was referring to the Sunday morning following the release of The Video, and Chris Christie and Rudi Giuliani were all over the Sunday morning talk shows. 

Trump sycophants...totally cracks me up.

[yjacket]

On 10/15/2016 at 0:21 PM, Blueskye2 said:

Correlation is not causation. Conspiracy theories aren't facts. That letter is between two professors talking about a request from a student to audit a class. 

Friendly relationships between people is not an indication that crimes are being committed. Trump's sister is a federal judge, working in the appeals court. (Someone call the FBI!)

No but if Trump's sister is adjudicating a court case that Trump is involved in then should should absolutely step aside.

No but a friendly relationship has the potential to taint the decision making process, it's why people with integrity and honor recuse themselves from situations with potential conflicts of interest.

Are you telling me that you see no potential conflict of interest when the Judge of one of the most important/newsworthy cases co-teaches a business class with the high-powered Chairman of the woman under investigation?  And co-teaches that class during the course of the investigation?

Blueskye2.  I think you are a good person, I think most people are.

I honestly believe most people do not understand or are unwilling to see the level of corruption going on at the highest levels of government.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

No but a friendly relationship has the potential to taint the decision making process, it's why people with integrity and honor recuse themselves from situations with potential conflicts of interest.

Has Leon shown himself sympathetic to Hillary's cause?  The article you cite shows him as being pretty cheesed off with the Clinton camp.

I agree with you 100% about the appearance of conflicts, but the national legal community is relatively small and is deeply enmeshed with the political class.  I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find a federal judge who didn't have social ties to a Clintonista, some bigwig at the RNC or DNC, or a handful of senators who are beholden to (or avowed enemies of) one candidate or the other.

Obviously, this isn't intended to make anyone feel better; but we should bear in mind that the solution is rarely as simple as just recusing a single judge.

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Has Leon shown himself sympathetic to Hillary's cause?  The article you cite shows him as being pretty cheesed off with the Clinton camp.

I agree with you 100% about the appearance of conflicts, but the national legal community is relatively small and is deeply enmeshed with the political class.  I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find a federal judge who didn't have social ties to a Clintonista, some bigwig at the RNC or DNC, or a handful of senators who are beholden to (or avowed enemies of) one candidate or the other.

Obviously, this isn't intended to make anyone feel better; but we should bear in mind that the solution is rarely as simple as just recusing a single judge.

Exactly my point. Yes he seems ticked off (and that is a good thing), but we have documented proof of individuals being extremely duplicitous (the media mainly at this point) saying they are writing something only to give the impression that they are for Bernie and will then switch at a moments drop.

So yes, it's not a smoking gun, but it is very curious.  But start adding up all the curious stuff.

But the bottom line is Hillary was never going to be prosecuted.  Now maybe some people are okay with this.  But I am telling you, I know for a fact what she did was illegal (anyone who has held a security clearance in the last 15 years easily knows they would go to jail for this).

If the whole thing was just for show, for the appearance that we are doing something about it but we are really going to let her get off.  To what lengths will these people go.  We know of corruption, we know of disregarding laws, would they honest to goodness murder?  

Are we as a nation okay with that??

[Just_A_Guy]

The question isn't whether we're okay with that.  The question is whether we believe Trump, given the reins of power, would act differently. 

[anatess2]

23 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

More Trumpkin bait-and-switch. First you ask how a star like Trump manages to assault a woman without some third party seeing it; I point out that a sitting AG/Governor/President managed to pull it off, and you say "well, but people were *talking* about Clinton the whole time!"

I think I've made the point that it's possible for a public figure to commit sexual assault without corroborating witnesses immediately coming forward.  As for public perceptions--We know what Trump does to people who say things he doesn't like; and Trump certainly has no shortage of acolytes who are willing to attribute this whole thing to a "witch hunt".

You address this to me, I think.

A sitting G/Governor/President DID NOT manage to pull it off.  All that is laid out for everybody clean and clear complete with PROOF of settlement/disbarment/etc.  The voters chose to ignore it.

These women came out of the woodwork 3 weeks before a general Presidential election.  Not during the primaries... 3 weeks before a general election.  No proof.  Just unfounded allegations with a ONE MINUTE audio of Trump talking crap.  The same tactic that Obama pulled against Romney about him killing his employee.  The same crap Obama pulled against McCain.  Romney got the Republican treatment of innocent until proven otherwise and so did McCain.  Trump never got that - not even through the primaries - it was open character assassination season on Trump since June 2015.

Now, of course, nobody ever mentions all the effusive praise Trump got from women for saving the Miss Universe organization.  Effusive praise from the feminists for his support of Machado through her health problems during her reign as Miss U and being instrumental in her getting her health back on track.  Effusive praise from the religious conservatives for his support of Prejean including getting her back on her feet after she lost sponsorships.  3 weeks before the general election, all of a sudden, all these women come out as "victims of sexual predation" - no proof necessary.

You didn't put up with this crap with McCain or any other Republican prior even as you tried to pull this playbook against Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich in the primaries.

Of course you won't read or believe these outlined defense against these women.  Because, you know... it doesn't matter that such well-known character assassination ploys have been pulled by Democrats over and over for decades.  It doesn't matter the kind of crap Trump's wife and kids have to suffer through in the name of a Presidential election with BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS pushing a Trump guilt before proving innocence.  That's the Republican display of high falutin moral indignation.  You keep it.  I don't want it.

 

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The question isn't whether we're okay with that.  The question is whether we believe Trump, given the reins of power, would act differently. 

That's a really good question.  I've got no clue.  I still have to believe that there is some bit of respect for the rule of law, constitutional freedoms and justice left that maybe?

[unixknight]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

A sitting G/Governor/President DID NOT manage to pull it off.  All that is laid out for everybody clean and clear complete with PROOF of settlement/disbarment/etc.  The voters chose to ignore it.

Considering the actual political damage was minimal, I'd say he did.  Everybody knows what a sleazeball Clinton is and how his wife helped him get away with it.  Despite this, he got 2 terms in the White House and probably would have had a 3rd had he been able to run.  Gore lost the election of 2000 by the thinnest of margins and had he been more charismatic, would probably have won it.

 

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, unixknight said:

Considering the actual political damage was minimal, I'd say he did.  Everybody knows what a sleazeball Clinton is and how his wife helped him get away with it.  Despite this, he got 2 terms in the White House and probably would have had a 3rd had he been able to run.  Gore lost the election of 2000 by the thinnest of margins and had he been more charismatic, would probably have won it.

 

I think you misunderstood the reference to "pull it off".  That was in reference to somebody pulling it off by successfully hiding it from the public.  This is different from it getting out in the public but the public chose to just ignore it. 

[unixknight]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I think you misunderstood the reference to "pull it off".  That was in reference to somebody pulling it off by successfully hiding it from the public.  This is different from it getting out in the public but the public chose to just ignore it. 

Fair enough.

[mordorbund]

On 10/12/2016 at 0:33 PM, unixknight said:

Well, there's expressing your opinion and then there's sarcasm, rudeness and dismissiveness.  I've been nothing but polite to you and I'm getting back snark and a distortion of what I said.  I'm not gonna wrestle with you on this one.  Just don't be surprised when people tend to disregard your comments if you can't be reasonable about it. 

@Carborendum I'm going back to the peanut gallery.  Can I get some of that popcorn? 

 

[bytebear]

As far as Clinton/Trump's character in regards to sexual scandal, those who favor Clinton are the same ones who favored her husband when he was also accused of sexual indiscretions, so I call it a wash.  I hear the excuse of "Bill's not running" but that's irrelevant, because if he was, they would still excuse his actions.  Either you condemn both or you have no room to complain about one over the other.

[Blackmarch]

On September 27, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

I thought Clinton did a pretty good job of keeping Trump on defense, but Trump had some great lines as well. Who did better?

For the first two theres pretty good evidence that camp clinton was cheating. Havent looked into the last one yet.