-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
You said he's a rapist, you didn't make any qualifications to that statement, and you would have left it had no one picked you up on it. At least have the balls to stand by it.
As for Moore, you described him as 'right', unless you would like to try to wriggle out of that one too.
To be honest I'm more interested in the story that Obama and Clinton colluded with foreign governments to spy on political opponents. I'll leave it to you to poor over the Democrats talking points, as you clearly need some kind of distraction to convince yourself that nothing is happening :biggrin:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CardiffIrish2
Maybe because it was yet another unsubstantiated outburst from Trump that it was not worthy of a response?
Basically on your reasoning because they didn’t deny an unsubstantiated allegation the must have done it.
I think we can say you’re not neutral any more to say the least
Just look into the case, particularly what the witnesses who arrived on the scene shortly afterwards had to say. Square this with the threats the alledged victim received.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
To be honest I'm more interested in the story that Obama and Clinton colluded with foreign governments to spy on political opponents. I'll leave it to you to poor over the Democrats talking points, as you clearly need some kind of distraction to convince yourself that nothing is happening :biggrin:
Just to remind us all...You introduced "Clinton is a rapist" to the conversation, which is why I was 'pooring' over it. Unfortunately you fell straight into a hole you didn't have the smarts to escape from.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
Just to remind us all...You introduced "Clinton is a rapist" to the conversation, which is why I was 'pooring' over it. Unfortunately you fell straight into a hole you didn't have the smarts to escape from.
It's your prerogative if you want to place your heroes on pedestals.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
It's your prerogative if you want to place your heroes on pedestals.
You are not my hero.
Are you going to think before you post in future? It might help a bit. :thumbup:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
You are not my hero.
Are you going to think before you post in future? It might help a bit. :thumbup:
Are you saying Juanita Broaddrick is a liar, the witnesses were not credible, and Bill Clinton is innocent?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Are you saying Juanita Broaddrick is a liar, the witnesses were not credible, and Bill Clinton is innocent?
No, but you are saying he's guilty (which you might now be regretting after the leathering you're taking).
Comprehension, my dear Gluey, that's the key to not looking foolish.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
No, but you are saying he's guilty (which you might now be regretting after the leathering you're taking).
Comprehension, my dear Gluey, that's the key to not looking foolish.
So rape only occurs if it is ever proven in a court of law?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
So rape only occurs if it is ever proven in a court of law?
How many times must I say it, if he is guilty put him before a jury. How many times?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
How many times must I say it, if he is guilty put him before a jury. How many times?
The Clinton appreciation society are out in full force today :biggrin:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
The Clinton appreciation society are out in full force today :biggrin:
Not really. The allegations against Bill Clinton look as compelling as some of the accusations against Roy Moore and Trump. It is possible to believe that these men of power all abused their position without tying yourself in ever greater contortions dependent upon who is being accused.
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/1072258...ita-broaddrick
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Not really. The allegations against Bill Clinton look as compelling as some of the accusations against Roy Moore and Trump. It is possible to believe that these men of power all abused their position without tying yourself in ever greater contortions dependent upon who is being accused.
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/1072258...ita-broaddrick
Did she punch herself in the face to make her lip bruised and swollen, so her story would be more credible to witnesses who arrived shortly afterwards?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Did she punch herself in the face to make her lip bruised and swollen, so her story would be more credible to witnesses who arrived shortly afterwards?
It's like you are on a mission to prove my point!
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
It's like you are on a mission to prove my point!
You said the evidence against all three was equally compelling. The evidence against Moore and Trump was hearsay, so surely that means any physical evidence must have been self-inflicted?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
You said the evidence against all three was equally compelling. The evidence against Moore and Trump was hearsay, so surely that means any physical evidence must have been self-inflicted?
Do yourself a favour, just take the spade out of your hands!
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Do yourself a favour, just take the spade out of your hands!
Obviously logic is not your strongest point, let's hope you can do a bit better when next distraction conversation pops up :thumbup:
PS The OIG report is coming out soon, so expect plenty of distractions to be put forward by the MSM :biggrin:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
So rape only occurs if it is ever proven in a court of law?
It's best to only call someone a rapist if it's been proven in a court of law.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
It's best to only call someone a rapist if it's been proven in a court of law.
I will pass on your advice ..
https://www.amazon.com/Youd-Better-P.../dp/1979834245
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Still on that fence?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Lots of money, could that be a possible motive?
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
Lots of money, could that be a possible motive?
Or a ploy to get sued in court, but the accusation went unchallenged :sherlock:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
Or a ploy to get sued in court, but the accusation went unchallenged :sherlock:
For someone self-certifying as a high priest of logic your exposed flank management doesn't get any better with practice!
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...orward-7916242
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
It was a well-known fact that you never took on the Clintons during thier days of power, but out of all the politicised sexual abuse cases Broaddrick's is the strongest, so why are you lot against her and all for Stormy? I:m sure it hasn't:t escaped your attention that the case was consensual (if what is alledged took place).
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
It was a well-known fact that you never took on the Clintons during thier days of power, but out of all the political sexual abuse cases Broaddrick's is the strongest, so why are you lot against her and all for Stormy?
Stormy is not a sexual abuse case as you know rather an attempt to cover up an embarrassing story of infidelity prior to the election and continued lies and contradictions as facts emerged after it.
You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify a contradictory position. Feel free to carry on it's entertaining.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Stormy is not a sexual abuse case as you know rather an attempt to cover up an embarrassing story of infidelity prior to the election and continued lies and contradictions as facts emerged after it.
You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify a contradictory position. Feel free to carry on it's entertaining.
Just looking at the bigger picture :thumbup:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Democrats' and media's Trump-Russia collusion narrative falls apart
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lusion-narrat/
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
It was a well-known fact that you never took on the Clintons during thier days of power, but out of all the politicised sexual abuse cases Broaddrick's is the strongest, so why are you lot against her and all for Stormy? I:m sure it hasn't:t escaped your attention that the case was consensual (if what is alledged took place).
I'm not against Broaddrick. I'm trying to help you see your hypocrisy. If a woman wrote a book saying Trump raped her but refused to go to court, experience strongly suggests you'd be completely on the other side of the argument.
Unfortunately, you're so determined to be clever and contrary that you don't see how badly you're owning yourself, particularly at the moment. It's great to watch. :biggrin:
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
I'm not against Broaddrick. I'm trying to help you see your hypocrisy. If a woman wrote a book saying Trump raped her but refused to go to court, experience strongly suggests you'd be completely on the other side of the argument.
Unfortunately, you're so determined to be clever and contrary that you don't see how badly you're owning yourself, particularly at the moment. It's great to watch. :biggrin:
To be honest there are too many political games going on at the moment. Anybody who shows up two weeks before an election is a bit suspect in my opinion, and it seems a better idea to revert to original event for a better understanding of what happened (if there is a historical backstory). Broaddrick's certainly has a case that existed outside of political campaigns, while others just show up during the political season with historical accusations, that were previously unknown. I think you get the picture.
-
Re: The Donald Trump thread
House GOP sets three FBI interviews in Clinton probe
"House Republicans are preparing to conduct the first interviews in more than four months in their investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.
A joint investigation run by the Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform committees has set three witness interviews for June, including testimony from Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, and Michael Steinbach, the former head of the FBI’s national security division.
Multiple congressional sources confirmed Priestap’s interview. Steinbach confirmed to The Hill that he would be appearing.
The third witness is John Giacalone, who preceded Steinbach as the bureau's top national security official and oversaw the first seven months of the Clinton probe, according to multiple congressional sources."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-clinton-probe