WTF? You guys know nothing about anything. Clinton and Lewinski was consensual. What was there to be prosecuted for about that. Indeed, in the absence of any apparent coersion, I doubt that you have heard any Republican make the argument you suggest, because it is irrelevent and completely non-sensical. Clinton got into trouble for lying about what happened, not because it happened. If two people want to f each other, let them. The idea that it becomes a bad thing because there is a man involved is stupidity. If men were not predatory, or if women did not like sexually confident men, there would be no human race.
Is it at all possible that he didn't even grab by any part of her body? Is it possible that it wasn't even Trump? Her own comments suggest she has rape fantasies (not uncommon - it was a well discussed issue in the eighties that even the most feminist lesbian's were susceptible to rape fantasies). She even described, in her testimony, that she was enjoying the flirtation, she alleges that she found and then led him to the changing room where it happened, after he suggested she try on some lingerie. She doesn't even seem to object to the alleged rape to any extent other than it was non-consensual, and didn't consider it rape until a friend of hers told her that it was. Even in her own testimony, she apparently did not tell him no. None of that is me dissing the witness. It is reflections on her testimony that I think, given the situation, make it valid to question her claim and motivations. Sorry if you were just making a funny!
Testimony of two other women? Can you describe that testimony? It is incredible how many women, affected by attempted rape, cannot put a date or even a year on the horrific event. The fact that so poor a memory makes it impossible to defend against such accusations has nothing to do with it. Because if any of them could remember what day it happened, Trump would be able to tell the court exactly what he was doing and where. It makes a convincing sounding argument down the pub, but it would be completely worthless in a criminal court. He may or may not have done it, and f him if he did. But the evidence to say he actually did it is non-existent (a factual event has to have a reasonable place in space and time) and even if you take Carrol at her word, is unconvincing at best.
Not sure Arakel was saying Clinton committed rape. He was alluding to the fact that Clinton used his position of power over Lewinski to manipulate her into being willing to participate in 'consensual' sexual acts. Clinton's actions were predatory in an unsavoury way, and that is why Arakel's last sentence was 'f*** rapists & sexual predators.' I find the disingenuous way you elide men being 'predatory' into the less threatening 'sexually confident' a little chilling....the implication that women are happy to 'like' predatory men because those men are 'sexually confident' reads like the first line in a rapist's defence manual. But it's all OK laydeeez....it's all for the propagation of humankind, you know.
Exactly correct. No man or woman should use their position of authority over someone to coerce them into sex. What Clinton did was patently predatory. It doesn't matter if Lewinsky felt at the time that it was consensual. He had authority over her and, as such, any relationship between them was inappropriate. No manager, business owner, officer, lecturer etc etc should engage in a relationship with a subordinate. That is why, in most cases, it is against the relevant organisation's rules. But, even if it is not, anyone with a moral compass can see it is wrong. Certainly a serving, married, POTUS should not be engaging in sexual acts with an intern. It's a no brainer and Clinton should have not survived the scandal imho.
Thanks Henry. The evidence does seem a bit thin and it is odd that she took about 30 years to bring the incident to light. It is quite possibly part of what is clearly a concerted and orchestrated campaign to drag the Orange One through the mud. But to be honest I'm not following it that closely. I just wish the US could come up with two better presidential candidates than the world's oldest man and a bloke that talks about grabbing women by the pussy
It does seem incredible that, out of a population of around 332 million, the choice is down to these two. Is this really the best the US have got? Or even the best rich ones? They are in deep **** if it is!
I must just point out that the 25 women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual impropriety are a ‘one-off.’
Ironically, the press played down a woman's claim that Biden grabbed her pussy back in the early nineties. It's all bollo. I like Trump for his anti establishment agenda, and I liked what he said about a number of things in his Town Hall on CNN the other day, especialky about Ukraine. But there is a Democrat challenging Biden, RFK Jr, who seems quite the establishment Rebel. He believes his uncle, President JFK was assasinated by the CIA because he told them he was going to break them up, and that his Dad, RFK, was assssinated a few years later when he made similar promises before becoming the Democrat nominee for President. I have no opinion on those theories, but I do like what he is saying about a lot of other things. Could be my recommendation for 2024, but need to know more about him. Seems to have the potential to take a lot of votes from Biden, independents who don't like Trump, and possibly even some moderate Republicans. I have no special place in my heart for Trump, but of the current front runners, he seems the most likely to achieve real change, moving away from the legacy establishment tragedy that the US has become. If the country sticks with the Bidenistas' it is done, and we must look hopefully towards the Chinese; I don't think they will be the demon power we are told they are, certainly not in the long run. It is much easier to run the world with co-operation than tyranny. I just hope they find that out sooner rather than later.
Aren't they actually a none-off? Twenty five women have accused him, and not one has made it stick that he raped or sexually abused them? You would have thought at least one of them would have remembered the date and time, or had some evidence. Those kind of figures suggest somehing very different to what you would hope. If one person accuses you without proving it, it is bad. If its two, it's worse. but after four or five, people are going to start asking for proof, and if it doesn't come, but the number of accusers (particularly if they have book deals) just keeps on growing, then the weight of numbers is going to make the claims appear less serious than if it was just a few. If any woman has a serious claim, with proper evidence, then I would encourage her to go for him. The problem is, it is fair to believe that anyone who did, would have done so at the time. I have experience of tens of thousands of witnesses, me among them, who swear blind that Watford is the greatest Football team. I have yet to meet anyone who believes that the sheer number of testimonies I have collected, over six decades, makes any difference to the fact that we are a bit **** at the moment.
Sadly, no. She confirmed on the day of the verdict that she was approached and funded (costing millions) by anti-Trumpers (after including it in a book) to make the claim that became this case. Trump's team wanted that included in the trial, but the judge would not allow it. The prosecution pointed to Trump's huge team in the court and compared them to Carrol's very small court room team. The defence team asked the judge to provide clarification to the jury that she had the same number of lawyers registered to the case as Trump, they just weren't all in court.
Yeah, it's pretty incredible planning that she told two women about it 30 years ago just in case he ever managed to make President. Talk about criminal mastermind!
But not her sister, to whom she is very close and speaks to all the time? The two people she told were more like acqaintances, allegedly, who were media types. Who would you be more likely to tell of a terrible experience, and who are you more likely to tell some fantasy story? Just asking. By the way. Are you ignoring Moose as well as me? He said exactly the same thing not long ago.
I think you will find that that is the reality of the situation. Some men act reasonably as predators and ultimately know that no means no, and a very small number act unreasonably and resort to the disgusting and reprehensible behaviour of a rapist. I think it is pretty disingenuous of you to attempt to affect the idea that all predatory men, a term that may be used to describe any man who is sexually confident, as rapists. In fact I think you doing so is damn well out of order, on top of being down right naive. The majority of women enjoy men acting like men, which includes an element of them acting predatory. It turns them on, and it makes them feel attractive, hence the propensity for rape role play and rape fantasy among consenting couples, and, to their horror (in some cases), even lesbian women. You’ll be telling us that women are not predatory next. Or maybe that women do not do such things as bait a hook to catch a worm, say, by putting themselves in front of powerful men with the intention of seducing or simply gaining influence from or over them. Heck, you’ll probably try telling us that groupies don’t really like f-ing with superstars, or sex workers don’t do it for the money. Please stop trying to persuade us that you were born yesterday. The predatory thing swings both ways. But, it appears, it is only a problem for you when men do it, because they have a penis.
Tell that to women who wish to find a high value partner, man or woman, or wishes to use their own strengths to gain advancement. Should doctors not be susceptible to advances from nurses (it happens) or vice verse (that happens too). With regards to the sexuality of the matter, consent is the only issue, imho. Beyond that, and with regards to the individual, there are more than enough rules, required by law, that should be able to deal with unwanted harrasment, or collusive corruption. A business is free to do what it will in terms of corruption or missbehaviour. Not having them work together, in certain situations, may be desirable, but I don't see why it is a moral imperative not to permit the relationship in a large organisation; though I do appreciate that if you have people with certain characteristics (prudes, authoritarians, religious fundamentalists (yes Moose, Christians as well - not an Islamophobic trope), or predatory characters who do not like competition) in charge, then it may seem a desirable thing to do. It seems so puritanical. Particularly when, After the fact, you patronisingly tell the poor defenseless woman that the consensual sex she had, and may well have set out to have, is going to become statutory rape (him on her) when you get this next bill through. Morally, I think that if you are going to do that, you should also include that she may be convicted of statutory rape if he can prove that she used her feminine powers to seduce him, particularly if she gained some advantage from it. Or, again, are we only really calling this an issue if men do it? I think you can see how insipid and poorly thought out I think your argument is. But if it is Good for one, it should be Good for the other, and parity in law is an important thing, I believe.
A catalogue of Trump’s behaviour towards women. Given the money paid to Stormy Daniels for consensual sex, I wonder how much he has paid out over the years? Clearly Ivana got a pay day. The beauty pageant stuff is particularly yuk. Access is what he likes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of it. It does seem to have a greater amount of evidence around it, like a date, a year, and she was seen in related-situations (non-sexual) that corroborated her version of events, and was a political partner with him, but, again, she has never taken anything to court. She seems, possibly, to be more upset with Hilary, who, a few weeks after the alleged assault, took her aside at a fund raiser and very pointedly thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. She made the very valid point that she had no wish to relive the event, and put it down to an example of how dispicably a man and his wife can behave to an ally of theirs (she was a fund raiser for him). She is a successful, now retired, business woman, and has never written a book on the subject, and fought against the story being used politically during Clinton B's campaigning. Like Carrol has been used against Trump, she has been used to attack Bill, only with Broaddrick, that usage was non-consensual. On the other hand, though, she has willingly criticised Clinton H, and allowed her story to be used to highlight Hilary's alleged unpleasantries. She has properly motivated reasons for not going further with the case, and takes responsibility for her decisions. It is easy to have sympathy with her. But that makes Clinton no more guilty, even if we wouldn't wish to leave our wives and children in his care, especially after hearing what she has said. I would probably feel similarly about both Clinton B and Trump, if, out of the blue, they had invited my wife or daughter to their apartment back in the day, even if I had never heard a bad story about either of them. You do have a strong point, but it may only be used to inform an opinion. We must also consider that it was not prosecuted, and that not all accusations are genuine. It is regrettable, but fair.
Yet another example of blending predatory into confident; much predatory behaviour is rooted in a deep LACK of confidence, aware that simply being may not be enough to get what they want. How many ‘predatory’ men do you really believe are ready to take ‘no’ for an answer? How many such men have used the defence of ‘I didn’t think she really meant no’? It would be interesting to hear how many women would endorse your view that they really enjoy being predated upon, and that they view such activity as attractive indications of the sort of ‘sexual confidence’ you are happy to attribute to it. All this bluster about ‘me being born yesterday’ is just so much attempted distraction from your exposition of quite unpleasant views.
I urge people to read this. Again, Moose provides where I was too lazy to research. The average period prior to a claim being made must be fifteen years, many of them coming as he started to become involved in politics, and coming from people politically opposed to him. Many of the entries include contrary evidence, often from other women present. He is alleged to have paid only one of them off. Some of them are literally a case of, he walked into the Miss Universe pageant changing room whilst we were getting changed, did nothing but address the girls, and is described by many as making none of them feel uncomfortable. None of the accusations should be dismissed, but neither should the other circumstances and claims of eye witnesses.
I stand by it. And provided you put my comment to women, about most enjoying a man acting like a man, with a predatory element in their wooing, or in their day to day sex life, I think you will be unpleasantly surprised. Don't forget that sexually confident men have been branded toxic in this modern world, and if you are denying that predatory and toxic male behaviour is now synonimous with male sexual confidence, then I'd say you are in denial. Your inference that a predatory male is the same thing as an incel stalker is absurd. Male sexual predators are not lunatic rapists or murderers. When they are described as predators, the inference is that they focus on a woman and exhaust all their persuasive skills to win that woman. And yes, I believe that the vast majority, something like 99.9%, if you apply all rape statistics to male predators rather than stalker-deviant rapists, do know what NO means. The very few who become rapists are not what you seem to think a male predator is. Even if it is appropriate to describe the loons as predators, the sexual element is secondary to their hatred of women, and the rape is just a weapon that is used against them. I say about you giving the impression you were born yesterday, because that is what your words convey. Do you really think that all men stand around in bars waiting for women to pick them up? Do you really think that is what women want? And do you really think that any man that approaches a woman with some cheesy chat up line, and a little white lie about how much he earns is a danger to women. The rub is, she may not be so pretty in the morning, after you have both got what you wanted, and her little boy may be wearing what was in her bra last night on his feet. Because that is the exciting, never change a thing about it game that we have been playing for tens of thousands of years, because it suits us. And, again, we most of us, statistically all of us, know what no means. IMHO. And cut the balls off any man who does not know what no means.
I never cease to be amazed at the shallow and one-dimensional nature of your thought processes. I had refrained from replying to your posts for quite a while, and I am reminded why. The fact that you can simply shrug your shoulders and accept that predatory and toxic male behaviour is now ‘normal’ and by implication that it is OK I find surprising coming from someone so insistent on a previous thread how he was totally opposed to misogyny.
I am unsure that I have ever heard anything more idiotic and naive than that, on this forum. Clearly you have not read what I have said, and blatantly you have no grasp of human nature. Once again you demonstrate a complete absence of empathy, and zero grasp of human nature, IMHO. But you are welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe. If I thought anyone would take you seriously, I might explain the obvious to you yet again. For the sake of the forum, I’ll just stand by what I said, and allow people to make their own minds up.
They have. Not sure I’ll take lectures on comprehension and empathy from you. It’s akin to having your dress sense criticised by Wurzel Gummidge.
Hooter has trust and faith in a man, who says to ‘grab them by the pussy’ and then when a jury finds he grabbed a woman by the pussy, he doesn’t believe it.
Moose. Stop demonstrating your ignorance. You are, once again, lying about what I have said and completely miss-representing the law. 1. I have no more trust or faith in what Trump said than I have in what Carrol said, and have never indicated otherwise. Neither should be taken soley on trust. The jury were unable to describe the nature of the sexual assault (they cannot give evidence) and what Carrol described was rape. In fact they specifically found that he did not rape her, which was her only accusation with regard to the assault. All I am saying is that the jury's decision, which I have not contested in any way, creates an absurd anomally and leaves itself open to appeal. I know that is difficult to get your head around when you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I am just suggesting that people who make utterences in ignorance may portray themselves more positively by educating themselves a little, before having to lie about other posters. 2. The man said "they let you do it". Yes, it is unsavoury, but it does put your comment into perspective, by putting it into context. He didn't say "whether they like it or not", as you imply, which, I would accept, would make far more compelling evidence for the statement you make above. Sadly, for you, a jury is bound to consider the evidence for what it is, not what you would wish it was, and, reasonably, a person may only consider the decision with regard to the actual evidence, when ctritiquing it, if they wish to be taken seriously. You can describe me how you like, but I have the right to point out when you lie and when you are acting in ignorance. That is what I am doing now.
I'm sitting here thinking :"You never hear from Milo "What a ****!" Yiannopoulos any more". If only there was some story involving him, Trump, MTG , Kanye West and, new girl on the block, Laura "Loony" Loomer - oh hang on: ‘Gross Negligence’: MTG Camp Blasts Yiannopoulos for Kanye Website Fiasco The bizarre saga of how Marjorie Taylor Greene's campaign paid for the website of a potential Trump rival
@Arakel have you noticed any of these mermaids and water people of which she speaks? https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1657893368322457610
Ha. She's goofy, but you have really caught the wrong end of that. You can see them every day in the Biden administration, if you hadn't noticed. Check out Sam Brinton, Biden's recently prosecuted (for baggage theft) nuclear waste tsar. I had no problem with him being appointed, but given his subsequently identified penchant for steeling ladies designer baggages from airport carousels, I think the only real question remaining is whether he is a mermaid or a waterperson... Good luck to him. I'll bet he's quite good fun to have a drink with. This is not him at his best, and he does actually rock some of the looks he has gone for. I selected this one because it nicely represented our colours from the GT eras. Sorry if the image upsets anyone who has a strong opinon on the black v red debate. Then there is Rachel Levine ... Levine is a more traditional 'Mermaid' type, and a kick ass soldier ... You cannot help but ask whether it was ability or diversity that got her the job, sadly. But whatever, she certainly appears to be very happy as she is, and good luck to her. She has appeared competent in the few things I have seen of her.
You go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! E Jean Carroll files for new damages after Trump’s CNN town hall remarks Author’s court filing comes after the ex-president demeaned her a day after being found liable for sexual abuse
"Calling Collins a “nasty person,” Trump angrily asked: “What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and within minutes, you’re playing hanky-panky in a dressing room, OK? I don’t know if she was married then or not. John Johnson, I feel sorry for you, John Johnson.”" That's quite the backtrack from "I have no idea who she is"...
Really Reids? It is a little embarrassing. For you that is. She's just testified to all of that in court. Trump didn't say he didn't follow the case. Some might even say he had some interest in it.
