Leaked Trump tape will you still vote for him?

Laiya

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 8:54 am

marina wrote:

I would love open borders. Totally impractical, but that's my dream too. Me and also pretty much almost every libertarian. So no- not bothered by that comment.

Problem is, to the general public, she claims to hold one belief that sounds more or less reasonable and mainstream, but in private, she admits to holding far more radical views.

imasinger

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:08 am

Both candidates are really unpleasant. Trump scares me more, because we have recovered from politicians as corrupt as Clinton. But having a president who is a buffoon is not exactly going to cow the terrorist nations of the world into submission. And I don't think that stricter immigration policy is going to keep the bad guys out of the US.

But I am going to vote for neither, primarily because I don't live in a swing state, so I can do it without concern. I'll probably write in someone. Maybe a team of Marina and Fox; they'll keep each other in check.

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:10 am

DrMom wrote:

RATING: mostly false

The State Separtment, under HRC, did approve Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

DrMom wrote:

- knowingly ignoring cybersecurity measures and setting up a server in hr bathroom,

RATING: HALF TRUTH

HER BATHROOM? HUH? And yes, it was foolish. But not purposefully so. She didn't understand the risks, which were much lower back then.

DrMom wrote:

- having 13 Blackberry devices containing information so damaging that they were destroyed with hammers,

RTING: HALF TRUTH

Your numbers are wrong, your facts are somewhat accurate, your understanding of them is utterly flawed. The phones were smashed in a misguided effort to make them safe to be discarded. Interestingly enough, after a local government sold used computers without adequately deleting information, the NY Time ran an article including this quote:

Quote:

“How do I clean a hard drive?” said Mr. Sartor, the director of information technology for Willingboro. “I take it out to our parking lot and smash it. It’s the only sure way I know of.”

Who keeps old phones? They needed to be properly disposed of.

DrMom wrote:

- that laptop that the FBI allowed her team to destroy,

Not her's,of course. And no emails would've on a laptop.

Just obfuscating.

[quote="DrMom"

- her destroying lives of women her husband raped/molested/preyed upon, [/QUOTE]

RATING: PANTS ON FIRE

Bill Clinton had a series of consensual, extramarital affairs. That's not rape.

Juanita Broaddrick, a Clinton worker in the 70s, accused him of rape. She had, however, continued to work with him for weeks after the alleged rape. And she swore, under oath, that it didn't happen.

Paula JOnes claimed that he exposed himself and propositioned her. He denied it, but eventually settled. But there were no allegations of rape.

Kathleen Wiley claimed she was groped. Linda Tripp, the Clinton Administration staffer who secretly taped her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky in order to expose the latter's affair with the President, testified under oath that Willey's s-xual contact with President Clinton in 1993 was consensual, that Willey had been flirting with the President, and that Willey was happy and excited following her 1993 encounter with Clinton. Ken Starr thought there was insufficient evidence to pursue her allegations further.

So, basically, nothing other than consensual relationships. Doesn't make him a nice guy. But does it rise to the level of cavalierly discussing groping women, and talking about how you're free to touch them because you're famous? NO. Entirely different.

[quote="DrMom"
- Whitewater, [/quote]

Three separate investigations found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons.

They got caught up in a bad deal. Period.

It was a $60 million witch hunt, the only solid result of which was to find that Clinton got a consensual BJ from an adult. Most expensive BJ in history.

[quote="amohter']
- being part of an administration which has turned the FBI, the IRS, t
- ripping off poor people in Haiti via the influence-peddling Clinton Foundation,
- being part of an administration which gave $150B to Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror and a sworn enemy of Israel,
- etc
- etc
- etc.

Trump is a crude boor, but Hillary Clinton is corrupt to the core. I think a Clinton presidency will do more long-term damage to the US and the world than Trump will.[/quote]

Not even worth responding to these kinds of ridiculous allegations.

What is it that you like about this man who talks about women like they were nothing more than things created for his personal pleasure. Who thinks its ok to call them fat or ugly,and justifies it by saying they deserve it. Who spouts comments that even leading Republicans condemn as the definition of racism. Who is considered dangerous by a large number of US military leaders. Who says that he'll remain neutral between Israel and the Palestinians. Who wants to replace Obamacare with “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people,” said Trump.

Why do you attack the Clinton Foundation with its A rating, but not the Trump Foundaion, which has made illegal campaign contributions to help Trump, then falsified its tax returns to hide them. Which Trump uses as a personal bank.

Why are you worried about a deal that was approved by a large swath of the US government, including Clinton's state department, but not worried about Trump's refusal to release information about his own foreign investments, particularly in Russia, and about how he would deal with them while in office.

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:18 am

amother wrote:

So far, no one has claimed that Trump has actually assaulted anyone.

Bill Clinton assaulted possibly hundreds of women, many while he was serving as president, and then used threats of harm and intimidation to keep them from reporting.

And somehow, his reputation is still sparkling.

Actually, Trump possibly murdered 3,497 people, raped 1432 and groped 937,842 women. This year alone.

Possibly.

I mean, there's no evidence of it, but hey, it's possible.

There's also no evidence that Bill Clinton (who isn't running for president, by the way) assaulted a single woman, either.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:35 am

SixOfWands wrote:

No evidence? Really??? Sheesh I don't have time for this but it's all really easily google-able.

Just a few quick tidbits. Paula Jones testified under oath, “Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his p**s (which was erect) and told me to ‘kiss it.’"

So does testifying under oath not count as evidence to you, or does that act not qualify as an assault?

Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in a hotel room. Then there's Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc. And then all the women who had affairs where the power imbalance at the time makes the possibility of force and intimidation more likely than not.

Ya I know Bill Clinton isn't running. Point is if you're deeply disturbed by Trump's private comments from 11 years ago, an intellectually honest person would have found Bill Clinton's escapades far more problematic.

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:41 am

amother wrote:

Paula Jones did indeed make that allegation, which Clinton denied. He didn't force himself on her, of course\. Even she didn't claim that.

And as a I point out above, one other woman (Broaddrick) claimed he raped her. Then signed a sworn statement saying it was untrue. But I guess that's not good enough. Unless it's Ivanka. I mean, Ivanka swearing something happened, the saying it didn't (not under oath) is fine. Statements under oath exonerating Clinton though, lies.

That's all you've got. Other than a bunch of consensual affairs.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:44 am

SixOfWands wrote:

But getting back to Hillary, who IS running, what's concerning is that she hired a private investigator, while in the White House, whose job was to dig up dirt on Clinton's accusers and use it as blackmail. PI was Jack Palladino.

So that kind of did the trick and made women stay quiet.

"The use of a private investigator to do surveillance on – and attempt to intimidate – potential witnesses was an unprecedented scandal potentially far darker than the story of the ill-starred whitewater investments."

Quoted in a book by David Brock--a staunch Hillary supporter!, called Seduction, cited in realclearpolitics

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:55 am

amother wrote:

The Whitewater quote, of course, makes your quote suspect. Whitewater was an investigation in search of a crime. Millions spent. One consensual BJ uncovered.

Clinton's campaign released statements from James Carville, Bill Clinton’s top campaign strategist, and two lawyers who worked for bill Clinton, saying that Hillary Clinton had not overseen the counterattacks. “Those who took the lead in responding to those attacks at the time have plainly stated that Hillary Clinton did not direct their work,” Mr. Fallon said.

There's worse flaws than believing your husband when he denies having had affairs. And than investigating the allegations.

Does it make her flawed? Absolutely. But there's still no comparison to Trump.

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 9:58 am

Trump once said that he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not lose any voters.

I guess that's one true thing he's said.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:03 am

SixOfWands wrote:

So you want to split hairs over to what extent she was or wasn't involved in her husband's wrongful cover-up campaign? Ok. There sure is a high appearance of misconduct here.

And again, the quote above was from one of her current vocal supporters.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:21 am

SixOfWands wrote:

What Paula Jones accused him of doing was not consensual.

Re Ivana. She later said that she did not earlier testify that he had actually raped her, and since the records are sealed, we can't know if this is true.

Or do you know something I don't?

You are comparing statements made in the course of a divorce dispute, to a situation where a person in a position of great power used intimidation, threats and harassment that prevented women from coming forward with their stories.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:38 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Trump once said that he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not lose any voters.

I guess that's one true thing he's said.

That's kind of rude, don't you think?

Personally I find it offensive.

Until recently I was set on voting for Hillary, but the more I've read about her corruption, the more troubled I am. I will be voting for Trump (holding my nose, as they say), but that quote certainly does not describe me or my take on the situation at all, nor anyone I've spoken with irl.

marina

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:44 am

Fox wrote:

The problem is that I don't trust Clinton to put my welfare ahead of her utopian vision.

then it's not about what she said or didn't say, right? It's just that you don't trust her about anything. She could have said she wants to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it and your reaction would have been the same.

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:50 am

amother wrote:

You're wrong. Of course. She admits she said it, but claims she didn't mean it "legally" although she did feel "intimidated".

Not that it's the only claim of rape against him.

There's als Jill Harth.

Then there's the child rape claim via a recent federal lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the State of New York by “Jane Doe.” In the suit, Doe alleges that Trump raped her back in 1994, when she was just 13 years old. According to legal docs, Doe says she attended parties with Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein—a registered relations offender known in the media as the “billionaire pedophile.” Doe, who was trying to become a model, says it was during these parties that Trump initiated s-xual contact with her on several occasions and on one occasion allegedly raped her.

According to the suit, Trump tied her to a bed, exposed himself to her and then raped her in a “savage s-xual attack.” Doe says she screamed for him to stop at which point he struck her in the face while screaming “that he would do whatever he wanted.” In a statement filed with the lawsuit, Doe says Trump threatened to ruin her life and her family’s life if she ever told anyone about the incident:

Immediately following this rape Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s s-xual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed.

The lawsuit also includes a witness statement from a “Tiffany Doe,” who says that, in the ’90s, she was in charge of recruiting adolescent women to entertain guests at Epstein’s parties—and she personally saw the incident occur.

I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various s-xual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.

According to documents, Trump has denied the allegations, stating “These allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated. There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

marina

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:52 am

DrMom wrote:

Iposted something similar on another thread.

I think Trump is a crude boor.

However, given the lousy choices in this campaign, I will support him because Hillary Clinton's history is so much worse. Not just her personal life and comments, but her deeds in public office, and her through-and-through corruption and willingness to sacrifice the well-being of US citizens for her own personal gain:

- selling US shares of uranium to Russia for her personal profit,
- knowingly ignoring cybersecurity measures and setting up a server in hr bathroom,
- having 13 Blackberry devices containing information so damaging that they were destroyed with hammers,
- that laptop that the FBI allowed her team to destroy,
- her destroying lives of women her husband raped/molested/preyed upon,
- Whitewater,
- being part of an administration which has turned the FBI, the IRS, t
- ripping off poor people in Haiti via the influence-peddling Clinton Foundation,
- being part of an administration which gave $150B to Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror and a sworn enemy of Israel,
- etc
- etc
- etc.

Trump is a crude boor, but Hillary Clinton is corrupt to the core. I think a Clinton presidency will do more long-term damage to the US and the world than Trump will.

Your post teems with unsupported allegations, claims I could not find anything about in neutral sources. For example, your 13 blackberries claim is not one that I found support for in any mainstream neutral sources.

Some of your claims have been disproven, in fact, by neutral sources. http://www.politifact.com/trut.....-pai/

Further, your post is rife with exaggerations- Did she destroy lives of Bill's victims? Or did she just call his mistresses names? Like many women would do?

Some of your points are all about "being part of an administration" which says nothing about her but just that you hate Obama.

SixOfWands

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:53 am

amother wrote:

Yeah, it's definitely rude to quote Trump. That's why he and Pence interject "that's a lie" whenever Clinton or Kaine do.

marina

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 10:57 am

Many of you are also ignoring the ethical allegations against Trump, including against his foundation, including his ties to Russia, including bribery allegations etc.

smile12345

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 11:03 am

Interesting observation: Those who are against trump because of his vulgar behavior are happy to use like-minded terms when describing their feelings towards him.

Sadie

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 11:17 am

smile12345 wrote:

Interesting observation: Those who are against trump because of his vulgar behavior are happy to use like-minded terms when describing their feelings towards him.

I must have missed the post where someone here discussed enjoying s*xually assaulting Donald trump.

amother

Babyblue

Sun, Oct 09 2016, 11:38 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Yeah, it's definitely rude to quote Trump. That's why he and Pence interject "that's a lie" whenever Clinton or Kaine do.

It's rude to make this discussion personal, using sarcasm to imply that posters on this thread (myself, I presume, since I'm the one you were responding to) are supporting him without considering the issues.