seb146 wrote:

First of all: BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! Yes, what he did was disgusting, but he is not running for president, so Bill's character has zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with Hillary's ability to run the United States.

Did you leftist / liberals not understand that Melania Trump is not running for president when your 'people' brought her modeling career and past immigration status into the campaign?

""MELANIA IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!""

777Jet wrote:

seb146 wrote:

First of all: BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! Yes, what he did was disgusting, but he is not running for president, so Bill's character has zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with Hillary's ability to run the United States.

Did you leftist / liberals not understand that Melania Trump is not running for president when your 'people' brought her modeling career and past immigration status into the campaign?

""MELANIA IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!""

You're the only person who has brought Bill and Melinia into this topic, the actual topic is the allegations that Trump raped a 12 year old, stop trying to derail it.

777Jet wrote:

Or it speaks of the gold-digging nature of their character.

Honestly, the only character in question here is your own given the amount of victim shaming you've been doing on this site alone since the allegations against Trump began to surface.

Kiwirob wrote:

You're the only person who has brought Bill and Melinia into this topic, the actual topic is the allegations that Trump raped a 12 year old, stop trying to derail it.

This!

777Jet wrote:

Or it speaks of the gold-digging nature of their character.

Honestly, the only character in question here is your own, given the amount of victim shaming you've been doing on this site alone since the allegations against Trump began to surface.

Kiwirob wrote:

You're the only person who has brought Bill and Melinia into this topic, the actual topic is the allegations that Trump raped a 12 year old, stop trying to derail it.

This!

777Jet wrote:

seb146 wrote:

First of all: BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! Yes, what he did was disgusting, but he is not running for president, so Bill's character has zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with Hillary's ability to run the United States.

Did you leftist / liberals not understand that Melania Trump is not running for president when your 'people' brought her modeling career and past immigration status into the campaign?

""MELANIA IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!""

And for the narrow minded "family values" and "sanctity of marriage" group, you all look the other way when your nominee is married three times, cheated on all of them and is currently married to an alleged call girl. That speaks volumes about his character.

Kiwirob wrote:

Hillary is getting on a bit, this will be her last chance, if she loses she'll hit the speaking circuit and rake in a fortune as Bill is already doing.

Both of their fees will drop tremendously. People from the Middle East, Goldman Sachs, etc do not fork out a half million dollars for an inspirational talk from the Clintons, they want to influence US policy to their advantage, and the Clintons are happy to oblige via either SOS or future POTUS Hillary Clinton.

afcjets wrote:

Both of their fees will drop tremendously. People from the Middle East, Goldman Sachs, etc do not fork out a half million dollars for an inspirational talk from the Clintons, they want to influence US policy to their advantage, and the Clintons are happy to oblige via either SOS or future POTUS Hillary Clinton.

If you are claiming that as a fact then you must also accept that ALL US politicians and businesses do the exact same.

Tugg

afcjets wrote:

Both of their fees will drop tremendously. People from the Middle East, Goldman Sachs, etc do not fork out a half million dollars for an inspirational talk from the Clintons, they want to influence US policy to their advantage, and the Clintons are happy to oblige via either SOS or future POTUS Hillary Clinton.

I don't like money in politics either but this assertion is ludicrous. These entities that book Bill and Hillary for speeches do so because they have actual budgets for this kind of event and the money they spend on them is like you or me buying a packet of gum. It's pure chump change to them. Again, I dislike the reality that money influences politics but this outrage about the Clinton's making money out of office is a joke. Money in politics came right after prostitution. Repubs seem suddenly concerned by it and yet they are most obviously bought party in history with the NRA. Wayne LaPierre once declared that George Bush junior lived in his underwear, where were you guys then?

777Jet wrote:

ElliottM wrote:

A good question is, "Why would Bill settle if he didn't do anything?" - but this is matched with "Wouldn't the accuser want Bill behind bars if he actually raped her?"

Money talks. It depends how much the accuser could be bought for. I suspect that almost all people could be bought if the price was right.

It basically depends on the financial situation of the accuser vs. how much is offered.

For the rare few that could not be bought, I doubt that they would place themselves in that type of situation to begin with.

It's not rare at all. Lots of cases (sex crimes and otherwise) go to trial and result in convictions, sometimes even confessions, after the victim declines a settlement.

Valid point if settling is cheaper and less time consuming than the court process. However, if you know your are innocent and choose the legal option instead of being extorted, and then if you are found not guilty after the court process, who then is responsible for the legal costs? I would hope that the accuser who made the allegations that were dismissed would be responsible for ALL legal costs on both sides (not that they would have that kind of money in many instances).

Settlement is a fully legal option, it's not extortion.

As for this question of who is responsible for the legal costs, it depends on what the court awards. It's not a given that the false accuser would be responsible for all legal costs on both sides.

This is especially clear in cases where the government sues a private entity and the private entity is not found guilty. The private entity still ends up paying for their own legal fees. The government doesn't pay.

In my state, for example, our Attorney General seems to enjoy suing hospitals with flaky, half-baked reasons and in every case the hospital has been found not guilty - but they still have to foot the bill for all their legal fees. And of course, we taxpayers get to pay for the AG's frivolity.

wingman wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Both of their fees will drop tremendously. People from the Middle East, Goldman Sachs, etc do not fork out a half million dollars for an inspirational talk from the Clintons, they want to influence US policy to their advantage, and the Clintons are happy to oblige via either SOS or future POTUS Hillary Clinton.

I don't like money in politics either but this assertion is ludicrous. These entities that book Bill and Hillary for speeches do so because they have actual budgets for this kind of event and the money they spend on them is like you or me buying a packet of gum. It's pure chump change to them. Again, I dislike the reality that money influences politics but this outrage about the Clinton's making money out of office is a joke. Money in politics came right after prostitution. Repubs seem suddenly concerned by it and yet they are most obviously bought party in history with the NRA. Wayne LaPierre once declared that George Bush junior lived in his underwear, where were you guys then?

I wasn't aware GW Bush collected six or seven figures from the NRA. I am not a Republican nor did I vote for him either. It's funny how you Democrats though have no problem tying the Republicans to Wall Street despite its much stronger ties to the Democratic party.

Aesma wrote:

I was a kid at the time but I'm reading that Paula Jones accused Bill of exposing himself to her. I'm not condoning this but it's not exactly rape either.

I agree, however most of HIllary supporters here will disagree with you. Paula said in an interview in her countrified accent, "he started keessin' on my neck" and in another thread many Hillary fans said when Trump claims he kissed beautiful women without asking for permission, that is absolutely and always sexual assault with no exceptions (which is of course laughable and patently false). Juanita Broderick is another story. She claims Bill Clinton violently raped her and her lips were bloody and swolem four times their natural size afterwards.

afcjets wrote:

I wasn't aware GW Bush collected six or seven figures from the NRA. I am not a Republican nor did I vote for him either. It's funny how you Democrats though have no problem tying the Republicans to Wall Street despite its much stronger ties to the Democratic party.

What exactly are you talking about? Wall Street doles it out to everyone and in recent years donations from the Street have favored Repubs. Why do you think they've tried so hard to repeal banking regulations such as Dodd-Frank? I agree money influences politics, it's a fact of life. But to insinuate that HRC is somehow on the "take" in comparison to Repubs is patently absurd and the great irony is that the Wiki leaked emails from Russia literally point to a different conclusion. She's taking their money in exchange for time spent speaking and shaking hands but there's zero proof anywhere that she's ever done Wall Street any special favors. It is very stupid and unfounded comment.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/25 ... -donations

wingman wrote:

What exactly are you talking about? Wall Street doles it out to everyone and in recent years donations from the Street have favored Repubs. Why do you think they've tried so hard to repeal banking regulations such as Dodd-Frank? I agree money influences politics, it's a fact of life. But to insinuate that HRC is somehow on the "take" in comparison to Repubs is patently absurd and the great irony is that the Wiki leaked emails from Russia literally point to a different conclusion. She's taking their money in exchange for time spent speaking and shaking hands but there's zero proof anywhere that she's ever done Wall Street any special favors. It is very stupid and unfounded comment.

I wasn't aware Dems fell behind in donations to Repubs after Obama was elected. When you include HRC's fees for speaking and "shaking hands" as you say, GS has given significantly more to her than any Republican. What IS stupid and unfounded is for you to say despite her $675,000 back scratching I mean hand shaking fees that there is zero proof she has done them any special favors. Considering she collected the fees in 2013 AFTER she left the Obama Administration (even crooked Hillary probably could not pull that off while still SOS) and before her coronation by the DNC 8 years in the making, no proof can come obviously before she gets into the White House.

OA412 wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Or it speaks of the gold-digging nature of their character.

Honestly, the only character in question here is your own, given the amount of victim shaming you've been doing on this site alone since the allegations against Trump began to surface.

Kiwirob wrote:

You're the only person who has brought Bill and Melinia into this topic, the actual topic is the allegations that Trump raped a 12 year old, stop trying to derail it.

This!

A repeat post from an a.net crew member? You need to polish up your skills, or are you just trigger happy?

Let's just see if Trump is convicted of any of these claims against him. If a lack of conviction against Hillary (or Bill for that matter) makes them okay or worthy according to many of you leftists on here, then the same applies to Trump. If Hillary wins and you never hear a peep again out of all of these people who are just coming forward right now then I hope you have the common sense to realize who the victim was in this smear campaign.

777Jet wrote:

Let's just see if Trump is convicted of any of these claims against him. If a lack of conviction against Hillary (or Bill for that matter) makes them okay or worthy according to many

Nope, that is not how it works. YOU say that there must be something true to the allegations, because there was a settlement, not "us". Therefore YOU have to apply the same logic to YOUR candidate. That doesn´t mean we have to do the same, just because we point your logic error out to you. As far as i can tell, everyone here is writing about allegations against Trump, while trump supporters call HC being a criminal a fact, which it clearly ain´t.
"Innocent until proven guilty", Trump may still be found guilty of this in the future, the Clintons don´t have any ongoing investigations running afaik, hence it was never proven they where guilty of anything. That means Trump may be guilty, the Clinton are by definition (legally) innocent. Both discussions don´t even in the same stadium.

best regards
Thomas.

A repeat post from an a.net crew member? You need to polish up your skills, or are you just trigger happy?

777Jet wrote:

A repeat post from an a.net crew member? You need to polish up your skills, or are you just trigger happy?

If that's supposed to be meant as an insult, well try harder. But I see you'll just avoid directly addressing what I actually wrote. Of course.

OA412 wrote:

A repeat post from an a.net crew member? You need to polish up your skills, or are you just trigger happy?

777Jet wrote:

A repeat post from an a.net crew member? You need to polish up your skills, or are you just trigger happy?

If that's supposed to be meant as an insult, well try harder. But I see you'll just avoid directly addressing what I actually wrote. Of course.

In your childish, and failed, attempt to attack my character you stated:

OA412 wrote:

Honestly, the only character in question here is your own, given the amount of victim shaming you've been doing on this site alone since the allegations against Trump began to surface.

"victim shaming"

In my reply (if you could read properly and had basic comprehension skills) I addressed the very point of victim shaming. Focus on the following two sentences in particular:

777Jet wrote:

Let's just see if Trump is convicted of any of these claims against him.

777Jet wrote:

If Hillary wins and you never hear a peep again out of all of these people who are just coming forward right now then I hope you have the common sense to realize who the victim was in this smear campaign.

These people 'claim' to be victims. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. All we have so far is lots of conveniently timed allegations. It is not a fact that they are victims - as you appear to imply.

If nothing more comes of these allegations. If, after the election, we don't hear about these allegations again. If these allegations do go further, but if Trump is neither found guilty nor convicted of any of these allegations... then the claims might very well just be bogus claims made up as part of the overall smear campaign and slander against Trump. If so, Trump would be the victim.

If somebody came forward and claimed that you raped them but you didn't, who is the victim?

OA412 wrote:

But I see you'll just avoid directly addressing what I actually wrote. Of course.

Of course you will say that when you have nothing else to say. Of course. LOL

777Jet wrote:

These people 'claim' to be victims.

Maybe Trump needs to be checked out for Alzheimers. Not just did he boast of meeting Putin before and now insists he has never met him, he now also claims to have never met the 11th women to accuse him of misconduct. To bad she has a picture if her and Trump, and different from many other allegations aside of this child rape case, she comes forward telling a story that will have at least 3 eye witnesses aside of Trump and the women herself. The Bodyguard and two other females that accompanied her to his room. ....

And why does he just threaten to sue after the election is over? Afraid that they will show their hands (=evidance) before the election day?

best regards
Thomas

Maybe the victims of Trump will continue with their legal action after the election. Then what? The media will no longer care because he will no longer be important. Even if he is found guilty, it will simply be a footnote.

tommy1808 wrote:

777Jet wrote:

These people 'claim' to be victims.

Maybe Trump needs to be checked out for Alzheimers. Not just did he boast of meeting Putin before and now insists he has never met him, he now also claims to have never met the 11th women to accuse him of misconduct. To bad she has a picture if her and Trump, and different from many other allegations aside of this child rape case, she comes forward telling a story that will have at least 3 eye witnesses aside of Trump and the women herself. The Bodyguard and two other females that accompanied her to his room. ....

Yeah, I bet Trump and all other rich and famous celebrities remember every single person who gets a picture taken with them...

Trump looks like he could have been intoxicated when that pic was taken anyway (if it is genuine?) so maybe he doesn't remember her. He doesn't even have his arm around her.

As for the three other eye witnesses who witnessed this alleged misconduct but all decided to keep quiet for so long right until now - that says a lot about their credibility. Maybe they are Clinton Foundation beneficiaries

I'm wondering how many of the right wing trolls on this site will suddenly disappear on this site come Nov. 9th, and newly registered users will be pissing and moaning about Hillary's every move beginning Jan. 20th, 2017.

Why would anyone delete their account based on who wins the Presidency?

afcjets wrote:

Why would anyone delete their account based on who wins the Presidency?

Exactly. This is an aviation website. Most people are here for the aviation discussions

Although Non-Av can get interesting at times...

afcjets wrote:

Why would anyone delete their account based on who wins the Presidency?

Exactly. Why would we expect Trump trolls to suddenly disappear? Yet you sperm burp the Trumpian nonsense. You will stay and continue to lie, claim you were never for Trump, and hound any decision President Hillary Clinton makes. Aka...a waste of flesh.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

sperm burp

Was that you on America's Got Talent?

PacificBeach88 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Why would anyone delete their account based on who wins the Presidency?

Exactly. Why would we expect Trump trolls to suddenly disappear? Yet you sperm burp the Trumpian nonsense. You will stay and continue to lie, claim you were never for Trump, and hound any decision President Hillary Clinton makes. Aka...a waste of flesh.

I won't be in CA on election day so I am not voting, HRC will likely win CA anyways. BTW I hope your internal dialogue is not as nasty as your external dialogue.

afcjets wrote:

I won't be in CA on election day so I am not voting, HRC will likely win CA anyways. btw, I hope your internal dialogue is not as nasty as your external dialogue.

Thank you for going on the record. Your post has been saved for your future, non-stop, bitching, about President Hillary Clinton. You've abdicated any moral authority now.

Did a porn star really come out and complained about Trump. The democrats are getting desperate.

seahawk wrote:

Did a porn star really come out and complained about Trump. The democrats are getting desperate.

About what?

seahawk wrote:

Did a porn star really come out and complained about Trump. The democrats are getting desperate.

She actually might be acting on her own. All the 12 or so Hillary had lined up, going back to the 1970s, coincidentally came forward the exact same weekend.

coolian2 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Did a porn star really come out and complained about Trump. The democrats are getting desperate.

About what?

Trump winning.

afcjets wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Did a porn star really come out and complained about Trump. The democrats are getting desperate.

She actually might be acting on her own. All the 12 or so Hillary had lined up, going back to the 1970s, coincidentally came forward the exact same weekend.

Strength in numbers.

Also, how many of those women are registered as Republicans? Like Laura and Barbara Bush, who have said they are against Trump?

PacificBeach88 wrote:

I'm wondering how many of the right wing trolls on this site will suddenly disappear on this site come Nov. 9th, and newly registered users will be pissing and moaning about Hillary's every move beginning Jan. 20th, 2017.

They have been saying for some time that on November 8, Hillary will be marching door to door forcibly removing guns and forcing everyone into gay marriages and forcing everyone to have abortions, so....

Like the bad chica now telling us about how Trump wanted to go out with her.

seahawk wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Did a porn star really come out and complained about Trump. The democrats are getting desperate.

About what?

Trump winning.

What's the odds on that?

seahawk wrote:

Like the bad chica now telling us about how Trump wanted to go out with her.

So, you are saying that a women in the sex industry is somehow available for grabs?

Best regards
Thomas

coolian2 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

About what?

Trump winning.

What's the odds on that?

13% - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo

Some polls even have him as low as 3% - http://election.princeton.edu/

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Like the bad chica now telling us about how Trump wanted to go out with her.

So, you are saying that a women in the sex industry is somehow available for grabs?

Best regards
Thomas

I am just wondering why so many women seem to remember the "evil Donald" when it gives you media attention after your career had died because. Porn Stars, Mexican actresses, beauty queens....

seahawk wrote:

I am just wondering why so many women seem to remember the "evil Donald" when it gives you media attention after your career had died because. Porn Stars, Mexican actresses, beauty queens....

Because we live in a culture in which victim blaming is big (short skirt, shouldn't have danced like that, made him hot and so on) and once the dam breakes, a bunch of women may come to the realisation that it wasn't their fault and they where actually done wrong. Getting some spotlight back may make it easier for women that missed that, but that ain't the prime driver. It would have made much more sense to come forward before the election, because got luck finding a jury these days that doesn't have stern trump supporters in them, that would actually acquit him, even if he did shoot someone in time square.

A friend of mine also only ever brought one of her rapists, a Michigan Law enforcement officer, behind bars after she heard that he had molested other women. Before that, she was blaming herself, or how she put it "I grew up learning that if a man wants your body, you give it to him".

The convinient timing may maye correlation with the presidential race, but as we all know, correlation doesn't mean causation.

Best regards
Thomas

So far there is no talk of rape though..

seahawk wrote:

So far there is no talk of rape though..

Did you read what this thread is about? It's about the allegation of Mr. Trump raping a 13 year old girl tied to a bed and threatening her to make her and her family disappear if she tells anyone....

Best regards
Thomas

And that is quite different to some of the women speaking up. In fact I think some women are not helping at all, when they remember how he tried to get a date and used his connections to get the number or how he walked into the dressing room of a beauty contest.

seahawk wrote:

And that is quite different to some of the women speaking up

Well.. Apparently he ain't a paedophile if those allegations turn out to be true, in that case he may not even have to balls to go after a grown women. After all even with the kid he supposedly waiting for her to be helpless first as well.

Oh, and his ex wife accused him or rape under oath as well.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I am just wondering why so many women seem to remember the "evil Donald" when it gives you media attention after your career had died because. Porn Stars, Mexican actresses, beauty queens....

Because we live in a culture in which victim blaming is big (short skirt, shouldn't have danced like that, made him hot and so on) and once the dam breakes, a bunch of women may come to the realisation that it wasn't their fault and they where actually done wrong.

Yeah, it only took all of them more than a decade to come to that exact same realization.

It only took the man who did such horrible things to them to run for president to come to that realization.

They all decided to act on their new found realization just weeks before the presidential election.

seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Like the bad chica now telling us about how Trump wanted to go out with her.

So, you are saying that a women in the sex industry is somehow available for grabs?

Best regards
Thomas

I am just wondering why so many women seem to remember the "evil Donald" when it gives you media attention after your career had died because. Porn Stars, Mexican actresses, beauty queens....

Gives you media attention to do what....? Have any of Cosby's accusers made it big after coming forward? The idea that the attention is a positive thing is just a silly extension of victim blaming.

777Jet wrote:

Yeah, it only took all of them more than a decade to come to that exact same realization.

It only took the man who did such horrible things to them to run for president to come to that realization.

They all decided to act on their new found realization just weeks before the presidential election.

Personally I also am very skeptical about some of these claims. But you can't say it's without precedent. Look at Operation Yewtree in the UK. Years passed since the offences, and suddenly once the police started to actually investigate them it turned out they were dealing with one of most prolific sex offenders in British history.

Now unless you're seriously suggesting that Jimmy Savile was not guilty (and that would be a stretch even for you) then you have to accept that there is a precedent here. Victims of abuse by public figures often don't come forward until many years after the crime, and we know that whilst some of them may be seeking publicity, some have been proven in a court of law not to be.

In reality we just don't know, so Trump deserves the presumption of innocence- but so too do his accusers.

Oh, dear!
Disturbing new details emerge over Donald Trump rape lawsuit of a 13-year-old girl


http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/10 ... 05103.html

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/federal ... suit-case/

afcjets wrote:

This is the first time I have heard a then 12 year old accused Trump of rape. If it had been known for years, I would think Jeb and others would have made it an issue in the primaries.

Or sooner. Trump has been a big public figure for over 3 decades. If he had actually done something there would be a long history of court cases and publicity. The fact that they all appear just one month before the election - when they can have maximum effect, just stinks of more DNC dirty tricks.

They do not need dirty tricks! Trump would be closer if he just didn't say anything in public.

Dreadnought wrote:

afcjets wrote:

This is the first time I have heard a then 12 year old accused Trump of rape. If it had been known for years, I would think Jeb and others would have made it an issue in the primaries.

Or sooner. Trump has been a big public figure for over 3 decades. If he had actually done something there would be a long history of court cases and publicity. The fact that they all appear just one month before the election - when they can have maximum effect, just stinks of more DNC dirty tricks.

Or, the fact that one allegation, once it is widely publicized, starts a torrent of other victims to come forward with their stories. Look what happened to Bill Cosby; one public allegation started a torrent of other allegations against him.