Donald Trump says he will sue those who accuse him of sexual misconduct after the elections

[Divine Wind]

That's his right if you falsely accuse someone of something you might get sued. No I'm not saying the accusations are false before anyone ask that will be for the courts to decide if gets that far.

While I completely agree with you, as we saw with the OJ trial, "he who has the most money wins". That's not what our country's values should be about.

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump says he will sue those who accuse him of sexual misconduct after the elections - full article
Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct in recent weeks.

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

These women are screwed if someone as rich and powerful as Trump decides to sue them

good idea

 

[blackhawk]

That's his right if you falsely accuse someone of something you might get sued. No I'm not saying the accusations are false before anyone ask that will be for the courts to decide if gets that far.

While I completely agree with you, as we saw with the OJ trial, "he who has the most money wins". That's not what our country's values should be about.

No it shouldn't but it also shouldn't be about making allegations against someone which on the surface seem more about putting them on trial in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. What these women are alleging might or might not be true either way the timing of them is suspicious.

 

[nicoleivy5]

That's his right if you falsely accuse someone of something you might get sued. No I'm not saying the accusations are false before anyone ask that will be for the courts to decide if gets that far.

While I completely agree with you, as we saw with the OJ trial, "he who has the most money wins". That's not what our country's values should be about.

yeah thats true man

 

[Divine Wind]

No it shouldn't but it also shouldn't be about making allegations against someone which on the surface seem more about putting them on trial in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. What these women are alleging might or might not be true either way the timing of them is suspicious.

Again, while I agree, can we agree that sexual harassment, but it assholes on the Left or assholes on the Right, is a problem? Is there any doubt that neither you nor I would be so quick to put off allegations of sexual impropriety if it was a female relative making the accusation?

Sure, there are people, regardless of politics or gender, who will do anything for money. The latest accuser, Jessica Drake "the Porn Star", is one example. OTOH, even a street whore doesn't deserve to be raped or groped against her will.

 

[blackhawk]

No it shouldn't but it also shouldn't be about making allegations against someone which on the surface seem more about putting them on trial in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. What these women are alleging might or might not be true either way the timing of them is suspicious.

Again, while I agree, can we agree that sexual harassment, but it assholes on the Left or assholes on the Right, is a problem? Is there any doubt that neither your nor I would be so quick to put off allegations of sexual impropriety if it was a female relative making the accusation?

Sure, there are people, regardless of politics or gender, who will do anything for money. The latest accuser, Jessica Drake "the Porn Star", is one example. OTOH, even a street whore doesn't deserve to be raped or groped against her will.

Yes sexual harassment should be taken serious but I would still question why someone would bring an allegation out years after the incident even if it was a female relative. Just as sexual harassment allegations should be taken serious so should the possibility of false allegations. The truth is none of us know if these allegations are true or not but to many are willing to accept or dismiss them based on nothing more than there own political viewpoints.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes sexual harassment should be taken serious but I would still question why someone would bring an allegation out years after the incident even if it was a female relative. Just as sexual harassment allegations should be taken serious so should the possibility of false allegations. The truth is none of us know if these allegations are true or not but to many are willing to accept or dismiss them based on nothing more than there own political viewpoints.

Because, like with Bill Clinton, they couldn't fight it until the person became so prominent the media and public paid attention.

 

[blackhawk]

Yes sexual harassment should be taken serious but I would still question why someone would bring an allegation out years after the incident even if it was a female relative. Just as sexual harassment allegations should be taken serious so should the possibility of false allegations. The truth is none of us know if these allegations are true or not but to many are willing to accept or dismiss them based on nothing more than there own political viewpoints.

Because, like with Bill Clinton, they couldn't fight it until the person became so prominent the media and public paid attention.

Sorry I didn't buy that with Clinton I don't now with Trump I find that to be a convientent excuse. The idea one has to wait for a person to become more rich, famous, and powerful to make an allegation is nuts. If they had made the allegations before even if they had been ignored no one could now with any credibility ask why do you not say anything till now.

 

[nicoleivy5]

true

Yes sexual harassment should be taken serious but I would still question why someone would bring an allegation out years after the incident even if it was a female relative. Just as sexual harassment allegations should be taken serious so should the possibility of false allegations. The truth is none of us know if these allegations are true or not but to many are willing to accept or dismiss them based on nothing more than there own political viewpoints.

Because, like with Bill Clinton, they couldn't fight it until the person became so prominent the media and public paid attention.

Sorry I didn't buy that with Clinton I don't now with Trump I find that to be a convientent excuse. The idea one has to wait for a person to become more rich, famous, and powerful to make an allegation is nuts. If they had made the allegations before even if they had been ignored no one could now with any credibility ask why do you not say anything till now.

 

[Divine Wind]

Sorry I didn't buy that with Clinton I don't now with Trump I find that to be a convientent excuse. The idea one has to wait for a person to become more rich, famous, and powerful to make an allegation is nuts. If they had made the allegations before even if they had been ignored no one could now with any credibility ask why do you not say anything till now.

Again, while I agree there are people so unscrupulous as to take advantage of someone's fame, such as allegations against Michael Jackson, I also think "where there's smoke, there's fire", be it Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson or Donald Trump.

 

[nicoleivy5]

That's his right if you falsely accuse someone of something you might get sued. No I'm not saying the accusations are false before anyone ask that will be for the courts to decide if gets that far.

While I completely agree with you, as we saw with the OJ trial, "he who has the most money wins". That's not what our country's values should be about.

yeah the oj trial

 

[nicoleivy5]

That's his right if you falsely accuse someone of something you might get sued. No I'm not saying the accusations are false before anyone ask that will be for the courts to decide if gets that far.

While I completely agree with you, as we saw with the OJ trial, "he who has the most money wins". That's not what our country's values should be about.

No it shouldn't but it also shouldn't be about making allegations against someone which on the surface seem more about putting them on trial in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. What these women are alleging might or might not be true either way the timing of them is suspicious.

agreed completely. the allegations are not right

 

[nicoleivy5]

Sorry I didn't buy that with Clinton I don't now with Trump I find that to be a convientent excuse. The idea one has to wait for a person to become more rich, famous, and powerful to make an allegation is nuts. If they had made the allegations before even if they had been ignored no one could now with any credibility ask why do you not say anything till now.

Again, while I agree there are people so unscrupulous as to take advantage of someone's fame, such as allegations against Michael Jackson, I also think "where there's smoke, there's fire", be it Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson or Donald Trump.

Michael Jackson is innocent!!!

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump says he will sue those who accuse him of sexual misconduct after the elections - full article
Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct in recent weeks.

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

These women are screwed if someone as rich and powerful as Trump decides to sue them

he needs to win

 

[nicoleivy5]

Donald Trump says he will sue those who accuse him of sexual misconduct after the elections - full article
Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct in recent weeks.

"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

These women are screwed if someone as rich and powerful as Trump decides to sue them

its all lies

 

[nicoleivy5]

That's his right if you falsely accuse someone of something you might get sued. No I'm not saying the accusations are false before anyone ask that will be for the courts to decide if gets that far.

While I completely agree with you, as we saw with the OJ trial, "he who has the most money wins". That's not what our country's values should be about.

No it shouldn't but it also shouldn't be about making allegations against someone which on the surface seem more about putting them on trial in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. What these women are alleging might or might not be true either way the timing of them is suspicious.

yeah the richest awlays wins

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure they are. Trump's own words basically make him out as the sort of guy who would do that. Then all he wants to do is put some doubt into people's minds. Not ONCE did he say he didn't do it. Not ONCE! Why is that?

he did say he didn't do it. he said he wants to sue all the liars

No, he called them liars, he didn't say he didn't do it.

Unless you can prove me wrong.

Now libs don't know the meaning of the word "liar".

It's not hard. If you call someone a liar, it's AN ATTACK ON THE OTHER PERSON. Almost everyone is a liar, it's human nature to lie. He can call these people liars, he might not be saying they're lying about this affair though. Just put doubt into people's minds.

Come on, you're trying to tell me that Trump said he didn't do. If he said it, you'd be able to find it and show me. If he didn't say he didn't do it, you won't be able to find it. Therefore if you don't show me, then I'm going to assume it's because he didn't say it.

I mean, this is your argument that he did say it. So, come on, quotes, sources, you know?

That little game, that you just suggested he played? Where he called them liars, but was, in his mind referring to OTHER statements the women in question might have said at other times?


Yeah. That type of sophist bullshit is something that you on the left do. No one on the Right does that.

If nothing else, the corrupt partisan media would not help them pull off their lies.

Actually this is something I've seen from the right.

Don't play the bullshit game of attacking me by saying "the left would do that" and then provide no evidence.

I've seen the BNP, the British National Party literally set out that they were going to misrepresent what they were saying to convince people they were something else.



“There's a difference between setting out your ideas and selling your ideas and the British National Party isn't about setting out its ideas, which are **** ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, but that means basically to use the same old words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas, they are saleable. Perhaps one day, once, by being rather more subtle, we've got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say yes, every last one of them must go, perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as you sole aim to start with, you're going to get absolutly nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity.”

David Duke was listening to this. Griffin, who made this speech, was a part of the international network of racists, white supremacists. He invited Preston Wigginton, David Duke and Stephen "Don" Black to the UK. The latter runs Stormfront which is where these kind of ideas are swapped with all the different groups around Europe and America and South Africa.

When the BNP said "British" they meant "white", for example. When they said all law abiding Muslims would be able to stay in the UK, they meant they'd make all Muslims illegal, they'd kick out all preachers, close all mosques, ban anything and everything from their religion and force them out.

UKIP also did similar things. The party that pushed for the UK to leave the EU. UKIP said the UK would save money leaving the EU. Any time anyone pointed out it was wrong they simply denied it.

I've seen this happen. I'm not saying people on the left don't do it, but you're coming out with partisan bullshit that's not backed up by anything as a simple attack so you don't have to face the questions.

 

[nicoleivy5]

he did say he didn't do it. he said he wants to sue all the liars

No, he called them liars, he didn't say he didn't do it.

Unless you can prove me wrong.

Now libs don't know the meaning of the word "liar".

It's not hard. If you call someone a liar, it's AN ATTACK ON THE OTHER PERSON. Almost everyone is a liar, it's human nature to lie. He can call these people liars, he might not be saying they're lying about this affair though. Just put doubt into people's minds.

Come on, you're trying to tell me that Trump said he didn't do. If he said it, you'd be able to find it and show me. If he didn't say he didn't do it, you won't be able to find it. Therefore if you don't show me, then I'm going to assume it's because he didn't say it.

I mean, this is your argument that he did say it. So, come on, quotes, sources, you know?

That little game, that you just suggested he played? Where he called them liars, but was, in his mind referring to OTHER statements the women in question might have said at other times?


Yeah. That type of sophist bullshit is something that you on the left do. No one on the Right does that.

If nothing else, the corrupt partisan media would not help them pull off their lies.

Actually this is something I've seen from the right.

Don't play the bullshit game of attacking me by saying "the left would do that" and then provide no evidence.

I've seen the BNP, the British National Party literally set out that they were going to misrepresent what they were saying to convince people they were something else.



“There's a difference between setting out your ideas and selling your ideas and the British National Party isn't about setting out its ideas, which are **** ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, but that means basically to use the same old words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas, they are saleable. Perhaps one day, once, by being rather more subtle, we've got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say yes, every last one of them must go, perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as you sole aim to start with, you're going to get absolutly nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity.”

David Duke was listening to this. Griffin, who made this speech, was a part of the international network of racists, white supremacists. He invited Preston Wigginton, David Duke and Stephen "Don" Black to the UK. The latter runs Stormfront which is where these kind of ideas are swapped with all the different groups around Europe and America and South Africa.

When the BNP said "British" they meant "white", for example. When they said all law abiding Muslims would be able to stay in the UK, they meant they'd make all Muslims illegal, they'd kick out all preachers, close all mosques, ban anything and everything from their religion and force them out.

UKIP also did similar things. The party that pushed for the UK to leave the EU. UKIP said the UK would save money leaving the EU. Any time anyone pointed out it was wrong they simply denied it.

I've seen this happen. I'm not saying people on the left don't do it, but you're coming out with partisan bullshit that's not backed up by anything as a simple attack so you don't have to face the questions.

great video. Love it

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, he called them liars, he didn't say he didn't do it.

Unless you can prove me wrong.

Now libs don't know the meaning of the word "liar".

It's not hard. If you call someone a liar, it's AN ATTACK ON THE OTHER PERSON. Almost everyone is a liar, it's human nature to lie. He can call these people liars, he might not be saying they're lying about this affair though. Just put doubt into people's minds.

Come on, you're trying to tell me that Trump said he didn't do. If he said it, you'd be able to find it and show me. If he didn't say he didn't do it, you won't be able to find it. Therefore if you don't show me, then I'm going to assume it's because he didn't say it.

I mean, this is your argument that he did say it. So, come on, quotes, sources, you know?

That little game, that you just suggested he played? Where he called them liars, but was, in his mind referring to OTHER statements the women in question might have said at other times?


Yeah. That type of sophist bullshit is something that you on the left do. No one on the Right does that.

If nothing else, the corrupt partisan media would not help them pull off their lies.

Actually this is something I've seen from the right.

Don't play the bullshit game of attacking me by saying "the left would do that" and then provide no evidence.

I've seen the BNP, the British National Party literally set out that they were going to misrepresent what they were saying to convince people they were something else.



“There's a difference between setting out your ideas and selling your ideas and the British National Party isn't about setting out its ideas, which are **** ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, but that means basically to use the same old words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas, they are saleable. Perhaps one day, once, by being rather more subtle, we've got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say yes, every last one of them must go, perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as you sole aim to start with, you're going to get absolutly nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity.”

David Duke was listening to this. Griffin, who made this speech, was a part of the international network of racists, white supremacists. He invited Preston Wigginton, David Duke and Stephen "Don" Black to the UK. The latter runs Stormfront which is where these kind of ideas are swapped with all the different groups around Europe and America and South Africa.

When the BNP said "British" they meant "white", for example. When they said all law abiding Muslims would be able to stay in the UK, they meant they'd make all Muslims illegal, they'd kick out all preachers, close all mosques, ban anything and everything from their religion and force them out.

UKIP also did similar things. The party that pushed for the UK to leave the EU. UKIP said the UK would save money leaving the EU. Any time anyone pointed out it was wrong they simply denied it.

I've seen this happen. I'm not saying people on the left don't do it, but you're coming out with partisan bullshit that's not backed up by anything as a simple attack so you don't have to face the questions.

great video. Love it

Well it was taken in 2001, at the beginning of Griffin's reign as successful leader of the BNP. He eventually got kicked out because what the far right hate more than blacks, Muslims and Jews, is each other.

However you can go through their stuff, like manifestos and speeches and the like, and you can see what they did, see how they appealed to the racists, while appealing to the non-racists at the same time.

Now the BNP is like the dinosaur. There are a few creatures like sharks and crocodiles still left, but most of them got wiped out. Well, they went and formed a hundred different racist parties. Fragmented they are nothing.

 

[nicoleivy5]

No it shouldn't but it also shouldn't be about making allegations against someone which on the surface seem more about putting them on trial in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. What these women are alleging might or might not be true either way the timing of them is suspicious.

Again, while I agree, can we agree that sexual harassment, but it assholes on the Left or assholes on the Right, is a problem? Is there any doubt that neither you nor I would be so quick to put off allegations of sexual impropriety if it was a female relative making the accusation?

Sure, there are people, regardless of politics or gender, who will do anything for money. The latest accuser, Jessica Drake "the Porn Star", is one example. OTOH, even a street whore doesn't deserve to be raped or groped against her will.

yeah agreed its a problem