Trump cries when called out for attacking women

[Correll]

On which points do you think I am wrong?

Lets go though step by step.

First. Do you think it is wrong of me to suspect that a woman would lie to get her hands on vast sums of money?

You're thoroughly confused. Let's start there.

Why afraid to go though my argument point by point?

Instead of vague generalizations?

IMO, Ivana's Divorce testimony is not credible because of her H-U-G-E motive to lie, ie BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

That is not confusion talking.

Address my point.

You're demented to think I'm afraid. But your very first point demonstrates you're completely confused. Why continue when you're off base right out of the starting gate?

How does believing that a woman would lie in a divorce trial in order to get vast sums of money "confused"?

Who said that was where you are confused? You see, I never contested that. You appeared confused when you ask me to confirm your suspicions Ivana lied about being raped after I said her claim was not credible.

If you couldn't understand that very first point, there is little hope you will understand anything that comes after.

You did not state that when you accused me of being "confused". You were very vague. Which is common with liberals who are being evasive.

So, you seem to agree that Ivana had motive to lie in the divorce proceedings. Good.

Now.

Second point.

AFTER the trial, when the money issue was off the table, and the spotlight was removed and they got down to the business of being parents, they worked together, despite being divorced and Ivana now states that they are the best of friends.


I don't see much of a motive to lie there. She has her money. It is very common for divorced people to be bitter and hateful and if Trump RAPED her, a reasonable person would expect that to color their future relationship.

This leads me to believe her recantation, and thus that Trump did NOT rape her.







reposting this so we can go thought it point by point

"
The two cases are completely different.


Ivana gave testimony during a divorce from a BILLIONAIRE.

If you can't imagine a motive to lie there, that is on you.

And recanted when the pressure was off, and she became friendly with Donald while raising their child.


Broaddrick told her story to her friends in private while injured and traumatized. FIVE people who supported her story.


She gave false testimony because she was terrified of the power of a President and his vicious wife.

She eventually had the truth dragged out of her, in the context of when her life was being destroyed despite her silence.

BIll and her are not friends today. Hillary and her are not friends today."

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This leads me to believe her recantation, and thus that Trump did NOT rape her.


"

Do you think she should be charged with perjury for claiming "St Donald" raped her....woo hoo after all a false accusation against a "innocent man" lol

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Bottom line

Bill Clinton no sworn accusations of rape ..only to the press have allegations been made

Donald Trump : actual sworn depositions of both rape and fraud....


Hillary Clinton no sworn depositions or allegations of rape or fraud

bottom line

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump is an accused rapist bottom line

 

[Correll]

Your entire argument hinges on the explicit use of the "rape" word by the victim.

Only the gullible are fooled.

Moron... it's not my argument -- it's the English language. Someone who claims they were groped and says nothing about being raped -- is not claiming they were raped.

But to conservative imbeciles like you, that's still rape.

Yes, that is your argument, douche bag. You harp on the use of the word "rape" every time you post on this subject.

Allow me to quote:

"And still, more women have accused Trump of RAPE than have accused Clinton."

Who do you think you're fooling?

It's really not my problem that you're so demented, you actually think women who are not claiming to have been raped, were raped.

So yes, it comes down to understanding English, which you obviously don't.

How is that "demented?" It's a well known phenomenon, especially when you're dealing with a couple of treacherous reptiles like the Clintons.

Holyfuckingshit!

No, you flaming conservative neanderthal ... it is not a well known phenomenon that groping a woman is rape.

Purposeful misunderstanding.

A common tactic with dishonest and evasive lefties.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This leads me to believe her recantation, and thus that Trump did NOT rape her.
"

I believe Brodderick's recantation because she recanted under Oath... Trump is an accused rapist and currently faces a civil trial for Fraud...bottom line

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Purposeful misunderstanding.

A common tactic with dishonest and evasive lefties.

This is a fact that you cannot escape young man LOL:

The only one of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to have had a woman go to court and swear to rape is Donald Trump...that is the bottom line is it not ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yeah Donald Trump is a sterling character LOL accused of rape accused of fraud, Four Business Bankruptcies : there Divorces ....oh yeah he is St Donald the Clean Hearted LOL

The only one of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to have had a woman go to court and swear to rape is Donald Trump...that is the bottom line is it not ?

 

[Correll]

That'll go over really well with the millennials who think Every Women Should Be Believed.

Who says they won't believe her when she swore under oath that Clinton didn't rape her?

Think whatever gives you comfort. Juanita told several people about the rape back when it happened, and has spoken out about it. She didn't want to be dragged into the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski fracas when Bubbah was President...and for good reason. She knew how the Clintons attacked women's reputations.

And facing the penalty of perjury, swore it never happened. And if she's so afraid of the Clinton's, why has she recanted her recant? Sounds like you're full of shit.

Your logic chopping has extended beyond the absurd. She's credible when she doesn't want to testify, for reasons that are obvious to anyone else, but she isn't credible when she does accuse Bill of rape. She would commit perjury, but Bill, the president of the United States, committed perjury before the entire country.

Why would anyone swallow your ridiculous excuses?

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

Your sympathy for terrified and traumatized rape victims is incredible.

Leftists talk SO much smack about being against bigotry or sexism or homophobia...

Until there is the slightest cost to them from standing by their supposed "Principles".


Then it's all Stand By Your Man, and the Attacking the Victim.

 

[Correll]

Purposeful misunderstanding.

A common tactic with dishonest and evasive lefties.

This is a fact that you cannot escape young man LOL:

The only one of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to have had a woman go to court and swear to rape is Donald Trump...that is the bottom line is it not ?

I'm not running from that fact. I've been addressing it for pages with Faun.

Are you delusional?

I'm not running from that fact. I've been addressing it for pages with Faun.

Are you delusional?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Purposeful misunderstanding.

A common tactic with dishonest and evasive lefties.

This is a fact that you cannot escape young man LOL:

The only one of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to have had a woman go to court and swear to rape is Donald Trump...that is the bottom line is it not ?

I'm not running from that fact. I've been addressing it for pages with Faun.

Are you delusional?

you provided alibis LOL and apologies LOL
But that is the Bottom line once you get past your sophistries..the Bottom line remains..the rest is speculation

Trump ...sworn depositions he raped

Bill Clinton No sworn depositions he raped in fact the opposite

Hillary Clinton ...not even allegations

Bottom line

 

[Correll]

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

It appears that everyone but you understands why she wouldn't want to be the center of a media circus, especially when it comes to testifying against a couple of political thugs as powerful and ruthless as the Clintons.

Are you serious?

But she'll go on radio and TV and claim he raped her. Where's that fear you're imagining?

People change their mind about things, douche bag.

Then there's no fear, as you made up. She claimed he raped her before testifying ... no fear then. She's made that claim after testifying ... no fear then either. But according to conservative acolytes like you, the only time she lied out of fear is when she faced the penalty of perjury.

You have no clue to how fucking retarded you sound, do you? Then again, I'm inquiring to the moron who actually said groping a woman is raping her.

The points you keep bringing up have been repeatedly addressed.

You are the one that is looking "Fucking retarded".

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The points you keep bringing up have been repeatedly addressed.

You are the one that is looking "Fucking retarded".

Sorry bro I do not excuse the brutal behavior of Trump towards his ex wife ...or his carrying out of fraud against Folks with his fake University LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Correl feels he is so brilliant that he made the sworn depositions of rape against Trump disappear ..like magic LOl

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hey Correl here is your "Boy Pussy" whining about an American Judge he keeps calling a "Mexican Judge"

Donald Trump is on trial for the "financial rape" of students at his "University"

Trump Keeps Going After 'Biased' Judge In Trump University Case

Share
BY Caitlin MacNeal


LOL Cry Baby Pussy
Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump


I should have easily won the Trump University case on summary judgement but have a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, who is totally biased against me.

5:55 PM - 30 May 2016

 

[Faun]

You're thoroughly confused. Let's start there.

Why afraid to go though my argument point by point?

Instead of vague generalizations?

IMO, Ivana's Divorce testimony is not credible because of her H-U-G-E motive to lie, ie BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

That is not confusion talking.

Address my point.

You're demented to think I'm afraid. But your very first point demonstrates you're completely confused. Why continue when you're off base right out of the starting gate?

How does believing that a woman would lie in a divorce trial in order to get vast sums of money "confused"?

Who said that was where you are confused? You see, I never contested that. You appeared confused when you ask me to confirm your suspicions Ivana lied about being raped after I said her claim was not credible.

If you couldn't understand that very first point, there is little hope you will understand anything that comes after.

You did not state that when you accused me of being "confused". You were very vague. Which is common with liberals who are being evasive.

So, you seem to agree that Ivana had motive to lie in the divorce proceedings. Good.

Now.

Second point.

AFTER the trial, when the money issue was off the table, and the spotlight was removed and they got down to the business of being parents, they worked together, despite being divorced and Ivana now states that they are the best of friends.


I don't see much of a motive to lie there. She has her money. It is very common for divorced people to be bitter and hateful and if Trump RAPED her, a reasonable person would expect that to color their future relationship.

This leads me to believe her recantation, and thus that Trump did NOT rape her.







reposting this so we can go thought it point by point

"
The two cases are completely different.


Ivana gave testimony during a divorce from a BILLIONAIRE.

If you can't imagine a motive to lie there, that is on you.

And recanted when the pressure was off, and she became friendly with Donald while raising their child.


Broaddrick told her story to her friends in private while injured and traumatized. FIVE people who supported her story.


She gave false testimony because she was terrified of the power of a President and his vicious wife.

She eventually had the truth dragged out of her, in the context of when her life was being destroyed despite her silence.

BIll and her are not friends today. Hillary and her are not friends today."

There was no vagueness as the reason for your confusion was obvious since I never once said I believe Ivana Trump's claim of rape.

There's no point in arguing points with someone as confused as you. And I'll save us both the time and trouble of walking down your garden path and cut to the chase. In the end, you choose to believe a proven liar and adulterer whose story has changed and recently added new details and I choose to find her too lacking in credibility to find her claim believable.

 

[Correll]

Even Stephen Hawking can't explain Trump's popularity
During an interview with ITV's Good Morning Britain, Hawking was asked to explain the popular phenomenon of the property tycoon, who against all odds became the Republican presidential candidate.


"I can't. He's a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator," Hawking said.

Expertise in one field, does not make you a expert in all fields.

What Hawking said was stupid.

 

[Faun]

Moron... it's not my argument -- it's the English language. Someone who claims they were groped and says nothing about being raped -- is not claiming they were raped.

But to conservative imbeciles like you, that's still rape.

Yes, that is your argument, douche bag. You harp on the use of the word "rape" every time you post on this subject.

Allow me to quote:

"And still, more women have accused Trump of RAPE than have accused Clinton."

Who do you think you're fooling?

It's really not my problem that you're so demented, you actually think women who are not claiming to have been raped, were raped.

So yes, it comes down to understanding English, which you obviously don't.

How is that "demented?" It's a well known phenomenon, especially when you're dealing with a couple of treacherous reptiles like the Clintons.

Holyfuckingshit!

No, you flaming conservative neanderthal ... it is not a well known phenomenon that groping a woman is rape.

Purposeful misunderstanding.

A common tactic with dishonest and evasive lefties.

Not at all. That putz actually did say groping is rape. There was no misunderstanding.

 

[Correll]

No, she is not.

Divorce testimony is not credible.

Ivana has since recanted that accusation and described her relationship with Trump as "best of friends".

Of course she is as credible. Tabloid statements which are the polar opposite of sworn testimony are just as credible as divorce testimony. i.e., not very credibile at all.

In both cases, each woman claimed they were raped and each recanted their claim of rape. Neither claim is credible.

But my point stands ... more women have accused Trump of rape than have accused Bill Clinton of rape.

The two cases are completely different.


Ivana gave testimony during a divorce from a BILLIONAIRE.

If you can't imagine a motive to lie there, that is on you.

And recanted when the pressure was off, and she became friendly with Donald while raising their child.


Broaddrick told her story to her friends in private while injured and traumatized. FIVE people who supported her story.


She gave false testimony because she was terrified of the power of a President and his vicious wife.

She eventually had the truth dragged out of her, in the context of when her life was being destroyed despite her silence.

BIll and her are not friends today. Hillary and her are not friends today.

I understand you want to believe but the reality remains ... a person who recalls two completely different accounts of the same in incident is neither credibile nor believable.

You are choosing to believe both women when they had tremendous motive to lie, and choosing to disbelieve them when they did NOT.


I am doing the opposite.

Sadly, your massive confusion persists. Please show the post I made where I ever said I believed Ivana Trump when she said she was raped. Failure to do so demonstrates the accuracy of my assessment that you are thoroughly & hopelessly confused.

If you don't believe her then your actions are the actions of a disingenuous ass.

You have been posting her recanted accusation as a counter balance to Bill's crimes.

You are being purposefully evasive.

 

[Correll]

Hey Correl here is your "Boy Pussy" whining about an American Judge he keeps calling a "Mexican Judge"

Donald Trump is on trial for the "financial rape" of students at his "University"

Trump Keeps Going After 'Biased' Judge In Trump University Case

Share
BY Caitlin MacNeal


LOL Cry Baby Pussy
Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump


I should have easily won the Trump University case on summary judgement but have a judge, Gonzalo Curiel, who is totally biased against me.

5:55 PM - 30 May 2016

"Whining" is liberal code for "You are right but I don't care."