Trump cries when called out for attacking women

[Correll]

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

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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

snarking at "libruls" its what you do when the Bottom line happens to be this:

The only one with sworn under oath accusations of Rape is Donald Trump...I mean its not complicated ..its a simple fact...

 

[Correll]

You have not addressed that, other than to repeatedly throw in negative sounding words about her.

I just want to ask this

One of these two men has sworn rape allegations against him ...check which of the two men has been actually accused of rape in court

Donald Trump_____

Bill Clinton ______

Its not complicated you know LOL

I've been discussing that for page after page.

If you want to address something I have said regarding that issue, go right ahead.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

I believe the first because she swore in a court of law...she has not recanted in a court of law...she received $25million from Trump to shut up...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[
If you want to address something I have said regarding that issue, go right ahead.

as soon as you agree that this is a fact..it is in fact a fact

The only one who has had a woman go to court and swear of rape is "The Donald" bottom line

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

For every one reading ...here is the Rock in Correl shoe ..why he is limping

The only one who has had a woman go to court and swear of rape is "The Donald" bottom line

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

You want to smear Hillary Clinton using Bill Clinton..no one has to use anything against Trump except HIS OWN DEPLORABLE BEHAVIOR ...bottom line

 

[Correll]

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.

If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have attended a fundraiser of accused rapist just weeks later. If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have sworn Bill didn't rape her. If she were truly a rape victim, she wouldn't be discovering new details nearly 40 years later.

Again, she's a proven liar and adulterer, much like Bill Clinton, ironically enough. You choose to find such a person to be credible. In my opinion, for no reason other than it's politically expedient.

1. Re: Fundraiser: Taking time to come to grip with what happened is common with rape victims.

2. Her reasons for giving false testimony have been repeatedly explained. That you are pretending not to know of that is disingenuous. Being afraid of the most powerful man in the world is very credible.

3. Discussing events that occurred long ago can jog memories. It is not credible that you do not know that.

4. Your assumption of my conclusion being based on political expedience is unsupported. ANd ironically, is politically expedient for YOU.

 

[Correll]

Being an expert in one field does not make you an expert in all fields.

What Hawking said was stupid.

I am sure your intelligence outranks Hawkins LOL waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You are Right wing douche pretending Trump is noble and good LOL

His expertise in Physics does not mean he is an expert in Politics.

 

[Faun]

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.

You are being purposefully evasive and misleading.

Your desire to avoid going over my position point by point, which you ridiculed as confused, is obviously running away from having to defend your position, ie that Trump is worse than Bill Clinton.

Not only were you confused, I even showed how you were confused. And claiming I am running away from my position when I clearly stated it because I cut to the bottom line without playing your silly games is laughable.

Sure. You clearly stated it.

But when we start going over WHY you reached that conclusion or why you think my conclusion is wrong, that's when the games started.

That you, the lawyer, mislead me to your meaning on the first two points, does not bother me much. My training and experience has all been about facilitating communication, not blocking it with obfuscations.

"Cutting to the bottom line" is just a way of avoiding defending your conclusion.

I have explained why I find Ivana's recantation more credible than her Divorce testimony.

You have not addressed that, other than to repeatedly throw in negative sounding words about her.

Since we both agree that I clearly stated my position, that you couldn't understand it exemplifies just how confused you were to not understand it. That you then tried to transfer your confusion upon me as though I was being evasive is ridiculous given I clearly stated my position and have maintained it consistently since.

Furthermore, your claim that I am evading an explanation of my conclusion is in itself misleading. I have clarified more than once why I reached my conclusion. And I'll state it again since you seem to not be clear on it. Juanita broaddrick is a proven liar; her story has changed; she's recently added new details; and she was cheating on her own husband at the time she claimed she was raped. She is not a credible person. I choose to not believe a non-credible person. You choose to believe a non-credible person. That's your prerogative.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

His expertise in Physics does not mean he is an expert in Politics.

He has demonstrated superior intellectual fire power and has arrived at the proper conclusion

you on the other hand are flailing and struggling because

The only one that has sworn depositions of rape against him is Donald Trump...you cannot accept that as a fact when it is a fact..

 

[Faun]

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

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

Irony is so ironic, isn't it?

 

[Correll]

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".

You really have no idea how fucking retarded the rightwing position on this is, do you? More confusion, I suppose. For clarity's sake, it's fucking retarded to say she was too scared to say Bill raped her in 1998 but not too scared in 1999. No threats against her changed as the Clinton's never threatened her.

It is not retarded to say that situations and/or decisions can change over the course of a year.

The course of events leading her to eventually come clean about this very painful event in her life, has been posted.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

and you are so eager to slime Hillary Clinton with whatever baggage Bill has that you cannot own up to this being a factual Statement

ONLY Trump has been accused of rape via sworn statements

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The course of events leading her to eventually come clean about this very painful event in her life, has been posted.

LOL and Hillary Clinton has no allegations or accusations like El Trump...why can't you see that ...


Actor Richard Dreyfuss slams ‘small-dicked’ Donald Trump and his celebrity supporters
n an epic Twitter rant posted Monday evening, Dreyfuss ripped into the “whores” who are backing Trump despite the fact that they aren’t at all struggling financially.

 

[Correll]

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.

First and foremost, fuck you.

Secondly, what utter nonsense to posit someone is a "disingenuous ass" for not believing a proven liar and adulterer.

And lastly, I've not been evasive. I was clear from the start I found neither accusation of rape credible. Any misunderstanding of that stems from your own confusion.

If you don't find Ivana's accusation credible, then why are we even discussing it?

 

[Faun]

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.

If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have attended a fundraiser of accused rapist just weeks later. If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have sworn Bill didn't rape her. If she were truly a rape victim, she wouldn't be discovering new details nearly 40 years later.

Again, she's a proven liar and adulterer, much like Bill Clinton, ironically enough. You choose to find such a person to be credible. In my opinion, for no reason other than it's politically expedient.

1. Re: Fundraiser: Taking time to come to grip with what happened is common with rape victims.

2. Her reasons for giving false testimony have been repeatedly explained. That you are pretending not to know of that is disingenuous. Being afraid of the most powerful man in the world is very credible.

3. Discussing events that occurred long ago can jog memories. It is not credible that you do not know that.

4. Your assumption of my conclusion being based on political expedience is unsupported. ANd ironically, is politically expedient for YOU.

1. Attending a fundraiser is far more common by people who were not raped by the person raising funds.

2. I never said I don't know her reasons. You're lying now. I said I don't believe her reasons. There's a vast difference between the two which I would hope even you could understand.

3. Adding events some forty years after the fact is also evidence that the person is lying.

4. You're lying again. I base that opinion on reading your posts on this forum. You're every bit the partisan hack you accuse others of being from what I've seen.

 

[Faun]

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".

You really have no idea how fucking retarded the rightwing position on this is, do you? More confusion, I suppose. For clarity's sake, it's fucking retarded to say she was too scared to say Bill raped her in 1998 but not too scared in 1999. No threats against her changed as the Clinton's never threatened her.

It is not retarded to say that situations and/or decisions can change over the course of a year.

The course of events leading her to eventually come clean about this very painful event in her life, has been posted.

Claiming events or situations changed is one thing; demonstrating it is another. No one has yet has been able to show any credible threats against her changed from 1998 to 1999.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[

If you don't find Ivana's accusation credible, then why are we even discussing it?

Trump says or implies Bill Clinton is a rapist correct ?

question
why would you invite a rapist to your wedding

Hillary Clinton Attended Donald Trump's Wedding - YouTube

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

His expertise in Physics does not mean he is an expert in Politics.

Maybe he knows the only one with sworn rape accusations is Donald Trump...did you know that ? LOL