I challenged you to prove the allegation and you came up with NOTHING.
You couldn't clean my toilets snowflake.
They call Bill Clinton a rapist with less...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I challenged you to prove the allegation and you came up with NOTHING.
You couldn't clean my toilets snowflake.
I don't know, what do you think? Did any of them make their accusations formally, with pains of perjury and an opportunity to cross examine their stories looking for holes, the way Ford did? Is there evidence that the women made their claims before he was a major public figure?
With just about any public figure with enough status, you'll get accusations. George W. Bush was formally accused of rape by Margie Schoedinger. Ronald Reagan was accused of rape, too. Trump's been accused of rape by three different women, and that's just if we count those who were willing to swear to it under oath. Deciding what to believe takes more than just saying "she's a woman, so I believe her." It takes weighing the context, including whether the woman went to the trouble of making the claim formally, how she held up under cross-examination, whether there's other outside evidence supporting it, etc.
Sometimes, it's an easy call. For example, when beauty pageant contestants accuse Trump of having abused his power to go back stage and ogle them while they were changing, we have no reason to doubt them, since Trump himself bragged to Howard Stern about using his position as owner of those pageants to go back-stage to "inspect" while the women were naked. Other times, it's a harder call, since all you have is an informal allegation with nothing to support it and not even an opportunity to see how it holds up under questioning. I'm not familiar with every claim made against Clinton, but with each, those are the things we should consider when deciding if they're plausible.
You're speaking gibberish. By definition, an uncorroborated claim is he-said/she-said. If it had been corroborated, it would be different.
Yes, obviously, she was lying -- either when she swore under oath it didn't happen, or when she later said that testimony was a lie. You want to believe the later for strictly partisan reasons. I think there's a stronger argument to believe the formal testimony.
LINK?
So then Millwee is a liar? Yes or no? How hard is this you dishonest hack?
Are you asking a question or telling me to shut up? You really need to figure this out, because it makes you look like an imbecile.
Do you imagine that's what I said? It isn't.
Do you always answer a question with a stupid question? Stop being a dishonest hack. Man....all these women are not to be believed then? Yes or no?
What lie do you think she told, specifically, and what evidence do you see it was a lie?
No, as you'll recall, that's just Kavanaugh's perjury. He claimed they said they weren't there, but that's not true. What do you think Kavanaugh's punishment should be for having told that lie under oath?
I do believe Broaddrick. She testified that she'd never been raped by Clinton and I believe her. You're saying she lied under oath.
I'm just training you, little one. Gradually, we'll break you of these habits that make you look like a halfwit. Once you get used to having to talk like a grownup to get a substantive response, you'll do so more and more often.
That's an odd set of non sequiturs. Have you considered proof-reading? Anyway, what evidence do you see that Ford was lying?
What makes you think so?
As you know, Broaddrick must logically have lied about the event, since she claimed it didn't happen and that it did happen. One or the other must be a lie.
No, you're lying, and so was Kavanaugh. It's simply untrue that the four said they were never there. Kavanaugh made that up -- telling that falsehood to the senate under oath.
So, what should his penalty be for that perjury?
No, little one, you didn't. You posted a single word challenge: LINK. I provided four of them.
How is that gibberish you dishonest hack? Her testimony didn't even meet the criteria of he said she said. It was uncorroborated by the people she claims were witnesses.
You said: Ford's been consistent in her claim that Kavanaugh tried to rape her, including when she was under oath. I believe her testimony. This is buffoonish in light of the lack of facts Ford testified about and the FACT that FOUR people she claimed were at the party, including her BEST friend basically said she is lying; that they were never at this so-called party.
Did you like the part where Ford threw her dear friend under the bus when questioned why her bestie says she was lying about her being there?
How is that a lie? She later recanted and explained why; how does that make her a liar? Ford claimed four people were there who said they weren't there; isn't that a lie?
You don't know what a question mark is? Damn you are one dumb partisan hack aren't you?
That is what you are implying you dishonest partisan hack.
You've already been told. Do you think bloviating like a parrot stuck on stupid is an honest way to debate?
No that had nothing to do with Kavanaugh. Now you're just lying like the partisan hack we know.
Ford named FOUR people who she said were there. They all said they were not there. Even her best friend who she then threw under the bus. Is SHE lying? Because if she isn't, you are arguing that the other FOUR people must be.
Stop being an obvious dishonest hack.
Then she recanted. You do know that people can recant right? So is she, and all the other women, not to be believed? It's quite simple.
It was in Ivana Trump's 1990 divorce deposition. That was leaked later as part of the book Lost Tycoon. Trump had scalp-reduction surgery that went bad, and he took it out on Ivana, who claims that he raped her in his anger. Despite having sworn under oath that he raped her, she later backtracked, not by saying the incident didn't happen, but by saying it couldn't be rape since there's no such thing as marital rape:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/07/ivana-trump-donald-relationship-ivanka-president
That was Trump's lawyer's line of defense, too -- not denying that Trump had violently force Ivana to have sex with him, but saying that you cannot rape your spouse (even though raping your spouse had been made illegal in New York before the alleged incident):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/28/donald-trump-lawyer-threatens-reporter
That is amusing; what you are doing is removing any doubt what a dishonest lying hack you are....little brained wonder dunce.
Ironic coming from someone who is obviously a half wit, a liar and a partisan hack. But I know we will never break you of being a lying dunce because you lack the intelligence to comprehend the obvious.
You think sounding like an idiot on a broken record is grownup? No, it is laughably stupid, dishonest and typical of a low character lying dolt like you who answers nearly EVERY question with a question.
That isn't grown up child; that is third grade. Grow a brain.
I answer questions directly. However, I also like to ask questions, because it's fun watching you right-wingers squirm away, afraid to answer even one of them directly.
To answer your question, I don't know whether they're to be believed or not. I laid out the information I'd need to consider to decide, and I don't have all that information.
How is that an odd set of non sequiturs? What evidence do you have Ford was telling the truth?
What makes you think not?
What logic is that? How do you know that is logic?
How am I, or Kavanaugh lying?
How is it not true? What do you think they said?
How did he make it up?
How is it perjury?