Mr Trump - All discussion here

[Top Cats Hat]

1 hour ago, LizzieBirdswrth said:

Ive never understood the reasoning for that. Surely if a crime was committed then the amount of time that passes should be irrelevant.

The reasoning for it is that after a certain length of time, evidence, memory, witness availability is so diminished as to make it very unfair to try someone.

 

An example would be the plice knocking on my door and saying that I’d robbed the Xtal Peaks Wilkos yesterday afternoon. I would say to them that I didn’t rob Xtal Peaks Wilkos because I was in Darfield having a pint with Ian McMillan. They speak to Ian McMillan. Case closed.

 

Now if the plice came knocking at my door and told me that I had robbed Xtal Peaks Wilkos  on the 17th January 1992, I know that I hadn’t, but given that I couldn’t remember where I was on that date, I’d be unable to provide an alibi even if one existed.

 

I personally don’t think there should be a Statute of Limitations on any crime (except possibly certain financial crimes) but that is the reasoning for it.

[LizzieBirdswrth]

4 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The reasoning for it is that after a certain length of time, evidence, memory, witness availability is so diminished as to make it very unfair to try someone.

 

An example would be the plice knocking on my door and saying that I’d robbed the Xtal Peaks Wilkos yesterday afternoon. I would say to them that I didn’t rob Xtal Peaks Wilkos because I was in Darfield having a pint with Ian McMillan. They speak to Ian McMillan. Case closed.

 

Now if the plice came knocking at my door and told me that I had robbed Xtal Peaks Wilkos  on the 17th January 1992, I know that I hadn’t, but given that I couldn’t remember where I was on that date, I’d be unable to provide an alibi even if one existed.

 

I personally don’t think there should be a Statute of Limitations on any crime (except possibly certain financial crimes) but that is the reasoning for it.

Thanks for explaining. I guess it does make some sense but like you I don’t think there should be a Statute of Limitations on most crime. Especially something like rape or sexual assault,

[XXTickerXX]

21 hours ago, LizzieBirdswrth said:

Has anyone seen the recent Trump rape claim by a women called  E Jean Carroll?

I just heard about it in the last few days myself and was wondering what peoples thoughts are on the accusation.

Yeah she looks like a complete nutjob. Surprising she never made a claim before writing a book about it. She also thinks most people thinks rape is sexy. Even CNN cut her off and went to commercial because she is insane. I like how the media has now moved on after that interview and rarely mention her.  She even says she still has the outfit she was wearing during the rape but refuses to offer it up for DNA testing. And also refuses to press charges. It sounds very credible. To a moron.

 

Her story is eerily similar to an episode of law and order which aired in 2012. Just when she started writing her book!! Probably pandering to Bernie sanders because he likes writing about gang rape fantasies too.

 

 

This looks like something you would tweet after being raped by that person...

 

 

 

 

 

The left needs to try harder with it's liars. Isn't it surprising that it is never a conservative woman coming forward with these claims and always a deranged leftist. What happened to Christine Blasey Ford anyway? 🤔

[Magilla]

43 minutes ago, XXTickerXX said:

 Isn't it surprising that it is never a conservative woman coming forward with these claims and always a deranged leftist.

Even the ones too young to vote... I mean, how can you tell?

 

 

Crikey! ... that's a lot of leftists:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Magilla

[LizzieBirdswrth]

2 hours ago, XXTickerXX said:

Yeah she looks like a complete nutjob. Surprising she never made a claim before writing a book about it. She also thinks most people thinks rape is sexy. Even CNN cut her off and went to commercial because she is insane. I like how the media has now moved on after that interview and rarely mention her.  She even says she still has the outfit she was wearing during the rape but refuses to offer it up for DNA testing. And also refuses to press charges. It sounds very credible. To a moron.

 

Her story is eerily similar to an episode of law and order which aired in 2012. Just when she started writing her book!! Probably pandering to Bernie sanders because he likes writing about gang rape fantasies too.

 

 

This looks like something you would tweet after being raped by that person...

 

 

 

 

 

The left needs to try harder with it's liars. Isn't it surprising that it is never a conservative woman coming forward with these claims and always a deranged leftist. What happened to Christine Blasey Ford anyway? 🤔

Wow, I mean just WOW!!!!

I had to check on what you posted, It just sounded to way out but yep, she said that stuff. She is either a stone cold liar or someone with mental problems. Im guessing a little bit of both.

[bendix]

As with all such debates, those who love Trump will jump on every piece of evidence that makes the story look suspect.  And those who hate him will jump on every piece of evidence that damns him.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.  That he's a deeply flawed man with massive insecurity issues is beyond doubt.  Is he a rapist?  I doubt it?  Has he been consistently inappropriate with women - most likely.

 

 

[LizzieBirdswrth]

13 minutes ago, bendix said:

As with all such debates, those who love Trump will jump on every piece of evidence that makes the story look suspect.  And those who hate him will jump on every piece of evidence that damns him.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.  That he's a deeply flawed man with massive insecurity issues is beyond doubt.  Is he a rapist?  I doubt it?  Has he been consistently inappropriate with women - most likely.

 

 

Would you put Trump in the same category as Bill Clinton?

[Top Cats Hat]

22 hours ago, LizzieBirdswrth said:

Thanks for explaining. I guess it does make some sense but like you I don’t think there should be a Statute of Limitations on most crime. Especially something like rape or sexual assault,

Bizarrely, Cliff Richard was on the television this morning saying almost word for word what I said in my post, ie. when he was arrested, he had absolutely no idea where he was on the day of the alleged offence and it took over a year before the police could rule him out. (although he was making a case for anonymity rather than a statute of limitations.)

[bendix]

1 minute ago, LizzieBirdswrth said:

Would you put Trump in the same category as Bill Clinton?

In terms of inappropriateness with women?  Yes, perhaps.  But let's not get into comparative 'whataboutisms', huh?   It's the death of modern debate.

 

I'd say Trump is far more damaged as a person overall though.  It's just truly embarassing to watch him ask questions about the his views on the bussing debate, and to reply that he thinks it's a good way to get kids to school.  In some ways he is lucky.  He has no selfawareness, and is so blissfully unaware of how little he knows that it never troubles him.

 

[Top Cats Hat]

9 minutes ago, LizzieBirdswrth said:

Would you put Trump in the same category as Bill Clinton?

The significant difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton fessed up to an inappropriate use of his power with a junior staff member. Not only has Trump not fessed up, but has openly said that being able to sexually assault women is a benefit of being in a position of power.

 

For society at large, Trump’s position is much more damaging than Clinton’s.