RugbyRebels

Apparently begins Sept 15.

Anyone?

Donny osmond wrote:Apparently begins Sept 15.

Anyone?

People are going to have to try and deal calmly with it as unless it's settled it would I assume run past the election closing. I don't know how serious the filing is, fairly I'd like to think given its potential impact, and such complaints have got to be taken seriously after years of not taking children at their word which has seen countless needless lives ruined. God knows how anyone does manage to deal calmly with this if they were thinking of voting for Trump, I don't think I could vote for a candidate in such a circumstance, though it is a problem if candidates can be removed from a race based on perjured statements.

Trump has an appalling record when it comes to his views/statements on women, which doesn't mean he's guilty however and somehow both Democrats and Republicans need to try and step carefully through this latest, but again, god knows how. I'd say also the media need to report sensibly on this, and ignoring it if it is a serious charge is not the way to go even before the number of rapes on children which we now know have been ignored on both sides of the Atlantic.

Trump was created to usher in serial war-criminal Hillary. That's all. The entire campaign is a charade.

Do you think Trump is complicit in the charade or does he think its real?

It's beyond daft to think the Reublican party is either going along with or has been duped by such a charade. There's just no way if one wanted Hillary for her pro war views that you couldn't find many candidates with similar or stronger views in the Republican party, frankly it wouldn't be much work to find stronger pro war voices in the Democratic party.

The only way such a view holds up is to start with a needless conspiracy view and then twist all reality so if you close your eyes it looks like if fits the dreamt up plot.

BBD wrote:Do you think Trump is complicit in the charade or does he think its real?

I'll let Michael Moore answer that question:

Documentary film-maker Michael Moore has said he knows “for a fact” that Donald Trump does not want to be president of the United States and claims the Republican nominee is now sabotaging his own campaign in order to avoid the Oval Office.

Moore, writing on The Huffington Post, says that Trump ran for president as a negotiating tactic, hoping to leverage a higher pay packet from NBC. The broadcaster had formerly employed Trump as the star of the reality TV show The Apprentice, but fired him after he called Mexican immigrants “drug dealers” and “rapists” at his campaign launch.

According to Moore, who does not name his source, Trump continued his campaign only to increase his stock with other television networks.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/a ... -president

thanks Rowan

I think Moores point about his ego is a compelling one, without knowing the man personally of course, its interesting to consider it in the light of his bombastic approach in his business life. Im not sure I follow his logic entirely when both parts are examined

If someone has the ego to enter a race for the most powerful job in the world just to negotiate a TV deal, surely they would be astute enough to realise that an exit door would be necessary and 1) probably before now and 2) probably one that wouldn't leave him look like a loser on the grandest stage of all. Do you see what I mean? (not sure Im being entirely coherent myself)

He is a stupid orange cunt.

Not the first time trump has had issues with the law. The sheer number f law suits brought against him is staggering.

Naturally, innocent until proven guilty and I hope the complainant is prepared for the storm heading her way. I predict it will get nasty.

I wonder if the Republicans are considering the nuclear option and dropping trump for someone, anyone, else?

morepork wrote:He is a stupid orange cunt.

Couldn't agree more. This is the most erudite post this board has ever seen. Debate over, move on.

BBD wrote:thanks Rowan

I think Moores point about his ego is a compelling one, without knowing the man personally of course, its interesting to consider it in the light of his bombastic approach in his business life. Im not sure I follow his logic entirely when both parts are examined

If someone has the ego to enter a race for the most powerful job in the world just to negotiate a TV deal, surely they would be astute enough to realise that an exit door would be necessary and 1) probably before now and 2) probably one that wouldn't leave him look like a loser on the grandest stage of all. Do you see what I mean? (not sure Im being entirely coherent myself)

I just don't believe in the American politicial system any more. 300 million people and they're giving us family dynasties? That doesn't sound like democracy to me. Two major parties with no one else in sight, and those two parties both look decidedly right wing and almost identical when it comes to foreign policy. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. Bush Junior became the most despised asshole on the face of the planet with the invasion of Iraq, so they replaced him with a black man who came pretty much out of nowhere and made a whole bunch of promises, and so they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected while black, the LA Times reported that European women were running up to Americans in the street again and kissing them (the slaughter in Iraq presumably forgotten), and everyone was supposed to love America again. But Obama has proceeded to break all his promises and make a mockery of the Peace Prize by bombing even more people than his predecessor, so the President Factory Think Tank comes up with a new strategy and decides to go after the 'feminist' vote by wheeling out Hillary Clinton and creating Trump to divert attention from her previous war crimes, sycophancy and pathological lying. She will pursue the same warmongering policies in accordance with instructions from her masters on Wall Street (and wherever else the billionaires hang out), and perhaps start WWIII while she's at it, while Saudi and Israel will be doing the Happy Dance, assured in the knowledge that plenty more bombs are on the way for the dropping on civilians in impoversished Yemen & Palestine. Just how far back this presidential puppet parade has being going on, I'm not sure. Reagan was so senile he thought the US was under threat from Grenada, so bombed the tiny island just to be sure. Perhaps it goes back as far as Kennedy, to the point he was taken out for refusing to obey orders.

BBD wrote:thanks Rowan

I think Moores point about his ego is a compelling one, without knowing the man personally of course, its interesting to consider it in the light of his bombastic approach in his business life. Im not sure I follow his logic entirely when both parts are examined

If someone has the ego to enter a race for the most powerful job in the world just to negotiate a TV deal, surely they would be astute enough to realise that an exit door would be necessary and 1) probably before now and 2) probably one that wouldn't leave him look like a loser on the grandest stage of all. Do you see what I mean? (not sure Im being entirely coherent myself)

He doesn't need an exit strategy, it is fine to lose the election so long as he wins the vote of those he is targeting. He and his son, along with the ex chief of Fox News and a Brietbart news executive, have already held meetings on setting up their own news network. Imagine a network more right wing than Fox News, that is the viewership who Trump is trying to lock in. Sean Hannity has basically already signed up.

Its why he is going on about the election being rigged (another example of a stopped clock actually being right twice a day), the media going easy on Hillary, why he continues to fight the establishment. The guy is a tool and a egomaniac, but he is not stupid. He knows what he needs to do if he genuinely wanted to make this election a contest. But he doesn't, he wants to draw as many Fox-news viewers to his side, to feel like even the loony Republicans are against them, and then when he loses its because the establishment didn't give him a fair chance and he'll have an army of idiots to buy anything he sells them.

BBD wrote:Do you think Trump is complicit in the charade or does he think its real?

Those rhetorical questions,....what is all that shit about.

You give me more credit than I deserve, I was genuinely curious about the possibilities
Admittedly asking questions round here with genuine intent to receive an answer is a rarity so your confusion is understandable

He will sell more books, open another university, and leverage political favours for the rest of his life off this. He and his band of sweaty pig ignorant angry uneducated crackers will exist in their own personal Disneyland. There is no fucking way even he could ever believe that his reality TV credentials and an epic comb over were an appropriate substitute for a serious tilt at competency in the high office.

Sandydragon wrote:Not the first time trump has had issues with the law. The sheer number f law suits brought against him is staggering.

Naturally, innocent until proven guilty and I hope the complainant is prepared for the storm heading her way. I predict it will get nasty.

I wonder if the Republicans are considering the nuclear option and dropping trump for someone, anyone, else?

America is a very litigious place. I'd be surprised if anyone in business for as long as him hadn't racked up a huge number of law suits.

This though is different. i know nothing about thedetails. Is it a civil suit or criminal suit?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Not the first time trump has had issues with the law. The sheer number f law suits brought against him is staggering.

Naturally, innocent until proven guilty and I hope the complainant is prepared for the storm heading her way. I predict it will get nasty.

I wonder if the Republicans are considering the nuclear option and dropping trump for someone, anyone, else?

America is a very litigious place. I'd be surprised if anyone in business for as long as him hadn't racked up a huge number of law suits.

This though is different. i know nothing about thedetails. Is it a civil suit or criminal suit?

Civil. The claim was first filed in California but dismissed over filing errors, and was then later lodged in New York which is the case we're hearing about now.

The claim is being filed a decent ways beyond the statute being up, but the complainant is citing she was incapable of making an earlier filing owing to fears that Trump and Epstein had threatened her and her family should she ever discuss details.

morepork wrote:7rCchZ1Zikz_z5mjauUR_FtHVQ4dkyFKTDpfKWTTBJ0.jpg

You look different to what I expected.

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:7rCchZ1Zikz_z5mjauUR_FtHVQ4dkyFKTDpfKWTTBJ0.jpg

You look different to what I expected.

I haven't got any lippy on.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Not the first time trump has had issues with the law. The sheer number f law suits brought against him is staggering.

Naturally, innocent until proven guilty and I hope the complainant is prepared for the storm heading her way. I predict it will get nasty.

I wonder if the Republicans are considering the nuclear option and dropping trump for someone, anyone, else?

America is a very litigious place. I'd be surprised if anyone in business for as long as him hadn't racked up a huge number of law suits.

This though is different. i know nothing about thedetails. Is it a civil suit or criminal suit?

Over a thousand according to some sources? Even for the US, that is going some!

The more I read of Trump university the worse it appears.

Digby wrote: I'd say also the media need to report sensibly on this.

Nah. Where's the fun in that..?. He's made his bed....I say we should have a proper old school witch hunt with pitchforks and torches.
I'm not usually the sort of person who would join a mob but I guess I could do it once for research purposes.....and, you know, ironically.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... norm-lubow

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloo ... 19944.html

The Guardian article is a bit concerning. It might explain why much of the main stream media is giving this story a widish berth and why the Democrats aren't making political capital out of it.

Time will tell I suppose.

Sandydragon wrote:The Guardian article is a bit concerning. It might explain why much of the main stream media is giving this story a widish berth and why the Democrats aren't making political capital out of it.

Time will tell I suppose.

The Guardian where the ones who initially broke the story in the UK. Once they realized they'd been had they needed to do some serious backpeddaling.
Even so,.....being mates with Epstein clearly isn't a good idea.