Is the Hollywood sex scandal how they will bring Trump down?

originally posted by: Spacespider
Antifa propaganda... All of it
Trump is a good president.
Majority of those against Trump do not even know why they are against him when it comes down to facts.
They live by evil rumors and make believe.

The irony is this statement is thick.

Antifa propaganda? Yup, majority of those against Antifa do not even know why they are against it when it comes to down to facts.
They live by evil rumors and make believe.

originally posted by: Plotus
Stock market suggestion ....... Buy stock in Depends.

Haha...that induced a chuckle.

As for "Depend" adult diapers versus "Depends," now your starting in on the Mandela Effect.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: UnBreakable


do you know the difference between consensual sex and harassment?

Yes I do. Kathleen Willy, Gennifer Flowers, etc. says it was harrassment.

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: Spacespider
Antifa propaganda... All of it
Trump is a good president.
Majority of those against Trump do not even know why they are against him when it comes down to facts.
They live by evil rumors and make believe.

This is a good example of the "Lalalala I can't hear youuuuuuuu!" defense.

Trump supporters have mastered this.

And this appears to be a typical ploy when liberal comments are exhausted of any content...... just name-call.

Spacespider has just about summed it up entirely.

I guess it's hard to swallow... for libs.

With regard for moral corruption of power , there is the biblical verse Leviticus 4 22

22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;

It says When and not like other sinners if.

a reply to: UnBreakable


and, the dna comment??

you implied no harassment if there's no dna and used the "blue dress" as an example. the example you used was consensual sex.. see my confusion?

Kathleen Willy, Gennifer Flower - did they leave dna?

originally posted by: Gemwolf
I thought we've already seen Trump involved in (almost) every possible type of sex scandal imaginable?
Let's see:
Ivana Trump - Rape.
Jill Harth - Sexual assault/molestation and sexual harassment.
Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording of supposed "locker room talk" describing acts of sexual assault.
Jessica Leeds - Sexual assault.
Kristin Anderson - Sexual assault.
Cathy Heller - Sexual assault.
Karena Virginia - Sexual assault.
Natasha Stoynoff - Sexual assault/harassment.
Jessica Drake - Sexual assault/harassment.
Summer Zervos - Sexual assault.
Allegations of pageant dressing room visits - including Miss Teen USA pageants.
Alleged rape of an unknown 13 y.o. girl (charge dropped)...
Allegations of showers in Russia...

(To name a few?)

Apparently Trump is impervious to sexual allegations - or people just don't care. But then again willful blindness seems to be quite common when it comes to Trump supporters.
Just my humble observation.

Or it's because that the left loves dirty money only until they get caught not caring and being silent about supporting perverts up until the perverts are exposed then they still remain silent until it all comes to a visible public outrage, and then and only then they begin returning a few donations and feigning outrage, but not all of them do. Plus the DNC fabricating allegations against Trump just to hedge bets on his demise even when they didn't need to because some allegations are already true about him. It's the added lies and faked allegations that ruined it for the left. This pattern of hypocrisy and double standards is the lesson that the left never learns that is causing all the apathy on the right and vice versa.

If there was something that made everyone everywhere always tell the truth no matter what it's about, that is the only cure to the world right now. And we know how people of all persuasions keep on lying so it is never going to happen.

a reply to: loam

Dude, I can't tell if this is legitimately a serious question. Trump is an avowed sexual predator, and has even bragged about it. His supporters love him for it. Why on God's green earth would you think any more allegations of rape or sexual misconduct would change their opinion of him? These folks consider his proclivities in these areas as a good thing, and the Republican's who have the power to remove him know that the majority of the base doesn't care one iota if he's still groping or raping women.

I can guarantee you that this front has less than zero chance of removing Trump.

When I posted this thread, it didn't occur to me to actually google whether there was any indication that Mueller might be chasing this line of inquiry.

Interesting from just a few days ago:

Mueller’s Team Traveled to Interview Ex-Spy Involved in Dossier

Members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team traveled to interview the former British intelligence officer who authored a dossier alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, a source close to the ex-spy tells NBC News.

Few other details were forthcoming about the interview, but Mueller's interest in Christopher Steele puts a new focus on the 35-page dossier he compiled, which includes salacious sexual allegations that then-president-elect Donald Trump denied. CNN first reported Thursday that the interview with Mueller's team and Steele took place.

Hmmm.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: UnBreakable


do you know the difference between consensual sex and harassment?

I'm not Trump supporter, but it could be argued that the President of the United States allowing a young intern to perform fellatio on the most powerful person in the world while inside the most powerful office in the world is "predatory".

Yeah, Lewnisky was an adult, but the President of the United States should understand that she would have been "starstruck" by the idea of preforming a sexual act with the President -- not necessarily with "The man" Bill Clinton, but "The President" -- i.e., a person in power using that power for sexual favors.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And it was that very act that started the impeachment process, so you can't claim any kind of equity in the comparison between Clinton and Trump, since in this case those with the power to remove him are not directly antagonistic to him (at least not yet).

a reply to: Wayfarer

If the fire ripping through entertainment media gets hot enough, there's no telling who will get burned on the edges.

Btw, your characterization of most Trump voters is ridiculous. It's so over the top, it actually helps his supporters to dismiss ANY allegation against him because of the obvious partisan vitriol.

If the left hadn't been losing their # over the last 12 months, they might have been far more successful in prosecuting some of their more legitimate claims.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


it was an awful abuse of power, no doubt! but, it was consensual and there is a difference.

I hate the implication that if there's no dna there's no harassment - that's awful!

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And it was that very act that started the impeachment process, so you can't claim any kind of equity in the comparison between Clinton and Trump, since in this case those with the power to remove him are not directly antagonistic to him (at least not yet).

Yeah -- but the impeachment wasn't over the sexual act, but rather over the fact that Clinton Perjured himself before a federal grand jury by testifying that he "never had sexual relations with that woman (Lewnisky)".

His defense to that (I think an absurd defense) was that in his mind, fellatio is not "sexual relations" because there was no intercourse, thus he did not really lie in his Grand Jury testimony. Other impeachment charges were obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

So Clinton's impeachment hearing was not about the sexual relations themselves, but allegedly lying about it to the Grand Jury and using his power to try to cover it up.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Wayfarer

Btw, your characterization of most Trump voters is ridiculous. It's so over the top, it actually helps his supporters to dismiss ANY allegation against him because of the obvious partisan vitriol.

How is it ridiculous? His support actually grew among conservatives when that little revelation was made public. Perhaps my logic is faulty but when some uglyness like that is exposed and it causes an increase in his bases support, I have to assume that's tacit approval of said uglyness.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You are of course correct. I should have specified that it was the precipitating element and not the actual piece that got him impeached.

Went searching for more:

Jimmy Kimmel

Wolf Blitzer

Stephen Colbert

Jake Tapper

Hilary Clinton

Obviously the new talk track...

originally posted by: Wayfarer
...but when some uglyness like that is exposed and it causes an increase in his bases support, I have to assume that's tacit approval of said uglyness.

Or as I have already said, when those attacks looked purely partisan, fence sitters moved in his direction.

Overreaching in politics consistently has blow-back consequences. The dossier, and it's over-the-top nature, did not have the effect its purveyors had hoped. I think it had the effect of making people discount all of the other allegations, including a willingness to view the 'grab 'em by' comment as more benign.

In any event, when you look at everything the left is trying to use to remove Trump, I'm seeing this new wave of interest in sexual misconduct as re-opening of the door to Trump's primary vulnerability.

In the context of the left AND right wing casualties on this issue, the bias assumption concerning the sexual misconduct allegations against Trump has shorter legs.

Btw, I'm not saying this new effort will be successful. But a door has been reopened on an issue that really cuts across party lines.

Frankly, it's the left's best move.

Just grab them by the "libs" then if that term works. But locker room talk. It's all good if you can force yourself on women since the defense of being so wealthy you can do anything has a precedent in court now. You can kill four people drunk driving and it's fine if you're wealthy.
Just don't donate to any "libs".

Feel better now?

originally posted by: loam
Or as I have already said, when those attacks looked purely partisan, fence sitters moved in his direction.

Hold up, are you saying that Trump saying outright (his actual words, played back from a recording) that he enjoys participating in sexual assault is a partisan attack?

Holy Moley, I can't even grasp the words to describe the pants-on-head logic that entails. I had heretofore assumed sexual assault was something folks form both sides of the political aisle could unit behind, and was dismayed by the reaction to a large majority of the conservative base vis-a-vis my previous post. I don't think you are one of the folks I've referenced, but that statement is a devilish bit of insight that seemingly proves my point. When something like sexual assault is seen as a partisan attack, I think its pretty clear where the problem lies.

Who here among us would like to defend sexual assault?