Writer claims Trump raped her

[metis]

Yes, Trump's sex life has not always been proper, but so far as I know, there has never been any proof that he has ever forced himself on, or physically roughed up a woman.

17 different women have claimed that they were sexually assaulted by Trump, and Trump said he would sue most of them after the election but he didn't, so I wonder why he lied on this as well? Why would you believe what even some Republicans have called a "pathological liar" over them?

He's averaging around 10 lies or distortions per day according to the WaPo and the Toronto Star that have been keeping track of this. Why would an honest person excuse him on that, plus numerous other things?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha...that was a major fail, my mind not quite on the job. Re Wikipedia, fwiw I take an interest in Climate Change and found Wiki was so biased for AGW that it was worthless as a source.....Uncovered: Wikipedia’s Leftist Ties and Its Censorship of the Facts. https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/uncovered-wikipedias-leftist-ties-and-its-censorship-of-the-facts

But pleeese, do not go off topic on climate change, I know it's another lefty favorite.

LOL! If anyone went off topic you did.

But since you brought up a far right group will call any centrist "left wing".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ahh, the old “it’s fake news so it doesn’t count because I disagree with it” excuse.

A quick search proves you’ve used it in the past:

Side note, the best way to use Wikipedia is to review the references. If there are several reputable ones, as in my link there was, then it’s a good starting point for review. The bottom line here is that you completely believe that Trump is a paragon of truth, fidelity and integrity. Even recent history has proved Trump is none of those things much less over 20 years ago.

Thing is, I don't believe nor did I indicate that Trump is a paragon of truth, fidelity and integrity, only that I believe in the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, mere claims in a book do not cut it for me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I have repeatedly stated, I do not know what actually happened, so I am not the one jumping to conclusions. Two of her friends have publicly stated that she told them what happened right after the supposed incident, so at least she has this going for her.

Also, if you're using her supposed mental state against her, why aren't you using Trump's mental state against him? Double-standard much?

I'm not using her mental state against her, I suspect though her apparent weird behavior is due to the fact that she is being sometimes ambiguous so as to mitigate any legal repercussions if her allegations are shown in time to be false,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it's an actual science "favorite". But it seems that you think that right-wing politicians know so much more about climate science than those who actually do the research.

There are many climate who think agw is a hoax, the ones that do not are mostly lefties, they want to think the world is doomed without mitigation action against climate change,that's what I mean by favorite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many climate who think agw is a hoax, the ones that do not are mostly lefties, they want to think the world is doomed without mitigation action against climate change,that's what I mean by favorite.

No, there really are not. You can always find a a few, but "many" would mean a significant percentage and that is not the case. The problem is that many deniers do not understand the claims of those worried about climate change.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

17 different women have claimed that they were sexually assaulted by Trump, and Trump said he would sue most of them after the election but he didn't, so I wonder why he lied on this as well? Why would you believe what even some Republicans have called a "pathological liar" over them?

He's averaging around 10 lies or distortions per day according to the WaPo and the Toronto Star that have been keeping track of this. Why would an honest person excuse him on that, plus numerous other things?

It is not only women who claim false things about DJT, look at the FBI, CIA, DOJ, SD, DNI, and the MSM media, they all were involved with the idea he colluded with Russia, he has not brought them to justice either....yet. But the wheels are turning, albeit slowly, and before long those responsible will wish they had not lied about him.
Lefty Wapo hates DJT and is a part of the swamp that DJT is draining, so it follows they publish a lot of fake news about him, it is not a credible source in this regard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not only women who claim false things about DJT, look at the FBI, CIA, DOJ, SD, DNI, and the MSM media, they all were involved with the idea he colluded with Russia, he has not brought them to justice either....yet. But the wheels are turning, albeit slowly, and before long those responsible will wish they had not lied about him.
Lefty Wapo hates DJT and is a part of the swamp that DJT is draining, so it follows they publish a lot of fake news about him, it is not a credible source in this regard.

Trump's own claims and actions led to those investigations. Please note that they did not say they found that he did not. They found that there was not enough evidence to support the idea. You do know the difference between not being proved guilty and being proved innocent, at least I hope you do.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL! If anyone went off topic you did.

But since you brought up a far right group will call any centrist "left wing".

True, and the far left see anyone to the right of them as right. But I think there are more far left in the present elected officials of Dem party than are far right in the GOP.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, there really are not. You can always find a a few, but "many" would mean a significant percentage and that is not the case. The problem is that many deniers do not understand the claims of those worried about climate change.

I thought we had agreed not to go off topic on this subject, I had to do so this once in reply to Metis, but he is always triggered with the mention of AGW alarmism. So I will quickly respond, it is correct that non AGW scientists are in a minority, but there is a very good reason, they have to raise there own research funds, the IPCC Climate Change reseach funds only go to those who are pro-AGW, whereas AGW science researchers just dip into the huge IPCC allocated funds to be sponsored. I don't blame them, there is no money in unbiased climate science. Now I trust that is the last word for now on AGW.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Trump's own claims and actions led to those investigations. Please note that they did not say they found that he did not. They found that there was not enough evidence to support the idea. You do know the difference between not being proved guilty and being proved innocent, at least I hope you do.

You are of the opinion that Trump's own claims and actions led to those investigations, I don't agree but in any event, the investigations are ongoing, except now the investigation is into the investigators of DJT wrt Russia collusion. The higher echelons of the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNI, etc. are under investigation and I am of the opinion there will be many casualties. Isn't this also off topic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, and the far left see anyone to the right of them as right. But I think there are more far left in the present elected officials of Dem party than are far right in the GOP.

That can happen too. The problem is that you did use a whack right wing source. They tried to call Wikipedia "Left wing" when they are rather neutral politically. And yes, the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans. But one cannot simply call every piece of news that disagrees with oneself "fake news".

By the way here is an article that explains how there was evidence of Trump's collusion, but it was not strong evidence. It was good enough for "Probably cause" which can and did end up in an investigation, and it did uncover other areas where Trump broke the law:

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are of the opinion that Trump's own claims and actions led to those investigations, I don't agree but in any event, the investigations are ongoing, except now the investigation is into the investigators of DJT wrt Russia collusion. The higher echelons of the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNI, etc. are under investigation and I am of the opinion there will be many casualties. Isn't this also off topic?

Read the article I just posted. It explains what he did that led to investigation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That can happen too. The problem is that you did use a whack right wing source. They tried to call Wikipedia "Left wing" when they are rather neutral politically. And yes, the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans. But one cannot simply call every piece of news that disagrees with oneself "fake news".

By the way here is an article that explains how there was evidence of Trump's collusion, but it was not strong evidence. It was good enough for "Probably cause" which can and did end up in an investigation, and it did uncover other areas where Trump broke the law:

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion

No way, we will have to agree to disagree on Wikipedia, all my sources that claim a left wing bias could be said to come from right of the left wing sources which say it is unbiased.

That vox article is a year old and out of date wrt the present status of the ongoing investigation by AG Barr and his DOJ team, and it is a fine example of fake news that was meant to support the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that started in 2016. We shall be hearing more on the current status in the very near future that will implicate those that were active or complicit in creating and pushing Trump-Russia collusion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read the article I just posted. It explains what he did that led to investigation.

The article is wrong, what led to the investigation is being investigated as we speak by AG Barr's DOJ team, as empowered by POTUS.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No way, we will have to agree to disagree on Wikipedia, all my sources that claim a left wing bias could be said to come from right of the left wing sources which say it is unbiased.

That vox article is a year old and out of date wrt the present status of the ongoing investigation by AG Barr and his DOJ team, and it is a fine example of fake news that was meant to support the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that started in 2016. We shall be hearing more on the current status in the very near future that will implicate those that were active or complicit in creating and pushing Trump-Russia collusion.

The only sources I have seen you use are very right wing. Perhaps you do not know how to rate news sources. This may help:

Try using some of those in the middle and see what they say about Wikipedia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article is wrong, what led to the investigation is being investigated as we speak by AG Barr's DOJ team, as empowered by POTUS.

And your evidence for that is . . .?

 

[Watchmen]

The only sources I have seen you use are very right wing. Perhaps you do not know how to rate news sources. This may help:

Try using some of those in the middle and see what they say about Wikipedia.

The chart itself is a joke. It suggests CNN and MSNBC are less partisan than Fox.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The chart itself is a joke. It suggests CNN and MSNBC are less partisan than Fox.

The reason FOX is further to the right than MSNBC is due to the amount of commentary. Please note it is the entire network that is being judged, not just its news or its commentary. CNN's news is very centrist and it's commentary is slightly left wing. I don't watch much MSNBC so I can't say much about their news, but their commentary is definitely left wing. FOX News is not that far right, but it has far more commentary and that is very right wing. In fact you can find YouTube videos of Shepard Smith correcting Hannity. Or Hannity's claims at least.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The only sources I have seen you use are very right wing. Perhaps you do not know how to rate news sources. This may help:

Try using some of those in the middle and see what they say about Wikipedia.

The last thing I would do is use a biased media bias chart to tell me which msm is not biased, I have an intuitive faculty that works just fine, but thank you anyway. Time, NPR, Politico, BBC, AP, The Guardian, CNN, etc., are all lefty Trump hating fake news sources.