Writer claims Trump raped her

[ecco]

He is referred to as a climate researcher and heads the National Centre for Climate Restoration, but I can't see any science credentials.

That's something you should have found before you linked to their article.

One wonders why the msm gave this paper such broad coverage, including New Scientist,

What msm coverage? New Scientist? Really?

and why climate scientists, apart from the skeptics, have not come out to rubbish it for its nonsense.

Probably because they recognized it as rubbish and didn't even bother.

Do you see evolutionary biologists countering every article from fringe groups?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no idea why your personal enjoyment shopping at Bloomdale's and not wanting to be raped there is somehow pertinent?

You should probably read your post that I was responding to then.

You were trying to make some connection about her having written about Bergdoff's at some point in the past and implying that because that is the case, her story about Trump raping her is a fabrication.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We've been there, there is a link somewhere in the thread showing Ivana saying she and Donald are good friends and that there is so much disinformation out there that is not true.

It's in her book.

None of the other wives have said he was abusive sfaik.

I don't know about that. But what I do know is that somewhere around TWENTY women have now declared that Trump sexually assaulted them in some way. I also know that Trump himself is on tape talking about how he sexually assaults women, and that he just can't help it. You keep overlooking those very important pieces of information. I have to wonder why.

It's like the Bill Cosby thing. How many women have to come out before they will finally be believed? I mean, it's ludicrous at this point how people can just turn the other way because they don't want to see things they don't want to see.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Talking living in an alternate reality, the AG Barr investigation is going to make history when it is finished. Let us be patient now and wait for the result, in a couple of months. The DOJ IG report comes first, probably in August.

What I said is reality. Watch the hearing. He said it.

What you are saying is wishful thinking.
I wouldn't get too excited, Trump's previous investigations (e.g. mass illegal voting) haven't ever panned out in his favour.

You need to read the Mueller Report as well, by the sound of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Pride is not the term I would use, satisfaction is what I feel.

Why?

 

[Wandering Monk]

It's in her book.


I don't know about that. But what I do know is that somewhere around TWENTY women have now declared that Trump sexually assaulted them in some way. I also know that Trump himself is on tape talking about how he sexually assaults women, and that he just can't help it. You keep overlooking those very important pieces of information. I have to wonder why.

It's like the Bill Cosby thing. How many women have to come out before they will finally be believed? I mean, it's ludicrous at this point how people can just turn the other way because they don't want to see things they don't want to see.

Guilt or innocence is a legal matter. So, should we remove people based on allegations alone, without the 'trouble' of a court trial?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Innocent until proven guilty. Sue for defamation of character.



See the above.



No investigation, no police report, no charges, no evidence. Innocent until proven guilty. No one is under the obligation to disprove claims that have zero evidence.

Answer questions from whom? The media? hahaha

Thanks for not addressing my point, I guess.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wrong. Barr used the definition of spying properly. Look it up. Dems just didn't like the word due to the implication as it is seen as nefarious. Surveillance is spying.

He provided zero evidence, when asked for some. That was my point. I'm right. Watch the hearing.

 

[Shad]

He provided zero evidence, when asked for some. That was my point. I'm right. Watch the hearing.

Innocent until proven guilty. He does not need to provide evidence against a claim that has zero evidence.

You robbed me. Now provide evidence you didn't. Have fun.

 

[Shad]

Thanks for not addressing my point, I guess.

I did address your points. All are baseless showing a deep ignorance of the legal system and your bias. He can sue for defamation. Try again.

 

[Shad]

He provided zero evidence, when asked for some. That was my point. I'm right. Watch the hearing.

The surveillance by definition is spying. Buy a thesaurus

 

[Subduction Zone]

The surveillance by definition is spying. Buy a thesaurus

That is an equivocation fallacy. Those who claim of "spying on Trump" are speaking of illegal surveillance, otherwise there would be no need of an investigation. The surveillance of Trump during his campaign appears to be perfectly legal and due to his own actions. Do you remember how shocked he was when he was told that if given information by someone from another country on an opponent that one was supposed to turn over that information to the FBI? Instead he openly stated his poor ethics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did address your points. All are baseless showing a deep ignorance of the legal system and your bias. He can sue for defamation. Try again.

He could try. He would lose since it is pretty obvious that no defamation has occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Innocent until proven guilty. He does not need to provide evidence against a claim that has zero evidence.

You robbed me. Now provide evidence you didn't. Have fun.

Bad analogy. To say there was "zero evidence" is an error.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Innocent until proven guilty. He does not need to provide evidence against a claim that has zero evidence.

You robbed me. Now provide evidence you didn't. Have fun.

Huh?

Barr made the claim that spying was going on. Barr could not provide any evidence backing up his claim, when asked.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did address your points. All are baseless showing a deep ignorance of the legal system and your bias. He can sue for defamation. Try again.

We aren't talking about the legal system. We are talking about what Trump said in response to an accusation against him that he raped a woman.

 

[Shad]

Huh?

Barr made the claim that spying was going on. Barr could not provide any evidence backing up his claim, when asked.

Manafort was wire tapped. That is surveillance thus spying. Dems rejected his definition, nothing more.

Why are you not proving you didn't rob me? After all you claimed you would take such action against an accusation. Yet you aren't. Interesting.

 

[Shad]

We aren't talking about the legal system. We are talking about what Trump said in response to an accusation against him that he raped a woman.

The principle of innocent until proven guilt extends beyond the legal system.He denied the claim. He does not need to go through whatever hoops you have created in your head just to satisfy you.

I have noted you do not hold to such a principle unless forced to by others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Manafort was wire tapped. That is surveillance thus spying. Dems rejected his definition, nothing more.

Why are you not proving you didn't rob me? After all you claimed you would take such action against an accusation. Yet you aren't. Interesting.

Once again one needs to be consistent in one's usage. That is a rather poor usage of the term "spying" since spying is generally illegal where surveillance is usually legal.

Why not focus on the supposed illegal activities against Trump? Is it because there were not any?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The principle of innocent until proven guilt extends beyond the legal system.He denied the claim. He does not need to go through whatever hoops you have created in your head just to satisfy you.

I have noted you do not hold to such a principle unless forced to by others.

We're talking about his COMMENTS on the subject. Please try to follow along. Comments that certainly don't make him look innocent.

Let me ask you, if someone accused you of rape, would your first response be "she's not my type" and do you think that is a good answer?