Writer claims Trump raped her

[fantome profane]

But in your mind he is already tried and convicted.

Yep. Because I am not an idiot. I can look at the evidence, at the testimony from two dozen women and draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Shad]

Oh I'm sorry, is raped supposed to be funny?

It is called dark/black humour. Heard of it?

Black comedy - Wikipedia

My claim about what?

About what he said first in response to the accusation. You confused a statement made days after his first denial with his first statement on the matter.

What fiction? You actually did not answer the question, nor did you attempt to. Are you trying to pull a Trumpian "fake news" on me here?

I answered the questions with a response you didn't like. Nothing more. I pointed out the flaws of your points.

Whenever you feel like actually addressing the point, then get back to me.

I did. You just didn't like the answers I gave. Nothing more

I have Bill Cosby derangement syndrome too then, I guess. Dozens of women also claimed that he sexually assaulted them, and just like in this case, there are a bunch of people questioning and vilifying the women while giving the guy a free pass, without ever honestly considering what the women have to say.

Cosby was convicted. Trump wasn't. See the difference? Do note you were not invited to be a member of the jury.

Plus in Trump's case, we've got him on tape talking about how he assaults women.

No he was commenting on whores and gold diggers which exists.

Then when asked he's claimed "she's not my type" or she's not attractive enough or any number of ridiculously stupid answers that make him appear guilty.

Again dark humour. He was making a point that she is not attractive for him to even note. The guy is surround by models a lot after all.

And still his followers don't believe the women. But I'm the crazy one. It's absurd.

I believe evidence. She presented zero.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well you may not approve, but the investigations are underway. in fact I understand the IG report in draft form is complete, should be released later this month or in August. Though it is the AG investigation that is looking into CIA, DNI, FBI, and SD., and the report will probably be later this year.

It is called dark/black humour. Heard of it?

Black comedy - Wikipedia

Yes, I've heard of it. That doesn't mean I think it's funny to joke about rape.

About what he said first in response to the accusation. You confused a statement made days after his first denial with his first statement on the matter.

Who cares? What a nit picky bunch of nothing.

The fact is he said it. And he has said it in the past when women have previously come out against him. Of course, he tried a bunch of other excuses as well. He tried the old "I've never met her in my life." Then a photo of the two of them together surfaced. And of course he tried his go-to claim of "fake news."

I answered the questions with a response you didn't like. Nothing more. I pointed out the flaws of your points.

Like I said, you spoke volumes.

Cosby was convicted. Trump wasn't. See the difference? Do note you were not invited to be a member of the jury.

Yeah, no kidding. There was a bunch of time before he was convicted (like 30 years or something) when all the women were coming out. Do I really have to point that out?

No he was commenting on whores and gold diggers which exists.

That's your interpretation of it.

Just yesterday on Facebook somebody told me that E. Jean Carroll is a "bimbo" who wanted it. That's his interpretation.

Gee, I wonder why #MeToo happened with all these great male opinions of whores, gold diggers and bimbos floating around.

Again dark humour. He was making a point that she is not attractive for him to even note. The guy is surround by models a lot after all.

That anybody would find that funny is pretty gross to me.

I believe evidence. She presented zero.

What evidence would you expect to see?
How about Trump talking about how he sexually assaults people?

 

[Shad]

Yes, I've heard of it. That doesn't mean I think it's funny to joke about rape.

That is why it is called black humour.

Who cares? What a nit picky bunch of nothing.

Oh so now you abandon your claim?

The fact is he said it. And he has said it in the past when women have previously come out against him. Of course, he tried a bunch of other excuses as well. He tried the old "I've never met her in my life." Then a photo of the two of them together surfaced. And of course he tried his go-to claim of "fake news."

You have already convicted him in your head based on slim claims which you can not even cross examine. Nothing more.

Like I said, you spoke volumes.

Yes. I pointed out you have no evidence nor even principles in this matter.

Yeah, no kidding. There was a bunch of time before he was convicted (like 30 years or something) when all the women were coming out. Do I really have to point that out?

Accusations without cross examination have no merit.

That's your interpretation of it.

Yes. Which is backed by hollywood and the poundMeToo movement (I did that on purpose) Whores selling themselves for roles then complaining a decade later after those roles made them rich and famous. If one is getting raped report it to the police with a reasonable time frame not 10-15 years later. The lack of action destroys any credibility they may have. Lack of action show a lack of integrity

Just yesterday on Facebook somebody told me that E. Jean Carroll is a "bimbo" who wanted it. That's his interpretation.

So?

Gee, I wonder why #MeToo happened with all these great male opinions of whores, gold diggers and bimbos floating around.

See above by 2.

That anybody would find that funny is pretty gross to me.

That is why it is called black humour.

What evidence would you expect to see?

More than a picture taken years before the event. She can not even produce a witness putting forward Trump was in the store with her.

How about Trump talking about how he sexually assaults people?

You mean whores and gold diggers throwing themselves at rich people?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep. Because I am not an idiot. I can look at the evidence, at the testimony from two dozen women and draw the obvious conclusion.

That they all lied because of the vast riches that it will bring to them? They must really be rolling in the do re mi right now.

Yet it is rather strange that only women that came into contact with Trump made these claims. Hmm, maybe I am wrong.

 

[Wandering Monk]

.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I suppose the flat earth debate is something we can look forward too.

Anything to avoid the reality that Trump is a rapist.

That reality you mention is a mental speculative one, and does not necessarily mean it is true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have made up my mind based on facts:



Curry could not support her views.





One additional consideration as I mentioned before, Curry is a lone voice with biased financial backers. Just like the "scientists" that testifies before Congress that tobacco was not addictive.

You are not correct, Dr Curry is not a lone voice, if you think otherwise, show me your evidence.

So who are Dr Curry's financial backers?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have no idea why you would link that video. It does nothing to support your argument and everything to disparage it. It clearly shows Curry talking about her opinionated ideas and Mann relating demonstrable facts.

But the most telling part is the segment where Mann is recounting information about the area around Boston. The science denying, pro Curry Congressman interrupts with a question that clearly shows his ignorance: "Do you know what the weather was like when the pilgrims landed?" This is the level of the debate - willful arrogant ignorance vs science.

I presume Mark had a good reason to ask that, but look how the Senator reacted when he was asked what percentage of global warming was attributable to humans versus that which is natural, he had not a clue how to respond because he didn't know. Dr Curry raised good points too that showed the science is not yet settled because the answer to these questions remain unknown.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ecco:
ETA: I've backlinked but cannot find any link by you that shows "wide spread msm coverage".



Seriously? You have the audacity to post a snide comment stating that my "observational skills are deficient"!
I asked, repeatedly, for the link that you asserted, repeatedly, you had posted



With my deficient observational skills, I need to remind you that we were discussing ...

• Climate
• scientific credentials
• msm coverage

​

We were not discussing TRUMP. Since we were not discussing TRUMP why did you post...

​

Since you clearly have problems following the thread of your own posts, perhaps it is you who has mental deficiencies.

But I can be patient with all kinds of people. So, I'll ask patiently again: What broad coverage did the msm give?

You are exasperating....click on the link I gave you where I say "Your observational skills are deficient, why am I even doing this. Like metis I suppose, someone has to walk the walk."

That takes you to my comment where I both give a link to the source of David Spratt being a researcher into climate change, and to ..."On msm coverage"... Click on the link that is a google search for the relevant study done by David Spratt.

Do come back to me if you have further difficulty...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The same link about trump raping someone? If you could just address the question honestly and directly, there would be no need for any "gotcha".

The links are provided, do you need instructions on how to click of them...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d said: ↑
I've replied to to the question on creation and evolution.

See, there you go again. You duck and dodge and then say "I already answered that".

No, you haven't. Just like you could not provide support for widespread msm coverage. Just like you didn't respond to the simple straightforward question about whether you disbelieve Evolution just as you disbelieve AGW.

If you don't want people asking you to support your assertions, don't make unsupportable assertions.

If you don't want to answer questions about potentially embarrassing positions, just say "I don't want to answer".

Look, most of your posts to me are asking me to respond to questions Ive already responded to, not once, not twice, sometimes three times before you get it. May I ask how old you are because there seems to be a real problem there.

OK, so click on this link and it will take you to my post where I respond to your question on evolution and creation, the relevance of which eludes me but must seem important to you.

Writer claims Trump raped her

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, I've heard of it. That doesn't mean I think it's funny to joke about rape.



Who cares? What a nit picky bunch of nothing.

The fact is he said it. And he has said it in the past when women have previously come out against him. Of course, he tried a bunch of other excuses as well. He tried the old "I've never met her in my life." Then a photo of the two of them together surfaced. And of course he tried his go-to claim of "fake news."


Like I said, you spoke volumes.


Yeah, no kidding. There was a bunch of time before he was convicted (like 30 years or something) when all the women were coming out. Do I really have to point that out?



That's your interpretation of it.

Just yesterday on Facebook somebody told me that E. Jean Carroll is a "bimbo" who wanted it. That's his interpretation.

Gee, I wonder why #MeToo happened with all these great male opinions of whores, gold diggers and bimbos floating around.


That anybody would find that funny is pretty gross to me.


What evidence would you expect to see?
How about Trump talking about how he sexually assaults people?

SkepticThinker, I think that you've botched this post up badly, most of the so called quotes of mine appear to be not mine, could you recheck and make sure if you are happy with it?

 

[Shaul]

Yep. Because I am not an idiot. I can look at the evidence, at the testimony from two dozen women and draw the obvious conclusion.

Ah, yes, the infamous Trump accusers, long debunked.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...roper-allegations-corrupt-media-donald-trump/

Twenty four times zero credibility equals zero credibility.

 

[metis]

Ah, yes, the infamous Trump accusers, long debunked.

By whom? Do you really believe that a clearly right-wing source is the "final answer" on this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is why it is called black humour.

Great. I don't think rape is funny.

Oh so now you abandon your claim?

No. I said he said it. He did say it.

You have already convicted him in your head based on slim claims which you can not even cross examine. Nothing more.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and there are 20+ people all accusing him of doing the same thing, then yeah, I'm gonna lean that why.
Do you think that's unreasonable?

And do you think his response was an intelligent one to make? Do you think it makes him appear innocent?

Yes. I pointed out you have no evidence nor even principles in this matter.

There are 20+ alleged victims, many of whom told people about what happened to them many years ago.

Accusations without cross examination have no merit.

We're not in a court room.
We're talking about the things he said in response to a question about whether or not he raped a woman.

Yes. Which is backed by hollywood and the poundMeToo movement (I did that on purpose) Whores selling themselves for roles then complaining a decade later after those roles made them rich and famous. If one is getting raped report it to the police with a reasonable time frame not 10-15 years later. The lack of action destroys any credibility they may have. Lack of action show a lack of integrity

Ah, so you're of that mindset.

As someone who was raped at 13 and didn't go to the police because I was scared, ashamed, terrified, violated, alone and hurt, I have some choice words for you about what you've said here, but I can't share them on this forum. Nice attitude you've got there.

So?

One single word, that speaks so many volumes of words.
She must be a bimbo, right? Gee, I wonder why women don't immediately come out and report it when they're sexually assaulted.

See above by 2.

Yeah! Because ... whores or something.

More than a picture taken years before the event. She can not even produce a witness putting forward Trump was in the store with her.

She has friends that she told about when it happened.

You mean whores and gold diggers throwing themselves at rich people?

Ah, there it is again. Men don't assault women. Women are just whores and gold diggers who throw themselves at men. They must be asking for it. I've heard that BS before.

You and I are done.
Have a nice day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That they all lied because of the vast riches that it will bring to them? They must really be rolling in the do re mi right now.

Yet it is rather strange that only women that came into contact with Trump made these claims. Hmm, maybe I am wrong.

Yeah, because women who come out with these stories are always rewarded so handsomely with great riches and wealth and never just dismissed as bimbos, whores and gold diggers who really wanted it. Right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

SkepticThinker, I think that you've botched this post up badly, most of the so called quotes of mine appear to be not mine, could you recheck and make sure if you are happy with it?

Yes, you are correct, I did botch that somehow.
I'm pretty sure all of the posts I was responding to were Shad's, so please disregard my error, unless of course you want to respond them!
Sorry!

 

[ecco]

You are not correct, Dr Curry is not a lone voice, if you think otherwise, show me your evidence.

Well, let's see. How would I do that? Do I need to list all the actual scientists who disagree with her?

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.





Wouldn't it be easier for you to list a dozen or so actual climatologists who agree with her?

I see you skipped this part...
ecco: Curry could not support her views.

 

[ecco]

The science denying, pro Curry Congressman interrupts with a question that clearly shows his ignorance: "Do you know what the weather was like when the pilgrims landed?" This is the level of the debate - willful arrogant ignorance vs science.

I presume Mark had a good reason to ask that,

"Mark" the Congressman? You presume? Based on what - willful arrogant ignorance?