Donald Trump

bompington

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

john80 wrote:

Why go to the effort of quoting me to then remove a number of sentences from the quote.

... I am fundamentally a bit sneaky and thought my best way out was to claim a higher intelligence when queried.

I joined in with the intelligence slur merely to demonstrate that I might not be as smart as I have self declared to be.

FTFBOY (Fixed that for both of you)

So I gave you the opportunity to show that you're not actually a full-blown rape apologist. You respond with a second-rate playground insult that has no evidential basis whatsoever, implying that you are incredibly smart and your "enemies" aren't.

Remind you of anyone?

john80

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

john80 wrote:

Why go to the effort of quoting me to then remove a number of sentences from the quote.

... I am fundamentally a bit sneaky and thought my best way out was to claim a higher intelligence when queried.

I joined in with the intelligence slur merely to demonstrate that I might not be as smart as I have self declared to be.

FTFBOY (Fixed that for both of you)

So I gave you the opportunity to show that you're not actually a full-blown rape apologist. You respond with a second-rate playground insult that has no evidential basis whatsoever, implying that you are incredibly smart and your "enemies" aren't.

Remind you of anyone?

I am now questioning whether you have amnesia. Remember your red coloured fake quote at my expense. You seem to be able to dole it out but not take it. In short you do remind me of Trump.

bompington

You misunderstand me, as usual. I am not engaged in a keyboard warrior d1ck-swinging contest here, I am asking you to justify a post that really, really read like something a rape apologist would say.
In my opinion, and I think a lot of people would agree, my "fake quote" summed up the spirit of your post quite well.

Perhaps you need to have a better try at responding, because your last effort certainly just dug the hole deeper. Absolutely textbook victim blaming.

briantrumpet

bompington wrote:

You misunderstand me, as usual. I am not engaged in a keyboard warrior d1ck-swinging contest here, I am asking you to justify a post that really, really read like something a rape apologist would say.
In my opinion, and I think a lot of people would agree, my "fake quote" summed up the spirit of your post quite well.

Perhaps you need to have a better try at responding, because your last effort certainly just dug the hole deeper. Absolutely textbook victim blaming.

I think his long-winded but clear response (to one of my questions) of "Well, maybe she brought it on herself" (my précis) tells one enough.

tangled_metal

I took his post as saying that those assigned as the victim of a crime such as rape gets treated the v same as the person being tried as committing the crime. I thought that didn't happen. Decades ago they changed procedures to look after the victims. They can still get questioned but it's done sympathetically if the defendant has counsel. Rules and procedures. The defendant can be more rigorously questioned if he / she takes the stand.

You can't treat victim and defendant the same. I doubt that's he case in any trial but I really don't know anything about courts so could be wrong here. Even if I'm wrong I don't understand the guy in his attitude towards rape crimes. It's wrong headed if he's meaning what he types IMHO.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

Here John80, here's some more victims you can blame:

Do you think you could have made that point with out crassly posting a picture of a drowned father and daughter?

Gravity Aided

I think it sad that this person's behavior toward women and minorities and immigrants and everybody else that is not exactly like him was covered up in the American electoral process with the help of many, many domestic and foreign sources. To what end? Republicans and American Evangelicals will do anything for power, and ignore any sins committed in the getting of it.

pinno

Gravity Aided wrote:

I think it sad that this person's behavior toward women and minorities and immigrants and everybody else that is not exactly like him was covered up in the American electoral process with the help of many, many domestic and foreign sources. To what end? Republicans and American Evangelicals will do anything for power, and ignore any sins committed in the getting of it.

If you consider that (bar Obama), the bible bashers are almost always responsible for returning every US president and have therefore, shaped US foreign policy over the years, they have wielded a hell of a lot of power and are responsible for many events historically.

john80

Tangled Metal wrote:

I took his post as saying that those assigned as the victim of a crime such as rape gets treated the v same as the person being tried as committing the crime. I thought that didn't happen. Decades ago they changed procedures to look after the victims. They can still get questioned but it's done sympathetically if the defendant has counsel. Rules and procedures. The defendant can be more rigorously questioned if he / she takes the stand.

You can't treat victim and defendant the same. I doubt that's he case in any trial but I really don't know anything about courts so could be wrong here. Even if I'm wrong I don't understand the guy in his attitude towards rape crimes. It's wrong headed if he's meaning what he types IMHO.

In this case none of this has happened. We have one party claiming she was raped some three decades ago. We have another party saying that he has never even met her. In this case Trump has demonstrated that he is happy to lie about even the most mundane of things to the point that if he said it was raining you would go outside and check. We have very little if any background on the victim in this case. We have created a linch mob mentality where victims are subject to little or no scrutiny and defendants are essentially guilty by media. Apologies if this seems a bit harsh but human nature is to show empathy to people claiming hardship however without scrutiny this is a very dangerous path that leads to miscarriages of justice. The point still stands that she would have significantly more credibility if she reported the crime at the time.

robert88

john80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I took his post as saying that those assigned as the victim of a crime such as rape gets treated the v same as the person being tried as committing the crime. I thought that didn't happen. Decades ago they changed procedures to look after the victims. They can still get questioned but it's done sympathetically if the defendant has counsel. Rules and procedures. The defendant can be more rigorously questioned if he / she takes the stand.

You can't treat victim and defendant the same. I doubt that's he case in any trial but I really don't know anything about courts so could be wrong here. Even if I'm wrong I don't understand the guy in his attitude towards rape crimes. It's wrong headed if he's meaning what he types IMHO.

In this case none of this has happened. We have one party claiming she was raped some three decades ago. We have another party saying that he has never even met her. In this case Trump has demonstrated that he is happy to lie about even the most mundane of things to the point that if he said it was raining you would go outside and check. We have very little if any background on the victim in this case. We have created a linch mob mentality where victims are subject to little or no scrutiny and defendants are essentially guilty by media. Apologies if this seems a bit harsh but human nature is to show empathy to people claiming hardship however without scrutiny this is a very dangerous path that leads to miscarriages of justice. The point still stands that she would have significantly more credibility if she reported the crime at the time.

I guess you'd like to see Jimmy Savile given rehabilitation?

orraloon

"Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. He raised an estimated £40 million for charities and, during his lifetime, was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to conclude that Savile had been a predatory sex offender—possibly one of Britain's most prolific. There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers."

The intro para on Wikipedia. No similarities to der Drumpf at all there then.

john80

Robert88 wrote:

john80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I took his post as saying that those assigned as the victim of a crime such as rape gets treated the v same as the person being tried as committing the crime. I thought that didn't happen. Decades ago they changed procedures to look after the victims. They can still get questioned but it's done sympathetically if the defendant has counsel. Rules and procedures. The defendant can be more rigorously questioned if he / she takes the stand.

You can't treat victim and defendant the same. I doubt that's he case in any trial but I really don't know anything about courts so could be wrong here. Even if I'm wrong I don't understand the guy in his attitude towards rape crimes. It's wrong headed if he's meaning what he types IMHO.

In this case none of this has happened. We have one party claiming she was raped some three decades ago. We have another party saying that he has never even met her. In this case Trump has demonstrated that he is happy to lie about even the most mundane of things to the point that if he said it was raining you would go outside and check. We have very little if any background on the victim in this case. We have created a linch mob mentality where victims are subject to little or no scrutiny and defendants are essentially guilty by media. Apologies if this seems a bit harsh but human nature is to show empathy to people claiming hardship however without scrutiny this is a very dangerous path that leads to miscarriages of justice. The point still stands that she would have significantly more credibility if she reported the crime at the time.

I guess you'd like to see Jimmy Savile given rehabilitation?

I would rather have seen him put in jail when he was alive using the criminal justice system. I am guessing that you would rather see Tucker Carlson, Keanu Reeves, Brian Banks and any number of others accused by the media and regard their court wins to clear their names as just the price we have to pay for the new age of trial by media. Maybe we should go and raid Cliff Richards house again.

step83

Meanwhile, back on topic Trump claimed a live broadcast of a political debate to be fake news. Also claimed he inherited the policy of separating children from their parents at the Mexican border (despite it being confirmed otherwise).
Lastly he also plans to veto an aid package to improve the conditions for the migrants and their children because he doesn't like it.

Would it be too extreme to start drawing comparisons between what is going on now and an era of communist Russia?

robert88

Step83 wrote:

Meanwhile, back on topic Trump claimed a live broadcast of a political debate to be fake news. Also claimed he inherited the policy of separating children from their parents at the Mexican border (despite it being confirmed otherwise).
Lastly he also plans to veto an aid package to improve the conditions for the migrants and their children because he doesn't like it.

Would it be too extreme to start drawing comparisons between what is going on now and an era of communist Russia?

I think you could draw comparisons with all sorts of things that ended badly. We are seeing human nature taken back to basics despite all the support Trump gets from so-called Christian denominations.

mroli

john80 wrote:

I would rather have seen him put in jail when he was alive using the criminal justice system. I am guessing that you would rather see Tucker Carlson, Keanu Reeves, Brian Banks and any number of others accused by the media and regard their court wins to clear their names as just the price we have to pay for the new age of trial by media. Maybe we should go and raid Cliff Richards house again.

heh - I was unaware of a Keanu Reeves court case until I went and looked it up... https://www.tvovermind.com/craziest-law ... nu-reeves/

pinno

It is not for us to immediately cast aspersions on the perpetrator or the victim. It's down to a court of law and due process beforehand to establish whether there is a case.
Jumping on the bandwagon of accusations of rape denial or making comparisons with J Saville is utterly spurious.

That does not mean that you cannot be empathetic to a person who claims to be a victim. Only, until it is proven that anyone is a victim, then the rest is conjecture.

Are you morally superior because the immediate reaction is to sympathise with the victim when there has been no court case to prove the fact?! You are not separating your dislike for Trump from the facts and the facts have yet to be established. It's difficult to remove the emotive from the equation but until someone is proved guilty, then the emotive cannot obstruct judgment.

I'd love to see Trump impeached through a successful rape charge but it's unlikely to happen.
Do I think he is capable? Yes of course I do but again, that's opinion and my opinion has little or no value.

darkhairedlord

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

john80 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I took his post as saying that those assigned as the victim of a crime such as rape gets treated the v same as the person being tried as committing the crime. I thought that didn't happen. Decades ago they changed procedures to look after the victims. They can still get questioned but it's done sympathetically if the defendant has counsel. Rules and procedures. The defendant can be more rigorously questioned if he / she takes the stand.

You can't treat victim and defendant the same. I doubt that's he case in any trial but I really don't know anything about courts so could be wrong here. Even if I'm wrong I don't understand the guy in his attitude towards rape crimes. It's wrong headed if he's meaning what he types IMHO.

In this case none of this has happened. We have one party claiming she was raped some three decades ago. We have another party saying that he has never even met her. In this case Trump has demonstrated that he is happy to lie about even the most mundane of things to the point that if he said it was raining you would go outside and check. We have very little if any background on the victim in this case. We have created a linch mob mentality where victims are subject to little or no scrutiny and defendants are essentially guilty by media. Apologies if this seems a bit harsh but human nature is to show empathy to people claiming hardship however without scrutiny this is a very dangerous path that leads to miscarriages of justice. The point still stands that she would have significantly more credibility if she reported the crime at the time.

I guess you'd like to see Jimmy Savile given rehabilitation?

I would rather have seen him put in jail when he was alive using the criminal justice system. I am guessing that you would rather see Tucker Carlson, Keanu Reeves, Brian Banks and any number of others accused by the media and regard their court wins to clear their names as just the price we have to pay for the new age of trial by media. Maybe we should go and raid Cliff Richards house again.

Kitty?

robert88

Pinno wrote:

It is not for us to immediately cast aspersions on the perpetrator or the victim. It's down to a court of law and due process beforehand to establish whether there is a case.
Jumping on the bandwagon of accusations of rape denial or making comparisons with J Saville is utterly spurious.

That does not mean that you cannot be empathetic to a person who claims to be a victim. Only, until it is proven that anyone is a victim, then the rest is conjecture.

Are you morally superior because the immediate reaction is to sympathise with the victim when there has been no court case to prove the fact?! You are not separating your dislike for Trump from the facts and the facts have yet to be established. It's difficult to remove the emotive from the equation but until someone is proved guilty, then the emotive cannot obstruct judgment.

I'd love to see Trump impeached through a successful rape charge but it's unlikely to happen.
Do I think he is capable? Yes of course I do but again, that's opinion and my opinion has little or no value.

Assuming Orraloon was being sarcastic, at least he understood my point. It was to answer john80's idea that because the victim did not report it at the time it therefore didn't happen or didn't matter. Of course there are rape accusations that are no more than blackmail, revenge or attention seeking but that shouldn't stop reasonable cases going forward.

As we know, Savile's victims didn't report his behaviour either at the time for reasons that are not difficult to understand.

My dislike of Trump extends to wishing to see him put on trial just the same as you. Just the same as you, I doubt if he will be.

pinno

Robert88 wrote:

It was to answer john80's idea that because the victim did not report it at the time it therefore didn't happen or didn't matter.

I understand.

orraloon

Sarcastic? Moi?

robert88

A big hat for Scotland:


Donald Trump golf course dunes to lose protected status

Trump International Golf Links Scotland's executive vice-president, Sarah Malone, told the national broadcaster: "This is an utter disgrace and shows SNH has hit an all-time low. To make an announcement to the media before informing us, the actual landowner, shows how politically-motivated this decision is. What other SSSI landowner is singled out in this way.

Shame they let the A-hole into the country in the first place and once he was there they should have ensured he never left.

step83

Trump is Terra Forming Scotland slowly to convert it into a golf course. Save us all!

john80

Robert88 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

It is not for us to immediately cast aspersions on the perpetrator or the victim. It's down to a court of law and due process beforehand to establish whether there is a case.
Jumping on the bandwagon of accusations of rape denial or making comparisons with J Saville is utterly spurious.

That does not mean that you cannot be empathetic to a person who claims to be a victim. Only, until it is proven that anyone is a victim, then the rest is conjecture.

Are you morally superior because the immediate reaction is to sympathise with the victim when there has been no court case to prove the fact?! You are not separating your dislike for Trump from the facts and the facts have yet to be established. It's difficult to remove the emotive from the equation but until someone is proved guilty, then the emotive cannot obstruct judgment.

I'd love to see Trump impeached through a successful rape charge but it's unlikely to happen.
Do I think he is capable? Yes of course I do but again, that's opinion and my opinion has little or no value.

Assuming Orraloon was being sarcastic, at least he understood my point. It was to answer john80's idea that because the victim did not report it at the time it therefore didn't happen or didn't matter. Of course there are rape accusations that are no more than blackmail, revenge or attention seeking but that shouldn't stop reasonable cases going forward.

As we know, Savile's victims didn't report his behaviour either at the time for reasons that are not difficult to understand.

My dislike of Trump extends to wishing to see him put on trial just the same as you. Just the same as you, I doubt if he will be.

I think he will be on trial for a nimber of things post presidential protection and added to this he might not have the readies to get him out of it. Usa has a habit of al caponing people.

bianchimoon

Pinno wrote:

.

I'd love to see Trump impeached through a successful rape charge but it's unlikely to happen.
Do I think he is capable? Yes of course I do but again, that's opinion and my opinion has little or no value.

Unfortunately it will never happen, Supreme Court has never, and probably never will address whether a sitting president can be arrested, so there will never be a successful rape charge to to give Congress the opportunity to impeach. In the past he’s just paid, or had a third party pay people off to avoid going to court.

Lagrange

...am I the only one who noticed the stupid haircut contest this morning in the DMZ?

And please note that I pronounced it DM Zed!

mfin

Everyone knows that photo opportunity meeting was just to make headlines. It's just a load of sh1t. Trump only cares about headlines. Oh, that's a lie, he cares about being anti-immigration and never making stance against any form of prejudice about colour.

Lagrange

I think that is what they all do but I do defer to the context of this thread - Donald Trump.

step83

mfin wrote:

Everyone knows that photo opportunity meeting was just to make headlines. It's just a load of sh1t. Trump only cares about headlines. Oh, that's a lie, he cares about being anti-immigration and never making stance against any form of prejudice about colour.

Maybe he's there for tips on anti immigration?

bompington

mfin wrote:

Everyone knows that photo opportunity meeting was just to make headlines. It's just a load of sh1t. Trump only cares about headlines. Oh, that's a lie, he cares about being anti-immigration and never making stance against any form of prejudice about colour.

I'm not even sure that he really cares about that - his policies over the years have changed in all kinds of directions, and the only colour prejudice he has is pro-orange: it's all about him.

darkhairedlord

The 4th July celebrations will involve the "brand new" Sherman tank and the "brand new" Abrams tank. Idiot.