/ Donald Trump

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Ice Doctor - on 09 Oct 2016
I am sure you are pretty bored of the joke that the presidential campaign has become by now, but if anyone else in society behaved like Trump would they have been locked up by now. Is it not a case that because is extremely wealthy he can say and do whatever he likes.

Is it not blindingly obvious to everyone that his behaviour borders on the insane?

Or am I the only person to reach that conclusion?
5
RyanOsborne - on 09 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Apparently the stuff he says is just stuff men say.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37601422

I know I say stuff like that all the time...
Post edited at 16:56
lone - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I had the World Service on last night in bed and in my sleep I could hear his ranting, I woke up to words like 'going to Jail' and 'Sexual Abuse' I couldn't believe the stuff he was coming out with, if he makes it into office we're going to be glued to what his next move will be, the News Channels will love it, 4 years of pantomime.

L

1
Trangia - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to lone:

> , if he makes it into office we're going to be glued to what his next move will be, the News Channels will love it, 4 years of pantomime.

>

Or World War 3 ?
1
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to lone:

To quote a US relative, "I feel like loading my car up with provisions, bows, arrows, guns... And heading into the forest for 10years" .

The future is grim with either option, only one is more repulsive that the other.
3
Robert Durran - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to lone:

> If he makes it into office we're going to be glued to what his next move will be, the News Channels will love it, 4 years of pantomime.

There is a theory that people are so mind numb that they can no longer differentiate democracy from reality TV freak shows like X-factor, and Strictly Come Dancing where they will vote the most grotesque acts through to the next round just for the entertainment factor.
Pete Pozman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

From what I can gather listening to and watching footage of Trump supporters, the main attraction re Trump is his absolute ignorance and gross offensiveness. They're sick of polite educated people who make a success of their lives and control the country whilst they have nothing to do but eat all day. He represents their world view: a waking nightmare where the only thing keeping you (and your family) safe is the machine gun you keep by the TV.
Trump is a freak. What I can't fathom is the cynicism and recklessness of the remaining Republicans who still promote him.
2
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Honey G is there on merit!
lone - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

That's dangerous, I did think that people may not have been taking the whole voting thing seriously enough and thinking, 'lets try and get this guy into office for a laugh' on the otherhand its a worring thought that 40+% of America thinks like he does.

L
planetmarshall on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> There is a theory that people are so mind numb that they can no longer differentiate democracy from reality TV freak shows like X-factor...

Another possibility as that there is a large degree of cynicism about the significance of the role the US President plays in determining the policies of that country. Eg, if the future of my country is determined largely by factors outside my control and institutions not answerable to the electorate, then why not elect someone purely on the basis of their entertainment value?
1
Pete Pozman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

Is Trump America's Boaty McBoatface?
1
Robert Durran - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Honey G is there on merit!

Eh?
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Trangia:


No there won't. The amount of times I hear this.
1. There won't be another world war, it would be a Nuclear War.
2. Putin supports trump, and doesn't like Hillary, Russia isn't what it used to be, and the world isn't what it used to be. Russia already expressed an alliance against radical Islam/ISIS. The western media are bias against Putin and we never get the full picture.
3. The next big conflict in history will be a series of civil wars that merge into a race war/religious war.

And why is everyone getting het up about some banter from a celebrity 10 years ago? Celebs say this stuff all the time. And some women still throw themselves at celebs for this sort of stuff.

I would be far more concerned about the back tracking and covering up Hillary and her administration have been doing.
Emails still unaccounted for. Numerous actions that would have got (and have got)lesser people locked up for treason.

Leaving Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods to die. And lying to the public and their families. Covering up evidence of a huge organised terrorist attack. The people will not forget.

Not to mention back tracking on Gay Marriage, Abortions, and lying about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
The waste of money that was her failed Health care.
And the NAFTA that destroyed American businesses and trade.
The numerous corruption her and her husband were involved in.

And not to mention the whole mess of a situation with Bill Clinton, I mean, talk about irony, everyone slagging trump for not respecting women, and we have Hillary who knew full well about her abusive husband, with several sexual misconduct cases and humiliated and dismissed women, lied and manipulated the truth and laughed about the case of a 12 year old rape victim.


Trump may well be a tw*t. But Hillary is the Devil.

There's only 2 scenarios that Clinton will win;
1. It's a fix and the dark shadowy forces have already rigged it for a female President. She will be dismiss herself for health reasons and an unelected person will step up.
2. Republicans swing the vote because they know in 4 years they can get a better Republican candidate.








51
GrahamD - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to lone:

> That's dangerous, I did think that people may not have been taking the whole voting thing seriously enough and thinking, 'lets try and get this guy into office for a laugh' on the otherhand its a worring thought that 40+% of America thinks like he does.

Its a worrying thought that as many people think like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage as they do. But the proof is there. Plenty of people are prepared to vote for pathological liars and biggots.

4
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Plenty of people are prepared to vote for pathological liars

Like Hillary?

15
MonkeyPuzzle - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
Say what you like, but after a concerted, coordinated right-wing media campaign to drag her name through the sewers, stretching back more than a decade, Trump has managed to do the same and worse to himself in the relatively short time since he announced he was running for President. Despite all the mudslinging at Hilary, ranging from the valid, to the irrelevant and through to the most ridiculous and vile conspiracy theories, she's still ahead of Trump.
Post edited at 14:46
1
planetmarshall on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> And why is everyone getting het up about some banter...

That last word basically tells me everything I need to know. No need to read the rest of your post.
3
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

So Hillary can dismiss 10 sexual misconduct cases, against her abusive husband, lie and cheat the American people, laugh about aspects of a rape case with her defendant the rapist and a celebrity can't make a comment in what he thought was private, 10 years ago, before he was in politics?

It was locker room talk. It wasn't a serious statement. It was bravado. Don't give me your loose women "decent men" BS. Hillary said many years ago she didn't support gay marriage, you people don't cast that up.

So typical of you liberal snowflakes. Hear what you want to hear.
26
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


And trump hasn't had a smear campaign against him? Just take a look at the media bias against him, and any of his supports face?

Hillary should never have been allowed to enter this election. She should be behind bars. The only reason she isn't, is because she has a vagina.


29
MonkeyPuzzle - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

He's his own smear campaign.
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> The only reason she isn't, is because she has a vagina.

Looks like planetmarshall was on the nose, but thanks for confirming we can safely ignore anything you write from now on.
3
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
On you go, I won't lose any sleep over it. Ironic though.

And typical, you lot hear something you don't like, and you emotionally knee jerk over it.

#hillary4prison


Post edited at 15:47
11
Mikkel - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Just take a look at the media bias against him

I know its outragious how they quote what he is saying

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

How's it ironic?
MG - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
>

> It was locker room talk. It wasn't a serious statement.

So why did he apologise for it?

I don't know what sort of "locker rooms" you go to, but that sort of talk in any changing rooms I have visited would be seen in a very, very dim light.
Post edited at 16:02
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Read my posts.

Slander one candidate for having no respect for women for a comment made 10 years ago:

Forget about the numerous sexual misconduct cases, the lies, manipulation and dismissing of women who stood against her abusive husband,


Hold a man to a statement he made, in private 10 years ago before he got into politics,

Forget about the lies and treason and corruption committed by a long serving politician.


And Mikkel, they often misquote him. Due to emotional knee jerking.



13
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Because it wasn't very professional, and isn't the best statements to be making. He can't exactly brush it away. And because if he didn't then you snowflake lot would be crying out for blood.


And that's because you surround yourself with other wet lettuce, snowflakes.


I can tell you right now it's extremely tame compared to some of the things I have heard females say, let alone other blokes.
16
Tricky Dicky - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> The only reason she isn't, is because she has a vagina.

Are you 12??

3
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> To quote a US relative, "I feel like loading my car up with provisions, bows, arrows, guns... And heading into the forest for 10years" .

> The future is grim with either option, only one is more repulsive that the other.

Why is it glum with HRC?

4 more years of Obamas policies, a president with a 55% approval rating..
1
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Why is it glum with HRC?

> 4 more years of Obamas policies, a president with a 55% approval rating..

She won't make it past 4 months, let alone 4 years.
8
The New NickB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> 3. The next big conflict in history will be a series of civil wars that merge into a race war/religious war.

This is all a bit Jimmy the Dwarf!

1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Read my posts.

> Slander one candidate for having no respect for women for a comment made 10 years ago:

A comment ten years ago, and all the other comments about women along the way. It's not like anyone was surprised, apart from that it had taken so long for something this damning to come out on tape. Not really slander is it? This is a man who announced his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists, and has been recorded bragging that he can commit sexual assaults without fear of repercussion, which could well end his bid to be president. You were saying something about irony?

2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I can tell you right now it's extremely tame compared to some of the things I have heard females say, let alone other blokes.

That's because I expect you hang out with wankers.
5
RX-78 on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

from the New York Times:

Kathy Shelton was 12 in Arkansas in 1975 when Hillary Rodham, then 27, was appointed by a court to defend a man accused of raping her. Much later, Ms. Shelton accused Mrs. Clinton of getting her rapist off and even laughing about the case. The prosecution’s case was problematic, and Mrs. Clinton’s client pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. Mrs. Clinton had tried to get out of representing the accused rapist but she was encouraged to do so by the judge because the defendant requested a female defense lawyer. In the mid-1980s, Mrs. Clinton was interviewed at length about the case by a reporter. After her client passed a lie-detector test, she said with a laugh that it destroyed her faith in polygraphs. She did not laugh in the recorded interview about winning the man's acquittal.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> She won't make it past 4 months, let alone 4 years.

How?
More gross ignorance on how US politics work..

The fact you hang around with people who brag about sexual assault says a lot.
Post edited at 16:17
4
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

And she changed her mind on gay marriage.. Why is that so bad.

Tapes coming out on your big mate being a racist.. You must love him for 'saying it how it is'.. We call it racism
2
RyanOsborne - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> This is all a bit Jimmy the Dwarf!

Haha. Who's side is Trump on?
MG - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

>
> I can tell you right now it's extremely tame compared to some of the things I have heard females say, let alone other blokes.

You must have really delightful friends

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/oct/10/trumps-banter-what-is-locker-room-chat-rea...
2
Lemony - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> It was locker room talk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/37608683
1
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:
It's not a literal locker room. But again I have heard far worse from my gay mates and female mates than what he said.

And roadrunner she won't make it past 4 months because she's not exactly a picture of health. Not politically, I meant biologically.


And it doesn't stop Chris Stevens being dead. Along with Smith, Doherty and Woods.
Post edited at 16:58
7
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
Manufactured rage... In two words you get what is so wrong with many conservatives. Even pence had the honesty to admit trumps comments were indefensible..
2
elsewhere on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> But again I have heard far worse from my gay mates and female mates than what he said.

At work and about a subordinate?
2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

It was a back hand comment he made in private, before he thought about being a presidential candidate.

Again, I bring you back to the numerous lies, corruption, manipulation she was involved with throughout her entire political career.



9
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> At work and about a subordinate?

Yea? And? If it was said in private with people who aren't fragile snowflake butterflies, then what does it matter.

You can't police people's thoughts. And everyone has a right to free speech.
12
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> 4 more years of Obamas policies,

all talk and no action. He has policies, but they don't go anywhere.

edit, he's a pharmacist, so see's the farce of the US healthcare system daily.
Post edited at 17:12
4
KevinD - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> You can't police people's thoughts. And everyone has a right to free speech.

You can choose not to vote for them.
Do lots of your friends really advocate sexual assault?
3
KevinD - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> all talk and no action. He has policies, but they don't go anywhere.

He was limited in what he could do with the Republicans dedication to opposing absolutely everything in sight.
2
MG - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> Yea? And? If it was said in private with people who aren't fragile snowflake butterflies, then what does it matter.

To you obviously not at all because you apparently associate with people who make similar comments. To others, a lot, because we think having someone who thinks sexual assault is just fine as one of the most powerful people on the world would be a really bad thing

> You can't police people's thoughts. And everyone has a right to free speech.
Yes, that doesn't mean there are no consequences, just that they don't include having your speech banned.
Post edited at 17:14
2
elsewhere on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> Yea? And? If it was said in private with people who aren't fragile snowflake butterflies, then what does it matter.

> You can't police people's thoughts. And everyone has a right to free speech.

You have the right to free speech but not freedom from the consequences. For example if it becomes known you may bring your employer into disrepute so you might get the sack.
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
The New NickB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Good to know where you get your material. Mark Dice is too mental even for Fox News most of the time.
1
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:



> You can choose not to vote for them.

> Do lots of your friends really advocate sexual assault?

Oh get a grip. It was a back hand comment, that's hardly advocating sexual assault. I hear loads of female celebrities making similar statements and no one gives a damn.



3
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Hold on he has no policies then you criticise his major policy?

Which is it?
2
The New NickB - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

What would have stopped Chris Stevens and his colleagues dying?

Would it have been the additional funds for Embassy security requested by Clinton and blocked by the Republicans.
2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> To you obviously not at all because you apparently associate with people who make similar comments. To others, a lot, because we think having someone who thinks sexual assault is just fine as one of the most powerful people on the world would be a really bad thing

It was a back hand comment. He didn't sexually assault anyone.
People say a lot of things, doesn't mean They advocate it.

> Yes, that doesn't mean there are no consequences, just that they don't include having your speech banned.

So it's ok for Clinton to delete and wipe her history of treason and no one bats an eyelid, and ignores her corruption, But oh no, a celebrity made a comment in private 10 years ago before he was a presidential candidate, and everyone loses their minds.

What's the consequences for her?

#hillary4prison




8
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

We will never know, maybe it's in one of those 33,000 emails she deleted.


Maybe if she hadn't turned her back, and lied to their families and the American people.

8
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> You have the right to free speech but not freedom from the consequences. For example if it becomes known you may bring your employer into disrepute so you might get the sack.

So when is Hillary getting sacked? Or facing a prison sentence? People have done less than she has and faced life changing consequences for it.
7
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

I get my material for lots of places. I just thought that would get the biggest reaction....
8
Lemony - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I hear loads of female celebrities making similar statements and no one gives a damn. [Citation Needed]
1
Carless - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> You can't police people's thoughts. And everyone has a right to free speech.

Yeah - free speech is a great thing
For example, it allows you to make yourself look a complete idiot by typing "The only reason she isn't, is because she has a vagina."
4
MG - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
>
> So it's ok for Clinton to delete and wipe her history of treason and no one bats an eyelid,

Apart from an FBI investigation? Endless whataboutery and posting Twitter hashtags really doesn't help your case.
Post edited at 17:42
2
elsewhere on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> So when is Hillary getting sacked? Or facing a prison sentence? People have done less than she has and faced life changing consequences for it.

Dunno. Thought you were discussing what you and your mates talk about at work.
2
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
FWIW I'm pretty sure that video would be prima facie evidence for a sexual assault in the UK - he bragged about grabbing a women who rejected his advances by her genitals, and sorry bud, that's against the law here in the UK. I imagine you'd have stronger feelings if he had been describing a similar assault on your mum, your partner, your daughter?


Post edited at 17:40
2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> FWIW I'm pretty sure that video would be prima facie evidence for a sexual assault in the UK - he bragged about grabbing a women who rejected his advances by her genitals, and sorry bud, that's against the law here in the UK. I imagine you'd have stronger feelings if he had been describing a similar assault on your mum, your partner, your daughter?

As far as I was aware he spoke of it, not admitted to it. Much like many comments celebrities make. He made a comment in private, could have been a personal joke among mates.

But yea you are quite right. It would be assault, if someone did it.

I have quite a dark/dry sense of humour, doesn't mean I advocate any it.

Still, ten years ago. A lot can change. You lot are the first to defend Clintons change in political views, and she's a politician, she shouldn't have an excuse.
And what about the women who tried to stand against her abusive husband?

And again, where's he outrage at Hillarys corruption, why allow things to get that fair.

Trump is a bellend but Hillary is the devil.

Post edited at 18:23
9
biped - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

> That last word basically tells me everything I need to know. No need to read the rest of your post.

This, underlined and in capitals.
5
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to biped:
So one word makes you kick off but 33,000 missing emails won't?
Post edited at 18:38
6
toad - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Donny is a TV presenter and occasional businessman but Clinton is a politician.

The use of the first name in Trump group attacks (I hesitate to say republican anymore, because of the haemorrhaging of party support) is a deliberate and calculating belittlement. A false intimacy. Bit like groping

And I really told myself I wasn't going to get drawn into Bootrock World(tm), no matter how entertaining it was.
1
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Hold on he has no policies then you criticise his major policy?

ok he has policies, but by and large has been ineffective in implementing them, he has in effect because of the US political system tread water for two terms. Think back to those mighty promises 8 years ago.

4
biped - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I imagine you'd have stronger feelings if he had been describing a similar assault on your mum, your partner, your daughter?

Feelings are for snowflakes and weaklings.
1
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to toad:

I imagine a lot of republicans will vote Hillary just so they can get a better Rep candidate in 4 years time. That's what might swing it, if it's not a fix, which we will never know.

Interestingly enough, I am sure I read somewhere that the Amish endorsed Trump.


My world is awesome mate. There's loads of rum.


I don't support trump. But by Christ I don't support Clinton. Teresa Barnwell for President....

2
biped - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> So one word makes you kick off but 33,000 missing emails won't?

Your train of thought hasn't boarded at the station. I'm off to show my dog some card tricks.
2
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
'Hillary is the devil. '

You'll have to excuse me but ... why? I'm really fascinated.

I mean, if you were poor, black, disadvantaged in some way at any point in the last 40 years Hillary Rodham Clinton was working on your behalf. If you were adopted, or involved with foster care, she worked hard t introduce appropriate legislation - not much corporate lawyer troughing there.

As FLOTUS she tried very hard to introduce healthcare for all; that she failed is a shame, but the fact that she bounced back has to be extraordinarily impressive. As New York senator she fought hard for recognition of the sacrifices made by the first responders - and looking after their dependents. As secretary of state she managed to reduce US involvement in foreign wars, although of course there mistakes were made - by Republicans as well as Clinton - and as a result people died. That's what happens. When her husband's philandering caught up with him, she partly blamed the women involved - I only have limited experience of this, but I suspect that anyone's reaction to this sort of situation are pretty complex, and 'victim blaming' may well be part of the mix.

The devil???
Post edited at 18:58
4
abr1966 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> As far as I was aware he spoke of it, not admitted to it. Much like many comments celebrities make.

This isn't celebrity life though.....it's about the president of the USA and the values and integrity he has to hold such an important role across the USA and the world.

2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to abr1966:
> This isn't celebrity life though.....it's about the president of the USA and the values and integrity he has to hold such an important role across the USA and the world.

He made the comment 10 years ago, before he thought of even becoming President.

Values and integrity? So explain why Hillary is under investigation? And why don't those values apply to her?
Post edited at 19:30
2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>

> I mean, if you were poor, black, disadvantaged in some way at any point

Democrats swapped Racial Oppression for Government Dependamency. And There is a small growing number of blacks who are trying to break the trend of voting Democrat, who interestingly enough, the KKK was a militant wing of,

> As FLOTUS she tried very hard to introduce healthcare for all; that she failed is a shame, but the fact that she bounced back has to be extraordinarily impressive. As New York senator she fought hard for recognition of the sacrifices made by the first responders - and looking after their dependents. As secretary of state she managed to reduce US involvement in foreign wars, although of course there mistakes were made - by Republicans as well as Clinton - and as a result people died. That's what happens. When her husband's philandering caught up with him, she partly blamed the women involved - I only have limited experience of this, but I suspect that anyone's reaction to this sort of situation are pretty complex, and 'victim blaming' may well be part of the mix.

She lied to the American people, she played down a pre meditated and highly organised attack, and lied to the families of those that died. She turned her back on them.

Reducing them doesn't mean it's a job done, putting all those that died, was in vain. Like Afghanistan and the UK, what was the point of pulling out without a job complete.

The situation isn't complex, Bill Clinton was an infamous sexual predator, and she discredited witnesses and victims and lied, and now liberals are kicking off about comments made 10 years ago.

She's part of an FBI investigation, how is she allowed to run?

5
Rob Exile Ward on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

'She's part of an FBI investigation, how is she allowed to run?'

I imagine because after 40 years of inadequate Republican nerds beating their keyboards to try and find something, anything - against a woman who no doubt their mummies disapproved of, without finding a single f*cking thing that she had done which was illegal - after 40 years of public service it would be a bit of an affront to say she couldn't.
3
elsewhere on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Look snowflake, why does Bill Clinton bother you?

He's not up for election and it's older than that 10 year limit of yours.
2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Look snowflake, why does Bill Clinton bother you?

> He's not up for election and it's older than that 10 year limit of yours.

That doesn't make sense. How can I be the snowflake?

And you obviously missed all my points.
7
elsewhere on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

But you are a snowflake to care about that rather than explain why Bill Clinton is relevant.
2
Bootrock on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

He's not as relevant as she is.

2
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

He's in court for raping a 13 year old and mass fraud..
wbo - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock: you are absolutely hopeless at trolling as you're ignoring too many facts. Dont think the Donald has had problems with sexual assault charges? Or corruption? Or the ongoing issues about dodging paying people and declaring bankruptcy? Draft dodging? Wait for. More and more stuff to come out, and not just ou takes from Stern.

Your problem is that you just say this is not typical, one off banter, but that's rubbish - it's absolutely typical of his entire life.

And I agree - the moment the word banter is used, you know there's some crap coming
4
Lemony - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> He's in court for allegedly raping a 13 year old and alleged mass fraud..

Don't stoop to Bootrock's level.
3
Roadrunner5 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

>

> Don't stoop to Bootrock's level.

True.. I don't think the rape case will go anywhere but the recent tapes won't help but the trump university case was all out fraud, and he doesn't need to, he just likes f*cking people over.
1
TobyA on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> a Democrat, who interestingly enough, the KKK was a militant wing of,

Mate, you really need to step away from YouTube and maybe get to the American history section of a library instead.
2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> The situation isn't complex, Bill Clinton was an infamous sexual predator, and she discredited witnesses and victims and lied, and now liberals are kicking off about comments made 10 years ago.

You know, at the time, Donald Trump was on the Howard Stern show taking Bill Clinton's side and saying some pretty nasty things about these same women.

The thing I find disturbing is that his 'locker room' comments about Tic-Tacs and 'just kissing' people and grabbing pussies are pretty much what the woman who accused him of sexual assault in his daughter's bedroom described.

The other details like him keeping a flat in New York filled with eastern european models with no documentation to work in the US doesn't exactly help his case.

However, you are right that the situation isn't complex. Trump is a lecherous creep and manifestly incompetent to be President of the US.

2
Pete Pozman - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> That doesn't make sense. How can I be the snowflake?
You might not be a snowflake Boot, but you're up to your neck in snow. Go climbing mate; walk away.

Just because Trump is a smooth operator with the ladies doesn't mean he's a good person you know.
1
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
marsbar - on 11 Oct 2016
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to marsbar:

That's old news? That's been kicking about for a long time now. But note "Mostly false", still not nice to laugh about aspects of a rape case. So it's not acceptable for trump to make bravado comments about "sexual assault" yet it's fine for Clinton to laugh about aspects of a rape case where her defendant was the rapist?

I don't support trump, it's a terrible selection for the American people but let's not go about thinking Clinton is some kind of Saint. This is my main point. I would imagine if it was a different republican candidate then Clinton wouldn't be viewed as such a glossy Saint.

It's a rock and a hard place.
1
Matt Rees - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to marsbar:


That really is interesting. It's an odd idea that HRC would laugh about these things or ever act in such a callous manner. It just shows how the internet can be used to pervert history, just like the 911 conspiracy. I hope bootrock reads this.

2
planetmarshall on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I have quite a dark/dry sense of humour, doesn't mean I advocate any it.

No one who actually has a dry or dark sense of humour claims to have a dark or dry sense of humour.

6
Robert Durran - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:


> Let's not go about thinking Clinton is some kind of Saint.

So you've backtracked from "the Devil" to "not a Saint"?
2
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:


Erm. That doesn't really make sense. It's not backtracking? It's just a different perspective. In terms you lot can understand.

She is devil. Teresa Barnwell isn't so bad though....

3
Pete Pozman - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

It's not a choice between a glossy saint and gross ignorant billionaire bully, it's a choice between a seasoned politician who carries baggage (they /we all do ) and a gross ignorant bully. For his supporters to portray him as a lion is absurd. He dodged the draft for God's sake. I get that they are angry but to put their faith in such a man. Never has there been such a mass self delusion since the 30s.
I am utterly baffled by the havering of people like Rees Mogg. How? How! Can any intelligent person bear to be seen as a Trump supporter? Farage stands up and excuses Trump for his Savillesque bragging about abuse. This brings disrepute on Brexit , be in no doubt.
3
kjacks on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to everyone:

What a concerted load of twoddle - we have nothing to fear from either of them simply because whoever gets in office will likely be assassinated within the first six months of office. Now discuss all the implications of that.
4
Pete Pozman - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Sorry Bootrock. I didn't bother to give that a look. Hilarious. Good to see your sense of humour.
1
RyanOsborne - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to kjacks:

> What a concerted load of twoddle - we have nothing to fear from either of them simply because whoever gets in office will likely be assassinated within the first six months of office. Now discuss all the implications of that.

What a lovely post. However repugnant I find Trump and Clinton, talking about them being assassinated is vile.
4
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> What a lovely post. However repugnant I find Trump and Clinton, talking about them being assassinated is vile.

...and anyway, Bootrock's already assured us that Hilary's not going to last 4 months before she dies of natural causes.
1
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> I am utterly baffled by the havering of people like Rees Mogg.

I reckon it's because Jacob Rees-Mogg would set fire to his nan if he thought it would further his career.
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

;)


I am not a total dick...
2
Jimbocz - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> What a lovely post. However repugnant I find Trump and Clinton, talking about them being assassinated is vile

Remember back in the early days of the campaign when Trump actually hinted that Hillary's assassination would be a good thing? We were all so angry and thought surely this will be too much for even the most idiotic of Trump supporters.

What a innocent time that was. Thinking about the ever increasing degradation that Trump is forcing on us makes me want to take a shower.

1
Robert Durran - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> What a lovely post. However repugnant I find Trump and Clinton, talking about them being assassinated is vile.

Why? Given the amount of naked hatred in US politics even before this campaign, I don't think it far fetched at all (or at least an attempt). I remember speaking to a guy in rural Idaho who had moved north to "get away from the Mexicans" shortly before Obama's election in 2008 saying the same sort of thing about "the black guy".
4
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> or at least an attempt

We were in Yosemite at the same time as Obama this summer. For someone used to UK politicians' security, it was incredible to see presidential security in action. Any attempt with a hope in hell of succeeding would have to be a seriously impressive undertaking.
Post edited at 12:13
Robert Durran - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

> We were in Yosemite at the same time as Obama this summer.

Did he send?
1
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

We weren't allowed within about a mile of anywhere he wasn't going to be in a motorcade travelling at speed*. I heard he flashed Midnight Lightning on his way up to the falls.

*which was a fecking pain since they wouldn't publish in advance any details of where he'd be so you had to walk somewhere, find it closed, walk somewhere else and find that closed and so on. On the plus side though, after completely reorganising our day's walk around him we did pop out into the woods on the Snow Creek trail and find ourselves face to face with a beautiful black bear - which I'd always wanted to see. We named him Bearrack Obearma.
jkarran - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> That's old news? That's been kicking about for a long time now. But note "Mostly false", still not nice to laugh about aspects of a rape case. So it's not acceptable for trump to make bravado comments about "sexual assault" yet it's fine for Clinton to laugh about aspects of a rape case where her defendant was the rapist?

I thought in an earlier post you said you had a dark sense of humour? Seems odd that you're coming over all precious snowflake about this allegation, surely rape jokes fall under dark humour in the same way Trump's sexual assault 'banter' seems to?

Also what Trump said (and did?) doesn't count because it was 10 years ago yet you're referencing defense work Clinton did 40 years ago as indicative of poor character. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning?

> It's a rock and a hard place.

It really isn't! On one hand you have a thoroughly competent experienced public servant with a history of delivering social reform at a pace Americans will tolerate. On the other you have a thin skinned narcissistic sociopath running the basest, most divisive campaign imaginable.
jk
5
MG - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Interestingly enough, I am sure I read somewhere that the Amish endorsed Trump.

Most (80+%) of the Amish don't vote. I am sure some of the rest will vote Trump, but that's hardly an "endorsement".
1
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Most (80+%) of the Amish don't vote. I am sure some of the rest will vote Trump, but that's hardly an "endorsement".

...but they're normally such a progressive bunch!
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> I thought in an earlier post you said you had a dark sense of humour? Seems odd that you're coming over all precious snowflake about this allegation, surely rape jokes fall under dark humour in the same way Trump's sexual assault 'banter' seems to?

I am not though, just find it amusing that you regressive left types get all precious about stuff and can ignore others. I was merely pointing it out.
Again, I think trump is a bellend. But Clinton ain't no mother Theresa. Theresa? Theresa Barnwell? Is that a name we can trust. Maybe she can run for President.

> Also what Trump said (and did?) doesn't count because it was 10 years ago yet you're referencing defense work Clinton did 40 years ago as indicative of poor character. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning?

Never said it didn't count, again, merely pointing it out. And The Clintons are involved in a lot more than a couple of chuckles at a case. People quick to kick off and dismiss which ever they feel like.

> you have a barely competent public servant under investigation from the FBI with a history of corruption, manipulation and lying, delivering social segregation, governmental dependency, a thin skinned sociopath running the most divisive campaign imaginable.

Fixed that last bit for you.


5
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Yes I know they don't vote. A small section voted for Bush after he met them quietly. But I will try and find the article I read about them coming out and making a conscious effort to vote.
The New NickB - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
There is a conscious effort amongst some in the Trump team to get the Amish to vote, as they live in two of the key swing states. They have launched a billboard campaign stressing his conservative credentials and openly admit that they are relying on the fact that the Amish don't have TV, social media etc and don't really know who Trump is.
Post edited at 13:47
1
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

Yep. Sounds about right.
graeme jackson - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I am not a total dick...

Having worked my way through all your posting in this thread I think it's safe to say your statement is incorrect.
3
neilh - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

Well as most of the Amish community in for example Ohio have jobs or work with the rest of the community I reckon somebody is kidding themselves.That plays just as much to our ignorance of the Amish commmunity.
The New NickB - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Well as most of the Amish community in for example Ohio have jobs or work with the rest of the community I reckon somebody is kidding themselves.That plays just as much to our ignorance of the Amish commmunity.

Of course, but that is the Trump strategy.
2
MG - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:
Leaving aside curious religious things, they are rather impressive. In NY state they are making whole areas abandoned by traditional farmers profitable again.

They build cool barns too.
Post edited at 16:46
Postmanpat on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

> I reckon it's because Jacob Rees-Mogg would set fire to his nan if he thought it would further his career.

Why do you regard him as ambitious?

Incidentally he has now said that were he American he could not vote for Trump so he would abstain. God knows why it took him so long.
2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> There is a conscious effort amongst some in the Trump team to get the Amish to vote, as they live in two of the key swing states. They have launched a billboard campaign stressing his conservative credentials and openly admit that they are relying on the fact that the Amish don't have TV, social media etc and don't really know who Trump is.

No need for Hillary to worry, Trump still has a few weeks left in which to offend the Amish.
1
Bootrock on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to graeme jackson:
Cheers for your opinion big fella, I am so hurt inside.
Post edited at 16:58
5
neilh - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
I like their buggies...

An american friend of mine reckons they will inherit the world if modern society collapses..........he employs a few of them... they get to work by locals giving them a lift in their cars ( the local honcho allows them to do this even though cars are " powered by electricity"). Unfortunately their gene pool is a bit ..limited due to to much inbreeding. Both sad and fascinating really.
Post edited at 17:02
Roadrunner5 - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
They have a lot of extra fingers due to that gene pool issue. They even traced it back to the immigrant it started from
1
felt - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

I stayed with an Amish family as a kid in the 60s. Great fun, playing in the barns with all that straw. But my abiding memory is not being allowed on an excursion with my sister to the Hershey factory nearby because I'd not observed silence during grace. I felt this was harsh, and still do, as their graces were long and I was just small.
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to felt:
Voting has opened in many states.

This year up to 40% will vote early.

Big poll leads now could result in significant numbers, even if the polls close it means trump really needs to be leading in November by a few points to win.

In 2012 Romney won a crucial swing state off early voting.


3
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I love my random disliker... I'm sorry I post updates from the country I live in.. You could explain why you dislike the post?
3
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:


Just to let you know, wasn't me!
1
biped - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I'm grateful for your contributions on here regarding the US elections, seeing as you are there. I just watched some 'highlights' from both party conventions on a John Oliver clip. I know they are selective, but, Jesus wept. It's like watching lunatic children on speed. Shared language aside, I cannot fathom why the UK feels a special kinship with the US as opposed to our European/Scandinavian neighbours. I haven't been to the US but it looks like a different planet, never mind just 'foreign.' And I mean that in a bad way.

On another note re who votes for Trump other than frothing rednecks: we befriended some nice yanks in the Alps last year, stayed in touch on FB etc. They're well educated, middle class and with liberal social views, yet they have both been sharing lots of anti-Hilary/'make America great again' stuff on FB. Notable that this has stopped since Pussygate, though that doesn't mean they will change their votes. I think you are right, I think he will lose the election, but I'm not complacent about it, and who knows what might come out about Hilary via Russia. If it's timed well it doesn't even have to be remotely true.

Re the dislikers, ignore it, maybe you have a stalker or more likely it's just someone who can't string a sentence together.
1
Dave Garnett - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to biped:
> On another note re who votes for Trump other than frothing rednecks: we befriended some nice yanks in the Alps last year, stayed in touch on FB etc. They're well educated, middle class and with liberal social views, yet they have both been sharing lots of anti-Hilary/'make America great again' stuff on FB. Notable that this has stopped since Pussygate, though that doesn't mean they will change their votes.

Yes I have a lot of US friends and colleagues and I was in Boston during the first TV debate. You're right that we're missing something about Hillary. To us it's a no-brainer. My (not particularly well-researched) impressions of her are that she tried for decades to reform healthcare in the teeth of implacable opposition from the right (ironic that Trump should accuse her of doing nothing about for 30 years) and seemed to handle foreign policy issues pretty competently. She seems highly credible, smart, well-educated and the way she handled the public humiliation of the Lewinsky affair did her credit.

However, people I asked about this seem to have a big problem with her changing policy and doing things she had previously promised she wouldn't do, apparently doing things in foreign policy that were in some way a bit dodgy, and an implicit assumption that anyone who has been a Washington insider for as long as she has must be corrupt in some way. These were highly educated, socially liberal people I was talking to, but I never really heard a specific allegation that I understood. I'm still puzzled about it.

My only reservations might be that she wants it too much and is perhaps past her political sell-by date. I can see that she might give the impression of entitlement and, like Gordon Brown, might not be as good in the top job as she was in supporting roles (or as she might have been a decade ago). If there were a remotely credible opponent I suppose this might give me slight pause for thought but against Trump? Come on, I'd vote for Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage over Trump, let alone Hillary Clinton.

Maybe Arnold Swarzenegger can be persuaded to stand as last minute Republican candidate since Trump now seems to be effectively an independent?
Post edited at 10:08
neilh - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Like you I am puzzled. But I do think there is a clear case to answer on the email fiasco.

As ex- US military people know they would be in jail for that type of offence. So I can well understand the " double standard" issue.
David Martin - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to biped:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utJwu_mttVQ

A lot of vitriol aimed at Trump supporters. Some of it justified and clearly questions to be asked of anyone's reasoning.

But the all-out hate fest for anything he does and says seems very misguided and ultimately counter productive. Perhaps he understands that better than most.

I can see as much emotional validity in voting for Trump as there was for Brexit.
6
Lemony - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> I can see as much emotional validity in voting for Trump as there was for Brexit.

What does that actually mean?
1
Dave Garnett - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> As ex- US military people know they would be in jail for that type of offence. So I can well understand the " double standard" issue.

What was the offence exactly? It sounds to me like a geeky IT oversight and I heard in the US that many other senior politicians have done far worse through ignorance rather than bad intent.
1
The New NickB - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> As ex- US military people know they would be in jail for that type of offence. So I can well understand the " double standard" issue.

Colin Powell would disagree.
2
KevinD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> What was the offence exactly?

Operating their own email system. So slightly more than a geeky IT oversight.
Most likely reason was because this way you can avoid pesky FOI requests easier. Its something that shouldnt be allowed but has been done by other politicians either with a separate server or just using commercial email offerings (such as gmail).
Dave Garnett - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

> What does that actually mean?

I get it. In both UK and US there is a large an increasing population who feel helpless and disenfranchised. They don't trust the political elites and they don't fee anyone is listening. Here, many of these people voted for Brexit as a protest rather than any very logical or deeply felt Euroscepticism and many of them (not necessarily the same people) support Corbyn.

One of the few really stupid things Hillary Clinton has said during the campaign was that comment about 'deplorables' supporting Trump. 'I'm a Deplorable' is now quite a clever bumper sticker as it emphasises that Hillary, like most of us here, is a bit baffled as to why anyone should vote Trump (which is a different question from why they should not vote for Hillary).

David Martin's link is worth watching, it explains the feeling of despair and the willingness to support anyone who just might change something, which explains the support for Bernie Sanders too. If the republican candidate were anyone slightly less dangerous and nutty than Trump, perhaps Sanders would have won the democratic nomination but I suspect a lot of democrats sympathetic to him calculated that they just couldn't risk Trump winning and went for a safer pair of hands.
Dave Garnett - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Operating their own email system. So slightly more than a geeky IT oversight.

> Most likely reason was because this way you can avoid pesky FOI requests easier. Its something that shouldnt be allowed but has been done by other politicians either with a separate server or just using commercial email offerings (such as gmail).

But why is this so terrible? I asked this too but people who were anti-Hillary just mutter about how it was really bad and she should be in jail, without explaining (or, I suspect, understanding) further. I can see it's probably against some IT security policy and isn't very sensible and she should probably get a good talking to by whoever runs their cybersecurity in the same way I would if I breached company policy but it seems to me Trump is on thin ice advocating a completely zero tolerance policy given what I suspect close scrutiny of his dealings over the last decade or so might come up with.
2
Lemony - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Is the illegal bit not that she used it to transfer classified information?
KevinD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> But why is this so terrible?

Because its a weapon to use against her.
There are questions around classified files being on the system and also whether other files werent retained.
Something which does deserve a bollocking and it should be banned but its been blown out of all proportion by people just regurgitating trumps bollocks.
2
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Something which does deserve a bollocking and it should be banned but its been blown out of all proportion by people just regurgitating trumps bollocks.


Deserves a lot more than a bollocking. She used it to transfer classified material and information, notably on Libya 2012, and used it as a way to plausibly deny it, she went on and deleted evidence, and lied about bringing evidence forward.
Why delete evidence, and why lie about it? If it was a simple IT glitch, come forward about it, what is the reason to lie. And she refused to acknowledge and help fellow Americans in need, turning her back on a well planned, well organised and well executed and sustained attack on a US Embassy, and lied to the World and families about the attack.

People have been locked up for treason for much lesser things. We are talking about people running a country here, it's not a small business who might accidentally set up a different account.

There's some really good conversation here, and I know you lot think I am a knuckle dragging troglodyte, but this is what I wanted, ask the questions, and don't see it as clear cut as Good v Evil. Trump is a knob but Clinton ain't No mother Theresa.

Someone raised a bang on point about being disillusioned and let down by the political system and politicians. Fed up of lies and corruption.

And Arnie for president, that's outstanding.
Post edited at 12:07
5
Lemony - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> People have been locked up for treason for much lesser things.

Which people, out of interest?
1
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
Lemony - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> People have been locked up for treason for much lesser things.

> U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.

He wasn't locked up, was he?


edit: Also:

> Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.

is not "much less" than Clinton did, it's arguably significantly more than clinton did.

edit2: it also wasn't treason.
Post edited at 12:55
2
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:
> He wasn't locked up, was he?

But he wouldn't be allowed to run for president...

> is not "much less" than Clinton did, it's arguably significantly more than clinton did.

We don't know that yet.... Because the emails never got recovered... And there's been an awful lot of lying and covering up.

> edit2: it also wasn't treason.

Your quite right, apologies for my terminology.

Either way, both candidates should never have been allowed to run.
Post edited at 13:19
1
Lemony - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> But he wouldn't be allowed to run for president...

That wasn't what you said though, was it?

> We don't know that yet.... Because the emails never got recovered...

Is one of those emails likely to see her off base in Afghanistan with classified information about operations in Afghanistan?
3
felt - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Trump is a knob but Clinton ain't no Mother Teresa.

Nor, to be fair, was Mother Teresa.

3
Bob Hughes - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

> Is the illegal bit not that she used it to transfer classified information?

Supposedly but according to the head of the FBI - not an organisation known for sympathy towards the Democrats - there isn't a case to answer: "we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."



1
KevinD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Why delete evidence, and why lie about it?

Because it is what people do. I am opposed to what she did but frankly the dribble about treason actually helps her, and other politicans, out by hiding it.

> We are talking about people running a country here, it's not a small business who might accidentally set up a different account.

Well, yes but as has been repeatedly pointed out it is a feature of politicans when faced with FOI acts.
Rice and Powell did similar. This side of the Atlantic Gove lost a case to exempt private emails from FOI since government business was being discussed.


> There's some really good conversation here, and I know you lot think I am a knuckle dragging troglodyte

People think you are because you excuse sexual assaults amongst other things.

> but this is what I wanted, ask the questions, and don't see it as clear cut as Good v Evil.

Then ask sensible questions such as the difference between what she has done and what other politicans have done. I am also really not sure where your comment about "Good vs Evil" comes from since the only person who has been taking that line from I can see is you.

> Someone raised a bang on point about being disillusioned and let down by the political system and politicians. Fed up of lies and corruption.

I can understand that. What I cant understand though is why the f*ck Trump or Farage would be seen as the answer.

2
David Martin - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

> What does that actually mean?

The rationale for voting Brexit is largely emotional, not based on facts/policy. The same goes for voting for Trump. The situations appear quite similar.

The main difference as far as I can tell though is that we used a referendum on Europe to voice concerns over immigration/liberalism/house-prices/Make-Britain-Great. The yanks are going to use their election to make those same points known. Hence, I have slightly more sympathy with Trump voters, than I do for Brexit voters, as at least the Americans are beating their hammer against the correct anvil.
3
Jimbocz - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

Can I give you a sincere thank you for serving Bootrock his ass on a plate? Like many of his arguments, this one was total BS and just took a little Googling to find out that "People have been locked up for less" is complete hogwash. More like "One guy was fined for doing something' a lot more serious. "

Almost everything that Bootrock writes is some level of easily refuted BS. The only reason every point he makes is not pinned down and exposed for the ridiculous propaganda that it is, is because most of us are just too busy.
4
tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

I wonder how much trouble the UK politicians such as John Prescott that were running off the shelf cell phones without even changing the default voice mail password would be in if the UK applied the same standards as are being applied to Hillary Clinton.

There's obviously a desire from politicians in the UK and US to have communications not using official equipment because they are scared that their every word will be archived and used against them 10 years in the future and this is leading to terrible security practices.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

Members if the GOP are constantly on GOP saying this was 'locker room' talk..

CNN released a great clip last night of Trump firing an apprentice for 'locker room talk'...

But admitting sexual assault just is NOT locker room talk. Ben Carson says it was just brags over conquests.. nope its bragging over being able to get away with sexual assault. Some are slowly realising this but many are just refusing to admit he just disqualified himself.

He will keep his 35% support but has eroded his base when he needs to grow. No president has ever come back from such polling deficits. The right so Raegan was down 12 points at this time he just wasnt.
4
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to David Martin:
> The rationale for voting Brexit is largely emotional, not based on facts/policy.

No it wasn't.


> Can I give you a sincere thank you for serving Boot Rock his ass on a plate?

Hardly!

> Like many of his arguments, this one was total BS and just took a little Googling to find out that "People have been locked up for less" is complete hogwash. More like "One guy was fined for doing something' a lot more serious. "

Oh my! Sorry for using a simple Google search to go and find information instead of regurgitating the same rhetoric, heaven forbid someone to go against the circle jerk and try and find information to make an opinion.

Classified information is classified information, regardless of how it's leaked, who it's leaked by and under what circumstances. Politicians need more accountability. And I can't stand to hear you lot and the media gob off like Clinton is some saint sent to stop the tyrannical trump.

Want to know why trump has support? Look at the latest growth of the far right political movements in Germany and Europe. Protest votes?
People sick of regressive left wing politics and lying manipulative politicians with no accountability?
Fed up with broken, corrupt and unrealistic political systems. Disillusioned and losing faith in the people who are supposed to be leading the country and the people.



> Almost everything that Bootrock writes is some level of easily refuted BS.

Hardly, is she not under investigation?

> The only reason every point he makes is not pinned down and exposed for the ridiculous propaganda that it is, is because most of us are just too busy

Lol. Propaganda. Have you seen some of the stuff you liberals push out? It's funny how it's always the opponents that use propaganda, not the people you support.

At least I can see both sides and can appreciate more than 1

That's the problem with you regressive left, you only agree with free speech and opinions if you agree with it. Otherwise it's "propaganda". I even admit trump is a total bellend. But still you don't want to hear you don't like.

I like debate. I like opposing views. It strengthens or changes my opinions. But you regressive left liberals hate it. And when you hear something you don't like, you go on the attack.


> I wonder how much trouble the UK politicians such as John Prescott that were running off the shelf cell phones without even changing the default voice mail password would be in if the UK applied the same standards as are being applied to Hillary Clinton.

A lot I hope.

> There's obviously a desire from politicians in the UK and US to have communications not using official equipment because they are scared that their every word will be archived and used against them 10 years in the future and this is leading to terrible security practices.


And why shouldn't politicians be accountable for their actions and words? You lot just went mental over a clip of Trump 10 years ago, and now you advocate politicians having deniability?
Post edited at 14:22
4
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

The difference with before, when she also held a huge lead, is people are now casting votes..

His taking it to a race to the sewer, being so nasty that people just turn off and dont vote... it's an incredible strategy for someone who said he would be presidential.

Its hard to see what else he can come out with, his right wing conspiracies are being knocked for 6 on anyone who checks so only hard righters are listening now.

This 'she laughed' just is not true and even the opposing prosecutor said she did her job and laughed about how useless polygraphs were.

She upheld the constitution.

Kellyanne was on the news saying Don needs forgiveness and that's a core part of christianity... they seem to pick what is forgivable. They also say the fast clinton has settled cases shows his and her guilt.... yet stumbled when Cooper pointed out Trump has settled numerous cases, most notably the C for coloureds on housing applications.

I think there could yet be an abortion story coming out to finish him off with the pro-lifers on that side.

2
Lemony - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> I like debate. I like opposing views.

The problem is that you disregard anything that approaches evidence.
3
JJ Krammerhead III - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Americans like to be number one, they hated the fact that the UK became the biggest laughing stock in the world after brexit, they want the title back, simple
2
KevinD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Classified information is classified information, regardless of how it's leaked, who it's leaked by and under what circumstances. Politicians need more accountability.

Yeah lets start with some tax returns.

> And I can't stand to hear you lot and the media gob off like Clinton is some saint sent to stop the tyrannical trump.

No one is arguing that. That you are unable to understand this I think gives insight into why the rest of the "evidence" you produce is so badly flawed.
2
KevinD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to JJ Krammerhead III:

> Americans like to be number one, they hated the fact that the UK became the biggest laughing stock in the world after brexit, they want the title back, simple

Ah. Similar to how Southern Rail have really stepped up the efforts to be the worst service after Greater Anglia looked like it had a shot at the title.
1
Pete Pozman - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

You know what : having a private email server so you can have private communications doesn't seem that bad. I can't for the life of me understand why it makes Hilary into a witch/bitch/she-satan or whatever else she's supposed to be. If she cocked up a few times whilst working on foreign affairs why does that make her so particularly hellish?
The misogyny stinks all the way across the Atlantic.
4
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:


> The misogyny

Why is it always a racial or gender issue with you lot. It's not nothing to do with her being woman. That's like gobbing off about opposing trump is misandry.

misogyny
mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni/
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

The difference is a lot of people admit to voting Hillary purely because she isn't a "white male". Where's your objection to that?

A female president would be nice to see, if she was good for the job. Not just the most convenient woman that happens to be around.


7
biped - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
> Why is it always a racial or gender issue with you lot.

Because both of these things matter.

And for clarification, us "lot" probably disagree with each other much more than you might imagine. Pigeonholing everyone who doesn't agree with you into a single narrowly defined box, perhaps labelled 'snowflakes,' convinces no-one but yourself, and you don't strike me as someone who requires any convincing.

> misogyny

Here's an example of misogyny. Trump, a definite misogynist, highly probable rapist and possible paedophile attacks Hilary Clinton because her husband cheated on her. I'm no apologist for HRC but she was the victim of Bill's blowjobs. Trump also had the gall to sit among the women who claim to have been raped by Bill Clinton, the same women whom Trump described as being so ugly that Bill Clinton should be regarded as the victim. That this shit goes on and a sizeable chunk of a country doesn't go apeshit over it is misogyny.

> The difference is a lot of people admit to voting Hillary purely because she isn't a "white male". Where's your objection to that?

I object to that, just as much as I object to those who won't vote for her because she isn't white and/or male. Ten years ago I'd have predicted that America would never have a black or female president in my lifetime, but if I'd had to pick which came first I'd have said a woman (HRC most likely) long before a black person. This election has convinced me that the USA is far more sexist than it is racist, and it is pretty bloody racist.

> A female president would be nice to see,

Why? You just contradicted yourself.

>Not just the most convenient woman that happens to be around.

Agreed.
Post edited at 15:32
2
thomasadixon - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to biped:

> Here's an example of misogyny. Trump, a definite misogynist, highly probable rapist and possible paedophile attacks Hilary Clinton because her husband cheated on her. I'm no apologist for HRC but she was the victim of Bill's blowjobs. Trump also had the gall to sit among the women who claim to have been raped by Bill Clinton, the same women whom Trump described as being so ugly that Bill Clinton should be regarded as the victim. That this shit goes on and a sizeable chunk of a country doesn't go apeshit over it is misogyny.

Not even vaguely a fan of Trump, but this is balls.

Trump gets attacked by Hillary for doing X, Y and Z. Hillary says that doing these things makes him not suitable as a president. Trump replies by saying Bill Clinton, who you are happy to support as your husband, who you were happy to support for the position of president in the past, is far worse than I.

This isn't misogyny, it's a pretty obvious attack on hypocrisy. Hillary doesn't honestly care that Trump's made these comments in the past. We know this because she's still married to a man who's done the same/worse, and stayed supporting this man even when everything came out - including attacking those who accused her husband of abusing them.
5
Rob Exile Ward on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

Let's just compare Lewisnky and the Trump video, shall we? Young attractive woman approaches a middle aged man and says, 'Mr President, I've really got the hots for you', or something like that. (If anyone has been in a similar situation they will know it can be a pretty intoxicating experience.) To his eternal discredit he says something like (again, I paraphrase) 'Hmm, let's take this a bit further' and embarks on a consensual, adult sexual relationship, which his wife doesn't believe he is stupid enough to do, so tries to defend him until - and only until - the evidence is irrefutable. Whereupon she maintains pretty much a dignified silence.

Whereas Trump describes coming on to women who he clearly understand don't welcome his advances, and brags about physically assaulting someone who clearly doesn't welcome it - who would? At a guess, if you did what he bragged of doing, then you'd be looking at a year or two of jail.

Spot the difference?
1
thomasadixon - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You've said similar before, I don't think you've watched the video. He talks about two things. Firstly an unsuccessful attempt to chat up a married woman. Second he talks about how (presumably some, given his failed attempt) women will let him do anything he wants because he's famous. If they let him, that's consent. Slimy, creepy, but not assault. We know what he does when he doesn't get consent because he's just told us - he walks away with his tail between his legs. Like I said, not a fan, but why distort things? He's awful for a whole bunch of other reasons.

Bill Clinton was in a position of power and took advantage of that position. He then lied, repeatedly, to the public and to his wife who on finding out he was lying continued to support him. You seem to want to exonerate him for some reason. I'd say he's a creep at the least on a par with Trump.

And then the point - Hillary quite plainly has no problem with this sort of behaviour, or at least the difficulty she has with it isn't enough to prevent her from supporting her husband. The attack on Trump is hypocritical.
4
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:
As always you are wrong...

Grabbing a woman's pussy without consent is quite simply sexual assault, which women have accused him of doing exactly that.

You say Clinton has allegedly done worse.. Trump allegedly raped a 13 year old, he's been accused of kissing women without consent and grabbing their pussys without consent AND he's been heard bragging that women let him do those things as he is a star. Those are the very definitions of sexual assault.
Post edited at 17:30
4
toad - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

You can add today's story of him prowling the changing area at one of "his" beauty pageants, leering at the partially clothed women.
3
thomasadixon - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I didn't allege anything, I talked about proven events. If you want to go on just accusations then Clinton has raped several women.

You really do need to learn how to read - might want to start by looking up the definition of the word "let".
4
Rob Exile Ward on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

' Clinton has raped several women.'

Did they know?
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

No, its that he tries it without consent.

Some may 'let' him. Others havent.

A lawyer spoke on CNN and was saying if Cosby had been caught with recordings like this he'd be in deep shit.

People are bending over backwards. There was a good argument by Glenn Beck, a guy who despises the left, saying that backing clinton is the moral choice.. basically conservatives shouldn't support trump and bend over backwards to excuse him because what he did and said was unexcusable.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/glenn-beck-hillary-clinton-moral-ethical-choice/

Conservative political commentator and former Fox News personality Glenn Beck said that opposing GOP nominee Donald Trump is the “moral, ethical choice” -- even if it that inadvertently leads to supporting Hillary Clinton.

“It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” he wrote in a Facebook over the weekend. “ If one helps to elect an immoral man to the highest office, then one is merely validating his immorality, lewdness, and depravity.”

What Trump said was sexual assault.
5
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:


And Clinton is a moral person?


I stand by what I said. Both are knobs. its the Devil and the deep blue sea.
I was going to make a comment about getting shafted, but I don't know if that would be classed as sexual assault...

Republicans will vote for Clinton because they know they will get a different candidate in 4 years. That's if Teresa barnwell doesn't take over.

Neither of them should have been allowed to get this far. But it's no surprise Clinton did.

7
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Yes, she has done a lot of good.

Has Trump? He's only ever served himself.

She has poured much of her energy into providing for the less well off, HIV care for a huge number of people, donates millions a year through her foundation. Compare that with Trumps.

Trump is it for himself. Look at skimming 150k intended for small businesses impacted by 9/11.. he has continually walked over small businesses. It's what he loves doing.

He's in this for the Trump brand, for his ego, probably to avoid court cases too. I think he could be another Madoff and finished within 5 years. Interesting he wont release tax documents from even times when he is not under Audit. The man is a fraud.
5
Bootrock on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> Yes, she has done a lot of good.

Lol.

> She has poured much of her energy into Hiding evidence and manipulating the American People.

Fixed that for you.


And I already said Trump is a bellend. But let's put the cat amongst the pigeons, Putin likes him. That must count for something....
Post edited at 20:52
7
Roadrunner5 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
You see you wont accept the good she does,
Quite clearly the foundation has changed the lives of thousands of kids withHIV

I can speak good of republicans, even those whose good intentions are misplaced like Kasich and even more so Pence. But trump is just in it for himself. A disgusting human being.
3
Robert Durran - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Women will let him do anything he wants because he's famous. If they let him, that's consent.

FFS You just don't get it do you?
Passively letting him do it is NOT consent.
He is abusing his position of power/stardom which makes them let him do it - he is abusing his power in order to sexually assault them.

2
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?referer&_r=0

I wonder how many more will come out.

But he will still go after Bill, yet even after calling those women Bill had affairs with as ugly he still invited them on stage with him..

I cant see how this strategy does anything but energize his base. It may work but Nate Silver seems to think a come back from here is unprecedented and the only reason they rate his chances so high are because they cannot poll his supporters well.
2
Dave Garnett - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> You know what : having a private email server so you can have private communications doesn't seem that bad. I can't for the life of me understand why it makes Hilary into a witch/bitch/she-satan or whatever else she's supposed to be. If she cocked up a few times whilst working on foreign affairs why does that make her so particularly hellish?

> The misogyny stinks all the way across the Atlantic.

If anyone's interested there's quite a detailed summary here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31806907

And the broader Hillary hate thing here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36992955

All BBC liberal whitewash, obviously.
Appleby on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

**Troll report**

Entertainment value: 2/10

Comments: Must try harder, perhaps keep it a bit lighter next time? Mentioning race wars generally makes you sound like a maniac.
2
Greasy Prusiks on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

It's not "locker room talk". Locker room talk is "Why won't this thing lock, bugger I need a pound. I don't have a pound. Does anyone else have a pound?".

All these people who are coming out and saying "oh all men talk like that in private" are really pissing me off. It's utter BS. People who are saying things like that need to have a good hard look at their attitudes to other people and start taking some pride in how they treat others in my opinion.
4
That Shallot on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> I am sure you are pretty bored of the joke that the presidential campaign has become by now, but if anyone else in society behaved like Trump would they have been locked up by now. Is it not a case that because is extremely wealthy he can say and do whatever he likes.

> Is it not blindingly obvious to everyone that his behaviour borders on the insane?

> Or am I the only person to reach that conclusion?

No thought it for a while .

http://news.sky.com/story/two-women-claim-donald-trump-inappropriately-touched-them-10615074

Creep of the highest magnitude.

TS
1
Jimbocz - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The latest lies from Trump-

He claims that he's not even sure that Russian hackers are responsible for the latest leaked information. The truth is that it was explicitly spelled out in the intelligence briefings he is getting now.

He claims that he knows nothing about Russia and does no business there. The truth is that he's done plenty of business there, including bringing his dodgy beauty paegents.

These are both important lies because Trumps only hope of winning now is if the election is altered by Russian hackers, either by releasing damaging info or directly hacking the voting machines. After spending weeks telling everyone how great Putin is, all of a sudden he's got to pretend that Russian hackers have nothing to do with him and he's never even heard of Putin!
1
stubbed on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

> It's not "locker room talk". Locker room talk is "Why won't this thing lock, bugger I need a pound. I don't have a pound. Does anyone else have a pound?".

> All these people who are coming out and saying "oh all men talk like that in private" are really pissing me off. It's utter BS. People who are saying things like that need to have a good hard look at their attitudes to other people and start taking some pride in how they treat others in my opinion.

I agree - I know that my friends wouldn't talk about women in this way, nor my husband
1
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

> All these people who are coming out and saying "oh all men talk like that in private" are really pissing me off. It's utter BS. People who are saying things like that need to have a good hard look at their attitudes to other people and start taking some pride in how they treat others in my opinion.

Not all men. And I never said it was ok. All I said was he made a comment in private, and Hillary is hardly a clean sheet.

I have you know some of the nicest people I know have also the darkest/driest sense of humour and a lot of things said are for shock value, a laugh, or just because they Keep getting told they can't say things.

Just because you make comments, doesn't mean you treat other people without respect or in a derogatory manner, it just means that you can differentiate between real life and fiction.

And I can tell you now, there are boyfriends and husbands whose girlfriends/wives would be preaching to high heaven about how their man (or non binary gender partner or what ever pink and fluffy crap is going on these days) would never speak like that, and in actual fact they do.

No not all blokes make comments,. And there is a fine line, and you have to know your audience or know your friends.

And I have heard a lot of women make worse comments/jokes/statements, so let's not make this a man thing either.







10
RyanOsborne - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Just because you make comments, doesn't mean you treat other people without respect or in a derogatory manner,

... Are you talking about Donald Trump here?
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

You don't seem to get it that these weren't comments. He was saying, bragging, what he DOES... this is very different from bragging about conquests or vulgar language.

On top of that numerous women have independently said he did this, long before this all came out. This is why his political career has unraveled over the last week.

3
David Martin - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Was he? Or maybe he was just talking himself up? I've heard this kind of banter from plenty of people before, and I can't think of any occasion when it was anything more than a bragging show of one-up-man-ship, often clearly having tenuous-at-best connection to reality, and intended for nothing more than the amusement value of seeing how far in to the realms of political incorrectness you can run with a statement...and followed by the appearance of total subservience to one's other half when they were next seen together.

I'm pretty sure that Hillary, as a major flag-waver for the Iraq War and given her proclaimed love of Israel and disdain for Palestinian statehood, has made some far more odious comments in private which have a far greater bearing on the the rights and livelihoods of millions of people. No less I'm sure comments made from Bill as he entertained Monica in his office, Kennedy with his many mistresses, and who knows how many other presidents and statesmen.

Its all well and good to focus on Trump as a cretin. But the righteous indignation at just about every bit of dirt that can be dug up from years gone by is making those opposed to him look every bit as bad as the right-wingers (including Trump himself) who challenge every aspect of Obama's leadership - from his racial and religious heritage to misrepresentations of his record in office.
1
Greasy Prusiks on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

If I was interviewing someone for a job and overheard them saying what trump said that conversation I wouldn't be offering them employment.

For me that's about the long and the short of it.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to David Martin:
Have you seen his denial?

"Look at her.. I dont think so" That's left him open to the.. So you would if they were good looking, he really is an ass.

I think the righteous indignation is pretty spot on, its also built up by the rape culture and rich white people getting better treatment. The 1 day prison sentence, the 'I dont want to ruin his life' sentencing... that's part of the anger. I think in the US it is 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted during college, some alarming stat. There is real anger at men who feel they have a right to act such a way and he's walked right into it. Billy Bush was immediately fired by NBC when they heard him laughing and egging Trump on in that interview from 11 years ago.

I think its good sexual assault is being taken so seriously as generally it is excused in the US, players come back in the NFL from serious allegations and just pay them off.

I just don't see what you say TBH. I think it is right and perfectly acceptable to disgusted at a man bragging he can assault women because he's a star.

If he was just talking himself up then yeah its too much but the fact was we all knew of stories of women saying he'd just kissed them or fondled them. These are old stories and hearing him saying he does it does add a huge amount of weight to claims he was bragging at sexually assaulting them.

These allegations on their own would go nowhere, his claims on their own would probably just be an uproar for a news cycle. Add those claims and the complaints by women which exactly match such behaviour and you rightly have disgust.

The fact that you can equate disgust at sexual assault with claims about a presidents race or religion is pretty poor...
Post edited at 20:26
2
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
> If I was interviewing someone for a job and overheard them saying what trump said that conversation I wouldn't be offering them employment.

> For me that's about the long and the short of it.


If you were interviewing someone today and someone told you they heard them say something in private 10 years ago?


> rape culture and rich white people getting better treatment.

The west does not have a rape culture. Want to see a rape culture? Go to parts of Africa where they think the cure for AIDS is to rape a virgin.
Go and ask the people in Cologne about who was raping and sexually assaulting them.

And why is it always race with you bloody liberals.
White privilege is made up SJW liberal snowflake made up shit.
Post edited at 21:43
10
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
That's a very odd argument.. That's like saying we shouldn't try to fight HIV as it's worse in Africa.


Brock turner..
Post edited at 22:01
2
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:



> That's a very odd argument.. That's like saying we shouldn't try to fight HIV as it's worse in Africa.

No it's not.

It's saying, in the West/Modern Society, Rape is a punishable offence. Rapists go to jail. Rapists don't fare too well in jail. Rapists are deplored by society and even alleged or aqquitted rapists still feel the brunt of that attitude.
They are guilty until proven innocent.


There are many countries and cultures that are rape cultures.



1
Lemony - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> And why is it always race with you bloody liberals.

It's not. Have you considered that you might get that impression because you're a bit of a racist?
3
KevinD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> If you were interviewing someone today and someone told you they heard them say something in private 10 years ago?

Something they said in front of a tv crew. Not what I would term as private.
As for 10 years ago. Depends really. if they were a teenager at the time I would give them a bit more slack although boasting about sexual assaults would be pushing it. If they were approaching their sixtieth birthday somewhat less.

> The west does not have a rape culture. Want to see a rape culture? Go to parts of Africa where they think the cure for AIDS is to rape a virgin.

Well thats a relevant comment.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
They actually don't go for long enough, hence the Brock turner comment..
3
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

> It's not. Have you considered that you might get that impression because you're a bit of a racist?

I am not a racist though. I hate everyone equally.

I get that "impression" because all of a sudden this cropped up:

> rape culture and rich white people

And as such it happens every time any conversation happens, there's always a race card thrown in. Or a "White privilege" card. Or a rich white comment. Or a white male comment.

Christ, we had a conversation on here not long back about driving instructors and all of a sudden it was like all white male driving instructors were rapists and there's hardly any "diverse" instructors.
It always comes down to race with the wet lettuce left wing brigade.

I am not about to get into some kind of liberal snowflake Olympics about who's more liberal and diverse because of friends or whatever.


> well that's a relevant comment.

Well, it was in response to a rape culture comment. So er yea. It would be. I could have made a comment about Rotherham but I knew you lot would go mental, and somehow that would be Rich White peoples fault.




7
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

But thats why there is a lot of anger.

Sessions saying grabbing a womans pussy isnt rape furthers this anger. Its been a lesson in how not to handle accusations.

2
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

'I am not a racist though. I hate everyone equally. '

Yes; I think we get that. Except - if you'll excuse the lettuce munching, snowflake psychobabble - personally I suspect you don't like yourself much, either.
4
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

1 case in a multitude of cases? You can say that about any case with any crime with any suspect in any country.

And he will be on the Sex Offenders Register for life.


Rape is not tolerated in western society. Rape is a punishable crime. Many people who are falsely accused of rape, or deemed innocent in a court of law, still face huge attitude and obstacles, because rape is a horrendous crime. And society and people aren't so forgiving of such a crime.
In my eyes, rape is worse than murder. When you are dead, your dead, but rape victims have to live through that trauma.

But to claim that western/modern society is rape culture is literally backwards and wrong.

2
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> 'I am not a racist though. I hate everyone equally. '

> Yes; I think we get that. Except - if you'll excuse the lettuce munching, snowflake psychobabble - personally I suspect you don't like yourself much, either.

Nah mate, I am awesome. It was a cheeky little comment to rile you all up a bit. Have a like, you wee scamp you.
Post edited at 23:08
3
KevinD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Nah mate, I am awesome.

taken a vote on that?
2
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Yea, 4 out of my 6 personalities voted awesome.
2
Roadrunner5 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

It really isnt, its still way way too common and you have old white men like sessions saying that's not assault..

There is still a lot of education needed.

You can deny it all you want but how come this contraversy has finished Trump in all likelihood?

Why not the 'mexicans are rapists' 'flat chested women cant be a 10' 'POWs arent heros' 'only the weak get PTSD' 'a mexican judge cant run my case'.. he's said many many shockings things but hearing him brag about doing exactly what these women have accused him of has provoked huge anger because it is such a problem still.
'
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
biped - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> And why is it always race with you bloody liberals.

It isn't. It's only always about race with you bloody racists.
1
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> It really isnt, its still way way too common and you have old white men like sessions saying that's not assault..

Oh, there's the white card again.

> There is still a lot of education needed.

Yea. Education on not voting for either of the nut jobs.

> You can deny it all you want but how come this contraversy has finished Trump in all likelihood?

Not denying anything. And it's not over until it's over.


> Why not the 'mexicans are rapists' 'flat chested women cant be a 10' 'POWs arent heros' 'only the weak get PTSD' 'a mexican judge cant run my case'.. he's said many many shockings things but hearing him brag about doing exactly what these women have accused him of has provoked huge anger because it is such a problem still.

Because people find rape and sexual assault abhorrent, because rape isn't tolerated in modern society, and it gets a lot of reaction and emotion?
If the west was a rape culture, then this wouldn't be a problem for him.

3
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to biped:

> It isn't. It's only always about race with you bloody racists.

Oh, here we go...



3
biped - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Lazy stereotyping is such a bitch, isn't it.
2
Bootrock on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to biped:


;)

Have a like for that, made me chuckle.
2
Dr.S at work - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Katie Hopkins supports Trump.

Two idiots being flayed on 'This Week' at the moment.
2
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Dr.S at work:

CNN are now reporting 10 women have come forwards over the past 48 hours..

The why now argument is because just one saying it would have faced Trump and his media connections wrath, now the video and the denial on the debate and they realize there are others.
2
Dr.S at work - on 14 Oct 2016
David Martin - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Given the profoundly negative connotations sexual assault accusations have, it will be very interesting to see if this results in a marked disconnect between polling and ballot box results.

While such accusations exist, few in their right mind, standing with their wife and kids being interviewed on TV, are going to say to the camera "I stand for Trump as president!". His poll results will likely go through the floor, regardless of whether he is innocent until proven guilty or any of these ten women prove reliable witnesses.

If however his election results defy those polling results, it would point to an uneasy situation where people feel they can't openly state their conservative political views and are effectively stifled by a form of political correctness, which is one of Trump and his supporters campaign issues. Again, my suspicion is that all this is actually strengthening Trumps position. He'll lose some voters for sure. But there is a undercurrent of anger at this sort of scandal which may strengthen his support in other ways.

So far he has simply made statements. They could be nothing more than braggadocio. Accusations against him are simply that - allegations. This isn't black-and-white, with photographic evidence of him with his hand down a child's pants. Admittedly he's in a bed of his own making. But I would be cautious about thinking these are nails in the coffin.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to David Martin:

It will have very little effect on his core support, that's for sure. They are mainly not very bright, they don't like political correctness, and to people who don't like 'political correctness' freedom from it means precisely the freedom both to do and say this sort of thing.

I'd struggle to believe it's going to play with swing women voters in particular, though.

jcm
1
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to David Martin:

Its intersting that one of the recent additions to his top campaign team is that Robert Ailes guy from Fox news ( who was booted out after serious allegations of sexual harassment by various top women broadcasters)

Tales one to know one.
johncoxmysteriously - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I love this one.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/look-at-her-i-dont-think-so-trumps-defence-is-to-dem...

“Take a look. Look at her. Look at her words. And you tell me what you think. I don’t think so,” Trump said of Natasha Stoynoff, a People magazine reporter who alleged he had “forced his tongue down my throat”.

Way to win back women voters.

And pretty bizarre even in its own terms:-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=natasha+stoynoff&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=...

If you were into forcibly kissing women, I don't see why she'd be any less good a target than the next woman, really.

jcm
2
jkarran - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> And I can tell you now, there are boyfriends and husbands whose girlfriends/wives would be preaching to high heaven about how their man (or non binary gender partner or what ever pink and fluffy crap is going on these days) would never speak like that, and in actual fact they do.

I don't know a single person that talks like Trump does about women, not to brag, not to shock, not in jest. Even as a teen that sort of attitude would have been challenged by peers. Perhaps you keep poor company, perhaps the world has left you behind and you really are the knuckle dragger you're coming across as.

> And I have heard a lot of women make worse comments/jokes/statements, so let's not make this a man thing either.

I haven't.
jk
2
biped - on 14 Oct 2016
Greasy Prusiks on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

If I knew someone was making boasts about sexual assault in a professional environment I wouldn't even waste their time with an interview.
1
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to jkarran:

It is interesting that a couple of my US " colleagues" who were very Pro Trump ( unreal facebook links etc etc) have gone incredibly quiet over the last few days.

I have never meet any American who would say this is " locker" behaviour. Exactly the opposite in my experience.

wbo - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor, or more particularly Bootrock: - what I don't think you grasp is that this stuff is entirely typical for him. I remember hearing him on Stern 20 or so years ago and it was just the same. Dismissing it as one off locker room talk is BS.

He has an incredible sense of privilege, superiority, and always has, be it women, tax, business dealings , bankruptcies, stiffing contractors, draft dodging.....

1
Offwidth - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
You have to see the black humour in this repellant man in a chameleon suit being backed by pious social conservatives and dispossessed white voters. I know what I do and represent as a super rich american is bad, so I'm the best person to fix it !?! Stunning logic. Hey, at least he still has Katy Price on his side (if you watched This Week last night).

I'm sticking with too much of middle America is just plain dumb, so easily duped and both political parties are so mired in lowest common denominator shitty rhetoric and dirty lobbying that they have to polish the turds that float highest. Clinton is an easy politician to despise by middle america and clearly a flawed candidate who would never get this far in a better, more honest, system but when you examine the detail of why (from the middle america viewpoint: bad decisions, lies, not socially conservative, associated with the rich getting richer... all-in-all 'not one of us'), Trump is usually at least on a par or sometimes way worse, apart from not previously being part of the political machine.
Post edited at 10:47
1
neilh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

I use to think that about Clinton..

A few weeks ago there were some articles about what she had done as a New York Senator, especially supporting the 9/11 firefighters in respect of their medical claims following all the dust in the collapsed buildings.

I changed my mind after she was the only politico who took this on, and it was clear she had their respect from that time.

Granted it could have been spin, but it came acroos as pretty serious campaining stuff and I was impressed.
2
Offwidth - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

The good politicians do needs to be balanced against the bad and the indifferent. The liberal left acknowledge the flaws and in the last two democratic races she was involved with, a socalist gave her a good run and a relative outsider with real confidence in front of the public beat her soundly.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to David Martin:

They are not simply accusations or allegations.

They alone are, his continued statements about women, clips on radio shows, laughing when he's called a sexual predator and saying 'I know" or something, saying he can get away with grabbing and kissing girls, admitting walking in on girls changing.. "I'll be dating her in 10 years" to a 10 year old girl..

Then these allegations almost exactly describe these actions he laughs that he does ups the level.

On top of that is his continual attacks on Bill and his denials and attacking the Clintons for attacking the women who made the claims on Bill, whilst then attacking and mocking those who make the allegations against him.

Over here we have the Cosby thing which started off similarly and built like this is. Each day more are coming forwards. Most are pretty tame but still out of order, the walking in on teens changing is very disturbing but the actual attacks ramp it up more.

Also he is reaping what he sows, this man campaigned for the death penalty for 5 black youths and still insists they are guilty despite them having served sentences and been exonerated on DNA evidence, had Trump had his way they would have been executed. He still insists they are guilty and said so last week again. He seems willing to band around unsubstantiated accusations about these youths, the clintons and Cruz's Dad being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald, and is then furious at allegations against him.

If they were just allegations I'd be more inclined to agree but when put with his history and comments, videos they are much more damning,
1
The New NickB - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Have you seen the New York Times response to his threat to sue them over the latest allegations they printed? Definitely to be applauded.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:
Yeah, it sounds like they and a few others have been waiting for a chance to get him like this. People magazine have also had a letter. Strangely in that one Melania Trump is saying that she didnt chat with the journalist outside, and not for People magazine saying Trump forcibly kissed the journalist.

I dont think this will change much more with more people. CNN are running them but most who watch CNN are decided and most who watch Fox and Hannity etc are pro Trump. Michelle Obama is a powerful voice.

Unless something damning comes out on Clinton this is probably all over.

Whats amazing is Trump never did opposition research on himself. Major candidates typically employ teams to dig for dirt on them so major scandals can be prepared for, here he seems to have been hit for 6 and like with past controversies just digs deeper and makes these stories run for longer than they typically do. It was his denials of the Bush tape which made some of these women come forwards.
Post edited at 13:41
elsewhere on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Apparently it's routine for campaign team to look for dirt on their own candidate but Trump would not allow this.

Hence Trump's campaign is unprepared when rivals, opponents and journalists find the stories.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-opposition-research-2016-10
Roadrunner5 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

Thing is now every day another story comes out, and there are plenty.

Today its Lohan being good in bad because she was troubled... and dont stay with that sort for long but they are good for a short period. Its going to continue to knock any attempt to gain women and he needs them to land pennsylvania

His path to victory is looking very narrow. He really needs to turn New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, PA, VA and at the moment most of them will go blue.
The Ice Doctor - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37722434

Unless Trump knows something we don't, he has to be completely nuts.


Mikkel - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

And if he lose he will hold his breath?
1
elsewhere on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Trump says Clinton and Obama paid people $1500 to cause violence at his rallies!

Then there's the corrupt media poisoning the minds of the population , millions on the electoral rolls who shouldn't be and rigged elections.

All he has to do next is mention the zionist lizard conspiracy for the full set of crackpot theories.
Post edited at 20:54
1
andy farnell - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere: He'll be wearing purple tracksuits next...

Andy F

KevinD - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

> Unless Trump knows something we don't, he has to be completely nuts.

Wonder what he means by a "clear election result"?
i have a sneaking suspicion if he gets beaten:
a)a few votes. Clear evidence of some vote rigging.
b)lots of votes. Even clear evidence of vote rigging.
1
Rob Exile Ward on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
If I was part of the Clinton team right now, I would work on the comedy potential - comedy mixed with a degree of regret that the GOP couldn't field a more credible candidate.

Politicians can weather a lot, but they can rarely weather being figures of fun.
Post edited at 23:10
Rob Exile Ward on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

'Wonder what he means by a "clear election result"? '

Crikey, that's easy. A 'clear result' - Trump wins. (Even if he loses the popular vote by a landslide, and only wins by a single chad in Florida.) If Clinton wins - by any margin, in any number of states? Rigged. Obviously.
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.