Trump cries when called out for attacking women

[Correll]

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

You want to smear Hillary Clinton using Bill Clinton..no one has to use anything against Trump except HIS OWN DEPLORABLE BEHAVIOR ...bottom line

HIllary was no innocent bystander in Bill long history of mistreating women.

She was an active accomplice.

His expertise in Physics does not mean he is an expert in Politics.

He has demonstrated superior intellectual fire power and has arrived at the proper conclusion

you on the other hand are flailing and struggling because

The only one that has sworn depositions of rape against him is Donald Trump...you cannot accept that as a fact when it is a fact..

His conclusion sounds like he just repeated what the Conventional Wisdom of his peer group is.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

4. Your assumption of my conclusion being based on political expedience is unsupported. ANd ironically, is politically expedient for YOU.

Your conclusion denies a KEY Fact

ONLY Donald Trump has had a woman swear to Rape..Only Trump

 

[kaz]

He does not get it. Attack women, attack HRC, and he will feel the force of femdom.


CBS News
See realtime coverage
Donald Trump fires back over "lame hit piece" on women
CBS News - ‎10 hours ago‎



Donald Trump »The New York Times »
Trump's conduct with women: lewd one moment and gentlemanly the nextThe Seattle Times
Trump's Relations with Women Getting a New LookVoice of America
Opinion:Flowers: Trump is an equal opportunity offenderPhilly.com

You've come a long way, baby

 

[Correll]

This leads me to believe her recantation, and thus that Trump did NOT rape her.
"

I believe Brodderick's recantation because she recanted under Oath... Trump is an accused rapist and currently faces a civil trial for Fraud...bottom line

You believe her initial testimony because you are a partisan hack and it serves your leftist agenda to "believe" it.

Irony is so ironic, isn't it?

I may be partisan, but I am not a Blind partisan.

I have often disagreed with or called out Republicans.

Or even agreed with, that guy in the White House, on issues of policy.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

HIllary was no innocent bystander in Bill long history of mistreating women.
.

Trump raped his ex wife and the New York times provided a long list of Trump female abuse

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I may be partisan, but I am not a Blind partisan.
.

You are a full throated Right wing unconditional who claims Trump is of Sterling character... when in fact a woman swore he raped her...

 

[kaz]

Trump has been repeatedly called out for abusing women and will continue to be called out.

Bill is not running.

Hillary is, and she led the assault on women who spoke out about being assaulted by Bill. Hillary is the most anti-woman candidate in history, Jake

 

[Correll]

Your logic chopping has extended beyond the absurd. She's credible when she doesn't want to testify, for reasons that are obvious to anyone else, but she isn't credible when she does accuse Bill of rape. She would commit perjury, but Bill, the president of the United States, committed perjury before the entire country.

Why would anyone swallow your ridiculous excuses?

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

Your sympathy for terrified and traumatized rape victims is incredible.

Leftists talk SO much smack about being against bigotry or sexism or homophobia...

Until there is the slightest cost to them from standing by their supposed "Principles".


Then it's all Stand By Your Man, and the Attacking the Victim.

If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have attended a fundraiser of accused rapist just weeks later. If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have sworn Bill didn't rape her. If she were truly a rape victim, she wouldn't be discovering new details nearly 40 years later.

Again, she's a proven liar and adulterer, much like Bill Clinton, ironically enough. You choose to find such a person to be credible. In my opinion, for no reason other than it's politically expedient.

1. Re: Fundraiser: Taking time to come to grip with what happened is common with rape victims.

2. Her reasons for giving false testimony have been repeatedly explained. That you are pretending not to know of that is disingenuous. Being afraid of the most powerful man in the world is very credible.

3. Discussing events that occurred long ago can jog memories. It is not credible that you do not know that.

4. Your assumption of my conclusion being based on political expedience is unsupported. ANd ironically, is politically expedient for YOU.

1. Attending a fundraiser is far more common by people who were not raped by the person raising funds.

2. I never said I don't know her reasons. You're lying now. I said I don't believe her reasons. There's a vast difference between the two which I would hope even you could understand.

3. Adding events some forty years after the fact is also evidence that the person is lying.

4. You're lying again. I base that opinion on reading your posts on this forum. You're every bit the partisan hack you accuse others of being from what I've seen.

1. Cute. And does not address my point that rape victims often take time to be able to face what happened.

2. Asking a question generally implies that you don't know that answer. If you don't believe her reasons, then put forth why you don't believe them.

3. Or jogging her memory as she discussed something that happened a long time ago.

4. YOur perception is being affected by your Confirmation Bias.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump has been repeatedly called out for abusing women and will continue to be called out.

Bill is not running.

Hillary is, and she led the assault on women who spoke out about being assaulted by Bill. Hillary is the most anti-woman candidate in history, Jake

Ok Pocahontas , Buckwheat Kunta Kinte LOL

bottom line though the only one formally accused of Rape is Donald Trump

 

[Correll]

I may be partisan, but I am not a Blind partisan.
.

You are a full throated Right wing unconditional who claims Trump is of Sterling character... when in fact a woman swore he raped her...

Not sure what an "unconditional" is, but I do claim that Trump is of better character than Hillary.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

4. YOur perception is being affected by your Confirmation Bias.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Not sure what an "unconditional" is, but I do claim that Trump is of better character than Hillary.

Hoooooooooooooooo hahashahaghahahahahha

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Not sure what an "unconditional" is, but I do claim that Trump is of better character than Hillary.

Really how come only Trump has a Fraud trial ahead of him and why has he been accused of rape in court ?

 

[Faun]

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

Your sympathy for terrified and traumatized rape victims is incredible.

Leftists talk SO much smack about being against bigotry or sexism or homophobia...

Until there is the slightest cost to them from standing by their supposed "Principles".


Then it's all Stand By Your Man, and the Attacking the Victim.

If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have attended a fundraiser of accused rapist just weeks later. If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have sworn Bill didn't rape her. If she were truly a rape victim, she wouldn't be discovering new details nearly 40 years later.

Again, she's a proven liar and adulterer, much like Bill Clinton, ironically enough. You choose to find such a person to be credible. In my opinion, for no reason other than it's politically expedient.

1. Re: Fundraiser: Taking time to come to grip with what happened is common with rape victims.

2. Her reasons for giving false testimony have been repeatedly explained. That you are pretending not to know of that is disingenuous. Being afraid of the most powerful man in the world is very credible.

3. Discussing events that occurred long ago can jog memories. It is not credible that you do not know that.

4. Your assumption of my conclusion being based on political expedience is unsupported. ANd ironically, is politically expedient for YOU.

1. Attending a fundraiser is far more common by people who were not raped by the person raising funds.

2. I never said I don't know her reasons. You're lying now. I said I don't believe her reasons. There's a vast difference between the two which I would hope even you could understand.

3. Adding events some forty years after the fact is also evidence that the person is lying.

4. You're lying again. I base that opinion on reading your posts on this forum. You're every bit the partisan hack you accuse others of being from what I've seen.

1. Cute. And does not address my point that rape victims often take time to be able to face what happened.

2. Asking a question generally implies that you don't know that answer. If you don't believe her reasons, then put forth why you don't believe them.

3. Or jogging her memory as she discussed something that happened a long time ago.

4. YOur perception is being affected by your Confirmation Bias.

1. Except Juanita didn't. She says she immediately told a friend and the man she was having an affair with that Clinton raped her. She then attended a fundraiser in Clinton's honor.

2. I stated why I don't believe her many times over. That you still can't understand why I don't believe her at this point is more of a reflection on you.

3. She's been telling this story for nearly 40 years. I don't find it credible that new details, which happen to be politically damaging during an election, emerge after nearly 40 years. You do. Good for you.

4. That may be your opinion, of which you are certainly entitled, but it doesn't sway my opinion which I base on your postings I've observed.

 

[boedicca]

She didn't want to get involved in the Paula Jones lawsuits, for very good reasons. She has since recanted and come forward with the true story about the rape and hiLIARy's subsequent threat towards her.

There is no evidence of "subsequent threats" from Hillary...I believe that Brodderick did not want to go under oath and say Bill Clinton raped her because its not true and would have exposed her to perjury...

hiLIARy did the Clinton equivalent of a mob enforcer stopping by and saying "nice little store you have here":

...
Broaddrick said that Hillary Clinton had asked the man who drove the Clintons to the event–one of Broaddrick’s acquaintances–whether she would be at the gathering, leading him to believe she was anxious to meet her. Broaddrick said that Hillary walked over to her as soon as she entered the room, grabbed her hand, and said they wanted to thank her for all she does for Bill Clinton.


Shaken by the unexpected meeting, Broaddrick said she started to walk away from her, but that Hillary Clinton would not let go of her hand, keeping a tight grip on it.


“You said, “Everything you do for Bill,” Broaddrick wrote. “You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.”

Broaddrick asked Mrs. Clinton in the letter whether she was referring to “my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before.”...

The War on Women: Juanita Broaddrick and Bill Clinton - Breitbart

 

[Correll]

Your sympathy for terrified and traumatized rape victims is incredible.

Leftists talk SO much smack about being against bigotry or sexism or homophobia...

Until there is the slightest cost to them from standing by their supposed "Principles".


Then it's all Stand By Your Man, and the Attacking the Victim.

If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have attended a fundraiser of accused rapist just weeks later. If she were truly a rape victim, she would not have sworn Bill didn't rape her. If she were truly a rape victim, she wouldn't be discovering new details nearly 40 years later.

Again, she's a proven liar and adulterer, much like Bill Clinton, ironically enough. You choose to find such a person to be credible. In my opinion, for no reason other than it's politically expedient.

1. Re: Fundraiser: Taking time to come to grip with what happened is common with rape victims.

2. Her reasons for giving false testimony have been repeatedly explained. That you are pretending not to know of that is disingenuous. Being afraid of the most powerful man in the world is very credible.

3. Discussing events that occurred long ago can jog memories. It is not credible that you do not know that.

4. Your assumption of my conclusion being based on political expedience is unsupported. ANd ironically, is politically expedient for YOU.

1. Attending a fundraiser is far more common by people who were not raped by the person raising funds.

2. I never said I don't know her reasons. You're lying now. I said I don't believe her reasons. There's a vast difference between the two which I would hope even you could understand.

3. Adding events some forty years after the fact is also evidence that the person is lying.

4. You're lying again. I base that opinion on reading your posts on this forum. You're every bit the partisan hack you accuse others of being from what I've seen.

1. Cute. And does not address my point that rape victims often take time to be able to face what happened.

2. Asking a question generally implies that you don't know that answer. If you don't believe her reasons, then put forth why you don't believe them.

3. Or jogging her memory as she discussed something that happened a long time ago.

4. YOur perception is being affected by your Confirmation Bias.

1. Except Juanita didn't. She says she immediately told a friend and the man she was having an affair with that Clinton raped her. She then attended a fundraiser in Clinton's honor.

2. I stated why I don't believe her many times over. That you still can't understand why I don't believe her at this point is more of a reflection on you.

3. She's been telling this story for nearly 40 years. I don't find it credible that new details, which happen to be politically damaging during an election, emerge after nearly 40 years. You do. Good for you.

4. That may be your opinion, of which you are certainly entitled, but it doesn't sway my opinion which I base on your postings I've observed.

1a So, you doubt she was traumatized and confused because her behavior didn't seem rational? <a-hem>

1b Witnesses that verified her injury.

2. You keep repeating that she is "not credible". That's just another way of saying you don't believe her. "lied under oath"? She was afraid of the most powerful man in the world, and his vicious wife. That's a credible fear.

3. DOubting new details in one thing. Doubting the original story is another.

4. Attacking the messenger is generally an excuse to avoid dealing with arguments that the attacker can't refute.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The War on Women: Juanita Broaddrick and Bill Clinton - Breitbart

So...that is just more self serving stuff from J Brodderick..when it came time to step up and under oath say that Clinton raped her she balked... I thin she wasd afraid of perjury not Hillary Clinton
By the way nice site that Breitbart LOL they turned on their own female reporter when she was assaulted by a Trump goon LOl
Breitbart News sees upheaval as workers resign and accusations fly .

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Donald Trump's bizarre war on women
Donald Trump's war on women is officially in full swing
Budowsky: Trump's war on women | TheHill
Budowsky: Trump's war on women | TheHill

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

4. Attacking the messenger is generally an excuse to avoid dealing with arguments that the attacker can't refute.

Who has sworn raped accusations filed in Court

Donald Trump___

Bill Clinton______

 

[boedicca]

Keep it up Tyrone! All you are doing is teaching Millennials who are ignorant of the Clintons' abuses of women that Bill is a rapist and hiLIARy is his enabler.