Number 22

[Dill]

Do we already have a thread on alleged presidential rapes? Not sure we do. Looks like we need one.

Donald Trump accused of sexually assaulting writer E Jean Carroll
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/21/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegation-e-jean-carroll-new-york-latest-accusation

Carroll alleges that Trump assaulted her in a dressing room in the store after he had asked her for advice on a present to buy a female friend. He selected a “lacy see-through bodysuit of lilac gray” and asked her to model it for him; she quipped back that he should try it on.

When they reached the dressing room, Carroll alleges that Trump lunged at her and over the next three minutes sexually assaulted her. “He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights,” she writes.

In a “colossal struggle” he unzipped his trousers and forced his fingers around her genitals and thrusted his penis “halfway – or completely, I’m not certain – inside me.”

She managed to force him off her, Carroll alleges, open the door of the dressing room and flee.
............................................................................................................................................................................................

Cocked and loaded?   Someone's going to mention the Hollywood Access tape before this over. 

Now in addition to the investigation into his finance, growing support for impeachment, and a shameful whiff on Iran's doorstep, the face of our nation has to deal with yet another allegation of sexual assault.

Watching Carroll on Lawrence O'donnell right now. Puzzling statements. She doesn't want to bring charges against Trump because it would be "disrespectful" to woman down on the border who are raped "around the clock," and in other cultures around the world. Her's was only "three minutes." She is from the silent generation. ???? What? It only hurt a short time. Doesn't hurt now.?

O'donnell played the Access Hollywood tape. "He takes what he wants" she said. American voters wanted a "powerful man." The tape didn't matter.

More of her bio here. https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

[Dill]

TRUMP'S RESPONSE
.................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump is trying to gaslight us on E. Jean Carroll’s account of rape
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701355/trump-gaslight-e-jean-carroll-rape-sexual-assault

Tactic #1: Inject doubt

“I’ve never met this person in my life.”

When I read this line, I paused. I could have sworn New York magazine published a photo showed Trump and Carroll together. Maybe I had misunderstood. Maybe I was wrong about what I saw. Maybe the publication pulled a fast one on me.

No. I was right. A photo is clearly embedded in the story.

Even if Trump didn’t remember Carroll, he certainly read the article and would have seen the photo of himself with her. It’s just not true that he never met her — and he knows it. Trump is deliberately putting readers back on their heels, making them doubt their own eyes.

Tactic #2: Misdirect

“Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda—like Julie Swetnick who falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

An obvious parallel to Carroll’s story is Christine Blasey Ford’s. Like Carroll, Ford is an accomplished, professional, well-spoken woman who told the world a detailed, deeply personal story about a powerful man. She sat in front of a Senate committee for hours and answered questions about her account of an encounter with Brett Kavanaugh in high school in which she says he attempted to rape her. Most Americans found her credible.

Trump is attempting to make us forget that Ford was at the center of the Kavanaugh controversy, instead bringing up a woman named Julie Swetnick, who said she saw Kavanaugh acting inappropriately at parties when they were in high school. Swetnick’s account was far less specific and detailed as Christine Ford’s account. She couldn’t establish that they knew each other. Her story was thus less compelling and less reliable. It was covered in the national media, but it was not the defining storyline of the Kavanaugh nomination.

Trump is trying to rewrite history, to make us forget what really happened with Kavanaugh. He’s trying to shift the comparison from Ford to weaken Carroll, to make us hold her less regard.

Tactic #3: Play up irrelevant details

“Ms. Carroll & New York Magazine: No pictures? No surveillance? No video? No reports? No sales attendants around??”

Carroll wrote that there was no one around to witness the assault. She did not tell the police. The store didn’t have surveillance. No one was standing by to take a photo. This would all be helpful evidence, certainly, but the lack of it doesn’t mean that her story isn’t true.

And while Trump plays up these examples of non-existent evidence, he doesn’t address the existing corroborating evidence — that 20 years ago she told two friends who remember the details today. If he did, he’d draw attention to a significant detail in her favor. And he’d have to call not just one successful and established woman in media a liar — but three. Rather than confront the relevant detail, he’d rather get us to think about the irrelevant details.

Tactic #5: Play the victim

“False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.”

Trump wants us to feel sorry for him. It’s a sleight of hand. He’s attempting to get us to look at him not as the abuser, but as the victim. In turn, that makes Carroll the villain. This isn’t novel. It’s what abusers do. And it’s something Carroll specifically feared.

Tactic #6: Cryptic threat of violence

“The world should know what’s really going on. It is a disgrace and people should pay dearly for such false accusations.”

Trump doesn’t say he wants someone to hurt Carroll. He doesn’t say he wants his mass digital following to attack her. But the implication is there for anyone who supports him to read into if they wish.

Trump knows this. Ford has moved repeatedly after receiving death threats. He’s seen what happens to people he targets on Twitter. He can claim he didn’t mean to incite anyone, but he knows he’s done it before.

He’s also not just warning Carroll. He says “people should pay dearly” — as in, anyone who might come forward in the future. Trump wants to keep accusers afraid. So far, on more than 20 women, it hasn’t worked.  

PS not my fault there is no #4.

[*bfine32*]

Yeah, I mentioned in the 2020 thread that we haven't heard allegations of sexual harassment since the last election cycle. What number does t's election time come in or he might not have done it?

[Dill]

(06-21-2019, 11:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I mentioned in the 2020 thread that we haven't heard allegations of sexual harassment since the last election cycle. What number does t's election time come in or he might not have done it?

?? perhaps you could reword the question??

[*bfine32*]

(06-21-2019, 11:27 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? perhaps you could reword the question??

Yes your numbers were all assuming he did what he is accused of (very open-minded). I was just curious why there was no consideration of maybe he didn't do it.

He was accused all last election cycle of harassing women and then crickets until less than a week after he announced he was running again. 

Is it just cowinkydink? 

[*Nately120*]

(06-21-2019, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes your numbers were all assuming he did what he is accused of (very open-minded). I was just curious why there was no consideration of maybe he didn't do it.

He was accused all last election cycle of harassing women and then crickets until less than a week after he announced he was running again. 

Is it just cowinkydink? 

In all fairness, last election cycle he was accused of harassing women and then a recording of him bragging that he harassed women and got away with it surfaced and THEN crickets.  I wouldn't call this so much of a cowinkydink as a moot point.  



Side note, I'm watching a CFL game now and the first ever Canadian political ad I've ever seen is on!

[*bfine32*]

(06-21-2019, 11:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: In all fairness, last election cycle he was accused of harassing women and then a recording of him bragging that he harassed women and got away with it surfaced and THEN crickets.  I wouldn't call this so much of a cowinkydink as a moot point.  



Side note, I'm watching a CFL game now and the first ever Canadian political ad I've ever seen is on!

You do realize the terms are not mutually exclusive. It could both be a moot point and a cowinkydink. However, I don't see the point as moot. I think Trump supporters will rally around the accusation. 

As I've said countless times: Folks are their own worst enemy and don't even know it.

[*Nately120*]

(06-21-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize the terms are not mutually exclusive. It could both be a moot point and a cowinkydink. However, I don't see the point as moot. I think Trump supporters will rally around the accusation. 

As I've said countless times: Folks are their own worst enemy and don't even know it.

Bill Clinton's approval rating went up during the whole impeachment/perjury rigmarole and Trump's campaign grows in power with every woman who accuses him of doing things he brags about doing and getting away with.  I tells ya, you can't make this stuff up.

Did Marion Barry become more popular because he got caught smoking crack, too?  I can't recall.

[Dill]

(06-21-2019, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
Yes your numbers were all assuming he did what he is accused of (very open-minded). I was just curious why there was no consideration of maybe he didn't do it.

He was accused all last election cycle of harassing women and then crickets until less than a week after he announced he was running again. 

Is it just cowinkydink? 

Yes. That is what I meant by ALLEGED presidential rapes. That he did what he is accused of.

Of course it's possible the guy who just-can't-keep-from-kissing-women-grab'em-by-the _____-They-let-you-if-you're- a-celebrity and already has tallied 21 assault accusations might not have done it. It's his word against hers and her witnesses. He said they said.

She says she has kept the dress she wore that day in a closet all these years, and never wore it again. Very suspicious.

Looks like another woman selling a book?  Trying to bring a good man down? 

Trump filed his re-election campaign the day he was inaugurated in Jan. 2017. So Carroll's timing is just coincidence?

We are still three short.

[*bfine32*]

(06-22-2019, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes. That is what I meant by ALLEGED presidential rapes. That he did what he is accused of.

Of course it's possible the guy who just-can't-keep-from-kissing-women-grab'em-by-the _____-They-let-you-if-you're- a-celebrity and already has tallied 21 assault accusations might not have done it. It's his word against hers and her witnesses. He said they said.

She says she has kept the dress she wore that day in a closet all these years, and never wore it again. Very suspicious.

Looks like another woman selling a book?  Trying to bring a good man down? 

Trump filed his re-election campaign the day he was inaugurated in Jan. 2017. So Carroll's timing is just coincidence?

We are still three short.

I sure you think (no you don't) that your thread was open-minded and unbiased. 

I will say it's a nice touch that she included the detail of "He was either half in or all the way in I couldn't tell" Seems like a legit detail a victim of sexual harassment would add. 

You're also wrong about when Trump announced his reelection bid. It was just this week. 

[Dill]

(06-22-2019, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote:
I sure you think (no you don't) that your thread was open-minded and unbiased. 

I will say it's a nice touch that she included the detail of "He was either half in or all the way in I couldn't tell" Seems like a legit detail a victim of sexual harassment would add. 

You're also wrong about when Trump announced his reelection bid. It was just this week. 

LOL   I report.  You decide.


I said NOTHING about any "announcements."

I am not wrong about when Trump filled his re-election campaign.
https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/569/201701209041436569/201701209041436569.pdf

Trump Reveals 2020 Re-Election Slogan: 'Keep America Great!'
https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/18/keep-america-great-donald-trump-2020-reelection-slogan

[*bfine32*]

(06-22-2019, 12:25 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL   I report.  You decide.


I said NOTHING about any "announcements."

I am not wrong about when Trump filled his re-election campaign.
https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/569/201701209041436569/201701209041436569.pdf

But I did and that's the post you quoted. I see you have a habit of replying to things using your words instead of the words of the person you're responding to. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-21-2019, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes your numbers were all assuming he did what he is accused of (very open-minded). I was just curious why there was no consideration of maybe he didn't do it.

He was accused all last election cycle of harassing women and then crickets until less than a week after he announced he was running again. 

Is it just cowinkydink? 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-talks-the-talk-but-Biden-walks-the-walk

Would you say he is walking the walk or talking the talk?

And did you once mention that Biden maybe didn't do it or do you only reserve that for Trump or Trump nominees?

[Dill]

(06-22-2019, 12:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But I did and that's the post you quoted. I see you have a habit of replying to things using your words instead of the words of the person you're responding to. 

Jeezus, can you follow an argument or not?

Your defense of Trump implied this woman's story is related to a recent campaign announcement.

I only pointed out he made it clear from day one he was running again. Nuts to your "coincidence."

No one is "changing" your words.  And yes, I always reply in MY words.  You reply in yours I've noticed.
Stop sending discussions down the rabbit hole with semantic nonsense.

Further advice--defending Trump only backs you into a corner. Foreign policy flops, fixers, porn stars, profiting from office, nepotism, obstruction, sexual assault--there is no defending this guy. You back yourself into a corner every time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2019, 02:03 AM)Dill Wrote: Jeezus, can you follow an argument or not?

Your defense of Trump implied this woman's story is related to a recent campaign announcement.

I only pointed out he made it clear from day one he was running again. Nuts to your "coincidence."

No one is "changing" your words.  And yes, I always reply in MY words.  You reply in yours I've noticed.
Stop sending discussions down the rabbit hole with semantic nonsense.

Further advice--defending Trump only backs you into a corner. Foreign policy flops, fixers, porn stars, profiting from office, nepotism, obstruction, sexual assault--there is no defending this guy.  You back yourself into a corner every time.

Clinton was accused of sexually assaulting women and even rape, not a peep.  One of our resident far leftists to this day refuses to say whether he believes the Clinton accusers, #metoo an all.  Not engaging in whataboutism, merely pointing out inconsistencies in the opinions of others.  Trump is not a morally virtuous person, by any means, but bfine's concerns and points are not invalid.  Disdainfully discounting them out of hand doesn't lend your argument further validity.

[Dill]

(06-22-2019, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Clinton was accused of sexually assaulting women and even rape, not a peep.  One of our resident far leftists to this day refuses to say whether he believes the Clinton accusers, #metoo an all.  Not engaging in whataboutism, merely pointing out inconsistencies in the opinions of others.  Trump is not a morally virtuous person, by any means, but bfine's concerns and points are not invalid.  Disdainfully discounting them out of hand doesn't lend your argument further validity.

??? Not a peep from whom? when? where???

What "inconsistencies" of what "others" are you pointing out, while complaining about the "disdainful discounting" of others' concerns? And what do inconsistencies of others regarding Clinton have to do with a thread I started on the newest accusations against Trump?  Should they not be reported/discussed in this forum becomes some unnamed member won't respond to accusations against Clinton?  Could Bfine be obliquely arguing against some unnamed person's Clinton inconsistency? A shadow argument?

Trump is not simply "not morally virtuous." He is unstable. incompetent. vicious. publicly and pathologically so. He was elected anyway, and his behavior is defended every day. People defending him back themselves into corners. How could they not? There are only two ways to go: 1) arguing that his behavior is not really that bad (gaslighting), thereby destroying norms and lowering standards; or 2) arguing that others (Hillary, Bill, Obama) are really just as bad--the false equivalence as red herring. Either way is just throwing up smoke.

I have reported yet another rape accusation against Trump, clearly marked ALLEGED, and emphasized, along the way, the alleged victim's questionable take on her own alleged victimhood, and Bfine's first move is to complain my "numbers" presume him guilty.  I'm biased.  Somehow.

Following Trump's own misdirection tactic, Bfine then questions the timing of the victim's story, which coincides with the publication of her book, sent to the publisher long before any recent Trump announcement. I note that Trump filed his candidacy on his inauguration day (implication, Trump's candidacy is old news); and Bfine says I am wrong. When it turns out I'm not wrong, then he accuses me of substituting my words for his or some such, instead of explaining why his timing complaint should still have merit. So while I am addressing his points, he is, yet again, going down a side track. Hence not following the argument.

Seems to me he has been about as "disdainful" of my concerns as I of his. But as my complaint suggests, I would rather keep to facts of this case and the merit of arguments undermining the accuser's credibility then get off into the smoke of bias charges, disdain, and inconsistencies relating to Bill Clinton, not Trump.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2019, 04:11 AM)Dill Wrote: ??? Not a peep from whom? when? where???

What "inconsistencies" of what "others" are you pointing out, while complaining about the "disdainful discounting" of others' concerns? And what do inconsistencies of others regarding Clinton have to do with a thread I started on the newest accusations against Trump?  Should they not be reported/discussed in this forum becomes some unnamed member won't respond to accusations against Clinton?  Could Bfine be obliquely arguing against some unnamed person's Clinton inconsistency? A shadow argument?

Trump is not simply "not morally virtuous." He is unstable. incompetent. vicious. publicly and pathologically so. He was elected anyway, and his behavior is defended every day. People defending him back themselves into corners. How could they not? There are only two ways to go: 1) arguing that his behavior is not really that bad (gaslighting), thereby destroying norms and lowering standards; or 2) arguing that others (Hillary, Bill, Obama) are really just as bad--the false equivalence as red herring. Either way is just throwing up smoke.

I have reported yet another rape accusation against Trump, clearly marked ALLEGED, and emphasized, along the way, the alleged victim's questionable take on her own alleged victimhood, and Bfine's first move is to complain my "numbers" presume him guilty.  I'm biased.  Somehow.

Following Trump's own misdirection tactic, Bfine then questions the timing of the victim's story, which coincides with the publication of her book, sent to the publisher long before any recent Trump announcement. I note that Trump filed his candidacy on his inauguration day (implication, Trump's candidacy is old news); and Bfine says I am wrong. When it turns out I'm not wrong, then he accuses me of substituting my words for his or some such, instead of explaining why his timing complaint should still have merit. So while I am addressing his points, he is, yet again, going down a side track. Hence not following the argument.

Seems to me he has been about as "disdainful" of my concerns as I of his. But as my complaint suggests, I would rather keep to facts of this case and the merit of arguments undermining the accuser's credibility then get off into the smoke of bias charges, disdain, and inconsistencies relating to Bill Clinton, not Trump.

Dill none of this matters because....Clinton.

While they say they are not defending Trump that is all they do.  Oh, there is the occasional "I feel he shouldn't speak that way" when backed into a corner but the Trump defenders simply do not believe anything bad about him.

All the posts and stories and whatever proof there is will not matter.

There are those of us who has insisted that Clinton should have stepped down during the Lewinski matter which was MUCH LESS of an event that an alleged rape.  

That doesn't matter to them.

As long as there are 30+ year old stories and accusations against Clinton (or any Democrat really) they will insist that every accusation against DJT is politically motivated.

That it is even considered a "cowinky-dink" that this story came out now is silly.  DJT has been running for office since his inauguration.  Even the poster who said it must know that much but there MUST be a defense of Trump.  Usually followed by "I'm not really defending him, but...."

I don't know if this story holds water or not.  I don't know if Trump was a sexual predator or not.  (I don't think he still is...I doubt he can get it up enough to partially measure it against Hannity's with all that adderall in his system.  )  But I know that there are people out there who STILL believe Obama was born in Kenya and who will post any "story" they can to prove it and won't even listen or look into an allegation aginst they Savior DJT.

Nothing in this thread actually tried to refute the allegations other than personal attacks on the accuser and the poster...and mentions of someone who had not posted in this thread (yet). 

They are on the Trump train...and nothing will derail that.  They just aren't "intellectually honest" enough to say it despite every post showing it.

[GMDino]

I wanted to add that if are to apply the "cowinky-dink" theory here we must also add it to every thing every politician does during an election season.

Trump's Medal of Freedom to Laffer is a play to those who still think Reagan saved the US, for example.

Trump's "I'm tough and will bomb Iran but now I won't because I am a compassionate and loving leader" act is to play to his base.

If it's politics it's politics.  If it's real life it might, possibly, be real.

[*bfine32*]

(06-22-2019, 01:37 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-talks-the-talk-but-Biden-walks-the-walk

Would you say he is walking the walk or talking the talk?

And did you once mention that Biden maybe didn't do it or do you only reserve that for Trump or Trump nominees?

Post 82 from the thread you linked:

bfine32 Wrote:Personally I'm a fan of innocent until proven guilty, think Biden is a man of higher morale character than Trump, and really don't think Biden meant anything sexual in his actions; it just looks worse on him IMO because how he spouted off about Trump. Also, in 2016 we had hearsay and braggadocio. Biden's situation is a little different as we have images.  Fair or not images carry a little more weight.

You where saying?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-22-2019, 10:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Post 82 from the thread you linked:



You where saying?

You started a thread to point out Biden is innocent until proven guilty on page 4? Way to bury the lead.