Why isn’t Melania Trump responsible for her husband?

[Belsnickel]

(10-18-2016, 01:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Thank you for pointing that out, as more knowledge has been seeping out, I've discovered that there was at least one (not his ex).
It's hard to say on his ex if it was or wasn't rape, he was married to her and it might have been added just to make it saucy and get the book to sell. And yes, she did retract it, because Trump is very protective of his reputation.

It wasn't just the book, it is a part of the court record from their divorce.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-18-2016, 02:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Bill Clinton -- err Donald Trump is just a popular target. He has lots of money and political enemies.

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

Based upon the information from this source, for every 100 women you know 25 of them were sexually abused before age 18 and only three cases were reported.

Just because sexual abuse isn't reported for years or even decades, doesn't mean the reports are false.  Suggesting so just makes it more difficult for other victims to step forward.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-18-2016, 09:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Just because sexual abuse isn't reported for years or even decades, doesn't mean the reports are false.  Suggesting so just makes it more difficult for other victims to step forward.

While completely true, the timing of the ones against Trump only make the veracity of their claims more suspect. 

[GMDino]

(10-20-2016, 12:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While completely true, the timing of the ones against Trump only make the veracity of their claims more suspect. 

At least one was filed well before he ran for president.  

As to the rest, maybe when the guy who did it comes out talking about how he would do it and get away with it...then says he never did it...maybe that makes someone angry enough to finally open up?

[GMDino]

(10-20-2016, 12:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While completely true, the timing of the ones against Trump only make the veracity of their claims more suspect. 

At least one was filed well before he ran for president.  

As to the rest, maybe when the guy who did it comes out talking about how he would do it and get away with it...then says he never did it...maybe that makes someone angry enough to finally open up?

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2016, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: At least one was filed well before he ran for president.  

As to the rest, maybe when the guy who did it comes out talking about how he would do it and get away with it...then says he never did it...maybe that makes someone angry enough to finally open up?

And then once one comes out, more will follow suit because it gives them strength to do so.

[GMDino]

(10-20-2016, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then once one comes out, more will follow suit because it gives them strength to do so.

Bill Cosby is the most recent example of this.

Does that mean ALL of them are legit?  Maybe not.  But that also does not mean they are ALL liars either.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2016, 12:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While completely true, the timing of the ones against Trump only make the veracity of their claims more suspect. 

The majority of sexual assaults aren't reported. Ever. Did you read the article I pasted?  It is common for victims to not report sexual assault for years, even decades. One of the main reasons sexual assault isn't reported is because the victim fears they won't be believed. Another, it is usually a "he said, she said" situation which is very difficult to prove. See Roger Ailes and the treatment Gretchen Carlson received before Ailes was forced to resign. 

If the victim doesn't report sexual assault immediately, which happens the majority of the time, when is the timing not suspect?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-20-2016, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: At least one was filed well before he ran for president.  

As to the rest, maybe when the guy who did it comes out talking about how he would do it and get away with it...then says he never did it...maybe that makes someone angry enough to finally open up?

Maybe. But, it's also just as likely that these women want Hillary elected, too and they're taking advantage of an opportunity.

(10-20-2016, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then once one comes out, more will follow suit because it gives them strength to do so.

But that also goes both ways. Once one comes out, others may decide to take it upon themselves to "destroy" Trump but not because he did anything to them.

(10-20-2016, 03:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Bill Cosby is the most recent example of this.

Does that mean ALL of them are legit?  Maybe not.  But that also does not mean they are ALL liars either.

I'm not saying ANY of the accusers are liars. I am, however, saying it's highly suspicious that they wait until about a month before the election before coming forward. The thing with Cosby is that only a relative few have come forward recently. Many of his accusers have accused him long before recently. It's just they weren't in the public eye for a variety of reasons.

(10-20-2016, 04:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The majority of sexual assaults aren't reported. Ever. Did you read the article I pasted?  It is common for victims to not report sexual assault for years, even decades. One of the main reasons sexual assault isn't reported is because the victim fears they won't be believed. Another, it is usually a "he said, she said" situation which is very difficult to prove. See Roger Ailes and the treatment Gretchen Carlson received before Ailes was forced to resign. 

If the victim doesn't report sexual assault immediately, which happens the majority of the time, when is the timing not suspect?

To me, it's different when the person being accused is a politician in the middle of an election campaign. If we're talking about a celebrity or an elected official not in a campaign, the issue of timing is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the accusee is in a position of wealth and authority giving credence to the accuser's fears for coming forward. 

So, had these women came forward during the primaries or earlier, the timing, while suspect, would not be as huge a factor because Trump is a wealthy man and could certainly make things difficult for any accuser. 

It is interesting to note how many who "believe" these Trump accusers are also the same who defend Bill Clinton. And yes, it's also interesting, though to a lesser degree (simply due to the current climate), that there are those that defend Trump but believe Slick Willie's accusers. 

[fredtoast]

(10-21-2016, 12:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It is interesting to note how many who "believe" these Trump accusers are also the same who defend Bill Clinton. And yes, it's also interesting, though to a lesser degree (simply due to the current climate), that there are those that defend Trump but believe Slick Willie's accusers. 

I am not going to vote for either Bill or Donald.

You agree that is the right thing to do, don't you?

[Dill]

(10-21-2016, 12:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It is interesting to note how many who "believe" these Trump accusers are also the same who defend Bill Clinton. And yes, it's also interesting, though to a lesser degree (simply due to the current climate), that there are those that defend Trump but believe Slick Willie's accusers. 

That would certainly change if a video comes out in which B Clinton talks about how celebrity enables him to sexually assault women, and then denies he assaulted any of his accusers because they weren't good looking enough--and threatens to sue them, while announcing his intention to run for president again. 

I doubt a single current supporter would be defending him then.

S0 I'd say it is HIGHLY interesting that, given the absence of a video bragging of sexual assault in Clinton's case, there are those that nevertheless defend Trump but believe Clinton's accusers.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-22-2016, 10:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not going to vote for either Bill or Donald.

You agree that is the right thing to do, don't you?

Uh, Bill's not running. But, if you're saying not voting for either Hillary or Donald is the right thing to do, then, yes, I agree.

(10-23-2016, 04:32 PM)Dill Wrote: That would certainly change if a video comes out in which B Clinton talks about how celebrity enables him to sexually assault women, and then denies he assaulted any of his accusers because they weren't good looking enough--and threatens to sue them, while announcing his intention to run for president again. 

I doubt a single current supporter would be defending him then.

S0 I'd say it is HIGHLY interesting that, given the absence of a video bragging of sexual assault in Clinton's case, there are those that nevertheless defend Trump but believe Clinton's accusers.

Believe what you want. But, the fact remains that Bill would always have those who defend him.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-22-2016, 10:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not going to vote for either Bill or Donald.

You agree that is the right thing to do, don't you?

So you'll vote for an accessory?

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2016, 01:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you'll vote for an accessory?

Accessory

[*PhilHos*]

(10-25-2016, 01:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you'll vote for an accessory?

Breaking the law does not stop fred from voting for the candidate. TALKING about breaking the law does. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2016, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Breaking the law does not stop fred from voting for the candidate. TALKING about breaking the law does. 

Well, Trump has broken the law. He has had a number of civil cases determined against him including an anti-trust violation filed by the DoJ.

[fredtoast]

(10-25-2016, 01:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you'll vote for an accessory?

(10-25-2016, 01:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Breaking the law does not stop fred from voting for the candidate. TALKING about breaking the law does. 

Not sure what you guys are talking about.  I'll be glad to respond if you explain what you mean.

[Dill]

(10-25-2016, 12:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Believe what you want. But, the fact remains that Bill would always have those who defend him.

That is believing what YOU want. A hypothetical can hardly be a "fact."

I was pointing out why the cases are not equivalent, because the evidence is not equivalent. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-21-2016, 12:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To me, it's different when the person being accused is a politician in the middle of an election campaign. If we're talking about a celebrity or an elected official not in a campaign, the issue of timing is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the accusee is in a position of wealth and authority giving credence to the accuser's fears for coming forward. 

So, had these women came forward during the primaries or earlier, the timing, while suspect, would not be as huge a factor because Trump is a wealthy man and could certainly make things difficult for any accuser. 

It is interesting to note how many who "believe" these Trump accusers are also the same who defend Bill Clinton. And yes, it's also interesting, though to a lesser degree (simply due to the current climate), that there are those that defend Trump but believe Slick Willie's accusers. 

I believe at least one woman came forward with sexual assault allegations during the primaries and Trump has settled one case out of court years ago.

My points have more to do with the victims and less with Trump.  You and others asked why didn't the victims step forward earlier.  That's a fair question.  I've tried to provide information on why and the statistics which indicate this is a pervasive problem.  To answer your question, victims of sexual assault frequently don't step forward for years like the victims of Jerry Sandusky and the Catholic Church scandal.

[Interceptor]

To answer the topic:

Why isn’t Melania Trump responsible for her husband?

Maybe she is in the kitchen making Donald a sandwich.



But seriously, how did Trump get this far in this election?