he threatened her and her family with death -the saville case sadly shows how powerful people can do as they like , she has a cast iron witness - the woman who organised these so called parties - the woman was 13 at the time - trumps partner in crime is now a convicted *****phile , he so far has evaded this ...... Clinton has a long history of sexual assault - sadly this is how the rich and powerful operate ......
it's indicative of how corrupted life has become in western world where the people in power are freely able to do whatever they like - those without the means must just suffer - this applies all over , child exploitation , women as objects these are normalised behaviours among elites it seems ........ of course when everything has a price this is the result
Just a personal opinion, but I think the personal attacks on Trump by the New York Times and the Washington Post vis-à-vis sexual assaults on women in the past, are now getting excessive and, maybe, counterproductive? Might be a good idea if both newspapers now shut their traps in this respect?
Both papers are not stupid though, they will not have published these accusations without consulting lawyers first - they're not exactly gossip magazines. If the lawyers gave the go ahead then that suggests they believe there is substance/evidence in the allegations. Trump was never properly vetted as a candidate. No one took him seriously in the early stages, if they had done then the other Republican candidates for nominee would have done proper "opposition research" on him and dug up all the allegations that are now coming out of the wood work. No one is saying that politicians should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, they are human after all.
A toxic and unpopular candidate like hillary needed to have an opponent who appears worse than her -job done ......
You're quite right of course, just wondered if these latest revelations were doing any good. I doubt whether they will make the slightest difference to his millions of die-hard supporters? The Republican Party candidate nominations process was a total and utter mess. None of Trump's opponents did his or her homework, and as you say, they just took him on at what he is good at, i.e. insults and mud-slinging? I certainly did not mean to suggest that either newspaper was stupid.
As long as the recent revelations keep 'more sensible and considerate' Republicans at home on 8 November or halt his appeal spreading to the undecided the reporting of the accusations following his 'boasting' will have been worthwhile. As commented above the newspaper groups who own the New York Times and Washington Post will surely have 'tested' the accusations to ensure they are on safe legal grounds. After all Mr Trump is not opposed to bringing lawsuits when his 'good' name is challenged! Even Fox News (?) have been reporting that 'their man' is trailing in the opinion polls in ten of the eleven so called battleground/purple states.
I get that people are fed up of all the mud-slinging, it's really a case of "a pox on both their houses". What really gets to me though is that some of the accusations being levied at Hillary are about things her husband has done, not her. Do we really want to hold people accountable for the actions of those they are married to?! I get that Hillary is no saint, and I personally think she was stupid for not getting shot of Bill in the first place, but to throw statements like "Her husband did worse" around is just misogyny pure and simple.
Hillary is bad in her own right -I agree they should take a lead from Corbyn regarding personal attacks -go for policies -sadly hardly anyone is interested in the real picture-just the window dressing ....
Quite brilliant, thank you. Clip was 'blocked' down here where I live in Germany, but managed to get to the 'Daily Show' by VPN (shoosh, quiet!). Trevor Noah is something else!
I think this calls in her judgement and what is acceptable and agreeable in her eyes! Have to say the 2 hours I spent watching the debate the other day shows how little I value my own time
I understand that is what some people may be trying to get at, but why phrase it in such a way as if to say it was HER fault that Bill did those things (allegedly in some cases, let's not forget no charges have been brought regarding some of the allegations)? Even Trump said (in a now deleted Tweet) that "Hillary can't keep BIll satisfied so how can she satisfy the American public". It's below the belt and, again, victim blaming. Bill cheated because he is a cheat and can't keep his flies shut, not because his wife did something wrong. Would these accusations be thrown at her if she was a man? Would comments be made on her appearance if she were a man? I somehow doubt it.
Have you not heard the joke about Hillary?!: "A telling Hillary Clinton joke has the then-first lady and the president driving along in scenic Arkansas. When they pull over for gas, Clinton notices his wife has jumped out of the car, bounded over to the gas-station attendant, thrown her arms around him, and kissed him with tears of joy. "Who was that?" a bemused Bill asks as they drive away. "Oh," replies Hillary somewhat wistfully, "he was an old flame I haven't seen in years." "Well," says Slick Willie with a smirk, "I guess if you hadn't married me, you'd be helping him pump gas now." "I don't think so," says Hillary icily. "If I had married him, he'd be president now."
United States Constitution, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If more American woman owned guns, Donald ‘The Octopus’ Trump would have been shot a long time ago. So maybe the Second Amendment needed wording a little better: keeping and bearing arms is one thing but using them is another... no wonder the NRA are supporting The Donald!
