Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

 

 

Sure, so they weren't offended enough to complain originally, and they weren't offended badly enough by all his other antics that they didn't think coming forward earlier was in the public's best interest? Basically, they weren't angry by it happening so they didn't really care he was going to run the country, but having him deny it, well all three of them decided at more or less the same instant that their threshold had been breached and it was time to come forward. 

 

If he is guilty on these matters, he should be brought to justice, but if he isn't, they should be. 

 

The truth won't come out till well after it's too late either way, but I'd feel pretty grim if it cost him the presidency and turned out to be incorrect. (because who has motive and that person has gone to those lengths to be president and is now in charge of the free world. That's a pretty bad perversion of an election.

 

If he loses fair and square because he wasn't the right guy for the job (which I firmly believe is the case), that's fine.

 

 

There is something funny going on with the quotes but I believe the above is what was said.

 

Many women in this situation point out that it can be very difficult to be the first to go public with such a complaint, especially when the person involved is well-known and you are a nobody. Once one person does say something, a trickle often turns into a flood. This is what happened with Cosby, to use that example, and it has happened with many others. Of course there is always the possibility of someone jumping on a bandwaggon, or trying to have their 15 minutes of fame, but these kinds of complaints do need to be taken seriously and assessed carefully.

 

 

 

I agree fully. The rich and famous have power, David and Goliath, its often too hard for the plebs to go against that, and as stated, mirrored many times before.

Rikkitic:

 

The accusations emerged after the video was made public. One precipitated the other and I don't see anything suspicious about that. It was the video and nothing else that caused these women to come forward. That is how I read it.

 

 

 

Exactly. Before, they will just be rolled over by the establishment, after all, where is the proof? Now, there is a credibility to their claims. Like with Cosby,Rolf,  the floodgates opened, and the others before him. 

tdgeek:

 

Rikkitic:

 

The accusations emerged after the video was made public. One precipitated the other and I don't see anything suspicious about that. It was the video and nothing else that caused these women to come forward. That is how I read it.

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Before, they will just be rolled over by the establishment, after all, where is the proof? Now, there is a credibility to their claims. Like with Cosby,Rolf,  the floodgates opened, and the others before him. 

 

Particularly when you are talking about someone who will sue, or threaten to sue, at the drop of a hat. This is exactly a chilling effect does.

What happens post election, will he be the leader of the Republican opposition by default? Or will they oust him? Or will he go back to his day job? 

Not Sharing my personal views either way, and this possibly fits in the Poor Headlines Thread, but front page of The Herald

"Bombshell: Hidden vid potential for Fraud" the next line says: "An explosive hidden camera video has exposed a crazy fact about the US election - one that could end the race for Donald Trump."

But when you actually read the article, it has nothing to do with Trump and appears to be pointing directly to the practices of the democrats.

mrdrifter:

 

Not Sharing my personal views either way, and this possibly fits in the Poor Headlines Thread, but front page of The Herald

 

"Bombshell: Hidden vid potential for Fraud" the next line says: "An explosive hidden camera video has exposed a crazy fact about the US election - one that could end the race for Donald Trump."

 

But when you actually read the article, it has nothing to do with Trump and appears to be pointing directly to the practices of the democrats.

 

 

 

The Republicans drag that old one out every time they're looking like losing, then proceed to do nothing about fixing the issues when they're in power.

One should do some background checks on Project Veritas and how they operate before drawing too many conclusions from that edited footage.  They have history, and they'll actually have the full unedited tape.

That article endorses compulsory voting - Aussie style (it's an Aussie article).  If vote fraud is actually an issue, then they're correct IMO, that's a good way to almost completely eliminate it.

frankv:

 

networkn:

 

To be honest I am surprised to see people think there is nothing suspicious in the timing. What difference would it make if they came forward 3 months ago when he got the Republican Nomination.

 

 

I think you're right that this is opportunism. But it is opportunism by the women victims, to get justice. Up til now, they've basically had to suck it up that they've been sexually assaulted. Up til now, they (rightly) believed that if they'd made a complaint, they'd have been humiliated yet again, and very likely there would have been no real punishment for Trump... i.e. no justice. Well, the worm has turned and they now have the opportunity to give the Donald some real pain, and they're leaping at that chance.

 

It's ironic that Trump sold himself as an opportunity to stick it to the Establishment, and in the process he's given his victims the chance to stick it to him.

 

 

 

I think you mean ALLEGEDLY.

So Trump has threatened to sue the NYT.
Here's the response:

Here's National Public Radio's list of allegations, against Trump, to date.

From what I can understand: The moment Trump decided to run for President, he lost all his power to sue people for libel. Or am I wrong?

Why didn't women say anything before? Because people can be nasty - for example Lou Dobbs (Fox anchor) tweeted one of the women's name, address and phone number.

That's why people don't come forward sometimes. There are bigger forces at work and they don't feel safe by themselves.

Darn. You guys beat me to it. Here is my bit anyway:

Some interesting stuff on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/donald-trump-allegations-fallout/index.html).

The New York Times lawyer responding to Trump’s lawyer: “The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one's reputation ... Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a 'piece of ass.' ... Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself."

And then a Trump supporter: “Well, isn't it strange that all of the sudden they come out three weeks before the election when they've had 20 years with racism and sexism and sexual assault or whatever they were charging him with," she said. "I just think the timing is very strange and it doesn't hold any credibility whatsoever."

The point made by the second quote is undermined, though not entirely invalidated, by the first quote. The accusations could be false. No-one has proved they are not. But the information in the first quote is known to be true, and has not been disputed by Trump. On that basis it can hardly be argued that he is the victim of a smear campaign. He has shown himself to be the kind of person who is capable of the behaviour he is accused of, whether he is actually guilty of it in this case or not.

Why would the democrats bother to manipulate the election result in such a manner? They don’t need to. Trump is already doing it for them.

jarledb:

 

From what I can understand: The moment Trump decided to run for President, he lost all his power to sue people for libel. Or am I wrong?

 

 

 

I don't think there is any law that protects or otherwise anyone from Libel. Basically, you can't run around saying blatantly untrue things about people no matter who they are. 

Whether they sue you or not is a matter of cost and or resources. 

If someone has evidence to the contrary then happy to see it. 

"If" Trumpy loses this election, you're guaranteed that he'll be blaming everyone but himself for years to come.