I specifically said freedoms for a reason. The Libertarians are the only party that understands how to leave people the **** alone.
...
The Libertarian Party perhaps, but not their candidate. Johnson is really Hillary light. He leans Democrat, and has said a lot of things that aren't Libertarian as far as I'm concerned.
PLUS, as I've been saying on facebook (Where you blocked me.)
The Libertarian Candidate didn't appear until a few months before the election. The GOP and DNC started a year or more ago. And they are still having a hard time... On both sides. The Libertarian Candidate has a platform that basically starts with smoking pot... Which should be a states right issue. All the "third party" was there for was to help Clinton win the election, just like Perot did. However this time it's backfiring against the Clintons (which surprised me.) and she is losing potential voters to Johnson, giving Trump an edge.
The Libertarian Party perhaps, but not their candidate. Johnson is really Hillary light. He leans Democrat, and has said a lot of things that aren't Libertarian as far as I'm concerned.
PLUS, as I've been saying on facebook (Where you blocked me.)
The Libertarian Candidate didn't appear until a few months before the election. The GOP and DNC started a year or more ago. And they are still having a hard time... On both sides. The Libertarian Candidate has a platform that basically starts with smoking pot... Which should be a states right issue. All the "third party" was there for was to help Clinton win the election, just like Perot did. However this time it's backfiring against the Clintons (which surprised me.) and she is losing potential voters to Johnson, giving Trump an edge.
Brad
I don't care for Johnson as the Libertarian candidate. I didn't vote for him in the primaries, either. I voted for him in 2012 because he was the best option, and I'm voting for him again because he's the best option. His policies are great, but he lacks in leadership ability, and he has "personal faults," like getting flustered too easily. I am also voting for him because I believe if the Libertarian Party can command 5%+ of the vote, they will eventually see more light and become a more serious party.
The Libertarian candidate came about the same time as the other candidates. The Libertarians had their own primaries and they had their own internal debates. It's not that they didn't come about until late, they just didn't see much air time while the "big party" primaries were being held.
Also, I have never blocked you on Facebook. A full list of my blocked people:
EDIT: Removed because even though the guy is an idiot, I don't want to spread personal info.
The only "real" person on there is <removed>. The others are bots. <Removed> kept sending nudes and partial nudes around. I don't block real people unless they do something serious, like him.
I did remove you as a friend on Facebook, along with most of my friends that I don't keep in touch with on a regular basis...
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 10-11-2016).]
When Trump loses, Trump supporters will make claims that it was just the Politically Correct Liberals that couldn't stand him, and everyone was just offended he said some mean words. They'll blame all the "libtards," and they'll never accept that Trump is 100% to blame for his loss.
It should have been easy to defeat Hillary. Trump, and his supporters, lost this election. Hillary didn't win. Trump lost. In the primaries, the supporters of other candidates like Rubio, Paul, and even Cruz all said the same: Trump can't win the general.
I think even his most ardent supporters have often winced at some of the things he has said in front of an open mic. He has thus far, been his own worst enemy.
In my lifetime, I have never heard more people in real life or online, say "we have no real chioces--I hate 'em both--the primary system failed to produce any real candidate." I can't disagree except to correct them with "No, we failed us".
I thought Johnson sounded like a good option too...till I seen some of his interviews. He lives in another world, and knows nothing about anything. He thought Columbus landed at Plymouth Rock and Aleppo was the abbreviation of some agency. As little as I give a crap about the mid east, even I knew that. He lives in the land of Enoi (Time Machine).
http://money.cnn.com/2016/1...rump-lawsuit-threat/ "If the Trump campaign does proceed with lawsuits, it will give both the Times and the Post the opportunity to pursue discovery and request information on Trump's entire sexual history, because Trump would have the burden of proving falsity and actual malice. "
In the US your supposed to be presumed innocent and proven quilty. And how do you know he wont sue ? Why wouldnt he ? Im not a lawyer but I think in a slander case, if you sue for slander, the accuser has to prove his facts are true. I dont think you have to prove they are not. I could be wrong. That would be like suing a car manufacturer because you might have an accident in the future due to something they might have made defective .
In the US your supposed to be presumed innocent and proven quilty. And how do you know he wont sue ? Why wouldnt he ? Im not a lawyer but I think in a slander case, if you sue for slander, the accuser has to prove his facts are true. I dont think you have to prove they are not. I could be wrong. That would be like suing a car manufacturer because you might have an accident in the future due to something they might have made defective .
Let him sue, so we can get this out in the open. I am sure you are all for that, right? So, if he sues, he is probably telling the truth. If he doesn't sue... well... why not? Something to hide? You have to ask, why would women expose themselves (play on words) to Trump, if they didn't feel it was worth it? Pop the popcorn and lets see what happens, shall we?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/1...rump-lawsuit-threat/ "If the Trump campaign does proceed with lawsuits, it will give both the Times and the Post the opportunity to pursue discovery and request information on Trump's entire sexual history, because Trump would have the burden of proving falsity and actual malice. "
http://lawnewz.com/uncatego...it-against-ny-times/ “Another problematic issue will be proof of falsity by clear and convincing evidence. On the face of it, that burden is considerably more difficult to meet in “he says/she says” cases. What witnesses or other objective proof exist to demonstrate that the accuser is lying? If that burden is met then the question becomes what evidence shows that the Times knew the statements were false or probably false? Those burdens of proof will be on Mr. Trump as the Plaintiff.” - Lin Wood, one of the highest-profile defamation lawyers in the U.S., who has represented Richard Jewell, the family of JonBenet Ramsey, Gary Condit, and Herman Cain.
New York Time's response to Trump's request for retraction... https://twitter.com/MarkHar...s/786620581261127680 "...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 has 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...."
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-13-2016).]
I have to say a couple of things are bothering me with all this. I do agree that Bill Clinton has a history with women and the fact that people that felt it was ok to give Slick Willy a pass maybe should do the same with Trump. Trump has said some terrible things but that seems to be his style, braggart, narcissist etc. The thing is it cuts both ways, the people that were up in arms about Bill Clinton and wanting him impeached should be holding Trump to the same standard and not voting for him but at the same time those who thought Bill's indiscretions were justified shouldn't be using this as ammo against Trump.
Also these releases are pretty obviously strategically timed to coincide with the wikileaks releases of the Clinton campaign. Smart I suppose but hard to act like the "better" or more "moral" candidate when being so calculating IMO.
Anyways I have no envy for you guys and the choice you have to make.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-13-2016).]
I'm always skeptical when it comes to the men in the Presidential race and accusations of sexual improprieties. Audio tapes not withstanding. Trump may be guilty of fondling these women or forcing himself on them. However, I also consider that this is a very competitive and aggressive election this year and things may be thrown out there just to try a paint him in more of a bad light. It would be interesting to see what happens to these accusations after the election is over. I remember 2012's election and Herman Cain. There were several accusations against him right when he was leading in the polls. But once he withdrew, you never heard anything more about those accusations. They just seemed to "conveniently" disappear. With politics being what it is, I always take these kinds of things with a grain of salt. With Trump being Trump, these accusations could very well be true. However, I also wonder if these women said anything before to anyone, or is it just a coincidence that the first time they said something about it is less than a month before the election? If they're false accusations, they were likely set up by someone to get the court of public opinion to go against Trump. Trump's an ass and I think he would make a terrible President, but if these accusations are baseless, I detest those kinds of things playing a part in our presidential elections. Just my opinion and $0.03 worth (inflation you know).
I have to say a couple of things are bothering me with all this. I do agree that Bill Clinton has a history with women and the fact that people that felt it was ok to give Slick Willy a pass maybe should do the same with Trump. Trump has said some terrible things but that seems to be his style, braggart, narcissist etc. The thing is it cuts both ways, the people that were up in arms about Bill Clinton and wanting him impeached should be holding Trump to the same standard and not voting for him but at the same time those who thought Bill's indiscretions were justified shouldn't be using this as ammo against Trump.
I had a conversation with my wife the other day. She's with Hillary all of the way no matter what. But with all of the things being said about Trump, why is it terrible for him to "say" these things when he's a presidential candidate, but it's okay for a sitting President to actually "do" these kinds of things? I like Bill Clinton. I think he did a pretty good job when he was President. But the man couldn't, and maybe still can't, keep it in his pants. I'm no fan of Trump. I think he's loud-mouthed and obnoxious. But there seems to be a double standard this election cycle that runs straight down party lines. If you're going to hold Bill Clinton responsible for having interns Google his Yahoo! while he was President, then Trump should be held accountable too. But if you're going to give Bill Clinton a pass, then you need to move on to the plethora of other things you can fault Trump for. What would be happening right now if Anthony Wiener were the Democrat candidate?
I had a conversation with my wife the other day. She's with Hillary all of the way no matter what. But with all of the things being said about Trump, why is it terrible for him to "say" these things when he's a presidential candidate, but it's okay for a sitting President to actually "do" these kinds of things?
...or the things that Mrs. Clinton has also DONE....
yesterday the local radio station played an interview of the lady in question from the soap. right after the filming in question.. shocking the liberal media isn't running that part on a non stop loop.. SHE hit on Donald the whole filming time... her words.. odd.. that the media left that part/side on the cutting room floor.
Would that be second base or third? Notice how she stops him by taking his arm? Sexual harassment, depends on whether or not she approved. Aggressive behavior, no doubt in my mind. I guess that could depend on your definition of aggressive................
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
Definition of a home owner, "see the door threshold, without my permission, there and no futher.......
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Socialist, Liberal or Progressive, tell them the truth.
Would that be second base or third? Notice how she stops him by taking his arm? Sexual harassment, depends on whether or not she approved. Aggressive behavior, no doubt in my mind. I guess that could depend on your definition of aggressive................
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-14-2016).]
Wow... blurry clipped video of someone not running for president.. wow... just wow. LOL
BTW.. that would be called deflection.... back to Trump and his ego... it's YUGH!
So it's bad for someone running for President to say sexually inappropriate things, but it's okay to give a pass to a former President who "did" some of those things while in the Oval Office? I think neither is appropriate and neither should get a pass. Neither should be necessarily prosecuted for it either. But one seems to currently be prosecuted for saying inappropriate things while the other holds deity status within his party for doing those things and getting away with it. But both should be held to the same standard. When people are comparing Bill Clinton's actions to Trump's, I don't see it as deflection. I see it as questioning why the double standard? Would it be okay if Trump was a perfect angel until he got into office and then started having prostitutes roaming the White House halls? Oh sorry, back to Trump. Trump is horrible with a huge ego. Trump is Hitler. Trump will start World War III. Trump drinks the blood of children. Did I cover everything?
Again, what does Billy have to do with this? He had his impeachment... he is not running for office. Should we start evaluating the spouses now? Ok... lets bring in Trumps WIVES. You know.. good conservative christian values of the GOP... here we have a man who has multiple marriages, brags about sleeping with married women, while he is married, brags about sexual assults.... So anyway... let's look at the sexual history of his wives also. Fair game, right? Same standards...
Double standard? Nope, not at all. Billy isn't running. If you want to talk about Hillary groping... go for it. She should be held to the same standard. What her husband did.... well... that is her husband. What's next? We going to focus on the Chelsea and her relationships?
Trump's skeletons are coming out and deflecting to Billy is EXACTLY what Trump wants you to do.... "look over there... see that... I told you she is bad, just look at her husband and ignore how I treat women."
BTW, Trump's ego will destroy his chances as president. It may work in his business world (I doubt he is successful as he states, but as a used car salesman... he is great), but in politics, he screwed the pooch...
quote
Originally posted by whadeduck:
So it's bad for someone running for President to say sexually inappropriate things, but it's okay to give a pass to a former President who "did" some of those things while in the Oval Office? I think neither is appropriate and neither should get a pass. Neither should be necessarily prosecuted for it either. But one seems to currently be prosecuted for saying inappropriate things while the other holds deity status within his party for doing those things and getting away with it. But both should be held to the same standard. When people are comparing Bill Clinton's actions to Trump's, I don't see it as deflection. I see it as questioning why the double standard? Would it be okay if Trump was a perfect angel until he got into office and then started having prostitutes roaming the White House halls? Oh sorry, back to Trump. Trump is horrible with a huge ego. Trump is Hitler. Trump will start World War III. Trump drinks the blood of children. Did I cover everything?
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-14-2016).]
Again, what does Billy have to do with this? He had his impeachment... he is not running for office. Should we start evaluating the spouses now? Ok... lets bring in Trumps WIVES. You know.. good conservative christian values of the GOP... here we have a man who has multiple marriages, brags about sleeping with married women, while he is married, brags about sexual assults.... So anyway... let's look at the sexual history of his wives also. Fair game, right? Same standards...
Double standard? Nope, not at all. Billy isn't running. If you want to talk about Hillary groping... go for it. She should be held to the same standard. What her husband did.... well... that is her husband. What's next? We going to focus on the Chelsea and her relationships?
Trump's skeletons are coming out and deflecting to Billy is EXACTLY what Trump wants you to do.... "look over there... see that... I told you she is bad, just look at her husband and ignore how I treat women."
BTW, Trump's ego will destroy his chances as president. It may work in his business world (I doubt he is successful as he states, but as a used car salesman... he is great), but in politics, he screwed the pooch...
The problem I have with Bill, though dont condone what he DID, is NOT what he did. Your correct hes not running. My problem is with Hillary who is totally two faced about it. She runs on and on about how she is all pro for women, but the FACT is she degraded and slandered every one of them in public. She IS running for president. This is just more crap on top of all the lies every non-democrat in the country knows she tells every single day. The democrats know it too, but are in total denial about them, or just dont give a damn. She moves into the white house, Bill comes with her. Hope they make the entire white house staff male, because stickyfingers Bill will be on everything with a coochie.
The problem I have with Bill, though dont condone what he DID, is NOT what he did. Your correct hes not running. My problem is with Hillary who is totally two faced about it. She runs on and on about how she is all pro for women, but the FACT is she degraded and slandered every one of them in public. She IS running for president. This is just more crap on top of all the lies every non-democrat in the country knows she tells every single day. The democrats know it too, but are in total denial about them, or just dont give a damn. She moves into the white house, Bill comes with her. Hope they make the entire white house staff male, because stickyfingers Bill will be on everything with a coochie.
She runs on and on about how she is all pro for women, but the FACT is she degraded and slandered every one of them in public.
FACT? degraded and slandered everyone of them? hmmm. (Now, she didn't grab anyone's private parts and brag about it... did she? If she did, well, then, we have something to talk about)
"So it is clear that Hillary Clinton reacted in what could be seen as negative ways. According to some accounts, she at the very least went along with the hiring of a private investigator to look into the background of Gennifer Flowers. Some see her reaction as especially problematic coming from a person who promotes herself as a champion of women. Still, Broaddrick's example of intimidation is open to interpretation, and is weakened by her answer to NBC that no one "near Bill Clinton" had tried to intimidate her. Willey is not able to link the incidents that occurred directly or indirectly to Hillary Clinton. The comments Clinton made about Lewinsky were spoken in private to a close confidante. And Paula Jones has not pointed to a specific attack."
(now back to the Trump Foot-in-mouth show...)
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-14-2016).]
Since Lou Dobbs of Fox News deemed it appropriate to "tweet" the phone number and home address of one of Trump's sexual assault accusers yesterday, I have little doubt he has no problem with people doing this: LOU DOBBS 74 QUARRY ROAD WANTAGE, NJ 07461 973-875-2355
Seems like a "fair and balanced" response, actually......it's gone viral anyway. I'm sure he'd LOVE to hear from everybody.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 10-14-2016).]
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump rebuffed political aides’ requests to research his past, people familiar with the matter said, a decision that contributed to his campaign being caught unprepared for the past week’s barrage of claims he mistreated women."
A federal judge in New York has ordered counsel for Donald Trump and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to appear in court along with the attorney for a woman referred to only as “Jane Doe” who alleges the Republican presidential nominee raped her when she was 13.
Judge Ronnie Abrams has slated an initial status conference in the civil lawsuit for 16 December in a New York district court.
The order raises the extraordinary prospect, were Trump to win the 8 November battle for the White House, of counsel for a US president-elect being called into federal court in proceedings relating to allegations of rape of an underage girl.
Trump has vociferously denied the accusations, dismissing them as fabrications and slamming the lawsuit as a sham designed to smear him as he runs for highest office. Epstein, an associate of the UK’s Prince Andrew who was convicted of underage sex crimes in Florida in 2008, has also denied the allegations.
A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.
The court order gives no details of the legal complaint raised by “Jane Doe”. It instructs all parties to the case to set out in advance the nature of the allegations and the “principal defenses”, as well as any previous motions and discovery as well as the “estimated length of trial”.
The original federal lawsuit, filed in June, alleged that “Jane Doe” was sexually assaulted by Trump in 1994 at Epstein’s Manhattan home. Further claims were made that the real estate billionaire raped the then teenager at parties hosted by Epstein on the Upper East Side.
The Guardian investigation found that a publicist calling himself “Al Taylor” attempted to sell the videotape of “Jane Doe” relating her allegations for $1m. It linked Taylor through a variety of means including shared email addresses and phone numbers to Norm Lubow, who used to work on Springer’s daytime talk show.
Lubow was connected to a contentious claim, raised in the 1998 documentary movie Kurt and Courtney, that Courtney Love offered a fellow musician $50,000 to murder her husband, Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. Love denied the charge.
According to the New York Post, Lubow was also behind a tabloid newspaper story that OJ Simpson bought illicit drugs on the day his estranged wife Nicole Brown was killed.
When the Guardian quizzed “Al Taylor” about his true identity, the publicist replied: “Just be warned, we’ll sue you if we don’t like what you write. We’ll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper’s ass as well, punk.”
The Trump presidential campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the forthcoming court proceedings. A lawyer for the Trump Organization told the Guardian in July: “This is basically a sham lawsuit brought by someone who desires to impact the presidential election.”
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it; When it comes to stories from the leftists, you just have to wait awhile. The TRUTH eventually always comes out and invariably it is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what we were told to believe.
Maybe next they will "discover" Trump's National Guard service records ...Dan Rather, where are you?
I thought Johnson sounded like a good option too...till I seen some of his interviews. He lives in another world, and knows nothing about anything. He thought Columbus landed at Plymouth Rock and Aleppo was the abbreviation of some agency. As little as I give a crap about the mid east, even I knew that. He lives in the land of Enoi (Time Machine).
One of my all time favorite movies, the original not the remake.
I was just talking with some friends in Europe and something occured to me. Political history.
In 1988, George Dukakis was widely panned for looking silly riding in a tank with a helmet on. In 2004, Howard Dean was drummed out of the race for yelling too loud at a political rally. In 2006, George Allen was drummed out of the race for using the word "macaca."
Really villainous stuff, huh? Ah, the Age of Innocence. Fast forward to 2016.
We've now got a candidate that not only bragged about grabbing women's vaginas but is getting support for saying it.
If the bar gets lowered any further, we'll need a backhoe to dig under it.
I've said it before and I'll continue to say it; When it comes to stories from the leftists, you just have to wait awhile. The TRUTH eventually always comes out and invariably it is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what we were told to believe.
Maybe next they will "discover" Trump's National Guard service records ...Dan Rather, where are you?
This would probably be more damning if there weren't his own words and other accusers to corroborate his mistreatment of women. Nevermind the gradeschool twitter spats and insults he's hurled at various women. Trump acts like a spoiled brat and the many of the holier than though have looked past their supposed moral high-ground and decided to support him yet some have not and I have to at least respect them for their integrity.
I will say that the particular women you posted about is less credible in my mind as it was so long ago and in one account I saw from her she said "If he had of kept his hands above the waistline I probably would have been ok with it." (or something to that effect). To me that meant that the kissing and fondling were ok but when he crossed the line she was not ok, which is totally her right but I am unclear if after she refused the advances across the line did he try to continue or did she just walk away. I see a problem if Trump continued after she said no but if he did indeed stop when she called foul I don't really have an issue with it.
