US election: Donald Trump accusers telling lies, says Melania

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

It's the same in the UK on LBC Radio. It started at 10am and went on till 2pm when the presenter decided to have a break from it. It was non stop anti Trump and pro Clinton except for when Bill got mentioned but that was OK because he's not running for office.

 

If it's the same in the US people are going to get pissed off with it and vote for Trump regardless out of spite, malice, revenge and frustration. You can only take so much!

 

Try listening to Nigel Farage and Katy Hopkins on LBC and you will here the complete opposite view.  If you choose to listen to the very left wing James O'Brian then you will get the anti-Trump view constantly.

 

I don't think that the American public will vote for Trump out of malice or revenge.  They are not stupid enough to vote for a moron except of course for his hard core "fans"

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

From the moment he was born, he was a lot richer than you or me. It took genius and talent to be born to an extraordinarly rich father.

 

It took brains and talent to increase the fortune and live like a King for 70 years.

[Thakkar]

So her defense of Trump is that he is not a sexual predator, he's just immature and easily manipulated.

 

Well that settles it! THAT'S the kinda guy I want for President.

 

T

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

So her defense of Trump is that he is not a sexual predator, he's just immature and easily manipulated.

 

Well that settles it! THAT'S the kinda guy I want for President.

 

T

 

You must have been crazy about Bill Clinton.

[Andaman Al]

Just watched the Melania interview. Throughout almost the entire interview her body language has her lying.

[gemini81]

23 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Just watched the Melania interview. Throughout almost the entire interview her body language has her lying.

You are ready to be a judge in the Thai judicial system here.

[yogi100]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

 

Try listening to Nigel Farage and Katy Hopkins on LBC and you will here the complete opposite view.  If you choose to listen to the very left wing James O'Brian then you will get the anti-Trump view constantly.

 

I don't think that the American public will vote for Trump out of malice or revenge.  They are not stupid enough to vote for a moron except of course for his hard core "fans"

 

There are 168 hours in the week.

 

Hopkins has a 2 hour stint on Sundays 10 am - 12 pm.

 

Farage is only on now and again for one hour slots with Phone Farage and thats not every week and Farage is hardly a right winger in fact he's really rather liberal.

 

The other 165 hours are presented by middle class left wing or liberal luvvies. So it's hardly a balanced media outlet and not at all representative of the general British public.

 

I don't profess to know how stupid the American public are nor who they are stupid enough to vote for. So far they've elected Clinton and Trump if that gives you some guidance to be getting on with regarding their levels of stupidity.

Edited October 18, 2016 by yogi100

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

...

I don't profess to know how stupid the American public are nor who they are stupid enough to vote for. So far they've elected Clinton and Trump if that gives you some guidance to be getting on with regarding their levels of stupidity.

Hillary Clinton has been elected to the U.S. senate TWICE.

trump has never been elected to ANY political office and NEVER will be.

 

Next ... 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[yogi100]

54 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hillary Clinton has been elected to the U.S. senate TWICE.

trump has never been elected to ANY political office and NEVER will be.

 

Next ... 

 

How did he get to be the nominee then. He must have been selected or elected to represent the Republican Party somehow and by someone and how do you know he won't be elected to be the President?

 

It's possible Americans have had their fill of mainstream politicians and the mainstream media.

 

 

[AYJAYDEE]

33 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

How did he get to be the nominee then. He must have been selected or elected to represent the Republican Party somehow and by someone and how do you know he won't be elected to be the President?

 

It's possible Americans have had their fill of mainstream politicians and the mainstream media.

 

 

 

thats not an "office".possible and highly improbable

[AYJAYDEE]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

There are 168 hours in the week.

 

Hopkins has a 2 hour stint on Sundays 10 am - 12 pm.

 

Farage is only on now and again for one hour slots with Phone Farage and thats not every week and Farage is hardly a right winger in fact he's really rather liberal.

 

The other 165 hours are presented by middle class left wing or liberal luvvies. So it's hardly a balanced media outlet and not at all representative of the general British public.

 

I don't profess to know how stupid the American public are nor who they are stupid enough to vote for. So far they've elected Clinton and Trump if that gives you some guidance to be getting on with regarding their levels of stupidity.

 

as  aggressive, war inclined, untruthful presidents have managed to keep america at the top of the heap for a very long time, I cant see how electing another one in Hillary could be looked on as stupid in the short term at least

[Jingthing]

51 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

How did he get to be the nominee then. He must have been selected or elected to represent the Republican Party somehow and by someone and how do you know he won't be elected to be the President?

 

It's possible Americans have had their fill of mainstream politicians and the mainstream media.

 

 

Again, he has NEVER been elected to any political office.

He was NOMINATED by a political party to be a CANDIDATE to be elected for president.

Don't give me nominated and elected are the same. They are not. 

[yogi100]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Again, he has NEVER been elected to any political office.

He was NOMINATED by a political party to be a CANDIDATE to be elected for president.

Don't give me nominated and elected are the same. They are not. 

 

He must have been selected, picked, chosen or decided upon to be that candidate somehow. How did those who nominated him arrive at the decision? Or is it possible for a candidate to nominate oneself?

[AYJAYDEE]

1 minute ago, yogi100 said:

 

He must have been selected, picked, chosen or decided upon to be that candidate somehow. How did those who nominated him arrive at the decision? Or is it possible for a candidate to nominate oneself?

 

he said political OFFICE

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

He must have been selected, picked, chosen or decided upon to be that candidate somehow. How did those who nominated him arrive at the decision? Or is it possible for a candidate to nominate oneself?

Each party has it's own nominating process. It's up to them to make such rules and they can be changed at any time by the party. It has nothing to do with U.S. government law or the U.S. constitution. Republicans use a combination of primary elections and caucuses where representative delegates are won to go to the party convention where the delegates vote and the winner is nominated. Nominated. There is no office that trump holds. He is RUNNING for his FIRST political office.

 

Yes, a candidate could nominate himself depending on the party rules.

For example, I could start a U.S. political party and call it the American Expats Party, nominate myself to run for president, and then try to get on state ballots. 

My issue would be Expand Medicare for Expats. Are you with me!

Edited October 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[sirineou]

20 hours ago, yogi100 said:

You can bet Hillary's flunkeys are giving them 'girls' plenty of money and the CNN are behind it. Some folk will say anything when hard cash is involved especially women who are past their sell by date.

or sociopathic  men who want to be president

[amykat]

17 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

During the interview Ainsley asked Melania about her husband’s accusers who all just happened to break their silence this week to trash Donald Trump with alleged accusations of sexual misconduct.

Melania Trump: I was not surprised in one way because as I said before everything was organized and it is three weeks before the election. All these women coming out and they are allegations that are not true. Why now? Why three weeks before the election? And they are accusing my husband? That is not the person that I know… All the allegations should be handled in a court of law. And without the evidence to accuse somebody is a man or a woman is damaging and it’s unfair… They want to damage the presidency of my husband. It was all planned. All organized.

None of the accusers have filed charges against Donald Trump for the alleged abuse they endured.
Wonder why?

Indeed...

 

What court of law would that be?  Criminal charges?  Those chances would be gone now due to  NY Statutes of Limitations.  Tort Law? They would have to prove actual damages enough to make an expensive lawsuit worth it ...how much damages did you suffer when Trump kissed you?  $1million or more??  Then can you PROVE in a court of law that he kissed you ...and those damages? Probably not. So no lawsuit.  This is a red herring and every intelligent person knows it.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by amykat

[yogi100]

6 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

he said political OFFICE

 

No need to shout. It's an English word that Americans got from us so I am familiar with it.

[AYJAYDEE]

Just now, yogi100 said:

 

No need to shout. It's an English word that Americans got from us so I am familiar with it.

 

and yet you ignored it

[yogi100]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Each party has it's own nominating process. It's up to them to make such rules and they can be changed at any time by the party. It has nothing to do with U.S. government law or the U.S. constitution. Republicans use a combination of primary elections and caucuses where representative delegates are won to go to the party convention where the delegates vote and the winner is nominated. Nominated. There is no office that trump holds. He is RUNNING for his FIRST political office.

 

Yes, a candidate could nominate himself depending on the party rules.

For example, I could start a U.S. political party and call it the American Expats Party, nominate myself to run for president, and then try to get on state ballots. 

My issue would be Expand Medicare for Expats. Are you with me!

 

But how was it decided to have Trump standing for the presidency, who arrived at that decision and how was it arrived at? There must be some sort of a procedure. Surely you do not have a system in which they pick names out of a hat?

 

In the UK the leader of a political party is selected by balloting that party's members. The Conservative Party members elected Teresa May and the Labour Party members elected Jeremy Corbyn. The electorate then decide who will lead the country in a general election. The individual elected by the party membership automatically then becomes Prime Minister.

 

There must have been hundreds of other Republican Party politicians in the US to choose from. Why did those whose responsibility it was choose Trump?

 

"Republicans use a combination of primary elections and caucuses where representative delegates are won to go to the party convention where the delegates vote and the winner is nominated."

 

This sentence would imply that some sort of selection by votes is used or am I missing something here.

[Thakkar]

Six people come forward to verify story from People magazine writer who Melania Trump called a liar:

 

Six colleagues and close friends who corroborate former PEOPLE writer Natasha Stoynoff’s account of being attacked by Donald Trump in 2005 are now coming forward. Among them is a friend who was with Stoynoff when she ran into Melania Trump later in N.Y.C. 

http://people.com/politics/people-writer-attack-by-donald-trump-corroborated-six-named-sources/

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Mu said in post 25:

 

"So, if someone is a Democrat, their report of sexual abuse has no merit? The only reason this came to light is that Donald Trump after attacking Hillary Clinton over her husband's behavior and was then caught bragging about sexually abusing women and it's on tape. He denied during the debate that he ever treated women in such a manner and guess what? 11 women came forward to tell the world that he is a liar." 

 

 

No doubt he is, but what about Hilary, with her lamentable record with the truth?   Neither of them appear to the rest of the world as respected leaders, which is a great pity for the United States, as the winner of this sad contest will start of their presidency on the wrong foot.

[55Jay]

Trump got the nomination, apparently record number of votes too. 

 

Another record he's set is the sheer absence of endorsements by former (R) presidents, candidates and a growing list of party and office holding public officials.  They aren't just cool on him.  They've disowned him.   Newt Gingrich won't defend him with much gusto anymore, stymied at Trump's refusal of learned political strategy advice.  KellyAnne looks like she's sucking on a lemon.   You have to win and get in before you can do or change anything. 

 

Having followed Trump early on but no longer, IMV, his adherents stick with him not for his foolish and vague policy positions, rather they relish the spectacle of Trump "sticking it to the man".  He's their lighting rod and Trump reads and plays them like a violin, and can get them cheering or Boo'ing and jeering virtually on command.  His rallies and to some degree, the last debate, smacks of one of those (fake) WWE professional wresting matches between the Junk Yard Dog and his silicone boob'ed girl friend side kick, against the evil Master of Disaster.   An embarrassing spectacle on the world stage.

 

I tend to agree with the chatter boxes, Trump is on trajectory to lose but is setting himself up to be a fringe media carnival barker.  I predict his mate, Alex Jones, won't be singing praise once Trump becomes a major competitor in the same rice bowl.

[Traveler19491]

On 10/18/2016 at 0:14 PM, yogi100 said:

You can bet Hillary's flunkeys are giving them 'girls' plenty of money and the CNN are behind it. Some folk will say anything when hard cash is involved especially women who are past their sell by date.

 

 

Except that six highly credible people have come forward to validate the report from the "People" reporter that Donnie Dumpster claimed was too "ugly" for him to grope. Meaning, I guess, that he only gropes the ones who pass his numerical scoring metric. And I do love how you wingnuts toss out accusations without the slightest shred of evidence. The spray tanned sewer floater has taught you well, Grasshopper.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/witnesses-back-people-writers-account-of-trump-sex-assault/ar-AAj769C

[thaihome]

2 hours ago, yogi100 said:

 

But how was it decided to have Trump standing for the presidency, who arrived at that decision and how was it arrived at? There must be some sort of a procedure. Surely you do not have a system in which they pick names out of a hat?

 

In the UK the leader of a political party is selected by balloting that party's members. The Conservative Party members elected Teresa May and the Labour Party members elected Jeremy Corbyn. The electorate then decide who will lead the country in a general election. The individual elected by the party membership automatically then becomes Prime Minister.

 

There must have been hundreds of other Republican Party politicians in the US to choose from. Why did those whose responsibility it was choose Trump?

 

"Republicans use a combination of primary elections and caucuses where representative delegates are won to go to the party convention where the delegates vote and the winner is nominated."

 

This sentence would imply that some sort of selection by votes is used or am I missing something here.

 

You are missing a lot, starting with the basic premise that the US form of government, how elections are conducted, and how political parties nominate presidential and/or congressional candidates  has absolutely no resemblance to a westminster parliamentary system. 

TH 

[Jingthing]

Again, each U.S. political party is free to choose their candidates for political office (president and any other office) using methods of their choosing. There are of course only two U.S. political parties that have any significance but there are many others as well. Currently both major political parties copy each other for presidential nominees, using a combination of state primaries and caucuses to select delegates leading to a national convention. But it wasn't always the case with those parties, the details of the methods change over time. There is no national law saying parties must choose in any particular way.  It's worth noting that states can have different rules about who is allowed to vote in party primary contests. Sometimes they're open to people registered to other parties which can lead to some tactical mischief making. Getting a nomination to be a candidate for president to a major party is indeed a major political achievement but such a role carries no governmental power at all unless the candidate actually wins an election for political OFFICE. More often than not, when a presidential nominee of a major political party LOSES, they are not nominated again. Parties tend to not want to give losers a SECOND chance. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Melanie Revealed by Randy Rainbow! Hold on to your HATS (or whatever).

 

 

[freebyrd]

16 hours ago, yogi100 said:

 

That may well be but here in England the Media are just too relentless in their vilification of Trump, It really is over the top and quite often such a concentrated campaign can turn around and bite the instigators on the arse. In the UK folk may decide things have gone too far and support the underdog. I don't know if that's a trait that is shared by Americans. If you're with CNN you must hope not.

 

The continual slagging off of Nigel Farage by our establishment controlled media before our referendum had the opposite result of the one desired. It was just too much to take seriously and the electorate made up their own mind, but their decision was not the one the media tried to instill into the general public. It was all just a bit too fishy!

 

And look at the mess we've all been left with because Chavs had their 'say'.

[yogi100]

Just now, yogi100 said:

 

I

 

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Again, each U.S. political party is free to choose their candidates for political office (president and any other office) using methods of their choosing. There are of course only two U.S. political parties that have any significance but there are many others as well. Currently both major political parties copy each other for presidential nominees, using a combination of state primaries and caucuses to select delegates leading to a national convention. But it wasn't always the case with those parties, the details of the methods change over time. There is no national law saying parties must choose in any particular way.  It's worth noting that states can have different rules about who is allowed to vote in party primary contests. Sometimes they're open to people registered to other parties which can lead to some tactical mischief making. Getting a nomination to be a candidate for president to a major party is indeed a major political achievement but such a role carries no governmental power at all unless the candidate actually wins an election for political OFFICE. More often than not, when a presidential nominee of a major political party LOSES, they are not nominated again. Parties tend to not want to give losers a SECOND chance. 

 

Who decided Trump is now up against Hillary and not some other politician from the same party like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz for instance.

[Jingthing]

I already explained it. The republican party has a nominating process. The winner was trump. He hasn't won any political office yet or ever. Odds are it will be NEVER. 

 

Some have suggested that trump has accomplished a hostile takeover of the republican party as he's such an EXTREME outsider. I agree with that perception, but after he loses, I think his power in that party will deflate radically. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Jingthing