2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

extra gravy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Its not even thinly veiled lads.

It's nobody else's fault that you don't understand the post, that's all on you.

ollkiller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He's got to maintain his image of fighting the system he can't show any weakness or he'd lose plenty of votes, that's the reality of the situation.

Ah ya. Not giving your DNA in a rape case is showing you're tough. It's got absolutely nothing to do with hiding your guilt. Nothing at all. Defending a guy who won't give his DNA to a rape case. What a time to be alive.

Overheal

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes I would they could have 100 accusations and I'd still believe them as I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty.

Very easy to create smoke if you start the fires yourself .

Bet you wouldn’t let your kids near that house

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He's got to maintain his image of fighting the system he can't show any weakness or he'd lose plenty of votes, that's the reality of the situation.

Withholding evidence is now "fighting the system".

When you thought the excuses couldn't get any worse one of them will always come along and prove you wrong :pac:

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's not just that - The entire case rests on the alleged DNA evidence on the coat/dress that E Jean Carroll says she was wearing on the day.

I cannot for the life of me understand why a man , confident in his innocence would not provide his DNA sample , clear his name and then sue the woman into oblivion.

It simply does not make any sense AT ALL.

Well here’s the rub about that: once his DNA is in the judicial domain it can also be applied to any other potential rape lawsuits.

So, even if Trump really didn’t do this he’s clearly concerned he may have done someone else dirty

Either way he cannot hide from this case forever as president. He may be trying to run out the limitations on prosecuting defamation though.

Quin_Dub

rosser44 wrote: »

And an incredibly litigious man at that, who has shown that he will sue at the drop of a hat.

Surely all he has to do is provide a sample and then sue the other person into the ground for defamation of character? It would be an open and close case for any lawyer if the samples did not match.

Isn't that what an innocent person would do?

Actually , I think that you'll find that he counter-sues at the drop of a hat , usually to frustrate legitimate legal challenges against him.

There are actually very few instances where Trump is the instigator of legal proceedings and even fewer where he has actually won a judgement in court.

Sometimes he manages to frustrate and delay long enough for the other to just give up , but that's not the same as "winning"

Overheal

That’s definitely his whole schtick. He learned it from Roy Cohn and it’s what makes him an effective sociopath, frustrating the law even when you know you’re in the wrong. There’s no moral center to do the right thing but to do what you can get away with, which in the past was as simple as influencing judges and appealing the bejesus out of everything (we’ve seen it first hand with his administration, even making nakedly indefensible legal arguments only to prolong and delay). Cohn was Trumps greatest mentor, whose philosophy at its core was ‘I don’t want to know what the law is I want to know who the Judge is’

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-roy-cohn-relationship

And now that Trump is responsible for filling court benches with unqualified partisan judges and he has a willing debate to rubber stamp them, the damage to law and order will be catastrophic.

duploelabs

DangerScouse wrote: »

Look back for yourself. It's you making the accusations. I feel no need to defend myself.

So you've no defence for yourself, I'm seeing a parallel

Tell me how

More of the same in 2020.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1306588609273880576

lawred2

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

How convenient that the allegations are made less than 7 weeks before the election :rolleyes:

I guarantee you that there will be a few more of these allegations before the election.

Dead right.

Sure remember all the allegations of sexual assault running up to George Bush Junior's reelection...

It's an old democratic tactic this...

It's all lies.

Tell me how

lawred2 wrote: »

Dead right.

Sure remember all the allegations of sexual assault running up to George Bush Junior's reelection...

It's an old democratic tactic this...

It's all lies.

Tara Reade anyone?

Overheal

Tell me how wrote: »

Tara Reade anyone?

*cough*

salmocab

Is holding out for the worst/best moment not a thing every politician the world over does? Bad news buried at a holiday Or released before elections is pretty standard I’d have thought. Just like Trump wants the vaccine before the election, I doubt anyone thinks he has humanitarian reasons for wanting that. Hilarys emails was certainly timed.

Overheal

On that note, 50% of Republicans even won't trust a vaccine if it is rushed out before the election: https://www.mediaite.com/news/whopping-59-percent-of-americans-would-distrust-covid-vaccine-released-before-election-including-half-of-republicans/

Even among those voting for Trump 39-44% of them state they wouldn't trust an october-surprise vaccine.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

On that note, 50% of Republicans even won't trust a vaccine if it is rushed out before the election: https://www.mediaite.com/news/whopping-59-percent-of-americans-would-distrust-covid-vaccine-released-before-election-including-half-of-republicans/

Even among those voting for Trump 39-44% of them state they wouldn't trust an october-surprise vaccine.

How many of them wouldn't trust a vaccine in any case?

Kidchameleon

I dont think anyone should trust any vaccine that is rushed out. How many years do these things normally take? Thalidomide springs to mind

Brian?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I dont think anyone should trust any vaccine that is rushed out. How many years do these things normally take? Thalidomide springs to mind

Thalidomide wasn’t a vaccine. That’s a ridiculous comparison. Which I don’t believe “springs to mind” either. I’ve seen this same answer from multiple posters across boards. I imagine you’re all getting the same talking points from the same grifter.

Kidchameleon

Brian? wrote: »

Thalidomide wasn’t a vaccine. That’s a ridiculous comparison. Which I don’t believe “springs to mind” either. I’ve seen this same answer from multiple posters across boards. I imagine you’re all getting the same talking points from the same grifter.

Was not comparing them you know that. I was making a point that rushing to market can be dangerous. Everyone knows about the Thalidomide fiasco

ohnonotgmail

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Was not comparing them you know that. I was making a point that rushing to market can be dangerous. Everyone knows about the Thalidomide fiasco

the candidate you support would have no issue rushing a vaccine through. do you have any comment on that?

Kidchameleon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the candidate you support would have no issue rushing a vaccine through. do you have any comment on that?

Its a bad idea IMHO. I certainly wouldnt be taking it.

salmocab

I would disagree with kid chameleon on nearly everything but he’s right rushing out a vaccine is a bad idea. I don’t think it will happen however.

salmocab

Brian? wrote: »

Thalidomide wasn’t a vaccine. That’s a ridiculous comparison. Which I don’t believe “springs to mind” either. I’ve seen this same answer from multiple posters across boards. I imagine you’re all getting the same talking points from the same grifter.

Thalidomide certainly came to mind for me, whilst it wasn’t a vaccine it was an improperly tested drug.

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Was not comparing them you know that. I was making a point that rushing to market can be dangerous. Everyone knows about the Thalidomide fiasco

No I wasn’t familiar with this whatsoever

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

No I wasn’t familiar with this whatsoever

Its a facinating story, I recommend looking into it if you have time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide. Check out some documentaries on YouTube also.

salmocab

Overheal wrote: »

No I wasn’t familiar with this whatsoever

It’s even mentioned in Billy Joel’s we didn’t start the fire.

Overheal

salmocab wrote: »

It’s even mentioned in Billy Joel’s we didn’t start the fire.

As far as music cognition goes I’m usually far more of a melody guy than the poetry, which tends to get phased out by me over the song aesthetics; just not a tragedy I was cognizant of sorry to say

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1306684848908754945?s=19

She says that at one point Trump asked whether COVID might be a good thing, because it meant he didn't have to shake hands with "those disgusting people" anymore. Just confirming the contempt he has for the American people.

Timberrrrrrrr

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1306684848908754945?s=19

She says that at one point Trump asked whether COVID might be a good thing, because it meant he didn't have to shake hands with "those disgusting people" anymore. Just confirming the contempt he has for the American people.

I wonder what excuse the Trump zealots will have for this?

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I wonder what excuse the Trump zealots will have for this?

Same ones as used for any other incident, unless they get inventive.

metaoblivia

Overheal wrote: »

No I wasn’t familiar with this whatsoever

That might because - and correct me if I'm wrong here - but you are American, like me, and this was one of the few instances where America got things right and never officially approved thalidomide for use in the US. Some samples were given out, but we didn't see nearly the number of devastating cases that some European countries saw.

Ah to have a functioning federal government again.