Is Donald trump a rapist -- do we want a rapist as president:?:

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Not technically a HOAX. There are real legal accusations involved. Same true for the accusations against Clinton.

Just because it's not proven, and there's no conviction for Trump or for Clinton for example does not make it a Hoax.

If these women's accusations are true and they just didn't go the whole way or there wasn't enough proof for example. Calling it a hoax would be pretty messed up.

a reply to: Puppylove

Yeah, and a woman claimed Hillary abused her as an underaged girl. Unless they are convicted, it means nothing. Innocent until proven guilty in America.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Still doesn't make it a Hoax.

Still doesn't make it a fact, either.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Didn't say it did. Just said it's not hoax bin material. Is where our argument starts and ends.

Yes, it is a hoax if there is no evidence to support it.

A Court of Law decides that. And as you're aware there is no ruling stating that he's guilty or that Hillary is.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Bullcrap. The law nor it's rulings define reality.

If the rule of law defined reality, then most of this site would not exist.

It's a conspiracy site, not a court room. The rulings of law are fair game here.

a reply to: Puppylove

You don't get it. There is no evidence to support your claim he's a rapist. I'd like to believe in a lot of things, but you need evidence for grand claims such as that.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

I'm not claiming he's a rapist.

Ok here's the thing, a hoax is a claim someone has made that can be PROVEN false.

For example a video of an alien ship proven to be CGI is a Hoax. A video of a UFO where no sign of tampering can be proven is not.

What we have here is their word against his. Something felt strong enough about actual legal recourse was pursued.

It's not a hoax, because to be such it has to be proven fake beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't do that, same as no one has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

It's possible nothing happened. It's also possible something did.

a reply to: Puppylove
So you're willing to risk your reputation on heresy at this point?

If so, I've got land for cheap to sell you on Niburu.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

What am I risking by saying someone accused Trump of rape. It's a fact, Trump has been accused of rape. Which is all I'm saying. I don't have some omniscient ability to tell which side is telling the truth.

How is I DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, a statement that risks anything?

The only one here putting their reputation "on line" is you, as you're the only one claiming one side is lying.

Whether Trump or her are ever proven to have been lying 100% either way, I was right because I gave both of them the benefit of the doubt.

You on the other hand are only right if it can be proven one hundred percent that Trump is right. If later evidence shows conclusively that Trump committed rape. You're wrong.

You seem under some delusion that I'm saying Trump did it. I'm not. I don't know, and all I'm actually saying is, neither do you. You're neither her, nor Trump.

Hillary's been accused of being a Reptilian. By your thought process, that's a valid consideration.

Listen, this election is so full of vitrial and hate by both sides' supporters that it's hard to put any validity to these accusations. Hence the evidence should proceed the conclusion or supposition.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

There's a difference between giving someone the benefit of the doubt and calling something a Hoax.

Calling it a hoax is telling a potential rape victim she's a liar.

Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt is simply reserving judgement.

By that same rationale we must consider Trump innocent since he's stated it was not true.

Look, if they accuse him they will have their day in court. And if convicted you can claim he's a rapist. Until then, he's innocent. That is how the law works. Many people are slandered daily and i wouldn't consider every claim i hear as valid unless there was evidence to back it up, followed by a conviction.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Someone in a position of power using their position to take advantage of another is far less a stretch than believing Hillary is a reptilian. It's also far harder to prove false. I mean really, a blood sample from Hillary should be enough to disprove the reptilian hypothesis.

I mean she could be a reptilian I suppose. But as I find it unlikely, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on the reptilian accusation.

See how that works?

Why do you immediately need to jump to liar liar pants on fire?

It's far more reasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt until more evidence is presented to make that doubt harder to maintain.

a reply to: Puppylove
Someone in a position of power abusing someone. Listen to yourself. How do you know this is legit? If it's legit she can have her day in court.

I don't want to derail the thread with our own personal back & forth. if you want, you can PM me with your thoughts. Unless there is evidence, I still maintain this is an election year hoax.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

I don't know it's legit, I also don't know it's not. Therefore I give Trump the benefit of the doubt and do not hold it against him in deciding my vote.

I, however, refuse to call her a liar either, because if she's telling the truth that's just as #ed up as accusing Trump of rape. I'm accusing neither party of lying. I'm giving both the benefit of the doubt and reserving judgement.

You, however think it's better to just call someone who says they've been raped a liar.

Fine we're done, but I seriously don't get why she HAS to be a liar and reserving judgement isn't good enough.

I'm against this being used against Trump same as you. But unlike you, I won't call a potential rape victim a liar to do it.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: thepixelpusher

You, however think it's better to just call someone who says they've been raped a liar.

Reread what I wrote, I never said that.

I question your comprehension of reading and thinking and i can see why you're easily led to believe things. I've stated no such thing. I just stated that until there is evidence this is unproven. There are a lot of accusations being flung this election season, many things without evidence to back it up.

In the end we agree to disagree. Have the final word if you wish, but I'm done. I've said things clearly and plainly. But please don't smear or accuse me of something I haven't said.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: lortl

Well hopefully they won't vote in another asshole like you..again...Mr. SJW snowflake extrordinaire.

lol did u get triggered

do you need a safe space to retreat to

lol

so new witnesses have come forawrd in trumps child rape case

occupydemocrats.com...

Despite making it out of the Republican primary the winner, Trump has been forced to deal with legal issues along the way, including the allegation that he took part in a group rape of a then 13-year-old female. The female, known as "Jane Doe" in the court documents, claims that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, billionaire financier and convicted pedophile, sexually assaulted her at a party in 1994. While Trump's legal team has denied any wrongdoing, the plaintiff dismissed her lawsuit last week, but re-filed on Friday, adding another alleged witness to the complaint.

New witness speaks out
Along with "Jane Doe," a second witness was added to the original complaint, known simply as "Tiffany Doe," who claims she saw the duo rape the 13-year-old on more than one occasion. In the newly filed complaint, a third women, known only as "Joan Doe," is now speaking out to double down on the previous allegations.

The case has been refiled. bad news for trumpeter on many counts as well as his dodgy tax it looks like he might well be a rapist