Harvey Weinstein thread

[teh b0lly!!1]

oh great, another Trump thread. that's what the board needs

[FlamingGlobes]

https://media.giphy.com/media/26gsjr...KmuQ/giphy.gif

[buzzard]

I mean, if sexual impropriety needed a poster boy...

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by FlamingGlobes

https://media.giphy.com/media/26gsjr...KmuQ/giphy.gif

I don't get it.

[redbreegull]

charlie rose lol

[redbreegull]

more like charlie roast him and take him out cause he done

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

That's because Clinton has been accused of rape while Trump has not.

Yes he has, and even if he was only accused of assault you should at least be calling him a sexual assaulter. But he has been accused of rape. Why not instead of defending this you look at it and adjust your behavior to be consistent? I have no problem calling them both sexual predators and likely rapists.

[redbreegull]

Clinton is probably a rapist who has never admitted to sex assault

Trump is probably a rapist who has openly bragged about sex assault

[Disco King]

It's worth noting that a few of the allegations against Trump predated the leaking of the Access Hollywood tapes or his presidential campaign, making it all the less likely that they are simply part of some deep-state conspiracy against him.

Unless the deep state made use of secret premonition technology and tried to preempt Trump before he declared war on Shrek's neighborhood.

[buzzard]

Even suggesting that it is possible within this reality to "conspire" is highly suggestive of a thoroughly scrubbed brain on your part, as the word and its meaning are mere works of fiction penned by CIA agents tasked with covering up the assassination of JFK.

Also, McFlurries were never machine-stirred. That never happened.

[The Omega Concern]

1992

Originally Posted by reprise85

Yes he has, and even if he was only accused of assault you should at least be calling him a sexual assaulter. But he has been accused of rape. Why not instead of defending this you look at it and adjust your behavior to be consistent? I have no problem calling them both sexual predators and likely rapists.

Trump's ex-wife admitted she made up the rape claim because that's what her divorce lawyer told her to do. No one else has made such a claim against Trump.


Juanita Broderick however, did so in great detail back in 1992. As did Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.

Just yesterday, attorneys representing 4 new women accusing Clinton of assault are coordinating their efforts and have notified the former Pres they are preparing to file four separate lawsuits against him.




Just as there are always clues, it’s in the consistency of further developments, along with weighing any prior, coupling them with the current, then trying to extrapolate whether or not they still stand, or are valid. This is the work most people won’t do. That's your critical thinking and analysis tip for the day. You're welcome.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Disco King

It's worth noting that a few of the allegations against Trump predated the leaking of the Access Hollywood tapes or his presidential campaign, making it all the less likely that they are simply part of some deep-state conspiracy against him.

Unless the deep state made use of secret premonition technology and tried to preempt Trump before he declared war on Shrek's neighborhood.

The game here is controlled by the seditious mainstream media , who for decades ignored and or excused the allegations against Bill Clinton until now, when they have to throw him overboard to get at Trump.

[The Omega Concern]

Conyers is going down. That's the tip of the congressional iceberg, because his exposure reveals the $15 million dollar kitty the reps have to pay off accusers with taxpayer funds.

[FoolofaTook]

Amen, my Brother in Baphomet! You showed these orthodox minds what's up.

(Pass me the pipe plz. i think there might be a hit left in your chore)

[FlamingGlobes]

Originally Posted by Disco King

It's worth noting that a few of the allegations against Trump predated the leaking of the Access Hollywood tapes or his presidential campaign, making it all the less likely that they are simply part of some deep-state conspiracy against him.

Unless the deep state made use of secret premonition technology and tried to preempt Trump before he declared war on Shrek's neighborhood.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2Je8Y...YtA4/giphy.gif

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

1992



Trump's ex-wife admitted she made up the rape claim because that's what her divorce lawyer told her to do. No one else has made such a claim against Trump.

no, she took back the use of the word 'rape'. trump's lawyer's defense is that you can't rape your wife. and what about the teenager who accused him? but keep going on about bill clinton, who no one is saying isn't a predator

also don't condescend to me

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Just as there are always clues, it’s in the consistency of further developments, along with weighing any prior, coupling them with the current, then trying to extrapolate whether or not they still stand, or are valid. This is the work most people won’t do. That's your critical thinking and analysis tip for the day. You're welcome.

Trump spoke of his behavior towards women in the Access Hollywood tape and his own description very closely matches claims of sexual misconduct made by a laundry list of alleged victims. All "further developments" have been incredibly consistent with his own words, matched "prior" claims made as early as the late eighties, match "the current" claims maintained by victims that include at least one ongoing lawsuit, and absolutely does "still stand" thanks to the Supreme Court shooting down Kasowitz' hilariously desperate eleventh hour attempt to get Trump out of being subpoenaed while he's still in office. In other words, your very own "critical thinking and analysis tip for the day" blatantly supports viewing the allegations against Trump as prima facie valid.

Inconsistency is a decent part of why you're not taken seriously by anybody other than fuzzyroes, i.e. the least intelligent member of the entire forum. There's a tip in that for you.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

1992



Trump's ex-wife admitted she made up the rape claim because that's what her divorce lawyer told her to do. No one else has made such a claim against Trump.


Juanita Broderick however, did so in great detail back in 1992. As did Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.

Just yesterday, attorneys representing 4 new women accusing Clinton of assault are coordinating their efforts and have notified the former Pres they are preparing to file four separate lawsuits against him.




Just as there are always clues, it’s in the consistency of further developments, along with weighing any prior, coupling them with the current, then trying to extrapolate whether or not they still stand, or are valid. This is the work most people won’t do. That's your critical thinking and analysis tip for the day. You're welcome.

Broaddrick at one point walked back her allegations, as well, submitting an affidavit denying that Clinton ever attacked her. Does this mean that Clinton never attacked her? It is much more likely that she simply denied that he did out of fear.

Looking at the evidence surrounding Ivana Trump's allegations would lead anybody who isn't blinded by partisanship to take Ivana's allegations as seriously as Broaddrick's. She walked back her claims after Trump's lawyers threatened her, and the journalist who was publicizing the allegations. The divorce case cited Donald Trump's "cruel and inhuman treatment" of Ivana Trump, which indicates that abuse was present. Did he rape her? Unfortunately, Ivana can no longer comment on that, because the divorce litigation included a gag order that prevents her from speaking publicly about the marriage without Donald Trump's approval.

You're really more willing to believe that Hillary Clinton clones are walking around than that a rich and powerful man could possibly use his wealth and influence to silence a victim of his abuse, even when said rich and powerful man has admitted to committing abuse on tape?

[buzzard]

The Omega Concern won't directly answer questions that highlight his incredibly naïve perspective, I'm afraid.

[reprise85]

have you guys ever read what ivana said trump did to her? suggested some kind of scalp-shortening surgery to cover up a bald spot, and trump didn't like the outcome after he had it done and so attacked her, pulled out clumps of her hair, and then raped her

[Ram27]

jesus christ that is awful

[FoolofaTook]

Holy shit. Maybe I should read the news more. All I have been following is the poor Rohingya and that makes me what to hang myself.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by reprise85

have you guys ever read what ivana said trump did to her? suggested some kind of scalp-shortening surgery to cover up a bald spot, and trump didn't like the outcome after he had it done and so attacked her, pulled out clumps of her hair, and then raped her

I will laugh when he dies

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

no, she took back the use of the word 'rape'. trump's lawyer's defense is that you can't rape your wife. and what about the teenager who accused him? but keep going on about bill clinton, who no one is saying isn't a predator

also don't condescend to me

I apologize about the condescension.


Trump's legal team pulled a fast one apparently. Did the judge overrule the objection from team Ivana? Either way, they didn't have to take back the term if they didn't want to.


Now...the teenager. Is this the case that went to court last year around this time? I know very little specifics, other than Trump, unlike a lot of the celebs and pols these days, has denied the allegations.

If Trump is the adrenochrome sucking, child murdering satanist many truthers allege a host of hollywood/d.c. types to be, then I can only hope he eventually sacrifices himself while he takes that aspect of the swamp down.

But being that they hate the guy and can't control him and are pulling out all the stops short of killing him to get rid of him, I'm thinking he's not that.

That is the battle at play IndyGirl...it's always been a matter of degree with Trump and whether he's really fighting the rogue elements of our government. At this point, the preponderance of evidence suggest that he is, but its still early in his term.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Broaddrick at one point walked back her allegations, as well, submitting an affidavit denying that Clinton ever attacked her. Does this mean that Clinton never attacked her? It is much more likely that she simply denied that he did out of fear.

Looking at the evidence surrounding Ivana Trump's allegations would lead anybody who isn't blinded by partisanship to take Ivana's allegations as seriously as Broaddrick's. She walked back her claims after Trump's lawyers threatened her, and the journalist who was publicizing the allegations. The divorce case cited Donald Trump's "cruel and inhuman treatment" of Ivana Trump, which indicates that abuse was present. Did he rape her? Unfortunately, Ivana can no longer comment on that, because the divorce litigation included a gag order that prevents her from speaking publicly about the marriage without Donald Trump's approval.

You're really more willing to believe that Hillary Clinton clones are walking around than that a rich and powerful man could possibly use his wealth and influence to silence a victim of his abuse, even when said rich and powerful man has admitted to committing abuse on tape?

Broderick just told Chelsea Handler last week she was raped by Billy boy. Handler apologized to her and threw him under the bus as a result.


A billionaire's divorce case is flimsy material to assess what really went on in a divorce. That said, Ivana still talks to Trump to this day and have a warm relationship according to her. She just mentioned all this recently. Whatever it was that happened, it appears to be forgiven.


I don't regard beliefs when searching for truth. Truth does not regard beliefs for what it is, so I won't either. There's interesting analysis that suggest a host of politicos and celebs have been cloned, starting with the Russian synthetic humans in the late 1960's.

[buzzard]

Ivana's divorce settlement left her legally unable to discuss Donald Trump or her experiences with him without his prior approval.

Without obtaining [the husband’s] written consent in advance, [the wife] shall not directly or indirectly publish, or cause to be published, any diary, memoir, letter, story, photograph, interview, article, essay, account, or description or depiction of any kind whatsoever, whether fictionalized or not, concerning her marriage to [the husband] or any other aspect of [the husband’s] personal, business or financial affairs, or assist or provide information to others in connection with the publication or dissemination of any such material or excerpts thereof.

If you genuinely believe anything she's said about him since the Court of Appeals affirmed this gag order in 1992, you're even less aware than I previously thought.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

I apologize about the condescension.


Trump's legal team pulled a fast one apparently. Did the judge overrule the objection from team Ivana? Either way, they didn't have to take back the term if they didn't want to.


Now...the teenager. Is this the case that went to court last year around this time? I know very little specifics, other than Trump, unlike a lot of the celebs and pols these days, has denied the allegations.

If Trump is the adrenochrome sucking, child murdering satanist many truthers allege a host of hollywood/d.c. types to be, then I can only hope he eventually sacrifices himself while he takes that aspect of the swamp down.

But being that they hate the guy and can't control him and are pulling out all the stops short of killing him to get rid of him, I'm thinking he's not that.

That is the battle at play IndyGirl...it's always been a matter of degree with Trump and whether he's really fighting the rogue elements of our government. At this point, the preponderance of evidence suggest that he is, but its still early in his term.

he is a sexual predator and i don't care about these other things, i just want you to admit it. but you won't, because you don't actually have integrity

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by reprise85

but, lo! after the election her terrible secretive diseases all left, such that they have never been revealed even a year later!

They're not revealed cause there's no reason for people dig into her personal life now that she lost.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by buzzard

I provided you with four examples and you're only responding to one. Can we take this as an admission that you and The Omega Concern were dead wrong about the others?

Even then, I don't see how claims in one person's book can be taken as a confirmation of anything. Unless Brazile provided sufficient detail to support The Omega Concern's assurances that Clinton was "certainly ill" and suffering from Parkinson's and/or a "[brain] tumor or worse," including speculation that it had already killed her in September of 2016 and a month later that she "has a team of handlers literally holding her up and at the ready with auto-injector diazepam shots . . . just trying to get her across the finish line to hand it to Kaine early on," you've said nothing of any substance at all. Do you still support these bold statements as to her physical well-being, today?

To be fair, I often overlook some of TOC 's more "out there" reads on what's going on. He has some sensational theories that he questions that I think people look at and then rationalize that everything he says must be wrong. The truth is, a lot of his reads on things are spot on and he brings up a ton of good points.

[buzzard]

Can we get a list of the "ton of good points" he's brought up?