Originally posted by Robtard
Alright, you're right, she must have had an upper thigh cramp and he was just trying to massage out the knot when he stuck his hand up Leeds' skirt. Total sense.
And you keep ignoring eyewitness who refutes the claim.
Trying to get me to believe this happened in first class with all the flight attendants and other passengers around, you are pretty gullible rob.
As usual, you believe every lie about Trump, but you refuse to believe the Truth about Bill and Hillary.
Originally posted by Robtard
Who are you voting for, DDM?
Gary Johnson, of course. We strongly disagree on some political issues but we match up 86% of the time.
I think things like a gold backed standard are economically naive and dangerously sentimental. I do believe in a backed standard. But i call it a "diversified backed standard." That would hedge against extreme market fluctuations for things such as gold. It would be more resistant to market crashes, as well.
Right now, picture the US currency as a very moist cloud. It can be blown this way and that way without giving much resistance but it does have some mass which prevents it from just blowing away into nothing all of a sudden.
Picture a gold backed standard as a lincoln log cabin built next to a campfire and you have some spare logs in a fireproof bucket sitting off to the side, ready to build another one at any time. One wrong blow of the wind and your cabin can burn up...but it is less likely than the cloud and sturdier than the cloud...right? And it is easier and faster to rebuild because of that fireproof bucket you have on the side, right?
Picuture a diversified backed standard as a very large pool of putty. Very difficult to move one way or another and it would take a long time to take pieces of it away until your pool was empty. Moves very little when the wind blows and cinders and ashes don't change it that much. The negative is it is hard to move this putty into another pool or add dye to quickly change the color of the putty. But it can be done, methodically.
That's the visuals of how I view that particular economic policy.
Cries of hypocrisy towards the media in cases like these always forget one important factor. Donald Trump is currently running for president. Al Gore is not and was not running for president when these allegations came to light, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why Trump's allegations get covered so much right now while Gore's did not.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's the hypocrisy. Still no proof Trump did any of this.
What hypocrisy? Sexual assault is wrong, no matter who did it. No one will deny that. The only difference is the level of media attention that is going on right now in regards to Trump's accusations, which is a direct result of him currently running for president. If Trump were to lose, and then fade into obscurity like Gore did, and then some years later some allegations came forward about him, the papers wouldn't cover them as extensively as they currently are.
Originally posted by Its2016
Al gore had alegations and lost. And hes a democrat who lost so its time for a republican to lose due to our alegations. See how intelligent you are?Retards, all of you.
Stop with the name calling.
The Gore allegations came out after he already lost, he didn't lose because of them. They didn't even exist when he ran for president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick
This is a Bill Clinton rape victim. Tell me how its Trump who did the raping. You literal retards.
Originally posted by Its2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_BroaddrickThis is a Bill Clinton rape victim. Tell me how its Trump who did the raping. You literal retards.
Again, stop with the name calling. I'm not telling you again.
Is this thread about the Clinton accusations now?
Rape/sexual assault is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter if it's Clinton, Trump, Gore or anyone else. If any of these people sexually assaulted anyone then they should be in jail.
The conversation, however, is about the media's reaction to these allegations, and as far as that goes, it is perfectly reasonable for the media to give more attention to the accusations aimed at someone currently running for president (Trump) than someone who ran for president, lost, and is no longer relevant (Gore).
Originally posted by Its2016
idc. Why is this even relevant?
It's relevant based on the nonsense you posted in your prior post that I was responding to.