unchanged_lineup
Tarheel Tech Wizard
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 17,472
- Supports
- Janet jazz jazz jam
Whatever happened to that planned press conference by the woman that alleged she was raped by Trump when she was 13 yrs old?
lol got it!Death threats.
Allegedly raped as a child, doesn't mention for most of her life, he becomes a tycoon and public figure, still no mention, he runs for President, no mention, he gets close to it, no mention....then less than a week away she decides she 'needs' to go public - but suddenly cancels press conference for 'death threats' - ok. Makes sense.
I think John Oliver is a bit of a wanker, so, no, haven't seen it. I'm not wound up by it, it just seems odd. As you say, plenty of people change their names, i.e. Jon Stewart, there are plenty of better things to pick on but perhaps it's the desire to ridicule him that's behind it. Like I said, I just don't get it.
Allegedly raped as a child, doesn't mention for most of her life, he becomes a tycoon and public figure, still no mention, he runs for President, no mention, he gets close to it, no mention....then less than a week away she decides she 'needs' to go public - but suddenly cancels press conference for 'death threats' - ok. Makes sense.
He is a disgusting man, but Hillary is on another level. They cannot be compared for what they have said and done, it's different leagues.
Neo-fascist. Donald Trump. Yea ok.
Trump might have the temperament of a 5 year old, might incite xenophobia on a daily basis, demean women, have a policy against allowing coloured people access to his properties, regularly refuse to pay contractors, might show complete contempt for the legal process, might want to curtail the freedom on press, might hold life long grudges against people, might have gone bankrupt half a dozen times, might be a trust fund kid who at no point in his life was surrounded by regular people, might surround himself with yes men because he can't handle being told he's wrong about anything, might want to turn NATO into a mafia-style organisation, might have zero grasp on the dangers of nuclear proliferation, or need an grasp on geopolitical realities, might even be an illiterate moron with zero attention spam. But hey, Clinton might be corrupt so, that's definitely much worse.
Anyone who thinks a sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic man who fecks over everyone he works with, insults war heroes and makes fun of the handicapped, who brags about committing sexual assault and dodging taxes and who recently said someone isn't attractive enough for him to sexually assault in the first place is better than someone who is under investigation for being careless with some emails to hold the most important job in the world needs their head examined.
Could her "visa" be revoked? she became a U.S. citizen in 2006 so wouldn't that mean she is no longer in the US on a visa?It's kind of reassuring when you read a piece like this that carefully details the painstaking research they did and you realise that there are still journalists out there working with this level of rigour, in contrast to the talking heads and plain liars on television.
Now, who was I arguing with a few days ago about Trump's rhetoric only being about illegal immigrants?
Trump, second-generation immigrant on one side and third-generation on the other side of his family, married to someone whose visa could now be revoked according to a strict reading of the laws relating to illegally working on the wrong visa.
Allegedly raped as a child, doesn't mention for most of her life, he becomes a tycoon and public figure, still no mention, he runs for President, no mention, he gets close to it, no mention....then less than a week away she decides she 'needs' to go public - but suddenly cancels press conference for 'death threats' - ok. Makes sense.
Could her "visa" be revoked? she became a U.S. citizen in 2006 so wouldn't that mean she is no longer in the US on a visa?
But is she in the US on a visa since she is now a citizen?Yup, the law is there for it to be revoked. However, the AP article points out it's only done in situations of extreme crimes. But yeah, it could.
But is she in the US on a visa since she is now a citizen?
Her citizenship could be revoked. But, the kind of situations they said that would happen in would be for war criminals, for zexample. The law is there though.
Allegedly raped as a child, doesn't mention for most of her life, he becomes a tycoon and public figure, still no mention, he runs for President, no mention, he gets close to it, no mention....then less than a week away she decides she 'needs' to go public - but suddenly cancels press conference for 'death threats' - ok. Makes sense.
Yes her citizenship could be revoked as I said, I don't think she is in the US on a visa anymore since she would not need it.
Allegedly raped as a child, doesn't mention for most of her life, he becomes a tycoon and public figure, still no mention, he runs for President, no mention, he gets close to it, no mention....then less than a week away she decides she 'needs' to go public - but suddenly cancels press conference for 'death threats' - ok. Makes sense.
Allegedly raped as a child, doesn't mention for most of her life, he becomes a tycoon and public figure, still no mention, he runs for President, no mention, he gets close to it, no mention....then less than a week away she decides she 'needs' to go public - but suddenly cancels press conference for 'death threats' - ok. Makes sense.
Why is the state of Maine broken into different electoral vote?
Know could google - but sure where is the fun
Why is the state of Maine broken into different electoral vote?
Know could google - but sure where is the fun
Is it a GOP controlled county?
Is it a GOP controlled county?
No wonder.Arizona is a GOP-controlled state.
Closer to 300 is my bet. Perhaps 314 Clinton.A tad optimistic, but if things go right the night can unfold like this
Could her "visa" be revoked? she became a U.S. citizen in 2006 so wouldn't that mean she is no longer in the US on a visa?
Her citizenship could be revoked I suppose.
A tad optimistic, but if things go right the night can unfold like this
Have you read the investigative piece that the Guardian published on it? It all points to a scam.It's judgement like this that stops people from coming forward in the first place. We really need to leave this archaic thinking behind, it means literally nothing.
Have you read the investigative piece that the Guardian published on it? It all points to a scam.
I also remember reading an article on it ( I can't remember where atm) about mainstream media looking into it and not liking what they found, so are reluctant to go big on it without the alleged victim coming forward. If they can put a face to the story and it's bullshit then they write it off to the con artists, if they go with the story and the con artists keep their identity secret then the blame could be pointed at the journalists verifying the story of sorts.