Duterte puts Chelsa in her place

[bcking 3,157]

17 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Of course it was never proven because it was all settled out of court which is pretty much the same thing as guilty.

Jeez then Trump has a mighty long rap sheet.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Jeez then Trump has a mighty long rap sheet.

 

That's what I thought. Trump settled a lot of sexual assault cases, which pretty much is an admission of guilt.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

That's what I thought. Trump settled a lot of sexual assault cases, which pretty much is an admission of guilt.

I am sure you are going to provide s credible link to the sexual assault cases, Trump was accused of he settled 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am sure you are going to provide s credible link to the sexual assault cases, Trump was accused of he settled 

 

He settled. What other proof of culpability do you still need?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

He settled. What other proof of culpability do you still need?

thats what I thought . Nothing

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

thats what I thought . Nothing

NB you do realise we are both being sarcastic towards cyber right? He stated that Clinton was more or less guilty because he settled the sexual assaults cases. Puts him in that same guilty category with Trump.

 

You can't selectively decide when settling means someone is guilty or not.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

NB you do realise we are both being sarcastic towards cyber right? He stated that Clinton was more or less guilty because he settled the sexual assaults cases. Puts him in that same guilty category with Trump.

 

You can't selectively decide when settling means someone is guilty or not.

So what are the sexual assault cases against Trump he settled. Clinton did. 

 

Waiting 

[yuna628 9,743]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

NB you do realise we are both being sarcastic towards cyber right? He stated that Clinton was more or less guilty because he settled the sexual assaults cases. Puts him in that same guilty category with Trump.

 

You can't selectively decide when settling means someone is guilty or not.

He realizes, he's just being difficult. That's why we love his erratic driving..

 

In a truth is whatever you want it to be society, settling to some means you are guilty, but only when certain persons do it of course!

[jg121783 3,921]

38 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

That's what I thought. Trump settled a lot of sexual assault cases, which pretty much is an admission of guilt.

Bill Clinton settled sexual assault cases. Trump did not. While we are on this subject Hillary defended a child rapist in court and later bragged and joked about how she played the system to get him off. Very disgusting.

[yuna628 9,743]

12 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Bill Clinton settled sexual assault cases. Trump did not. While we are on this subject Hillary defended a child rapist in court and later bragged and joked about how she played the system to get him off. Very disgusting.

Again the logic of some in this thread is, if you settle a case, any case, then you are guilty apparently. So any cases that Trump settles (sexual and non-sexual) he is guilty, yes? Duterte though didn't mention a thing about cases Clinton had settled in his quote, he specifically mentioned within the oval office and Monica directly - which was by all accounts a consensual relationship, and of which his daughter could do nothing about (she couldn't do anything about allegations that were settled either considering she was a child). But Duterte can actually do something about soldier rape - which is very disgusting. Chelsea doesn't need to be ''put in her place'' whatever that means, and I doubt she's sobbing because of the words of an angry pseudo dictator ranting about something said on the internet.

Edited June 1, 2017 by yuna628

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

We get the logic. All we are asking is what sexual assault cases against him , dis Trump settle.

 

It's real simple 

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Again the logic of some in this thread is, if you settle a case, any case, then you are guilty apparently. So any cases that Trump settles (sexual and non-sexual) he is guilty, yes? Duterte though didn't mention a thing about cases Clinton had settled in his quote, he specifically mentioned within the oval office and Monica directly - which was by all accounts a consensual relationship, and of which his daughter could do nothing about (she couldn't do anything about allegations that were settled either considering she was a child). But Duterte can actually do something about soldier rape - which is very disgusting. Chelsea doesn't need to be ''put in her place'' whatever that means, and I doubt she's sobbing because of the words of an angry pseudo dictator ranting about something said on the internet.

 

Settling a business related lawsuit is a little different than settling a sexual assault lawsuit. Most businesses when being sued could care less whether they could win in court or not. They are concerned about their bottom line. If it is less expensive to settle a lawsuit than to go to court and defend yourself even if you are sure you will win it is a no brainer from a bottom line point of view. If for example you are being sued as a business and the settlement offer is $5000 but it would cost you $10000 in legal fees to go to court and you are being sued for $20000 (that you would be responsible for in the unlikely event you lose) then it makes sense from a business point of view to settle regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

 

A sexual assault case is a little different. If you are being sued and know you are innocent it is in your best interest to go to court and defend your good name (especially if you are a high profile person). If you know you are guilty on the other hand it is in your best interest to settle as quickly and quietly as possible so the details of what you did don't come out in court. Settling is not the same as admitting guilt but it really doesn't help your case to the public of being innocent. Furthermore when you settle multiple sexual assault cases like Bill Clinton did then you really look guilty.

 

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

We get the logic. All we are asking is what sexual assault cases against him , dis Trump settle.

 

It's real simple 

 

Some people here commented that Trump settled sexual assault cases too. I am unaware of any cases of this nature that Trump settled and I would also like to see some evidence.

[yuna628 9,743]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

 

Settling a business related lawsuit is a little different than settling a sexual assault lawsuit. Most businesses when being sued could care less whether they could win in court or not. They are concerned about their bottom line. If it is less expensive to settle a lawsuit than to go to court and defend yourself even if you are sure you will win it is a no brainer from a bottom line point of view. If for example you are being sued as a business and the settlement offer is $5000 but it would cost you $10000 in legal fees to go to court and you are being sued for $20000 (that you would be responsible for in the unlikely event you lose) then it makes sense from a business point of view to settle regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

 

A sexual assault case is a little different. If you are being sued and know you are innocent it is in your best interest to go to court and defend your good name (especially if you are a high profile person). If you know you are guilty on the other hand it is in your best interest to settle as quickly and quietly as possible so the details of what you did don't come out in court. Settling is not the same as admitting guilt but it really doesn't help your case to the public of being innocent. Furthermore when you settle multiple sexual assault cases like Bill Clinton did then you really look guilty.

 

 

Some people here commented that Trump settled sexual assault cases too. I am unaware of any cases of this nature that Trump settled and I would also like to see some evidence.

I would think that a business should care about their reputation in settling a lawsuit, which Trump has done on numerous occasions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

 

Any case, regardless of if it is a sex assault or abuse case is no different with regards to settling in a court of law. There are numerous famous men and women that settle simply to make the nightmare 'disappear', there is no claim as to guilt or innocence and no formal findings thereof. The court of public opinion of course has no bearing on what the law says, even when people are found not guilty by a jury of peers, there will still be public. If I, as a woman, were attacked by a man, there would be no amount of money flashed in my face or threatening that would compel me to take a settlement. If a man is guilty, we'd be going to court and seeing things through even if it were the most powerful person on the face of the planet. Despite that I don't see a woman that accuses a man and then takes a settlement as a 'gold-digger', to the contrary. I simply don't see the case as proven in the court of law. Therefore labeling Clinton as a rapist or anything else (other than a guy who liked to cheat on his wife and humiliate his daughter) is not the truth of the matter. It's simply an unproven accusation.

 

If the number of accusations and settlements is what is the sticking point for you, again one can't help but notice the number of lawsuits Trump has had in the past (including settlements) and currently has against him now. We also have the testimony of many women regarding his actions (the same as there were against Clinton) in conjunction with words that can also be used against him as a linchpin in those cases. Now I won't get into the finer points of the accusers testimony regarding Clinton, as it's a little too spicy for VJ, but I have a fairly good recollection of the 90s and the fascination with the cases. Some of the testimony didn't all add up, perhaps some of the ladies testimony against Trump also won't add up - but we'll see on that. The case against Clinton did not go in Jones' favor, as it was dismissed for several reasons. It was only during the appeal process did it move to settlement and the amount she received was fairly pathetic. So where exactly did Clinton settle sex assault cases multiple times? I'm not disputing allegations, but actual cases with settlements..? There was no rape case either, merely an accusation by an individual who denied (under oath) the accusation was real, not making for a reliable source in that scenario (when they changed their mind) but this does not mean that she wasn't potentially telling the truth. Partisan politics shouldn't negate a woman from trying to come forward, so why are women who accuse Trump somehow less credible? Trump does have a history of accusations against him, since the 70s. One of those cases, which involved sex assault/harassment was dropped under terms of a co-settlement. In essence he provided a settlement to her husband, rather than to the wife directly provided on the condition she dropped her suit. If the accusations (numerous) were that offensive and important in disproving to him, you would think he would have made good on a claim of countersuit against all the women by now. Instead he continues to argue being President gives him immunity to such suits... something SCOTUS ruled upon regarding Clinton in 1997. There is a good bet, he too will have to make the decision to settle or answer it in court. In that instance, how will you feel about settling then?

 

None of this still has anything to do with a woman who was at the time a little girl in some instances (not even born in other instances), and a teenager in other instances. She has no bearing or control over her father's affair as President, and she has the right as a human being to speak out against any subject she chooses - including soldier rape. If settling means admitting guilt, it shouldn't matter if it's a business or an individual. Thankfully that's not how things work in the justice system.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by yuna628

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

I would think that a business should care about their reputation in settling a lawsuit, which Trump has done on numerous occasions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

 

Any case, regardless of if it is a sex assault or abuse case is no different with regards to settling in a court of law. There are numerous famous men and women that settle simply to make the nightmare 'disappear', there is no claim as to guilt or innocence and no formal findings thereof. The court of public opinion of course has no bearing on what the law says, even when people are found not guilty by a jury of peers, there will still be public. If I, as a woman, were attacked by a man, there would be no amount of money flashed in my face or threatening that would compel me to take a settlement. If a man is guilty, we'd be going to court and seeing things through even if it were the most powerful person on the face of the planet. Despite that I don't see a woman that accuses a man and then takes a settlement as a 'gold-digger', to the contrary. I simply don't see the case as proven in the court of law. Therefore labeling Clinton as a rapist or anything else (other than a guy who liked to cheat on his wife and humiliate his daughter) is not the truth of the matter. It's simply an unproven accusation.

 

If the number of accusations and settlements is what is the sticking point for you, again one can't help but notice the number of lawsuits Trump has had in the past (including settlements) and currently has against him now. We also have the testimony of many women regarding his actions (the same as there were against Clinton) in conjunction with words that can also be used against him as a linchpin in those cases. Now I won't get into the finer points of the accusers testimony regarding Clinton, as it's a little too spicy for VJ, but I have a fairly good recollection of the 90s and the fascination with the cases. Some of the testimony didn't all add up, perhaps some of the ladies testimony against Trump also won't add up - but we'll see on that. The case against Clinton did not go in Jones' favor, as it was dismissed for several reasons. It was only during the appeal process did it move to settlement and the amount she received was fairly pathetic. So where exactly did Clinton settle sex assault cases multiple times? I'm not disputing allegations, but actual cases with settlements..? There was no rape case either, merely an accusation by an individual who denied (under oath) the accusation was real, not making for a reliable source in that scenario (when they changed their mind) but this does not mean that she wasn't potentially telling the truth. Partisan politics shouldn't negate a woman from trying to come forward, so why are women who accuse Trump somehow less credible? Trump does have a history of accusations against him, since the 70s. One of those cases, which involved sex assault/harassment was dropped under terms of a co-settlement. In essence he provided a settlement to her husband, rather than to the wife directly provided on the condition she dropped her suit. If the accusations (numerous) were that offensive and important in disproving to him, you would think he would have made good on a claim of countersuit against all the women by now. Instead he continues to argue being President gives him immunity to such suits... something SCOTUS ruled upon regarding Clinton in 1997. There is a good bet, he too will have to make the decision to settle or answer it in court. In that instance, how will you feel about settling then?

 

None of this still has anything to do with a woman who was at the time a little girl in some instances (not even born in other instances), and a teenager in other instances. She has no bearing or control over her father's affair as President, and she has the right as a human being to speak out against any subject she chooses - including soldier rape.

 

 

So do any of you have a link to a sexual assault cases he settled or not. No need for a tail chasing wall of text. Do you or do you not. It was said in several posts he did 

[yuna628 9,743]

11 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So do any of you have a link to a sexual assault cases he settled or not. No need for a tail chasing wall of text. Do you or do you not. It was said in several posts he did 

 Can you provide a link to the ''multiple'' sex assault cases that Clinton settled?

I know reading isn't your thing, but I tried to be comprehensive in answering your question. People often think things that aren't true in the interest of 'public opinion'... maybe reading more about stuff would help clarify.

Edited June 2, 2017 by yuna628