The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

This is classic misdirection from the right, the sort of thing you usually baulk at. The evidence is that he wrote in her yearbook and signed it.
That is the evidence they met. It was not "tampered with". It was not "forged". It was annotated. The use of the word "forgery" by the usual suspects, Breitbart and Fox News, and your use of the word "tampered", is misdirection.
Whether she annotated it is neither here nor there. Even Fox News who immediately screamed "forgery" had to later correct themselves.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...rgery-headline

If the signature is genuine, as the hand-writing expert claims it is, then it is proof they met. Even if she wrote the entire rest of the inscription herself (there is no indication she did), it still proves they met.
A few weeks later she alleges he assaulted her. I have no idea whether that is true, that is one person's word against another.
I find it interesting how you generally rail against politicians and now decide this one is credible.


What other aspects? You can't just state stuff like this without elaborating.

Where did I say Moore is a credible politician? Nowhere. As always, making stuff up to prove your non-points. I said the woman related to this yearbook is, on the balance of the evidence, a liar. That's a very different thing.

And you talk about misdirection and then start talking about what Fox News said, rather than what I said. That yearbook was presented as is and it was initially claimed the entire entry was written by Moore. It's highly unlikely any of it was written by him, given the rather obvious mistakes. I'm sure Moore's lawyers will be able to overcome the protests of the cunt lawyer (you should look her up too - does that help?) and a forensic examination will answer these questions one way or the other.

[Letters]

Letters please stop misstating facts that are clearly in evidence. Trump DID NOT admit to assaulting women. I believe what he said is that when you are famous, women let you do all kinds of shit to them....(many would argue this is entirely true, otherwise groupies would not be a real thing). He never admitted to actually doing any of those things...

Trump: "Yeah, that's her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

Bush: "Whatever you want."

Trump: "Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

And about the beauty pageant:

Trump: "You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...ranscript.html

So yeah, he pretty much does admit doing these things. It's borderline criminal.

the stuff about his daughter is simply mental extrapolation of some crude observations by Trump on his daughters hotness. Creepy yes. Not criminal.

Agreed, but it is bloody creepy:

"Ivanka posing for Playboy would be really disappointing… not really. But it would depend on what was inside the magazine…I don’t think Ivanka would [do a nude shoot] inside the magazine, Although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father…."

"Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?"

https://forward.com/schmooze/357185/...-about-ivanka/

[GP]

Trump: "Yeah, that's her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

Bush: "Whatever you want."

Trump: "Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

And about the beauty pageant:

Trump: "You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...ranscript.html

So yeah, he pretty much does admit doing these things. It's borderline criminal.



Agreed, but it is bloody creepy:

"Ivanka posing for Playboy would be really disappointing… not really. But it would depend on what was inside the magazine…I don’t think Ivanka would [do a nude shoot] inside the magazine, Although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

"Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father…."

"Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?"

https://forward.com/schmooze/357185/...-about-ivanka/

Agreed, he's definitely raped his own daughter repeatedly.

[Niall_Quinn]

Their Russian scam goes tits up so they're on to the next one without missing a beat. And all the usual idiots lapping it up. They never learn. Mainly because they don't want to.

[Letters]

Where did I say Moore is a credible politician? Nowhere. As always, making stuff up to prove your non-points.

Well, this is a case of one person's word against another, ultimately. You're going with the politician over some woman who you don't know from Adam.
Given your thoughts on politicians I'm surprised you're going with him as the one telling the truth.

I said the woman related to this yearbook is, on the balance of the evidence, a liar. That's a very different thing.

But you have yet to present any evidence. You're just stating things.

And you talk about misdirection and then start talking about what Fox News said, rather than what I said. That yearbook was presented as is and it was initially claimed the entire entry was written by Moore.

She has now clarified that she added the date and place. The misdirection is that people like Fox news and Breitbart then call it a "forgery".
There is a very clear implication in that word that the entire thing was forged which would indicate that she is a liar and has never met him.
Adding the date and place afterwards is a very different thing and it is not reasonable to use the word "forgery" about that admission.
If the rest was written by him, as she maintains, then it still shows they met. It doesn't show he assaulted her of course

It's highly unlikely any of it was written by him, given the rather obvious mistakes.

Again, you're just stating things. You don't back up anything. I have already provided a source where analysis was done of the signature which indicates it was his. Obviously you dismiss that because it doesn't fit your unsubstantiated theory. You are confirmation bias writ large.

[Niall_Quinn]

Actually there's a match on.

Did you know?

[Letters]

Yes.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well, this is a case of one person's word against another, ultimately. You're going with the politician over some woman who you don't know from Adam.
Given your thoughts on politicians I'm surprised you're going with him as the one telling the truth.

Still lying. Even though I explicitly qualified what I said. Sad.

But you have yet to present any evidence. You're just stating things.

Nope. I'm talking about the facts to date - which are readily available in many formats online. But you have to trawl beyond the BBC and the Guardian I'm afraid.

She has now clarified that she added the date and place. The misdirection is that people like Fox news and Breitbart then call it a "forgery".
There is a very clear implication in that word that the entire thing was forged which would indicate that she is a liar and has never met him.
Adding the date and place afterwards is a very different thing and it is not reasonable to use the word "forgery" about that admission.
If the rest was written by him, as she maintains, then it still shows they met. It doesn't show he assaulted her of course

I never once mentioned the word forgery. Yet again, even though I've pointed it out, you want to answer what Fox News said rather than what I said. Dishonest.

Again, you're just stating things. You don't back up anything. I have already provided a source where analysis was done of the signature which indicates it was his. Obviously you dismiss that because it doesn't fit your unsubstantiated theory. You are confirmation bias writ large.

Oh really? They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

All she added was the date and the location.

Where's your source that confirms Moore's legal team has conducted and examination of the yearbook. Isn't that how it's normally done when somebody makes an accusation? The accused gets to mount a defence and examine the "evidence" against them? Has this changed since I last checked?

[Letters]

Nope. I'm talking about the facts to date - which are readily available in many formats online. But you have to trawl beyond the BBC and the Guardian I'm afraid.

Then provide your sources. I can Google it, well I have done that. You can Google anything and get a load of different articles which will state different things.
What are your sources and how do you know they are more credible than the articles I've found?

All she added was the date and the location.

An emoticon is not an argument. That is her claim. If you she is lying about that then please provide your source for that claim.

Where's your source that confirms Moore's legal team has conducted and examination of the yearbook.

Well, I agree, they should have their experts look at it. But the expert who has looked at it has said his opinion is the signature is genuine.
Looking a the photo of it in this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/roy-moore-si...ocument-743091

It looks like the signature matches that on other documents he signed at the time. I'm no expert of course. It seems pretty clear that the date and location, and to my untrained eye the letters DA, have been added in a different hand. There has been no attempt to copy the handwriting in the inscription so this doesn't seem like an attempt at deception. Your counter-argument is:

It's highly unlikely any of it was written by him, given the rather obvious mistakes.

That is all you say. You don't elaborate, you provide no evidence or source.
If you have any basis to the claim that it's "highly unlikely any of it was written by him" then please provide it.

[Cripps]

Actually there's a match on.

Did you know?

It's not MK Dons so he's not interested.