[Jamie89]

I feel like I should prefix this by saying I'm not even a Hillary 'supporter'. I don't particularly like her and just because I'm anti-Trump, and just because I've made posts criticizing him, that doesn't mean I'm pro-Hillary. I just don't feel the need to criticize her based on something which I believe to be completely inaccurate.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

what reaction there has been, has - in my opinion - been dismissive, denialist, and deflective.

But perhaps, it is not the above dismissive, denialist, and deflective 'voices' which are the most informative about the lack of impartiality, objectivity, and fairness, in some of the posts on here

I can only assume that my posts are included in this since you don't say who you're referring to but I'm sorry Kirk, I take offence to the assumption that I've lacked impartiality, objectivity and fairness in my posts. I've watched the video in the OP, I've looked into the facts of the case, and I've listened to the full original tapes that whoever made this video chopped up and presented in it. And I haven't seen that anyone in this thread has been to show that what I've said is inaccurate in any way. I've read the replies to my posts and none of them do.

And it is just that very 'nothing to say' sudden silence, which I am afraid to say, strips away all credibility from those views on here which have so vilified Trump.

You say that you've made conclusions based on certain members who have been anti-trump not posting in the thread, but could it be possible that they simply discredit the video based on the same reasons I have, and so feel that there isn't a worthy discussion to be had? Personally I don't feel like this discussion is worthy, I've only taken part in it myself because I've found it so crazy that people would watch the video and unquestionably believe its message when it isn't giving a real account of what happened.

I'm all for "let's talk about the things Hillary has done and what kind of person she is" and many Trump supporters keep saying that there's too many threads criticizing him and there isn't enough negative focus on Hillary, but when something as unfactual and biased as this is presented as a negative against her I don't find the reaction (or lack of reaction) to it surprising in the least or that people don't feel it's necessary to discuss. If people want to discuss Hillary's faults then something accurate should be presented at the very least. If people see the 'story' here that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' as being something that's been made up, then why would they be driven to debate it?

The comparison between this and the Trump tape is that they are both tapes that make the people involved look bad, but the huge difference is that this one has been manipulated and edited out of all context and only exists to serve as anti-Hillary propaganda, and many people don't give credence to, or form opinions on that kind of thing. With Trumps tape on the other hand, the conversation he's having is clear, it wasn't manipulated and edited with the intention of showing a conversation that didn't happen, and given the nature of it and how disgusted people were, of course there's going to be a big reaction to that. And I reject the idea that it's 'historic'. It was 11 years ago and he was 59, they aren't the views of a teenage Trump who is yet to mature. 59 years old and he said those things.

The arguments over the 'historical' 'Busgate' video still rages, and it has been well enough covered, but as shocking and sexist as Trump's ego-driven boastful comments are, about power, wealth and fame enabling (some) men to grope (some) women at will without protest or resistance - WAS he lying?

Maybe he wasn't lying about the fact that some men can get away with doing that, but he wasn't presenting what he said in the same way you have. He was saying that they are things that he does, and he was suggesting that it's ok to do those things, as well as the other general comments he was making about women, that's why people have been so disgusted at him. And just because someone can get away something, that doesn't make it morally ok.

Or an historical video showing a now famous, wealthy, and powerful PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE boastfully TALKING about how - as a DEFENCE ATTORNEY - she used deceitful and dishonest tactics to ensure that a depraved sexuallly deviant monster who she KNEW had raped and beat a little, innocent 12 year old girl to such a degree that she was in a coma, to EVADE his rightful and proper punishment under the law?

This just isn't what happened at all, and I've talked previously in the thread about why I believe that to be the case so I won't repeat myself, and maybe all of this will be brushed aside anyway as me being blind to her faults or something, but it just seems completely inaccurate. So it's not that I think it's ok for Hillary to be a 'rape-enabler', it's that I don't think she is one. And so if anything, it's the makers of this video who I think are abhorrent because they're the ones who have used the rape of this girl (and the Trump campaign continues to use her) in order to sell a lie for political gains, and regardless of political leaning, why would anyone want to buy into that? And if anyone is buying it just because they are a Trump supporter, or just because they dislike Hillary, then I guess that's their prerogative, but I'd still urge anyone who believes that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' based solely on this video (which honestly is such an extreme accusation to level at someone it should be taken seriously enough to base it on something more factual), to look into what happened further.

I'm entitled to my opinion too and I don't want to come across aggressive in any of this but I just think it's unfair to dismiss mine or anyone else's opinion as biased etc (especially when I've gone out of my way to explain why I have the opinion I do on this case) just because either they haven't posted, or have posted in defense of Hillary, or making an assumption that the only reason me or anyone else would have a particular opinion is because of being 'pro-Hillary' or 'anti-Trump', when actually I've spent time looking into what happened because when I first heard the rumour she was a 'rape enabler' I thought it was disgusting and I wanted to know what happened, and I've based my opinion on what I found. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or bias, I've judged it on it's own (lack of) merits.