Manchin slams Reid on Trump comments: 'An absolute embarrassment'

[Kaleredar]

Right the country chose Hillary, the college chose trump.

Well I mean when the majority vote goes to one candidate, that's kind of who the "people" chose.

[May90]

fix'd that for you.

It is still not correct, since the EC hasn't voted yet. The voting is on December 19th, and technically they very well may vote for Hillary.

[PC2]

They didn't though. Republicans in the electoral gave him the election even though he lost by an estimated 3 million now, (it is over 3m but they aren't sure how far), so the republicans could control everything at once.

This is a misunderstanding of what winning the presidency is, the total popular vote counts for nothing.

[Fencers]

The slander isn't based on allegations..

The tape is not the only thing being discussed here. Claiming Trump is a sexual predator based on the women who recently allege Trump assaulted them and the tape in which Trump spoke of his treatment of women are in fact slander. New outlets defending themselves from charges of slander based on the video tape is entirely different from this politician claiming Trump is a sexual predator based on variable factors- which is slander.

[Kaleredar]

It is still not correct, since the EC hasn't voted yet. The voting is on December 19th, and technically they very well may vote for Hillary.

That would be the single most hilarious thing I've ever witnessed.

As a friend of mine put it "the electoral college has never done that before, but then again, we've never elected a pile of feces as president, so anything's possible."

[May90]

That would be the single most hilarious thing I've ever witnessed.

As a friend of mine put it "the electoral college has never done that before, but then again, we've never elected a pile of feces as president, so anything's possible."

Well, I mean, the popular vote is for Clinton, and the system has undermined the popular vote. So, if the EC can arbitrarily change the result of the election once, then why can't it do it twice, or thrice, or more? It would be hilarious to see - although, likely, it would be the last election before the EC is disbanded.

[Fencers]

The term is not as precise as you are trying to make it out to be. That is an invention of your own imagination.

The terminology is power phrase. The connotation is that one labeled a sexual predator has sexually assaulted or taken advantage of another. There is no evidence I can find whereby the term is used in phrasing that denotes a positive view or social acceptance of one labeled such.

I went through 13 pages on Google in a search. If you can find instances of the term being used contra to the connotation of the power phrase I outlined- I would be interested in reading such.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Harry Reid tells it like it is, Trumpers shit their pants.

Why do Trumpers have such thin skin?

- - - Updated - - -

I am not a Trump supporter fwiw. There is no need to apologize on behalf of Trump.

The man is, as far as I know and the law is concerned not guilty of any sexual assault or offense. The phrase sexual predator is used to denote or label an entity as a sex crime offender. Esp. in media.

That is slander. Period.

But such judgements do not necessitate consideration or validity on behalf of others. As I already said.

Those alleging that Trump assaulted or otherwise took unwanted advantage of them are allegations. It is simple- the concept is not complex.

I addressed this as well. One can say whatever they like and one may judge another for such. However, that does not allow slander or make any wrong doing valid without proof or evidence of such.

"I find Trump's alleged actions and his speech distasteful and shameful for the POTUS." <- fair enough.

"Trump is a sexual predator and criminal." <- Nonsense without proof or evidence of such decided upon by the law.

Thus all the allegations against Hillary were also slander.

[Ripster42]

That would be the single most hilarious thing I've ever witnessed.

As a friend of mine put it "the electoral college has never done that before, but then again, we've never elected a pile of feces as president, so anything's possible."

Depends what you mean by "never done that before." An entire state's representatives have voted against the candidate their state voted for before, but it didn't decide the election. That's aside from other individual faithless electors. That being said, I doubt it happens here.

[May90]

Thus all the allegations against Hillary were also slander.

Of course they were. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to both candidates. Trump has made a much poorer case at defending himself than Hillary did, that's true, but another principle, "burden of proof", makes defending against unproven accusations unnecessary anyway.

[Fencers]

Thus all the allegations against Hillary were also slander.

Many likely were, yes.

[runique]

Democrats are an "absolute embarrassment" for our country

yeah with their facts and actually defending the constitution for everyone and what not.

[garethrogue]

.....but he IS a sexual predator who lost the popular vote. Harry Reid has only stated facts. What's the problem here?

[Torgent]

The tape is not the only thing being discussed here. Claiming Trump is a sexual predator based on the women who recently allege Trump assaulted them and the tape in which Trump spoke of his treatment of women are in fact slander. New outlets defending themselves from charges of slander based on the video tape is entirely different from this politician claiming Trump is a sexual predator based on variable factors- which is slander.

I never said it was the only thing....But it also is definitely one thing. Nobody is saying that he's a predator only because of the accusations, that's a willful misinterpretation on your part. And again, it's not slander. He's using a body of evidence and factors to come to the conclusion that Trump is a sexual predator. If he comes out and says "Trump raped a 7 year old boy", that's slander. Saying that he's a sexual predator is not, because there are admissions of actions that would support that claim. You're better than this, Fencer.

[Fencers]

That is such a weird argument to make.

I am not sure what makes it unusual. Trump has not been tried or convicted of any sexual crime or other misconduct as far as I could find. That Trump said things on tape is irrefutable, but no person sans Trump himself knows the context and intent with which his statements on tape regarding women were made.

One can judge Trump based on those statement fairly and validly. However, use of a phrase which associates sexual assault, harassment or any such wrong doing to Trump without proof or evidence to actual wrong doing as decided by the laws of the US is slander in basest sense.

I am of the opinion that emotional appeals and such politicking by public servants to be utter nonsense, wasteful and unworthy of consideration. Flatly.

I can find Trump and his politics distasteful without relying of phrasing that attempts to label him a sexual criminal.

[Ghostpanther]

.....but he IS a sexual predator who lost the popular vote. Harry Reid has only stated facts. What's the problem here?

The popular vote was very close. Less than 1% points. Plus it does not matter, the Constitution defines who wins the election. Not the emotional desires of sore losers. He has not stated any facts. Just assumptions based on some locker room trash talk. Also it was years ago. And it is not like Reid is so pure and all. He admitted to lying about Romney just so he would not win during the 2012 campaign.

[PC2]

I am not sure what makes it unusual. Trump has not been tried or convicted of any sexual crime or other misconduct as far as I could find. That Trump said things on tape is irrefutable, but no person sans Trump himself knows the context and intent with which his statements on tape regarding women were made.

One can judge Trump based on those statement fairly and validly. However, use of a phrase which associates sexual assault, harassment or any such wrong doing to Trump without proof or evidence to actual wrong doing as decided by the laws of the US is slander in basest sense.

I am of the opinion that emotional appeals and such politicking by public servants to be utter nonsense, wasteful and unworthy of consideration. Flatly.

I agree that Trump is not a sexual predator in any technical sense. For slander though, a tort is more fundamentally about the wrongful damage done than speech itself. Which is why civil law is typically not important in regard to first amendment speech rights.

[Themius]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2549447

lul

Is this where you get your news?

[Fencers]

The statement isn't leveling a criminal charge at him. "Sexual Predator" isn't even a crime in and of itself.

No claim was made sexual predator was a crime. Re-read my earlier post where I addressed the use of the phrasing.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that Trump is not a sexual predator in any technical sense. For slander though, a tort is more fundamentally about the wrongful damage done than speech itself. Which is why civil law is typically not important in regard to first amendment speech rights.

That is true for instances whereby slander is brought before a civil court. However, slander does exist by definition and use as verbiage to defame another falsely outside libel and the court of law. Which an appeal to the press or people can indicate by use of a power phrase such as 'sexual predator'.

[Floopa]

Is this where you get your news?

no but it's enjoyable seeing liberals in tears.

so many amazing youtube vids to watch and pass the time with XD

i get my news from bbc.co.uk