Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a 15 second poor quality video of Barack Obama talking on the phone while on a plane. Not to call the president poorly endowed, but there's nothing to see here, just the desperation of the Trump Faithful.
Trump talking to another guy, no women in the room, no women heard what he said. Compared to a guy purposely being vulgar to a woman while she is ten feet away? Sorry, no contest, 0bama's actions were much, much worse.
Trump talking to another guy, no women in the room, no women heard what he said. Compared to a guy purposely being vulgar to a woman while she is ten feet away? Sorry, no contest, 0bama's actions were much, much worse.
Sorry, but we've had an expert witness (as recognized by the originator on this thread) testify that the video fails to show what is purported to have been displayed.
Sorry, but we've had an expert witness (as recognized by the originator on this thread) testify that the video fails to show what is purported to have been displayed.
Wow, THATS what you got from anything I wrote? Either you are just a liar, or I've been incredibly unintelligible with some of my posts. All I've said that even comes close to that is that its not 100% given on either side of the argument and that some further investigation is needed to really determine whats going on.
I'll be lewd and state I am a heterosexual woman. I have seen my share of boners on men both clothed and unclothed. IMO it did not look like a boner. Also I'll share my SO has a rather...I'll say "prominent" piece of male equipment and you can see his male equipment through thin pants even if he doesn't have an erection via an imprint. I have seen many imprints of penises on men because, as stated I'm a heterosexual woman and I do have an affinity for men and their equipment and if I see one and it is interesting, I will look at it. Imprints of penises are very visible to those of us who look at male body parts when they have on suit pants or khakis.
The video does not show an erection IMO and it is very evident to me that the video was doctored based on the quality/sharpness changing. It was doctored the second time through. An erection/boner would have protruded out more if he was that big of a guy . As stated, I know a boner when I see one.
ETA: FWIW I was intrigued thinking I'd actually get to see a presidential boner and I didn't lol. It was a let down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
OK, so you are a boner expert, not a video expert. Very helpful, thanks.
You've conceded that ResidingHere2007 is more qualified to interpret the video that you dredged up from whatever alt-right web site it's posted on.
Your only response, after conceding the point, was that CNN should investigate this dubious and grainy video.
Hows that going for you? Have they returned any of your emails or phone calls?
You've conceded that ResidingHere2007 is more qualified to interpret the video that you dredged up from whatever alt-right web site it's posted on.
Your only response, after conceding the point, was that CNN should investigate this dubious and grainy video.
Hows that going for you? Have they returned any of your emails or phone calls?
Wow, if that is what you read from that I don't know what to tell you.
The woman claimed to be an expert on male genital shapes seen through pants....amazing that you would try and twist it that way. Your claim about what I've said is 100% false.
The video is inconclusive on either side, which would call for CIA level examinations if it were Trump.
The video is inconclusive on either side, which would call for CIA level examinations if it were Trump.
The point is that you've dredged up this 8 year old grainy video that, by your own admission, may not show what you initially demanded that we all see, all in an attempt to somehow minimize the damage from Trump's 'locker room talk' video. Yet, you aren't a Trump supporter.
Tell us, is the hole that you're digging deep enough yet, or are you going to keep digging some more?
The point is that you've dredged up this 8 year old grainy video that, by your own admission, may not show what you initially demanded that we all see, all in an attempt to somehow minimize the damage from Trump's 'locker room talk' video. Yet, you aren't a Trump supporter.
Tell us, is the hole that you're digging deep enough yet, or are you going to keep digging some more?
I didn't "dig it up" it was on a very heavily trafficked website and I shared it here. Age of content has no weight on the validity of the issue.
And yes, while this "may or may not" show something, that means that in simple language there is visual evidence that can lead one to believe that there is possibly an issue with this video, but thankfully we live in a country that rules under an "innocent until proven guilty" set of laws. This tape cant be fully debunked yet, but there is obvious visual and audio evidence that put the actions documented in this video into a category that deserves to be further investigated.
There is no hole being dug here, its just a simple additional data point that shows the double standard of our media.
As for Trump, thats laughable. You can look at my history on this site back to 2008 when I supported Ron Paul, not McCain, never supported Romney, and today support Gary Johnson, not Trump. Never have fully supported any Republican candidate in the history of my being of legal age to vote. While I do lean Republican, I'm not even sure I know what a real Republican looks like these days so I find much more appealing to me about the Libertarian party, although even Johnson isn't the best representative of that platform. But yeah thats a long winded way of me telling you that if you think I'm a Trump supporter, you couldn't be more wrong.
I didn't "dig it up" it was on a very heavily trafficked website and I shared it here. Age of content has no weight on the validity of the issue.
OK, now I'm curious...which web site?
Quote:
And yes, while this "may or may not" show something, that means that in simple language there is visual evidence that can lead one to believe that there is possibly an issue with this video, but thankfully we live in a country that rules under an "innocent until proven guilty" set of laws. This tape cant be fully debunked yet, but there is obvious visual and audio evidence that put the actions documented in this video into a category that deserves to be further investigated.
There is no hole being dug here, its just a simple additional data point that shows the double standard of our media.
Yes, there's a hole being dug here...a really big one. Are you going to need new shovel soon?
Quote:
As for Trump, thats laughable. You can look at my history on this site back to 2008 when I supported Ron Paul, not McCain, never supported Romney, and today support Gary Johnson, not Trump. Never have fully supported any Republican candidate in the history of my being of legal age to vote. While I do lean Republican, I'm not even sure I know what a real Republican looks like these days so I find much more appealing to me about the Libertarian party, although even Johnson isn't the best representative of that platform. But yeah thats a long winded way of me telling you that if you think I'm a Trump supporter, you couldn't be more wrong.
You say you're a Republican, but you also say that you supported the self-styled libertarian candidates and that you're definitely not a Trump supporter.
Yet you dredged up a grainy and confusing eight year old video about someone not even running for President this year so that you can attempt an equivalency with Trump's rather explicit 'locker room' video. This can only be viewed as a false equivalency because Donald Trump has an entire catalog of audio and video clips wherein he exhibits his boorish and sexist behavior: you're attempting to counter a mountain of documented evidence of Donald Trump's behavior with a grain of innuendo.
Look, if you want to admit that you're simply anti Hillary Clinton, and that your entire effort is to get the heat off of Trump, then I'd actually understand. I myself am so anti-Trump that I'm voting for Grandma Nixon, but I'm not busting my hump trying to torpedo Trump - he's actually doing a fine job of that all by himself.
Wow, if that is what you read from that I don't know what to tell you.
The woman claimed to be an expert on male genital shapes seen through pants....amazing that you would try and twist it that way. Your claim about what I've said is 100% false.
The video is inconclusive on either side, which would call for CIA level examinations if it were Trump.
Correction - I claimed that I am much more of an expert at knowing what a boner looks like than knowing how to see fullproof evidence of video tampering.
Fact remains if his stuff was as big as what the video is making it out to be, since he had on dress pants, it would have been sticking out more with a boner. LOL
Can't believe though that the alternative right folks are now trying to act like the president goes around showing off his member for cackling ladies lol.
Yes, there's a hole being dug here...a really big one. Are you going to need new shovel soon?
You say you're a Republican, but you also say that you supported the self-styled libertarian candidates and that you're definitely not a Trump supporter.
Yet you dredged up a grainy and confusing eight year old video about someone not even running for President this year so that you can attempt an equivalency with Trump's rather explicit 'locker room' video. This can only be viewed as a false equivalency because Donald Trump has an entire catalog of audio and video clips wherein he exhibits his boorish and sexist behavior: you're attempting to counter a mountain of documented evidence of Donald Trump's behavior with a grain of innuendo.
Look, if you want to admit that you're simply anti Hillary Clinton, and that your entire effort is to get the heat off of Trump, then I'd actually understand. I myself am so anti-Trump that I'm voting for Grandma Nixon, but I'm not busting my hump trying to torpedo Trump - he's actually doing a fine job of that all by himself.
It was on Drudge, I mentioned it earlier here. And yes I'm aware of their political bias, but that is not the point when there is a video involved.
I'm VERY anti Hillary, and I'm VERY anti Trump, but I'm also VERY anti-media lately because of this double standard. I've posted in here in defense of both Trump and Hillary when I see fit, I actually recently posted somewhat in defense of Hillary just today with the folks accusing the Trump victims of being "donors" to the campaign. Its not as cut and dry as youd like it to be. I find the majority of politicians deplorable lately, but its the double standard between the two parties and the media that really kills me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. As stated, I know a boner when I see one.
