Donald Trump

My name is URL

LordSutch wrote: »

Donald Trump = Alph Male.

...accoring to Nigel Farage.

He looks a bit like Alf I guess

http://imgur.com/a/Es8Xu

Feline Grabber

People are also leaving out the parts where he attempted to cheat on his wife with another married woman. Trump supporters think cheating on your wife is perfectly normal.

Hande hoche!

Feline Grabber wrote: »

People are also leaving out the parts where he attempted to cheat on his wife with another married woman. Trump supporters think cheating on your wife is perfectly normal.

That's an interesting username.

Skylinehead

Just deleted a load of rereg posts (and replies) so if your post is magically gone that was probably me!

Dr Jakub

Christy42 wrote: »

I don't make jokes about raping women and their for I am the Captain Buzz kill type?!?

Please tell.me.how I have lived a sheltered life though based off the fact my friends aren't scumbags?

Lol please calm down. Men will make sexual comments about women, doesn't mean they want to rape them.

My name is URL

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Don't know how much airtime it will get, given Bill's ties to Epstein.

Bill's not the one facing multiple charges of child rape. Though if he was, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Anyone who associated with and regularly attended Epstein's famous parties, should be viewed with suspicion

Rjd2

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Don't know how much airtime it will get, given Bill's ties to Epstein.

That's pretty much the main reason it has not got air time, and most agree their is possibly more names and some of them quite big tied to Epstein.

I genuinely think Hilary does not want to go there unless really pissed of by Donald or she fells if the campaign is in trouble. at the moment she does not need to get into the public.

However Donald retweeting rape allegations could provke her team to leak it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/08/donald-trump-just-retweeted-juanita-broaddrick-calling-bill-clinton-a-rapist-all-bets-are-now-off/?postshare=3271475973316207&tid=ss_tw

Hande hoche!

My name is URL wrote: »

Bill's not the one facing multiple charges of child rape. Though if he was, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Anyone who associated with and regularly attended Epstein's famous parties, should be viewed with suspicion

That's a fair point. Would imagine that quite a few high profile names wish that it was swept under the carpet. Also James Patterson has probably been taken off a few Christmas card lists.

Christy42

Dr Jakub wrote: »

Lol please calm down. Men will make sexual comments about women, doesn't mean they want to rape them.

Men make sexual comments about women. They do not claim to have sexual assaulted them

Wibbs

gosplan wrote: »

No. Her career in politics of replicated by a guy, regardless of surname, would have them standing for nomination.

Up to 2000 her "career in politics" consisted of being Bill's wife and the power that came with that. Her surname and Bill's halo have served her well. To consider otherwise is more than a bit naive.

Christy42 wrote: »

Yes being female is a large advantage to getting on the ticket. This is why only a single woman has been close to the ticket for a major party.

Times and context. They got a Black guy in last time and his major selling point was his skin colour. This is a guy who ended up with a Nobel prize just for winning the election and being Black. His record as a senator was decidedly lacklustre. The Democrats figure may as well go for the twofer and with the Clinton Halo of her husband and ex Prez, one of the most popular ever, her gender was a major advantage and it helps that she's well liked and well embedded with the finance sector. Her gender is a handy selling point and smokescreen.

Seriously how close do you think Trump or George W. would have gotten to their nominations if they were female? The answer if of course not within a million miles.

Trump got this far on widespread and pretty strong disaffection. As I say he's more a symptom than a candidate. George W was steeped in politics from the womb onwards and followed daddy into it. Like Hillary he rode in on the coattails of a family name and rep. These days if he was a she called Georgina with the same past and connections I reckon the party would be right behind her. And would certainly prefer a Georgina Dubya to a Trump.

IMH turning this into a gender thing is just the other side of the same daft polarised coin that has Trump the other nominee. In any event, both are a sideshow to keep the mob feeling in the game, when they're anything but. Indeed one might argue that support for oddball candidates and policies is the mob beginning to become sentient about the bullshíte they're being fed. They're lashing out. Look at the Brexit vote for another example. Even people who voted leave when asked after the result have said they understood it wasn't a good idea but that they were tired of politics and the politicians. I'd bet the farm that if the "protest" vote was removed from the Brexit referendum the Stay side would have won by a comfortable majority. This shíte goes way deeper than some orange faced combover muppet.

Side Gate wrote:

How did it come to this for America? The two worst candidates in the history of that country running against each other. Seriously how far have they fallen if this is the best America can produce.

+1. I have to say it saddens me to be seeing it happen. My worry though is it crossing the Atlantic. Not nearly so much here, but in Europe.

K-9

Samaris wrote: »

Just because someone releases a tonne of emails does not automatically mean that the person whose privacy was violated did something wrong. And it's far too early to tell if there is something dubious in them that the news will pick up on. If the news doesn't pick up on it, there -probably- isn't anything in there to pick up, else the internet would be screaming at the top of its lungs about it.

I mean, the alternative is the people who reckon this is a cover up -reading- all 2,500 emails, highlighting anything dubious and, y'know, screaming about it until attention is paid to it.

I am noticing more commentry about Trump's lawsuit regarding sex with a young teenager and I am very, very, dubious about the rightness of that being heralded, EVEN taking into account the latest (really pretty gross) uncoverings of the Howard Stern interview and the hot mic grab 'em by the pussy comment. I've read into that rape case and I saw who was involved in it (a man with the pseudonym Al Taylor, currently offering the video of Jane Doe's allegations for $1M) and his history of..heralding dodgy accusations against public figures. Honestly, I think this guy knowingly is using a young woman with some serious problems for attention and money and if that is the case, he deserves to be in prison. Now, I don't have any proof of it, and it is JUST POSSIBLE that this person has ACTUALLY found a legitimate case, but his very involvement with it makes it dubious.

Exactly, the MSM don't really mention the child rape case because it's a bit suspect, shall we say.

Same as Hillary's seizures and all that guff, they need decent evidence and proof. Once Hillary fainted they went with it.

The other problem with the likes of the emails is people do get bored of a long running saga like that. It's why Trump University has gone off the radar, plenty of other stuff to report and Trump is the gift that keeps giving.

I wonder is there anything in the rule book that can help Republicans oust Trump, even if he doesn't want to go?

PopePalpatine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder is there anything in the rule book that can help Republicans oust Trump, even if he doesn't want to go?

Nope, the only way would be if he were somehow (even more) incapacitated.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder is there anything in the rule book that can help Republicans oust Trump, even if he doesn't want to go?

Seems it is difficult as voting has commenced in many states.

I'd say you'll see funding for Trump drying up plus more Republican politicians withdrawing support. They are politicians and want to get re-elected after all.

Republicans are strong at state levels. Their worst nightmare would be losing loads of seats to the Dems.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Seems it is difficult as voting has commenced in many states.

I'd say you'll see funding for Trump drying up plus more Republican politicians withdrawing support. They are politicians and want to get re-elected after all.

Republicans are strong at state levels. Their worst nightmare would be losing loads of seats to the Dems.

Forgot voting had started.

Yes, you can see the Republicans running in fear of their seats aright.

K-9

As for the woman thing, Hillary has barely played that card since she accepted the nomination probably because she knows it isn't really a vote winner. Younger generations don't see it as that big a deal even among Democrats.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Forgot voting had started.

Yes, you can see the Republicans running in fear of their seats aright.

It's one of the mysteries of US politics. Democrats do poorly at state level. There are plenty of Republican politicians who can get their message across at state level but it all goes to pot once the primaries start.

McCain was a good politician but he must be ruing the day he picked Palin as VP!

James74

Em, can we at the very least knock off the "all men talk like that" comments. All men certainly do not make comments like that, I do not make comments like that, nobody in my social circle makes comments like that, no one in my family makes comments like that. If I was aware somebody I knew spoke like that or held those sort of views I would immediately distance myself from that person.

So please, ALL men do NOT talk like that. Any that do are dispicable fukwits that should be actively avoided.

Rjd2

K-9 wrote: »

It's one of the mysteries of US politics. Democrats do poorly at state level. There are plenty of Republican politicians who can get their message across at state level but it all goes to pot once the primaries start.

Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4D9mu6eqq4

Rjd2

James74 wrote: »

Em, can we at the very least knock off the "all men talk like that" comments. All men certainly do not make comments like that, I do not make comments like that, nobody in my social circle makes comments like that, no one in my family makes comments like that. If I was aware somebody I knew spoke like that or held those sort of views I would immediately distance myself from that person.

So please, ALL men do NOT talk like that. Any that do are dispicable fukwits that should be actively avoided.

Sot on, and lets not forget the dude was close to 60 and had kids when he made it which makes it even more creepy.

Winterlong

Rjd2 wrote: »

Sot on, and lets not forget the dude was close to 60 and had kids when he made it which makes it even more creepy.

Some of what he said on Howard Stern was more creepy IMO!
His own daughter is a 'piece of ass'.
She is voluptuous.
Once a woman reaches 35 - time to dump them.
He claims he could walk around backstage at Miss Universe and see the contestants naked.
Etc..

Feline Grabber

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder is there anything in the rule book that can help Republicans oust Trump, even if he doesn't want to go?

No, all campaigns must be taken to term. If anything does happen Pence must hold a service for the aborted campaign.

It is all about context. I have a few friends who cheat, who will go into it in graphic detail, who in the neighbourhood has a "tight pussy", who squirts, who shaves, who was a mess, who was just a lump of meat, who had a big ass getting in the way etc. etc.

So I'm no prude at all. Far from it. I think little would make me blush.

But not one has suggested they have used force, grabbed them etc.

And not one would suggest that their teenage daughters are becoming fine pieces of ass.

Billy86

Rjd2 wrote: »

Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4D9mu6eqq4

That must explain why Democrats nearly always win on college educated voters.

Samaris

You know...the single most sexist thing being launched at Clinton is that she "only has a chance at becoming president because ovaries, lol".

Nothing to do with her career, nope, must have been all the men she was banging. I assume this is the only way a woman can accomplish something, right?

Yeah, that does sound ridiculous because it is. Slam her policies, complain about her voting against Bush's tax cuts, voting for the Iraq war, her work with the 9/11 responders, her pro-sanctions stance against Iran. But if you say she's only in her position because she's a woman, ignoring that she was a congressional legal council, set up the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, took part in the reforming of Arkansas schools, was a partner of Rose Law, was part founder of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement, a -senator-, SECRETARY OF STATE and actually has policies and knowledge of politics, you're talking ****. That she was First Lady gave her a voice, but oddly enough, it also worked against her. First Ladies are supposed to be proud housewives, leading the housewives of America by example in how to bake cookies. And that's fine. They're not elected to do things. But you can't be surprised when a tough person with Ideas does something with it, against all the (very polite) political pressure to keep them in their place and stop detracting from their husband's role.

So, yeah. None of those roles and that work would possibly get a MAN elected, now would it? So it must be down to her breasts. Look, sexism can be seen where it doesn't exist, but anyone saying that Clinton's gotten an easy ride to the presidential election because she's a woman is talking not just bull****, but absolutely sexist bull****. And how one can not see that is mind-boggling.

It also mostly suggests that they don't know enough about her career to be aware she's had one. The stupidest thing is that the same people complaining that she's only gotten there because she's a bimbo with boobs ALSO call her a warhawk and suggests she's been anything but inconsequential in her roles, which seems very surprising for someone who's only gotten to where she is because she's a woman.


TLDR: Bitch about Clinton all you like, but call her inconsequential and a free-boob-rider at your peril with regards to actual facts.

lawlolawl

Trumps statements will just make him more appealing to his base.

This election is very much about the disenfranchised, mainly white middle American who feels that 8 years of left wing politics and the rise of political correctness has ruined their nation.

He could very well still win in much the same way as Brexit won. Pretty much the entire media is beating people over the head with how you'd have to be a moron/racist to vote for Trump so Hilary is the 'right' choice to make and this could possibly get the decisive middle ground people to give two fingers to them and say "**** you, i'll vote for whoever i want to vote for" leading to a slim Trump victory.

This is a country that constantly harps on about freedom and they are basically telling people exactly who to vote for right now. That might not go down well at all.

ebbsy

lawlolawl wrote: »

Trumps statements will just make him more appealing to his base.

This election is very much about the disenfranchised, mainly white middle American who feels that 8 years of left wing politics and the rise of political correctness has ruined their nation.

He could very well still win in much the same way as Brexit won. Pretty much the entire media is beating people over the head with how you'd have to be a moron/racist to vote for Trump so Hilary is the 'right' choice to make and this could possibly get the decisive middle ground people to give two fingers to them and say "**** you, i'll vote for whoever i want to vote for" leading to a slim Trump victory.

This is a country that constantly harps on about freedom and they are basically telling people exactly who to vote for right now. That might not go down well at all.

+1
Trump won't change tonight.

Samaris

lawlolawl wrote: »

Trumps statements will just make him more appealing to his base.

This election is very much about the disenfranchised, mainly white middle American who feels that 8 years of left wing politics and the rise of political correctness has ruined their nation.

This is a country that constantly harps on about freedom and they are basically telling people exactly who to vote for right now. That might not go down well at all.

Agreed on the first, not so sure on the second. The Country isn't telling anyone how to vote, but individuals are on both sides - that's just how it works. The Meedja includes breitbart and the other far right places, who are also telling people how to vote. They are all free to speak, and if anyone is voting based on someone saying they should not vote for X rather than their policies and what they're doing...well, sigh, the price one pays for having a vote is that idiots have votes too. So it goes.

lawlolawl

I know it isn't Bill running for president but i find it amusing that him sticking cigars in an intern in the Oval office and Hillary staying with him is sort of glossed over because Trump said a bad thing about vaginas few years ago.

IvyTheTerrible

lawlolawl wrote: »

I know it isn't Bill running for president but i find it amusing that him sticking cigars in an intern in the Oval office and Hillary staying with him is sort of glossed over because Trump said a bad thing about vaginas few years ago.

Glossed over? Jebus do you not remember the calls for impeachment? It went on for months!