Donald Trump

K-9

Yeah, it's a strange criticism of Hillary. She had plenty of accomplishments in her own right before her own political career. Being married to Bill while he was governor and president was just as much a hindrance in ways as he took most of the limelight. She was probably the first careerist first lady that I know of and attracted a bit of an irrational hatred because of that. Bill's affairs didn't help.

It would have been very easy for her to do nothing once she left the White House or retire after 08 or being Secretary of State, but she has kept at it.

Some Republican politicians do have complementary things to say about her. She has a record of trying to get cross party support for proposals. The problem is it is nearly impossible for anybody to get consensus in American politics these days.

lawlolawl

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.

He said bad things about women, not vaginas.

Those women included his daughter.

I don't think he has been criticised for having extra marital affairs at all. As long as it was consensual, pffffffffft, his business...and those of the women who stuck with him.

It's interesting that his wife described it as "unacceptable and offensive". And he has apologised. And other Republicans have condemned it. When the man himself and those in the trench with him accept it was wrong, I find the defences a bit unusual.

lawlolawl

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, it's a strange criticism of Hillary. She had plenty of accomplishments in her own right before her own political career. Being married to Bill while he was governor and president was just as much a hindrance in ways as he took most of the limelight. She was probably the first careerist first lady that I know of and attracted a bit of an irrational hatred because of that. Bill's affairs didn't help.

It would have been very easy for her to do nothing once she left the White House or retire after 08 or being Secretary of State, but she has kept at it.

Change her second name to Bush in this post and she'd be accused of desperately trying to hold on to power for her political dynasty.

K-9

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.

Trump going on the offensive over Bill was never going to end well for him. You have to be whiter than white to win that one and Trump's life story is basically the opposite.

It really was a stupid move. Clinton's campaign was always going to be well prepared for it. Trump's moral high Shetland pony has been take away from under him.

Meanwhile the economy and jobs, Trump's strong points, aren't getting talked about at all.

And it is his own fault. As Hillary said during the convention "this is a guy who can get baited by a tweet"...

Billy86

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.

Or merely raped a few women...

K-9

lawlolawl wrote: »

Change her second name to Bush in this post and she'd be accused of desperately trying to hold on to power for her political dynasty.

You don't have to change anything! She's accused of that anyway.

lawlolawl

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

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

And ultimately nothing happened and Bill went on to be one of the most fondly remembered presidents in recent memory.

ChikiChiki

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

That's it. Trump suggests he has a God given right to manhandle women because he's a star. Can't believe some are defending it as lads behaviour.

gosplan

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.

I don't think it's glossed over. Trumps people are using it as s kind of attack because it's a clear area of weakness for her.

However, Trumps ex-wife said in a deposition once he raped her, he's up on rape charges of a minor, and there's a story put forward by a former associate saying he sexually assaulted/groped her.

So he wins.


But the real key is that the tape shows that Trump has very little respect for women.

That doesn't apply to Hillary, it may apply to her husband.

gosplan

ChikiChiki wrote: »

That's it. Trump suggests he has a God given right to manhandle women because he's a star. Can't believe some are defending it as lads behaviour.

Says a lot about the 'lads' in question to be honest.

20Cent

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.

Sort of glossed over!
He was nearly impeached it was the main story for months.

tomwaterford

Penn wrote: »

Let's see what Trump actually said:

Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to 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. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.


Sorry, but anyone defending this or saying "Oh well all guys talk like that" are c*nts.

And if you're offended by me calling you a c*nt, don't worry. Just banter, isn't it? Locker room talk, yeah? Yeah.

While it is a bit crude and very very cringey for an ould lad to be saying.....it's not much worse than what used be said in ****e talk/joking between people (male &female) in secondary school/at fas training


All the things to slate trump of which there are many...this is somewhat scraping the barrell.....childish remarks similar to Jay off inbetweeners ffs :rolleyes:



It reminds me of when Alan Ryan was murdered....the only thing newspapers had concrete to go on as bad on him was he rode a load of young wans

CMOTDibbler

tomwaterford wrote: »

While it is a bit crude and very very cringey for an ould lad to be saying.....it's not much worse than what used be said in ****e talk/joking between people (male &female) in secondary school/at fas training

There's a difference between sh1te talking amongst your mates about what you'd like to do and a person with the power to do it talking about what he actually did.

This is how he uses the power he has from his position of wealth and influence. He expects no refusal and expects to be able to do whatever he wants and does it.

Do you see the difference?

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

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?.

This is a good example of this polarisation stuff. Exaggerate to back up a position. I for one certainly wasn't suggesting her gender, or the surname halo is the only thing going for her. Trump isn't even in the accomplishment game by comparison. She's certainly more accomplished a person before and during her political career and as an oft time organ grinder for the Bill monkey than Obama ever was for a start. He was more about the skin colour and a nation feeling good about themselves. If even as a token gesture. Real on the ground race politics have gone south since his election. Her gender is in play of course. Not least from the naysayers, but also from the "liberal" side. If it wasn't in play it wouldn't be right up at the top of kick off points for both sides. As I say they're hoping for the twofer if she gets in.

The fact that a complete car crash like Trump has gotten this far and if he had kept his powder even a little drier could well have taken the race says a whole lot more about the society and how it votes than anything else for me. If it's a close run thing then it is worrying. He may even neck in. It's less and less likely of course, but when the curtain is closed behind Americans in their voting booths the level of dissatisfaction could well get him in. And that suggests a scary time ahead indeed.

For me, this election is less the thing. The next one is where it could get ugly. If the Republicans(or as a wild card another party) plugs into that dissatisfaction in a more measured way then they could end up with a Trump in attitude and policy.

tomwaterford

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's a difference between sh1te talking amongst your mates about what you'd like to do and a person with the power to do it talking about what he actually did.

This is how he uses the power he has from his position of wealth and influence. He expects no refusal and expects to be able to do whatever he wants and does it.

Do you see the difference?

Unless some woman can come out and say he did x,you and z.....it is just ****e talk


His lack of policies should be his downfall....not pure shte talk....everyone knows a dirty oul lad like that....that you just avoid in a pub scenario because it's just lame to listen to


I've no doubt but he'd do it....but the proof is somewhat limited here

B0jangles

tomwaterford wrote: »

Unless some woman can come out and say he did x,you and z.....it is just ****e talk


His lack of policies should be his downfall....not pure shte talk....everyone knows a dirty oul lad like that....that you just avoid in a pub scenario because it's just lame to listen to


I've no doubt but he'd do it....but the proof is somewhat limited here

Multiple women have in fact come out and said he did x, y, and z:

Temple Taggart, a former Miss Utah who was 21 when she met Trump in 1997, described Trump behaving exactly as he boasts in the recording.“He kissed me directly on the lips. I thought, ‘Oh my God, gross.’ He was married to Marla Maples at the time. I think there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth. I was like, ‘Wow, that’s inappropriate.’”
This happened repeatedly, she said. In response, Trump told the New York Times he was reluctant to kiss strangers on the lips.

CNN anchor Erin Burnett said her friend had experienced the same behavior from Trump. “That’s exactly what Trump did to me,” Burnett said, quoting her friend. “Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested that I take them also. He then leaned in … catching me off guard and kissed me almost on the lips. I was really freaked out.”

Jill Harth, who regularly met with Trump in the ‘90s to form a business partnership, described how Trump repeatedly groped her, pushed her against a wall, and tried to kiss her. In 1993, she said Trump was showing her around his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “I was admiring the decoration, and next thing I know he’s pushing me against a wall and has his hands all over me,” Harth told the New York Times. “He was trying to kiss me. I was freaking out.”
She said Trump repeatedly tried to grab her and that she once vomited as a defense mechanism. Trump has denied these accusations.

http://qz.com/804486/the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault/

The harassment continued throughout the business relationship, she says. “Anytime I had to deal with him on the phone or in person, I always had to fight him off of me. He was always bringing it up, how ‘I’m gonna be the best lover, I'm gonna ruin you for anybody else.’ It was constant sexual talk. It was relentless, it was nonstop, he never took me seriously as a businessperson. He was so busy trying to get with me.”

Harth described two, more serious incidents in 1993 during which she says Trump overpowered her, once pulling her into a bedroom at Mar-a-Lago, and lay down on top of her. Harth had continued to try to work with Trump, despite his sexual aggression, because he was giving her male partner “the cold shoulder” and would only deal with her.

She steeled herself to talk business with him, and in March 1993 he asked her to meet him at Mar-a-Lago (she lived in nearby Boca Raton).

“I went up there, and I was so nervous.” she recalled. She said she and her partner “were going over every word I was going to use” before she left for the meeting.

Inside his house, she said he manhandled her into a children’s room, and onto a bed. “He grabbed me. He’s a big dude, 6 foot 3, and at the time I was waif-like. He was like, ‘I'm tired, let’s lay down.’ So in this bedroom — I hate talking about this — he went for it with the kissing, he had his hands all over me, really pressing down on me, definitely had a hard on. I had worn pants strategically. I knew better than wearing a skirt around him anymore. It was a barrier of protection.”

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-words-echo-womans-allegations-507763?rm=eu

tomwaterford

B0jangles wrote: »

Multiple women have in fact come out and said he did x, y, and z:






http://qz.com/804486/the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault/

Seems our celebrity billionaire has horrendous chat up techniques :pac:



How bad is Clinton that she hasn't him buried in the polls

B0jangles

tomwaterford wrote: »

Seems our celebrity billionaire has horrendous chat up techniques :pac:



How bad is Clinton that she hasn't him buried in the polls

Because a significant minority of americans would vote for an old shoe as long as it was marked "Old Shoe (R)" on the ballot.
(And maybe because some of them are the kind of people who'll see a list of sexual assaults and make a joke about 'horrendous chat-up techniques')

First Up

tomwaterford wrote:

How bad is Clinton that she hasn't him buried in the polls

The US electorate is so polarised that nobody will ever be "buried" in the polls. There are people who would vote for Homer Simpson if he was their party candidate.

But national opinion polls are not an accurate reflection of how the electoral college will work out. The opinion polls had McCain within spitting distance last time but a more careful analysis State by State showed that Obama was walking it.

Same this time. Clinton is miles ahead.

Billy86

tomwaterford wrote: »

Seems our celebrity billionaire has horrendous chat up techniques :pac:



How bad is Clinton that she hasn't him buried in the polls

She is bad, but she was close to burying him before this and likely would have been after tonight's debate anyway. She was within a whisker of getting Arizona (only got D once since 1948) and closer to getting feckin' Texas than Trump was to getting traditional toss up states like Virginia (before Obama hadn't gone D since 1964). This weekend could also see Georgia tip in her favour.

He is in serious, serious danger of falling below 100 EC Votes the way things are going and being the biggest loser for over 30 years.

lawlolawl

tomwaterford wrote: »

How bad is Clinton that she hasn't him buried in the polls

The following isn't my post, i found it recently on another forum and it explains a good bit of why Clinton isn't outright destroying Trump:

Hillary Supporters are ignoring the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation numbers, which are horribly blatant, and also ignoring the content of the DNC emails, as well as the much more damning State Department emails which demonstrate just how involved in the Libyan overthrow the U.S. was.

Certainly they are ignoring 850 dead in Syria as a result of US-led airstrikes, the fact that throughout her history Clinton has consistently voted for and supported legislation you all claim to hate, ranging from the Violent Crime Prevention Act which has been labeled as a major cause of our country's mass incarceration, and her support of the Iraq War. She wants to raise taxes on the middle class, she supports the TPP and she's pro-fracking. All of these things, Clinton supporters ignore.

She's all you got, I get it, but if we're going to mock the GOP for putting forward an absolutely absurd candidate like Trump, you should certainly find it contemptible to your intelligence that the best the Democrats could put forward is Clinton, a neocon dressed in blue. Even if you say "she's changed her mind/learned from her mistakes" you are still faced with a woman who has a history of supporting the absolute worst decisions America has made during the course of her career.

The phrase "best of a bad lot" springs to mind with Hilary. She'll stumble through a single term and that'll be it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Wibbs wrote: »

This is a good example of this polarisation stuff. Exaggerate to back up a position. I for one certainly wasn't suggesting her gender, or the surname halo is the only thing going for her. Trump isn't even in the accomplishment game by comparison. She's certainly more accomplished a person before and during her political career and as an oft time organ grinder for the Bill monkey than Obama ever was for a start. He was more about the skin colour and a nation feeling good about themselves. If even as a token gesture. Real on the ground race politics have gone south since his election. Her gender is in play of course. Not least from the naysayers, but also from the "liberal" side. If it wasn't in play it wouldn't be right up at the top of kick off points for both sides. As I say they're hoping for the twofer if she gets in.

The fact that a complete car crash like Trump has gotten this far and if he had kept his powder even a little drier could well have taken the race says a whole lot more about the society and how it votes than anything else for me. If it's a close run thing then it is worrying. He may even neck in. It's less and less likely of course, but when the curtain is closed behind Americans in their voting booths the level of dissatisfaction could well get him in. And that suggests a scary time ahead indeed.

For me, this election is less the thing. The next one is where it could get ugly. If the Republicans(or as a wild card another party) plugs into that dissatisfaction in a more measured way then they could end up with a Trump in attitude and policy.

I had to read that a few times to see if I was missing a euphemism.

This needs to be made a euphemism, people:)

CMOTDibbler

lawlolawl wrote: »

The following isn't my post, i found it recently on another forum and it explains a good bit of why Clinton isn't outright destroying Trump:

Certainly they are ignoring 850 dead in Syria as a result of US-led airstrikes, the fact that throughout her history Clinton has consistently voted for and supported legislation you all claim to hate, ranging from the Violent Crime Prevention Act which has been labeled as a major cause of our country's mass incarceration, and her support of the Iraq War. She wants to raise taxes on the middle class, she supports the TPP and she's pro-fracking. All of these things, Clinton supporters ignore.

I'm wondering waht forum you took this from. There's a lot of what's in that act that many here would agree with. Some of the provisions like the three strikes provision and the elimination of higher education for inmates would be considered bad law, but there were other provisions that seemed sensible at the time, like the assault weapons ban and sexual offender resgistration. Interestingly, Joe Biden was the original author of the bill.

It passed in the senate by 61-38 and the house by 235-195.

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

This is a good example of this polarisation stuff. Exaggerate to back up a position. I for one certainly wasn't suggesting her gender, or the surname halo is the only thing going for her. Trump isn't even in the accomplishment game by comparison. She's certainly more accomplished a person before and during her political career and as an oft time organ grinder for the Bill monkey than Obama ever was for a start. He was more about the skin colour and a nation feeling good about themselves. If even as a token gesture. Real on the ground race politics have gone south since his election. Her gender is in play of course. Not least from the naysayers, but also from the "liberal" side. If it wasn't in play it wouldn't be right up at the top of kick off points for both sides. As I say they're hoping for the twofer if she gets in.

If that wasn't your point, than my post wasn't addressed to you, but it is being said. And I've heard it a lot less from the "liberal" side than the "conservative" side. I will grant that the "other side", whichever it is, will throw anything they can that sticks, but it's the people who are saying that she's only where she is because of her gender that I am calling fools. The facts do not back them up.

Seriously, I do not want to make this a gender thing. It deserves to be more than a gender thing. She deserves to be discussed for what she has DONE, not what she IS. My post was reactionary to bull****, not starting it off. If we're square on that, I'm happy to leave it be and hope the conversation can get back to what people say and do, not what they are.

Edit: As a side-note, she'd not be my first choice for "first female president". I'd prefer one that wasn't going to get screwed in the ass for four years by a Republican senate, get nothing done, and then have it pointed out that she was useless (because she was screwed in the ass for four years). I'm not actually all that bothered about "firsts", it's it being normal as anything else that I'd prefer, but that's all by the by.

scamalert

this is turning into house of cards :pac:
Trump will be thrown for what he said-his defense will be well bill did it as well,so go rapist 2016 president

but what stands out most that trump is actually sort of person that was leaked on the recording glorified spoon fed,tax avoiding loud mouth who speaks before thinking,and anything he done and achieved in his career was to profit only himself,any political deals he done was for his own benefit.
Thus its no surprise that when he announced running for president since every one he backed before has failed,thus this turning into sour loser.

Now its nothing new about hillary being corrupt as she was called out numerous times on taking cash from Wl.street and involved in many bad decisions.

But one would have to think is it wise to have president as pointed above who is basically Homer,and gets triggered by any slight remark.

Or someone who's been in politics for 30 years - and wont be triggered by some tweet to declare war just because they would feel like it.

As it stands trump can only appeal to blue collar working class-rest african americans,mexicans,majority of women and many more most likely will choose to leave things as is.and them people represent great fraction of voters.

Since only people that trump haven't slammed yet is police force,and given his attitude towards media and general plans,over few years time if hes elected by some miracle rest of world would benefit greatly-US dollar would plummet thus cheaper goods as we can see chain reaction that happened with brexit,only this time scale is 100 larger.
Since he mentioned on last debate to tax any imports from mexico,negotiate deals with china again,leave sh korea/japan on its own,thus new alliances forming but in this case they wouldnt be supporting US and even more likely turning steps decades back- at least Hillary doesn't paint that picture.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

Edit: As a side-note, she'd not be my first choice for "first female president".

TBH and I know that US policies can certainly affect us, but I don't really care who gets in S and my interest in US politics is minimal. I am glad I'm watching it at a distance. Like a car crash. I do feel for Americans though.

Samaris

scamalert wrote: »

Since only people that trump haven't slammed yet is police force

Give him time, he's still got a couple of weeks to go! :pac:

Richard Hillman

People are still completely retarded in to understanding why he remains popular.

Off colour comments in a private environment and a private capacity do not effect how he can create jobs, halt immigration or reduce crime. These are the things that affect people's lives.

Hillary Clinton will not bother trying to change people's lives in middle America. There is a small chance that Donald Trump can do this. They don't care what he says about not political stuff because it doesn't affect their lives.

People want a good president not a good person. They want somebody that will make big decisions, not a husband or Son-In-Law.

Samaris

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH and I know that US policies can certainly affect us, but I don't really care who gets in S and my interest in US politics is minimal. I am glad I'm watching it at a distance. Like a car crash. I do feel for Americans though.

"Car crash" really does about sum it up, yeah. And so do I; it's a bit bemusing to see this happen to a country like the US.

Timberrrrrrrr

Richard Hillman wrote: »

People are still completely retarded in to understanding why he remains popular.

Off colour comments in a private environment and a private capacity do not effect how he can create jobs, halt immigration or reduce crime. These are the things that affect people's lives.

Hillary Clinton will not bother trying to change people's lives in middle America. There is a small chance that Donald Trump can do this. They don't care what he says about not political stuff because it doesn't affect their lives.

People want a good president not a good person. They want somebody that will make by decisions, not a husband or Son-In-Law.

Tell us again how he plans to do this? What was it he said last time he was asked about his job creation plans?