2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd say she'll stay with him.. She's likely to have at least 1 if not 2 more appointments to make in the next few years so plenty of time on that front..

It'll depend on the House & Senate Majorities though , if the GOP hold on to the House (which they may not , something that was unthinkable only weeks ago) they'll use every delaying tactic in the book to delay and block whoever gets put forward..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House has nothing to do with confirming a supreme court justice, that's the job of the Senate.

aloyisious

Just seen on the New Civil Rights F/B page - posted 25 minutes . Reportedly Don has cancelled his interview tonight with Fox News Sean Hannity, who's listed as a Trump supporter.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/campaign_imploding_so_badly_trump_just_canceled_tonight_s_appearance_on_fox_news_with_sean_hannity

Fox news confirm the report: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBtdqGqdjPAhWjOsAKHU5-D7IQqQIIJTAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2016%2F10%2F13%2Fmedia%2Fdonald-trump-media-strategy%2F&usg=AFQjCNGTjC3ixp8z1GQTzojWeV_e9GQvzg

@TheDoc: the last interview he told Sean "I don't need to be here". Don hasn't the hide of a rhino.

TheDoctor

aloyisious wrote: »

Just seen on the New Civil Rights F/B page - posted 25 minutes . Reportedly Don has cancelled his interview tonight with Fox News Sean Hannity, who's listed as a Trump supporter.

After a few hundred interviews with him he's probably had enough.

oik

aloyisious wrote: »

Just seen on the New Civil Rights F/B page - posted 25 minutes . Reportedly Don has cancelled his interview tonight with Fox News Sean Hannity, who's listed as a Trump supporter.

He should go back to destroying biased interviewers like he used to in the primaries.

B_Wayne

oik wrote: »

He should go back to destroying biased interviewers like he used to in the primaries.

As in one of his classic examples of referring to a moderator's period? I think most of his behaviour towards women has demonstrated that the accusations are extraordinarily plausible.

aloyisious

The Judge in the New York allegations against Don won't hold hearings from lawyers for the parties til Dec. People already wondering what might happen, re his legal team, if he was elected; like who would represent him, seeing as he'd be a sitting president. Can imagine the case judge in NY crossing his fingers praying "please God, gimme a break, I don't want to have to try a case involving a sitting president as an accused rapist".

Itssoeasy

I see the New York Times issued a response to trumps lawyers which to sum up said "'mon to **** so Donald."

oik

B_Wayne wrote: »

As in one of his classic examples of referring to a moderator's period? I think most of his behaviour towards women has demonstrated that the accusations are extraordinarily plausible.

Who Neil Cavuto?

oik

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see the New York Times issued a response to trumps lawyers which to sum up said "'mon to **** so Donald."

Of course they won't. If they did now it would be even more damaging to their reputations and more helpful to Trump than if they lost in court a few months after the election.

Not that they'll lose in court because the 1st amendment allows you print virtually anything about public figures without repercussions.

aloyisious

The New York Times Responds to Trump's Lawsuit Threat: Bring It On


by david badash
October 13, 2016 2:06 PM

'We Welcome the Opportunity to Have a Court Set Him Straight'
Late Wednesday evening The New York Times published a story featuring the allegations made by two women who say Donald Trump sexually assaulted them. Almost immediately the Trump campaign threatened a lawsuit if the newspaper did not retract it and apologize.

Thursday Trump's attorney sent the Times its demand, and the Times has just responded, basically daring the Republican presidential nominee to go ahead.

Legal experts say the Times is on solid ground. Trump is a public figure. The Times is not publishing information they believe to be false.

In their response, the Times says that Trump himself, not the Times, ruined his reputation.

InTheTrees

TheDoctor wrote: »

Be interesting would Clinton stick with Obamas selection or pick her own for the vacant seat.

Considering that was a compromise nominee that mitch mcconnell rejected out of hand. I think she should nominate a judge with some views that will really grate on republicans.
A minority pro choice pro gun control woman.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

The New York Times Responds to Trump's Lawsuit Threat: Bring It On


by david badash
October 13, 2016 2:06 PM

'We Welcome the Opportunity to Have a Court Set Him Straight'
Late Wednesday evening The New York Times published a story featuring the allegations made by two women who say Donald Trump sexually assaulted them. Almost immediately the Trump campaign threatened a lawsuit if the newspaper did not retract it and apologize.

Thursday Trump's attorney sent the Times its demand, and the Times has just responded, basically daring the Republican presidential nominee to go ahead.

Legal experts say the Times is on solid ground. Trump is a public figure. The Times is not publishing information they believe to be false.

In their response, the Times says that Trump himself, not the Times, ruined his reputation.

Trump loves to threaten lawsuits against the media. Probably a lesson he learned from his hero, V. Putin. Here's a nice summary of the journalists, writers and news organizations he's threatened to sue: http://www.cjr.org/first_person/donald_trump_lawsuit_new_york_times.php

11 times he's threatened to sue during the Presidential campaign alone. Impressive, about once per month. Plus changing the libel laws to allow for more lawsuits, once he's elected.

TheDoctor

His lawyers must be delighted

Overheal

Someone unscrewed their tinfoil hat, and conservatives on social media are starting to pick up the plot...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008

They argue that this podesta email is evidence of the HRC camp conspiring to assassinate a US Supreme Court Judge, 3 days before his death.

Ignore the fact that would be crazy, ignore the fact you wouldn't plan that out on gmail, and ignore the fact he died in a bed on a Ranch, not at a pool or a vineyard. But hey someone asked if Hillary killed him and people hate Hillary - so if you don't agree with them you're a communist or something. But wanted to bring this to attention before more people lost their minds.

oik

Overheal wrote: »

Someone unscrewed their tinfoil hat, and conservatives on social media are starting to pick up the plot...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008

They argue that this podesta email is evidence of the HRC camp conspiring to assassinate a US Supreme Court Judge, 3 days before his death.

Ignore the fact that would be crazy, ignore the fact you wouldn't plan that out on gmail, and ignore the fact he died in a bed on a Ranch, not at a pool or a vineyard. But hey someone asked if Hillary killed him and people hate Hillary - so if you don't agree with them you're a communist or something. But wanted to bring this to attention before more people lost their minds.

I think you're seeing things. All I'm seeing online is them talking about whether or not they should make a statement about his death.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

I think you're seeing things. All I'm seeing online is them talking about whether or not they should make a statement about his death.

http://truepundit.com/podesta-emailed-about-an-assassination-three-days-before-supreme-court-justice-scalias-suspicious-death/
http://thecount.com/2016/10/13/john-podesta-wet-works-email-justice-antonin-scalia-what-does-mean/
http://conservativeangle.com/podesta-emailed-about-an-assassination-three-days-before-supreme-court-justice-scalias-suspicious-death/
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=42645

oik

Overheal wrote: »

http://truepundit.com/podesta-emailed-about-an-assassination-three-days-before-supreme-court-justice-scalias-suspicious-death/
http://thecount.com/2016/10/13/john-podesta-wet-works-email-justice-antonin-scalia-what-does-mean/
http://conservativeangle.com/podesta-emailed-about-an-assassination-three-days-before-supreme-court-justice-scalias-suspicious-death/
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=42645

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetwork

I dunno.

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

Someone unscrewed their tinfoil hat, and conservatives on social media are starting to pick up the plot...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008

They argue that this podesta email is evidence of the HRC camp conspiring to assassinate a US Supreme Court Judge, 3 days before his death.

Ignore the fact that would be crazy, ignore the fact you wouldn't plan that out on gmail, and ignore the fact he died in a bed on a Ranch, not at a pool or a vineyard. But hey someone asked if Hillary killed him and people hate Hillary - so if you don't agree with them you're a communist or something. But wanted to bring this to attention before more people lost their minds.

Lol, anyone see/read The Pelican Brief"? I thought it was called "wet Jobs".

Overheal

oik wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetwork

I dunno.

I have severe doubts.

alastair

Overheal wrote: »

I have severe doubts.

Bill and Hillary will start to draw attention, what with the long trail of murder victims the wingnuts have identified they're directly responsible for. Dropping like flies around them for goodness sake. Why won't anyone stop this murderous pair on their rampage?!

Billy86

So... Trump is screwed. Not just in this election, his businesses are tanking as a result too.

Traffic to his hotels and golf courses in June dropped 17%, and in July a further 14%. His net worth has dropped by $800mn in the last 12 months, a total of close to 20% of the total of where it was a year ago. Bookings in his hotels dropped 50% in the first half of this year.

And all of this is data from when he was doing well, or at least doing well compared to now. The rape and sexual assault allegations, the bragging about it on a hot mic to Bush's cousin, the complete and utter non stop public meltdown over the last month or so, the very obvious signs of serious mental health issues, the insulting of US war veterans like John McCain and Captain Khan, the dodgy connections he has to Putin and Russia, the absolute lack of moral fiber and sheer levels of scumbaggery he has displayed, the trouncing he is on pace to get come November 9th confirming him as a loser, and both the multiple fraud cases against the US public as well as the child rape case in the weeks after said trouncing in the election all combine to mean things are only set to get worse - a lot worse - for Trump in the coming months.

Losing the election to such a widely disliked person as Clinton by more than anyone has in 20 (possibly up to 36) years is very much going to be the tip of the iceberg for Donald. And outside of his rabid fanbase who have taken to defending sexual assault themselves in recent times, it has turned everyone else off him so much that the fall could be of epic proportions.

Here's an actual self made billionaire to sum it up:

RobertKK

Podesta emails shows these very interesting things.

Hillary Clinton in 2014 states the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS.

Qatar gave Bill Clinton $1 million for a 5 minute meeting.

Muahahaha

So Im calling this election as a clear win for Clinton. Trump is badly holed beneath the waterline now and there is no return in the polls for him. The Wikileaks on Clinton dont appear to be causing any damage to Hillary and she now commands an unassailable 8-10% lead in the polls. To put that in statistical terms Hillary now has an 80% chance of winning. And she is going to win the electoral college vote bigly with the current prediction by 538 being that Clirton will secure 340 electoral college votes to Trumps 198.

I had a fiver bet on Trump at 5/1 last January, just for the laugh. Up until 10 days ago Paddy Power were offering me a cash out at €5.30. I thought to myself that Ill wait for one more Trump bump in the polls and then cash out. Then the Grab her by the p***y video emerged and by last Saturday Paddy Power would only give me €2.70 to cash out. I took the money, cut my losses and ran.

Its over folks, anything from here on in is just for entertainment purposes.

Overheal

Basically the GOP has two years to get its **** together or Hillary will go for 8 in spite of emails or anything else

oik

Muahahaha wrote: »

So Im calling this election as a clear win for Clinton. Trump is badly holed beneath the waterline now and there is no return in the polls for him. The Wikileaks on Clinton dont appear to be causing any damage to Hillary and she now commands an unassailable 8-10% lead in the polls. To put that in statistical terms Hillary now has an 80% chance of winning. And she is going to win the electoral college vote bigly with the current prediction by 538 being that Clirton will secure 340 electoral college votes to Trumps 198.

I had a fiver bet on Trump at 5/1 last January, just for the laugh. Up until 10 days ago Paddy Power were offering me a cash out at €5.30. I thought to myself that Ill wait for one more Trump bump in the polls and then cash out. Then the Grab her by the p***y video emerged and by last Saturday Paddy Power would only give me €2.70 to cash out. I took the money, cut my losses and ran.

Its over folks, anything from here on in is just for entertainment purposes.

I got him at 11/1 in December. Could still cash out for a profit, probably won't bother. Might wait and see if he improves his chances from the initial shock of these revelations then cash out.

aloyisious

Anderson Cooper on CNN interviewing the woman (Jessica Leeds) who claims Don Trump groped her on a plane flight. She's fairly certain that he, despite her telling him to stop, kept trying to put his hands up under her skirt. It's an extended interview, including his answering the question put to him by Anderson at the last debate, how Donald tried to change the topic to Isis and (as Don put it then) to more important things and she's said Donald lied when he told Anderson he didn't do anything to women. She said she thinks Don actually believes his own lies.

Muahahaha

oik wrote: »

I got him at 11/1 in December. Could still cash out for a profit, probably won't bother. Might wait and see if he improves his chances from the initial shock of these revelations then cash out.

11/1 was superb odds because IMO he was in with a decent shot of winning up until about 4 weeks ago. He just went on too many solo runs but the beginning of his end was the row with the Venezualean Miss Universe and her weight problems. Any bloke should know that a womens weight is seriously dodgy ground to be standing on but Trump just kept labouring the point that she "had let herself go", talk about setting yourself up for batting a losing innings. Complete own goal and between that and the first debate and the sex assault video his loss in this presidential election will be all of his own making.

If you can still cash out that bet on Trump for a profit I would take the money and run for the hills I just cant see him coming back from this position, there will be a Trump groped a woman story coming out every second day from now till November.

bajer101

oik wrote: »

I got him at 11/1 in December. Could still cash out for a profit, probably won't bother. Might wait and see if he improves his chances from the initial shock of these revelations then cash out.

If you bet a grand on Trump at 11/1, stick 9.5k on Clinton at 1/6. You'll collect 1.5k either way. Adjust figures accordingly depending on stake.

Black Swan

Muahahaha wrote: »

If you can still cash out that bet on Trump for a profit I would take the money and run for the hills I just cant see him coming back from this position, there will be a Trump groped a woman story coming out every second day from now till November.

This reminds me of when the Bill Cosby scandal broke. Shortly after many women started coming forward (from decades before) accusing Cosby. The same appears to be happening to Donald Trump, many women coming forward, some honest and some not, claiming that Donald Trump made unwanted kissing and groping advances. This will more than likely continue for several days (perhaps weeks) following the release of last Friday's Trump lewd gropiing tape. Especially after his callus and empty "locker room talk" excuse (repeated 3 times) during the 2nd presidential debate Sunday. And the "just words" excuse he has used since will be a classic FAIL with women, especially when words can hurt a person's feelings.

Trump claims he knows women, but during this election he has shown just the opposite. If he had come to the 2nd debate, looked in the camera and made a sincere apology (without accompanying it with sex scandal mud slinging at Bill Clinton, and without the ridiculous pre-debate 4 women panel), and then got back on message FOCUSING COMPLETELY on policies and important issues that need to be resolved for the American people, he would have looked very presidential indeed, and may have had a good chance to win the election. But no, Trump will be Trump, and he will continue to rant and rave about very personal issues and people that irritate him, focusing more on women's waist lines than policy-packed argument lines that may get him to the Oval Office.

daithi7

bajer101 wrote: »

If you bet a grand on Trump at 11/1, stick 9.5k on Clinton at 1/6. You'll collect 1.5k either way. Adjust figures accordingly depending on stake.

Surely you'd only net .5k if and when Clinton wins? Yes/no/maybe!?!

aloyisious

It might help the republicans if Don's family persuade him to throw in the towel and go back to his business's. It's almost like the death by a thousand cuts punishment. I'm surprised that it's only the NY times his legals have threatened to sue, as the Washington Post has been covering the women's allegations as well. I'm wondering how this and the campaign are affecting his personal finances.

Hell, if he doesn't get in, he may even start up a tax advice business as he's so expert on tax matters (that's one part of his statements I believe may be true) as he's reportedly paid his own business's for services provided to his campaign which he can use for financial gain. I couldn't see many of his fellow citizens being happy if an audit revealed after the elections are over, that he made a financial gain from the process he'd put them through.

Re his threats to check out Hillary's business and jail her, I suspect she might have a cold revenge supper in mind with him on the menu, in a like - but unspoken - manner, given she's a lawyer.

oik

Hillary has been summoned before a judge to answer questions about her server under threat of perjury.

The news broke early morning in the states but wasn't covered on any of the networks.

I only know about it because of the British media.

The level of bias inherent in that state of affairs is of Soviet proportions.

https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/786707390683119616

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308

If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

Igotadose

oik wrote: »

Hillary has been summoned before a judge to answer questions about her server under threat of perjury.

The news broke early morning in the states but wasn't covered on any of the networks.

I only know about it because of the British media.

The level of bias inherent in that state of affairs is of Soviet proportions.

https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/786707390683119616

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308

The online media like politico had this 19 hours ago, she's already responded in writing, which is what the judge asked for.

Don't have WSJ paywall - can you confirm it was written replies that were requested and received?

TheDoctor

So a written reply and that's that?

Seems a waste of time

alastair

TheDoctor wrote: »

She a written reply and that's that?

Seems a waste of time

It's a no-news story. Hillary repeats the same answers she's already given to the public investigation, on the back of a partisan FOI request.

TheDoctor

New Dirty Donald video of him saying he'll date ten year old in ten years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-girl-dating-comments-sexual-assault-claims-republican-party-a7358686.html

frostyjacks

TheDoctor wrote: »

New Dirty Donald video of him saying he'll date ten year old in ten years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-girl-dating-comments-sexual-assault-claims-republican-party-a7358686.html

Two adults dating is dirty now?

TheDoctor

No you're right, a 45 year old man looking at a 10 year old girl and saying I'll date her in the future is completely standard behaviour.

B0jangles

In 1992 he directly told a couple of 14 year olds he'd be dating them in a few years...



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-girls-chicago-tribune-archive-20161013-story.html

B0jangles

Crosspost from the media vs Trump thread:

Also, to answer the question "why didn't they (the alleged sexual assault victims) come forward sooner?" The below is an account of what happened to a woman who said something Trump didn't like:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/sheena-monnin-donald-trump-miss-usa-lawsuit

TL/DR Miss Universe contestant hears that Trump hand-picks some of the finalists himself which is obviously against the rules of the competition, resigns her title in protest and is then sued by Trump in a $10 million dollar lawsuit in order to silence her.

In 2012, Monnin was completely blindsided by the lawsuit. “There was no way I could have afforded to pay that off and frankly, he had to have known that,” she said of Trump’s $10m suit. “I was just a normal person.” At 27, she had no legal experience or connections, and had never seen anything approaching that kind of money. She was still paying off her degree from the online university she attended, and making strides to grow a small business.

Unlike Trump, she did not come from privilege. Her family had to move every few years for her father’s business, work which took them to Florida, Texas, New York, Kentucky and the Carolinas before she was grown. Sometimes her parents would take in foster kids in the cities where they lived, but they never stayed anywhere long.

The three years she spent battling Trump and his lawyers she recalls as the most traumatic period of her life. Family helped keep her feeling grounded and protected, she said, but there were still mornings when she didn’t want to get out of bed. “My focus was getting through each day and getting through what was going on around me and understanding my options,” she said of that period. “Every day seemed to bring a new legal document that I didn’t understand, that I had to seek legal counsel on.”

As recently as last year, Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen bragged to the Daily Beast about the time he “destroy[ed]” Monnin’s life. Attempting to intimidate a Beast reporter, Cohen said: “Do you want to destroy your life? It’s going to be my privilege to serve it to you on a silver platter like I did that idiot from Pennsylvania in Miss USA.” Monnin rebuffs the notion her life was destroyed, but concedes Trump succeeded in the short term and not just with regard to making her feel small and afraid. “There was this message being sent out to all the contestants: you better not say anything bad about us. And that’s how the other young ladies felt.” It may have worked: not one of the women whom Monnin said sent supportive messages after Trump attacked her came forward to defend her in public, though one did anonymously defend her story to Fox News.

It’s no secret that Trump is incredibly litigious. A recent investigation by USA Today tallied 3,500 lawsuits involving Trump. He gets sued quite a bit, but mostly he does the suing, filing 1,900 suits, including many – like the one against Monnin – for defamation. He has sued biographers, journalists, business partners, even an ex-wife and a Native American tribe, but he has threatened to sue even more.

frostyjacks

TheDoctor wrote: »

No you're right, a 45 year old man looking at a 10 year old girl and saying I'll date her in the future is completely standard behaviour.

He's jesting about dating a younger woman, big deal. More power to him. The last time the Clintons were in the Whitehouse, God only knows how many women were raped and sexually assaulted.

Zubeneschamali

frostyjacks wrote: »

He's jesting about dating a younger woman, big deal. More power to him.

She was 10. He is creepy.

B0jangles

frostyjacks wrote: »

He's jesting about dating a younger woman, big deal. More power to him. The last time the Clintons were in the Whitehouse, God only knows how many women were raped and sexually assaulted.

So to be absolutely clear, you're ok with a 46 year old man whose immediate response to meeting 10 and 14 year old children is to imagine vocally speculate in their hearing about dating them in a few years time?

As to the Clintons, while Bill's behaviour is absolutely not above reproach, he has not been convicted of anything, nor is he on record boasting about sexually assaulting women or fantasising about dating children.

edit: updated to make text more accurate.

Anatom

frostyjacks wrote: »

He's jesting about dating a younger woman, big deal. More power to him. The last time the Clintons were in the Whitehouse, God only knows how many women were raped and sexually assaulted.

I'd be interested to see the solid source for your speculation...

Seems like a go-to rubbish and tasteless joke for The Donald.

aloyisious

oik wrote: »

Hillary has been summoned before a judge to answer questions about her server under threat of perjury.

The news broke early morning in the states but wasn't covered on any of the networks.

I only know about it because of the British media.

The level of bias inherent in that state of affairs is of Soviet proportions.

https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/786707390683119616

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308

Sound's like standard court case procedure. Legals put in papers to a judge in response to a question from his in relation to a claim/report made to him. Don's legals are doing exactly the same in NY court relating to the rape allegations. The perjury reference would be in relation to alleged differences between her testimony provided to court and the leaked info, the judge wants to know what's what, Media using the term "threat of perjury" to highlight their news report, use of catch the eye wording for a news item. It'd be interesting to see if the threat of perjury wording is actually used on the court document served to Hillary and/or her legals.

Edit... ta Oik, I like the continued reference to Russia when it comes to the affairs of the Don and the leaks.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems like a go-to rubbish and tasteless joke for The Donald.

Don likes them to be as young as he can get away with according to his own words:

I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great — Ivanka. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her,” Trump said during a taping of Howard Stern’s radio show in June 1999. “So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited.” “The nerve of her. Now you can’t go out with 16-year-olds,” Howard Stern joked in response.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-ivanka-made-promise-not-date-younger-article-1.2813061

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

Two adults dating is dirty now?

Grooming 10 year old children is dirty.

And particularly damning for someone on trial for raping a 13 year old only 2 years later.

frostyjacks

B0jangles wrote: »

So to be absolutely clear, you're ok with a 46 year old man whose immediate response to meeting 10 and 14 year old children is to imagine dating them in a few years time?

As to the Clintons, while Bill's behaviour is absolutely not above reproach, he has not been convicted of anything, nor is he on record boasting about sexually assaulting women or fantasising about dating children.

Nor has Trump been convicted of anything. Who was fantasising about dating children?

It's a little cringey, but I'd rather have a reputation as a bit of a lech than a genuine sexual predator. Hillary may as well bring Larry Murphy into the Whitehouse.

B0jangles

frostyjacks wrote: »

Nor has Trump been convicted of anything. Who was fantasising about dating children?

It's a little cringey, but I'd rather have a reputation as a bit of a lech than a genuine sexual predator. Hillary may as well bring Larry Murphy into the Whitehouse.

Ok, conversation over. I don't think I can find any middle.ground with someone who thinks talking to and about children in such a way is acceptable.at.any level.

' a little cringey' ffs