up-country_sinclair

2 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

. If you are Republican, install some sane person

Sadly, for all practical purposes, that train has left the station.  There is a way for party establishment to remove him from the ticket but that would almost certainly destroy the party from the inside.  And then there's all the people who have already voted via absentee ballots and early voting.  Removing him from the ticket would undeniably disenfranchise them.

If he were to remove himself from the ticket and put Governor Pence at the top, that would be another matter altogether.

9 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Is America ready to have some Eastern European bimbo as First Lady???

According to reports, she was three months pregnant when Trump propositioned the married women referred to in the recording.

Speaking of apologies, do you think Trump apologized to his wife?  I doubt it.

16 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

That makes no sense.

 

It doesn't need to make sense.  It's all just an attempt to distract from the topic of the thread:  Trump being forced to apologize for his derogatory remarks about women.  AKA more than half the electorate.

The closeted Trump fanboys know this likely the end, and they're understandably rattled.

Sure.

Anything t

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Who said that I "swallowed" anything? I suggested that it was not proven either way

Yeah, let's continue not discussing "Trump's shocking crude comments on women leave him reeling".

17 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

It needs to be investigated.

OK, let's pretend it does need to be "investigated".  

But I'm not sure why you're insisting on bringing a completely unrelated topic onto a thread entitled, "Trump's shocking crude comments on women leave him reeling".

No, actually, I do know why.

The deplorable, Trump fanboys are spending a lot of time talking about Secretary Clinton whilst she has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I wonder why that is.

It's over.   The Clintons can start measuring the drapes at this point.  The election is less than a month away, and this story (and the video) is going to be in heavy rotation for at least a week.  Don't forget that early voting is happening right now.

It's becoming even more clear that Trump has ruined the Republican Party for at least a generation.  Maybe forever.  I genuinely do believe that this could be it for Republicans in a national election.  For example, after this cycle, how are Republicans every going to win the Hispanic vote in swing states?  People tend to remember racial slurs hurled against them.  And if they don't, I'm confident the DNC has all of Trump's words (and those of the Republicans who stood behind him) recorded for posterity.

The deplorable, Trump fanboys will vote for him no matter what.  This most recent outrage is not a negative to them.  In fact, they revel in it.

Moderate, female voters are another matter altogether.  They are going to abandon Trump in droves and there is going to be a landslide next month.  I also predict that the Senate is now completely lost and the House majority will decrease significantly.

This won't make much of a difference to the deplorable, slurping Trump fanboys.  Some of them will attempt to distract by posting about Secretary Clinton's email server or whether President Obama is an atheist, and the rest will revel in it.  They know who Trump is and he is exactly what they want.

But of course it has crushed his chance of getting any votes from normal people.

7 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

This is news to me. Most of the posters on this forum who post stuff against Trump are NOT big fans of hillary? 

 

Not trying to be a wiseguy but I was not aware of that. How many of the hillary anti-Trump people posting here are not actually hillary fans? Why is she defended so much then?

There are many posters on this forum who don't support Secretary Clinton (I am one of them), but cannot abide the abomination that is Trump and his campaign.

He has already done irreparable harm to the Republican Party, and he can't be allowed to do the same to the Republic itself.

It's not a secret that many (if not most) American's don't like Secretary Clinton.  There's a lot not to like.  But despite this she is a serious person who understands how the government works and the far reaching implications of public policy decisions.  I will likely disagree with a large percentage of her decisions as president, but I'm confident that she will at least be aware of the potential consequences of those decisions. The same cannot be said for Trump, and educated, rational Americans know this.  That is at least partly why he will lose in a very lopsided result.

Any number of Republicans could have beat her in this election.  But the deplorable, slurping Trump fanboys made sure that didn't happen.

This debate format should be the final nail in the coffin of Trump's campaign.  His ignorance and arrogance will be laid bare for all to see, and his massive ego will likely push him over the edge into an epic meltdown.

Someone with Trump's tax record would never get enough votes in a Senate confirmation hearing for a cabinet position.  Yet the slurping fanboys think he should be President.

She was right about one thing:  They are deplorable.

The slurping Trump fanboys just can't control themselves.  They'll stand up for their hero despite the fact that all evidence points to him being an inept charlatan.  

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'll give it more credence when Juanita Broaddrick's claim of rape against Bill Clinton is accepted by a court, before the election.

Well, she would first have  to actually file such a claim with a court.  

To my knowledge she has never done so in all the decades that she has been making her claims.  Note that the alleged rape is claimed to have occurred in 1978.  38 years ago.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

the women Bill molested.

It amazes me how seemingly rational people are able to just toss out words like "molest"  and "rape" and not think twice about it.

You are stating that former President Clinton sexually assaulted someone as if it were a fact.  Yet there is no proof of this happening.  How would you feel if someone said similar about you even if there was no evidence?

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 I do not understand clever people who do not see Hillary's deficiences either.

Who are these people you mention?  I can't think of too many posters who regularly post on this forum who do not see Secretary Clinton's deficiencies.  Everyone sees them because they are obvious.  Very few American voters actually like her.

But despite these deficiencies she is still competent to do the job.  Trump is not even remotely competent. 

That is the difference.  What you and the other Trump fanboys needs to realize is that this is not "The Apprentice".  Real domestic and international policy decisions will need to be made after thoughtful deliberation.  Trump doesn't have the intellect or the interest to take on this responsibility.

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

If the tables were turned and, say, Carrot Top were running on the democratic ticket against a respectable and moderate republican, he'd probably be doing just as well as Trump is.

I'd say this is essentially happening now.  If Democrats had the chance to vote for Barack Obama again instead of Hillary Clinton, they'd do it.  If they could vote for Bill Clinton again, they'd do it.  In fact, I'd bet in their heart of hearts they'd rather have Al Gore or Joe Biden on the ticket instead of Hillary Clinton.  Most people don't like her, and I think that includes most Democrats.  

This was a winnable election for Republicans. 

9 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

No, they set the bar at the gutter level and they will reap the rewards.  When anyone asks you who started the low down stuff that has nothing to do with being President you will will know the answer, Hillery.  

Gutter level?  OK, I'd like to ask you again:

15 minutes ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Where was your outrage when Trump belittled Senator Cruz's wife for being unattractive?  Was that low class or stooping low?

 

16 minutes ago, up-country_sinclair said:

Or when he implied that Senator Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination?  Was that low class or stooping low?

 

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

HRC is tossing mud because Trump has turned the campaigns into a mud slinging contest.

I take your point, but I really don't see this as tossing mud.

If she were to attack him for his divorces and the like, I think that would be dirty.  But all she's doing in this case is quoting him.

It's clearly very effective.  This is evidenced by the 3:00 am tweet storm and the reaction of the Trump fanboys on this forum.

And yes, Secretary Clinton brought it up.  It's called politics.  

And as I already posted, this whole thing would have disappeared from the headlines (and forums) days ago if Trump hadn't fired off a tweet storm at 3:00 am.

Guess who's probably laughing right now?  Secretary Clinton and Senator Schumer.

Just now, Scotwight said:

stooped so low

Really?

In all that Trump has said over the past 12 months,  this is what offends you?  Directly quoting Trump?

Where was your outrage when Trump belittled Senator Cruz's wife for being unattractive?  Was that low class or stooping low?

Or when he implied that Senator Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination?  Was that low class or stooping low?

But it's a bridge too far for you when someone repeats the words that Trump said himself?  

39 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

the Hillary campaign bringing up irrelevant beauty contests 20 years ago? 

46 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

What Americans are really interested in is who called a Venezuelan lady fat 20 years ago.  Now that's important.

20 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

It's about Hillary slamming Trump about fat ladies

6 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

the topic which is Hillary making a big deal about a beauty contest 20 years ago

This story would have died a natural death days ago if Trump had exhibited any self-control.  Instead he fired of a tweet storm at 3:00 am.

It's just not normal.  And it's certainly no presidential.

9 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

a-woman-who-was-sexually-assaulted-by-bill-clinton-drops-a-bomb-on-hillary-whoa/

Here we go again.  I'm not going to click on this link because, quite frankly, I can't be bothered to read more unsubstantiated nonsense that is only going to help Secretary Clinton win more votes and hurt down ballot Republicans.

But  I will guess that this "woman who was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton" never filed a police report or brought a civil suit.  

2 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

What would you think if I could prove to you that Clinton gave a girl who accused him of sexual harassment $850,000 to shut her up?  Her name is Paula Jones and he gave her $850,000. 

A court dismissed Jones' lawsuit before it went to trial because she couldn't prove anything.  President Clinton admitted no guilt and gave her $200,000 to drop the appeal.  The judge ruled that the remainder of the money should go to cover her legal expenses.

I have no idea whether or not President Clinton raped Broderick or harassed Jones.  But I do doubt it because he was a smooth talker and women found him attractive.  What I don't doubt is that dredging up these issues won't help down ballot Republicans next month on election day.