'Unhinged': Clinton slams Trump over beauty queen Twitter tirade

[Scott]

Some members think they are the moderators and can tell others what to post.  

I suggest you cease.  

[Scotwight]

5 minutes ago, Opl said:

Scotwight  : Yes I do.

In a previous post I wondered why D.Trump spends so much energy reponding to A. Machado ..  and invited his supporters to watch a "sex tape". It is far from the promise of the Convention of Cleveland: to be the spokesman "of the forgotten, neglected and abandoned."

I may be wrong but the reason to me : D. Trump does not care, looks like he himself is his best enemy. 

To me, he is in the race because of Obama.

 

You didn't read the subject of this thread did you?  It's about Hillary slamming Trump about fat ladies not Trump slamming Trump.  Small difference all things considered.  

[Pinot]

4 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

I know it's an odd idea but why not try and make an on topic post?  I know it's not required of Democrats but it would really be a nice change.

 

You mean like your creative posts? 

 

Whatever 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Pinot

[Scotwight]

Just now, Pinot said:

 

Whatever 

You wrote a post completely off topic.  I asked why not post on topic.  And you reply, "Whatever."  Great debate.  Don't you feel totally out of your league?  

[Pinot]

I'm sorry, but it's really hard to respond to your craziness, Scot. Is there someone around you can talk to  in real life? Maybe try and talk you down a notch?  

 

Whatever 

[Scotwight]

4 minutes ago, Pinot said:

I'm sorry, but it's really hard to respond to your craziness, Scot. Is there someone around you can talk to  in real life? Maybe try and talk you down a notch?  

 

Whatever 

Now instead of debate about the topic which is Hillary making a big deal about a beauty contest 20 years ago you flame me.  I thought you fancied yourself knowledgeable about politics.  Give us an opinion why Hillary stoops to such low life tactics when she is much brighter and more experienced than Trump.  

[up-country_sinclair]

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.

[Scotwight]

6 minutes ago, up-country_sinclair said:

 

 

 

 

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.

You seem to think Trump brought it up.  Hillary stooped so low to bring up a 20 year old beauty contest because she is a low class woman.  

 

Here it is watch Hillary make a fool of herself.

 

[up-country_sinclair]

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?  

 

[up-country_sinclair]

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.

[Scotwight]

1 minute ago, up-country_sinclair said:

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.

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.  

[boomerangutang]

HRC is tossing mud because Trump has turned the campaigns into a mud slinging contest.  If someone attacks you with a sharp stick, are you going to just hold up your hand and smile?  No.  Prior presidential campaigns had some mudslinging, but mostly discussed issues and policy proposals.  Trump is hell-bent on going deeply negative, so he should be able to handle some of his own style of dirty campaigning.  He can't, and he's whining like a bratty little boy who got beat to the punch,

[up-country_sinclair]

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.

[Scotwight]

delete

Edited October 2, 2016 by Scotwight

[up-country_sinclair]

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?

 

 

[Andaman Al]

Well i will take Clintons infidelity, and match it with Trump's and take the alleged sexual harassment and raise you the forthcoming court case soon to be filed for the rape and sexual assault of a 13 yr old girl. This happened 4 times, On one occasion the 13 yr old girl was made to perform oral sex on DJT with another 12 yr old. Check google, check snopes, it is coming and I guess pretty soon. This will bring a whole new meaning to POTUS. So what will all you Trump supporters do if it is proven that DJT along with Epstein was a rock spider with a 13 and 12 yr old? Still another 'vote for the team'? This game hasn't even started to get dirty yet.

 

The rape of a minor! You Trumpsters must be feeling so proud. 'Make America Great Again' or is it 'Take American teen bait again'?

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Edited October 2, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Ulysses G.]

25 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

The rape of a minor! You Trumpsters must be feeling so proud. 

 

Only the case has already been dismissed once and the - supposed - new "witness" is not working out. As usual, your post is ignoring the actual facts.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html

[Grubster]

I am totally lost and will not be voting for a president this year as I don't like my options, 1st time I will not vote.

[Andaman Al]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Only the case has already been dismissed once and the - supposed - new "witness" is not working out. As usual, your post is ignoring the actual facts.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html

 

The case was dismissed because of paperwork filing errors in California. You know that, you will have read it. The case will be resubmitted very soon in NYC. Get your popcorn. You are quoting a newspaper article from July - VERY OLD hat. I pointed you to information written on the 16th Sept. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

I pointed you to information written on the 16th Sept. 

 

So what? The snopes thing says little besides thst the civil case exists. Mine points out how screwy the people behind it are and that there are real problems with the - supposed - "witness". This was all about money and now it is about politics.

[Opl]

34 minutes ago, Grubster said:

34 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I am totally lost and will not be voting for a president this year as I don't like my options, 1st time I will not vote.

I am totally lost and will not be voting for a president this year as I don't like my options, 1st time I will not vote.

 

Maybe this can help a little bit ...

" You’re unsuspecting,” Trump said. “Right now, you say to your wife: ‘Let’s go to a movie after Trump.’ But you won’t do that because you’ll be so high and so excited that no movie is going to satisfy you. Okay? No movie. You know why? Honestly? Because they don’t make movies like they used to — is that right?” 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/

[Torrens54]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course HRC is using this. She has nothing else to persuade voters to vote for her.

 

More fool Trump for falling into her trap. Perhaps he isn't suited to be president, but that doesn't mean she is. It's just a choice between 2 very unsuitable candidates, and will be won by the least offensive, because there just isn't anything positive to say about either of them.

I pity the American Voters having to choose between these two who should both be under Lock and Key, wearing matching Orange Coloured Jump Suits.... or Straitjackets!

[Silurian]

9 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

 

The case was dismissed because of paperwork filing errors in California. You know that, you will have read it. The case will be resubmitted very soon in NYC. Get your popcorn. You are quoting a newspaper article from July - VERY OLD hat. I pointed you to information written on the 16th Sept. 

 

And here are some more of the latest WEB articles on Donald Trump the rapist (accused).

 

The Donald Trump child rape lawsuit has been refiled with a new witness

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/305309/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-refiled-new-witness/

 

The Undeniable Rape Culture Of Donald Trump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-undeniable-rape-culture-of-donald-trump_us_57ee5879e4b0c2407cdd4c92

 

[Chicog]

12 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Only the case has already been dismissed once and the - supposed - new "witness" is not working out. As usual, your post is ignoring the actual facts.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other.html

 

It seems your information is not current.

 

Quote

 

Two weeks ago, “Jane Doe” dismissed her rape lawsuit against Donald Trump and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but promised to refile. It happened on Friday. She and her attorney brought forward an amended complaint to The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This one includes a new witness.

The original lawsuit claimed Trump raped the then-13-year-old plaintiff in the 1990s. There was also a second anonymous woman, known as “Tiffany Doe.” She said that Epstein had her pickup teenage girls for his parties. One of these girls was Jane, and Tiffany said she witnessed Trump and Epstein rape the plaintiff several times.

The new complaint adds a third woman. She’s known in court documents as “Joan Doe.”

 

 

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-team-fires-back-after-jane-doe-refiles-rape-lawsuit-with-new-witness/

[Pinot]

11 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

So what? The snopes thing says little besides thst the civil case exists. Mine points out how screwy the people behind it are and that there are real problems with the - supposed - "witness". This was all about money and now it is about politics.

 

You'd be running with this if the shoe was on the other foot, U. 

 

I've seen a lot of restraint in the MSM on this but the fact is, it's a lawsuit moving forward. 

 

You could just see this 24/7 on Fox if it was Bill Clinton. With Trump's long history of talk about young girls, it's entirely believable. 

[JetsetBkk]

15 hours ago, Scotwight said:

16 hours ago, up-country_sinclair said:

 

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.  

 

Why didn't they report it?  A trio of women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct detailed Monday what they say happened years ago – and why they held back from going to the police or going public at the time.

 

Read it if you want to and tell me why Trump calling a lady fat 20 years ago has anything to do with him running the country today?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3607010/I-felt-like-fault-Bill-Clinton-accuser-Juanita-Broaddrick-says-rape-perfect-word-former-president-did-explains-DIDN-T-tell-police.html

 

And here is the misogynist Trump laughing at Miss Piggy. It is disgusting:

 

https://www.youtube.com/v/rwVxJFF6afA?start=107&autoplay=1

 

[Andaman Al]

This has 30 something days to get much much worse.

 

I watched in disbelief yesterday on the various news items the surrogates defending him (Trump). Most disturbing of all were the unbelievable excuses given by Chris Christie and that monster Giuliano. They have clearly been promised very senior positions in the Administration should Americans have a total brain dump and vote the guy in.

 

Here was Giuliano's sickening defence of Trump going after Clinton for her husbands infidelity and when asked by the interviewer "but your past, you have your own infidelity charge"" he says, well everybody does!!!!

 

Quote

CHUCK TODD: Are you the right person to level this charge?

RUDY GIULIANI: Yeah. I’m the right person to level this charge, because I’ve never made such a charge, and I’ve prosecuted people who’ve committed rape.

CHUCK TODD: But your past, you have your own infidelity charge.

RUDY GIULIANI: Well, everybody does. And I’m a Roman Catholic, and I confess those things to my priest. But I’ve never ever attacked someone who’s been the victim―

CHUCK TODD: Okay.

RUDY GIULIANI: ―who’s been the victim of sexual abuse. Not only that, I put people in jail who’ve been the victim of sexual abuse.

 

Many Trump supporters on here lay claims against Clinton or President Clinton when there are ZERO charges laid against them - ZERO. Now it is finally done that the case against Trump for the rape of a 13 year old girl is submitted, with witnesses. I do hope we do not have TV members trying to defend Trump. Charges are laid, so lets not start trashing the 'victims' (as Giuliano would put it!!).

[StevieH]

giuliani isn't even human though. he's just vile.

[Andaman Al]

^^^ with reference to my post above, here is Giuliano defending his and Trumps infidelity whilst attacking Clinton. I am not sure it gets more pathetic!

 

The first 6 minutes are worth watching, but for the ultimate in hypocrisy just skip to minute 6.

 

 

[Silurian]

24 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

The first 6 minutes are worth watching, but for the ultimate in hypocrisy just skip to minute 6.

 

My favorite is when Rudy's eyes bug out when he gets all excited. He wants to drive home his points but all he looks like is those cartoon characters with the popping eyeballs.