Trump's shocking crude comments on women leave him reeling

[keemapoot]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He's not just horney he's rapey. If you don't get the difference sad for you but most women do. Rapey is more about asserting power than sex desire.

 

Of course it is, and it is the key difference between those weak arguments about Bill Clinton.  He was a charmer. He's highly charismatic, and like Kennedy, he could (and did) probably charm the pants off of many (CONSENTING) women - before he had any money.

 

Trump is a gruff, ugly bully. There's nothing charming about him in any sense, except for his wallet and what that buys with women susceptible to that. He's always had money and had he not been born rich I suspect he would have had a criminal record by now for serial sexual assaults.

[CWMcMurray]

The reality is wether true or false... Doesn't really matter..

Likely will not know the truth of specific cases until after the election, if ever

But will hurt Trump and what ever chance he did have in winning the election is likely gone

As enough will believe regardless of what can be proved

The polls are no longer all that close.. Hillary has pulled ahead significantly


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Pinot]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

As been said, it was a locker room conversation, nothing more...

 

Boon - Trump's been a hound forever.

 

Rich man with an attitude. This stuff is everywhere. He said, she said. Pointless at this point. 

 

It's over. 

[Pinot]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

"This is how TV works" Riiiight. Just because there's 3-4-7-9 cameras rolling does not mean all are getting audio or should be getting audio. 

 

Trump thought it was a private conversation. The crew was filming the bus rolling up. The mic should have been off and it wasn't. This is an assumed private conversation. Is it a huge costly kindergarden level screw up? Hell yeah. 

 

To say it was NOT a private conversation would mean that it was intended to be recorded and shown to people. Do you believe this? 

 

Why are you even discussing this. It's out there. 

 

6 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

It would be far less disruptive or even chaotic for Republicans such as Romney, Jeb, Kasich and individual Republicans of their shared politics to move over and into the Democratic party to create a new conservative bloc there.

 

Anything less would be messy indeed. Anything less would also be marginalised by its significantly reduced number of members, i.e., voters. So this is also being discussed.

 

Trump and his moonwalkers could keep the name 'Republican Party' while the remaining center-right traditional conservatives who are not extreme Republicans could form a new caucus withing the Democratic party and call it whatever they like to describe themselves. Y'know, the Elephant Walkers or some such that communicates the idea and the reality.

 

It's being discussed and considered over there.

 

Publicus, are you smoking crack? 

 

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

This time is different for sure.

Fully corrupt, criminal, vampiress, with game vs. fully entitled douche with no game but potentially a game changer. 

 

So easy for the wingnuts to blow off the election entirely. Low-info losers advocate anarchy. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

The sexual deviant and serial abuser of women was not having a private conversation. He was in the work place. A work place that this pervert knows contains recording equipment.

 

This desperate attempt to focus on the means rather than the message is offensive to all victims of sexual assault.

 

Trumps history of sexual assault has destroyed his Candidacy. It will also reduce the value of his brand, preferably to zero and one hopes will result in criminal and financial penalties after he loses the election.

 

He is damned by his own words. It makes entirely no different how those words became known. Any suggestion otherwise is pure desperate deflection from the losing side.

 

Sexual deviant? The guy playing the richest swinging D#$^ in the world now wants to be President. The beauty pageant behavior is creepy but...

 

I don't care about all this stuff. It's a case of gotcha now and it's too easy. Trump has been...Trump for all these years. He's consistent. Consistently, a weird, macho, vain, childlike nightmare. If he had been liberal, which he could have been, I might have voted for him! I can see the attraction he might have to an idiot. I really can. 

 

But Trump went to the darkside.

 

Is "class" gold plated toilets?

 

Keep doing what you're doing Trump

 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Pinot

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Pinot said:

I don't care about all this stuff. It's a case of cotcha now and it's too easy. Trump has been...Trump for all these years. He's consistent. Consistently, a weird, macho, vain, childlike nightmare. If he had been liberal, which he could have been, I might have voted for him! I can see the attraction he might have to an idiot. I really can. 

 

What I don't get, is what the liberals want in regards to a president OR policy. I mean I get it trump is the opposite if what you guys want as a figurehead, but for the love of all thats holy, Hillary???

 

Whats the objective? Nothing is going to get better the way things have been going for the last 8 years. Nobody in any of these threads talk policy or anything. Its like reading a sleazy magazine.  

[SoiBiker]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

What I don't get, is what the liberals want in regards to a president OR policy. I mean I get it trump is the opposite if what you guys want as a figurehead, but for the love of all thats holy, Hillary???

 

Whats the objective? Nothing is going to get better the way things have been going for the last 8 years. Nobody in any of these threads talk policy or anything. Its like reading a sleazy magazine.  

 

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that those who find Trump objectionable are automatically fans of Clinton. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to vote for either of them. If I did, though, then I guess I'd vote for Clinton. Not because I agree with her, or particularly like her, but because she's at least vaguely qualified for the job, and not an unstable, offensive nutcase like the alternative. I doubt she's many people's figurehead, just the least bad option. 

 

You want to talk policy? Start a thread on policy. Bit weird to expect to hear it discussed in a thread about Trump's offensive comments on women, though. 

[Pinot]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

What I don't get, is what the liberals want in regards to a president OR policy. I mean I get it trump is the opposite if what you guys want as a figurehead, but for the love of all thats holy, Hillary???

 

Whats the objective? Nothing is going to get better the way things have been going for the last 8 years. Nobody in any of these threads talk policy or anything. Its like reading a sleazy magazine.  

 

Yup, Hillary Clinton the first woman President of the United States...in a mother******* landslide. 

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

The Manly Men and the homoerotic experience of the locker room. 

 

Sounds like a personal problem. Most people in locker rooms are just average Joes talking nonsense.

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Have a thing for well endowed black men clearly.

 

Another gay sexual reference, meant to be insulting. It seems that you are projecting.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Sounds like a personal problem. Most people in locker rooms are just average Joes talking nonsense.

Men's locker rooms outside gay saunas and some urban gyms are more like homosocial than homoerotic. 

[Opl]

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

That's definitely not 'sexual abuse my friend.

Men talk like that with abandon in locker rooms all over the world

 

60 y.o man ... still bragging about his performances  in connivance with a 30 y.o man who could be his son - that's pathetic.

   

Edited October 16, 2016 by Opl

[HLover]

Yes, the gentle delicate flowers that are the American female should be revolted by his horrific words of the past.

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Whats the objective? Nothing is going to get better the way things have been going for the last 8 years. Nobody in any of these threads talk policy or anything. Its like reading a sleazy magazine.  

 

You are so locked into the right-wing echo chamber that you are probably not aware that those of us on the left literally do not have any idea what you are talking about "the way things have been going for the last 8 years."  The US that we see is far better off than it was 8 years ago.

To wit:

                                                                  2008                                            2015

US GDP                                                   $14,830 trillion                          $16,397 trillion

US unemployment rate                       7.3%                                              5.0%

US reported violent crime rate

   per 100,000                                       458.6                                             372.6

Total wealth households &

  non-profit corps                               $48 billion                                      $80 billion (2014)

S&P 500 (yr end)                               890.64                                              2063.36

                                               

So I don't where the US went to hell in a handbasket during this period.  I am baffled as to in what way the nation has deteriorated that is so self-evident to you that you do not even both to identify it.   Now, if you mean that the "problem" that the US has a black president, gay people can get married, millions of productive, law-abiding immigrants lack immigration status, somebody died in Benghazi, or that more women graduate from college than men, then you lose me because none of these conditions is a "problem" for me in any way, even when I still lived the in the US.

 

So whatever it is that is driving you to look to a con man like Trump for the answer to, it looks like dark matter to us lefties.

[Chicog]

3 hours ago, SoiBiker said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/15/trump-allegation-british-witness-anthony-gilberthorpe

 

I'm sure if you ask him, he'll tell you he was on the grassy knoll....

 

 

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

44 minutes ago, Strange said:

What I don't get, is what the liberals want in regards to a president OR policy. I mean I get it trump is the opposite if what you guys want as a figurehead, but for the love of all thats holy, Hillary???

 

Whats the objective? Nothing is going to get better the way things have been going for the last 8 years. Nobody in any of these threads talk policy or anything. Its like reading a sleazy magazine.  

 

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that those who find Trump objectionable are automatically fans of Clinton. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to vote for either of them. If I did, though, then I guess I'd vote for Clinton. Not because I agree with her, or particularly like her, but because she's at least vaguely qualified for the job, and not an unstable, offensive nutcase like the alternative. I doubt she's many people's figurehead, just the least bad option. 

 

You want to talk policy? Start a thread on policy. Bit weird to expect to hear it discussed in a thread about Trump's offensive comments on women, though. 

 

Thing is, Im on plenty of other forums than this one and don't care to discuss US politics with the English. Nor any other foreigner for that matter. I chime in here from time to time and say what I wanna say but other than that, aint interested to debate politics with y'all. 

 

My post was directed to our US Liberal group on here to see what they want. Cause this is where they are. Nothing weird about it. Im sure your choices are sound, irrevelent, but your opinion nonetheless. 

 

The thing is, it goes both ways, the US Libs completely insult anyone that isn't firmly in "Hills" camp, and its off-putting to the max. Racist, hateful, hate speech, KKK, nazi, and it creates a serious divide in the people under the flag of "Tolerance". 

 

I don't know your history with the US. I don't know if you lived there or just poke around on here. The problem is on the ground in the US the Liberal Group is extreme. Like, hatefully extreme. If you disagree? Racist. Nazi. Nobody wants to be called a fuggin Nazi or a Racist or HATE HATE cause you don't see eye to eye. 

 

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, Pinot said:

 

Yup, Hillary Clinton the first woman President of the United States...in a mother******* landslide. 

 

If "Hill" gets the presidency, we should hang our heads in shame. Not be proud. "Hill" does not have the character nor integrity to be forever labeled the first woman president. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Thing is, Im on plenty of other forums than this one and don't care to discuss US politics with the English. Nor any other foreigner for that matter. I chime in here from time to time and say what I wanna say but other than that, aint interested to debate politics with y'all. 

 

My post was directed to our US Liberal group on here to see what they want. Cause this is where they are. Nothing weird about it. Im sure your choices are sound, irrevelent, but your opinion nonetheless. 

 

The thing is, it goes both ways, the US Libs completely insult anyone that isn't firmly in "Hills" camp, and its off-putting to the max. Racist, hateful, hate speech, KKK, nazi, and it creates a serious divide in the people under the flag of "Tolerance". 

 

I don't know your history with the US. I don't know if you lived there or just poke around on here. The problem is on the ground in the US the Liberal Group is extreme. Like, hatefully extreme. If you disagree? Racist. Nazi. Nobody wants to be called a fuggin Nazi or a Racist or HATE HATE cause you don't see eye to eye. 

 

Actually plenty of Trump supporters wouldn't mind being called a racist. Just do a search on the web to see what the white nationalists are saying about Trump.

[SoiBiker]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

If "Hill" gets the presidency, we should hang our heads in shame. Not be proud. "Hill" does not have the character nor integrity to be forever labeled the first woman president. 

 

You think Trump has the character and integrity to be president?

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Gilberthorpe is not a credible witness. Where are the reports from credible news outlets? Until this happens then all that you are doing is trying to shame a victim of sexual assault. No wonder many of them do not want to come forward with their experiences.

 

3 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

The Manly Men and the homoerotic experience of the locker room. You may be one of the sexually inadequate braggarts who talk about women's genitals in locker rooms but most Men do not indulge in this after they have graduated high school.

 

In any case, Trump was having a conversation with a work colleague in the work place and not indulging in banter but bragging about sexually assaulting women.

 

The testosterone argument does not work here.

 

3 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Keep up? Everyone has left you in the dust.

 

Find credible sources or be branded with the same slime as Trump the sexual pervert.

 

Do you even realize how nasty you are? 

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually plenty of Trump supporters wouldn't mind being called a racist. Just do a search on the web to see what the white nationalists are saying about Trump.

 

Lmao. Riiiiiiiiight. 

 

You do realize that nazis and supremacists would go for ANYONE other than "Hill" right? You know, being "Hill" is a woman and them being Nazis and Racists & Stuff. 

Nazis are crazy, but they can support whoever they want. Cant really fault them in this particular situation. 

 

But hey now trump is a Nazi Racist KKK supporter. 

[SoiBiker]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You do realize that nazis and supremacists would go for ANYONE other than "Hill" right? You know, being "Hill" is a woman and them being Nazis and Racists & Stuff. 

 

You think Nazis are anti-women? You think female is a race?

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

You are so locked into the right-wing echo chamber that you are probably not aware that those of us on the left literally do not have any idea what you are talking about "the way things have been going for the last 8 years."  The US that we see is far better off than it was 8 years ago.

To wit:

                                                                  2008                                            2015

US GDP                                                   $14,830 trillion                          $16,397 trillion

US unemployment rate                       7.3%                                              5.0%

US reported violent crime rate

   per 100,000                                       458.6                                             372.6

Total wealth households &

  non-profit corps                               $48 billion                                      $80 billion (2014)

S&P 500 (yr end)                               890.64                                              2063.36

                                               

So I don't where the US went to hell in a handbasket during this period.  I am baffled as to in what way the nation has deteriorated that is so self-evident to you that you do not even both to identify it.   Now, if you mean that the "problem" that the US has a black president, gay people can get married, millions of productive, law-abiding immigrants lack immigration status, somebody died in Benghazi, or that more women graduate from college than men, then you lose me because none of these conditions is a "problem" for me in any way, even when I still lived the in the US.

 

So whatever it is that is driving you to look to a con man like Trump for the answer to, it looks like dark matter to us lefties.

 

Please provide a source that says that Obama himself made all this happen through is policy and performance as president for 8 years and not by the default of sitting in the president chair while it happened around him. 

 

A real source. 

[SoiBiker]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Please provide a source that says that Obama himself made all this happen through is policy and performance as president for 8 years and not by the default of sitting in the president chair while it happened around him. 

 

A real source. 

 

I don't think anyone was claiming that Obama made it happen.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

 

You think Nazis are anti-women? You think female is a race?

 

Buddy, you need to go ahead and do some reading about the US Nazi group. I aint talking about the germans here. 

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

 

I don't think anyone was claiming that Obama made it happen.

 

Comparing the present to the hight of the great recession is ridiculous anyway. Things were bound to improve.

[SoiBiker]

Can you explain why racists wouldn't want a woman as president?

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

 

I don't think anyone was claiming that Obama made it happen.

 

And? What did I quote? Another poster citing statistics in defense of the last 8 years of our democratic president, Obama, clearly saying that the statistics were a direct result of said president and party. 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, SoiBiker said:

Can you explain why racists wouldn't want a woman as president?

 

Please do your own homework. I can see you are trying to corner me in semantics, but we aren't talking about "racists" and even then, "racists" tend to also be mysogynists. 

[SoiBiker]

Just now, Strange said:

 

Please do your own homework. I can see you are trying to corner me in semantics, but we aren't talking about "racists" and even then, "racists" tend to also be mysogynists. 

 

If we're not talking about racists, why did you mention racists?

[Publicus]

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I said that? I would like to see it. I am sure I have only been discussing how greater choice is better for the people. 

In other words, there would be more difficult for the mafia tactics of the military industrial complex to control who the candidates will be. They have no problem playing on two sides, but they will not as much like to be on four sides for example.

 

Some people are history buffs while others collect art, so finding someone whose lifelong thingy on the side is the military-industrial complex can be an adventure of sorts. Which means I'd regret missing the moment if I didn't say*...

 

You as a person who pays special and dedicated attention to the military-industrial complex see in present political party developments the opportunity to have four political parties, and that the reason all of us should have four parties is that the "mafia" military industrial complex would (for sure) have a tougher time controlling four nominees instead of its long term cakewalk of controlling two.  

 

My hope and prayer in this is that you know Pres. Eisenhower in his farewell remarks that first presented the term had cut it short. Ike had more (as you may or may not know). His original draft had "military-industrial-congressional" complex. Ike excised the 'congressional' after his top people said he shouldn't drag congress in to it regardless of whether congress might be deserving. 

 

Not Ike nor anyone from then up to now has said anything consequential about the complex in relation to the presidency or to political parties. Yes things change but the term remains static -- it's still today what it was when Ike coined it. It long ago became a catch-all term frozen in the time, the place, the principal players, carried forward ever so haphazardly.  

 

Because anyone who wants to talk about the U.S. military industrial complex would need also to talk about the Russian military industrial complex and the Chinese military industrial complex. That might however involve comparing the constitution document of each country -- all three of 'em. 

 

Without taking the time or trouble however, let the record show two of the three aren't too strong on democracy not to mention the western classic liberal notions of society and civilisation. 

 

*Sorry to invite you to read so very much.