Trump's shocking crude comments on women leave him reeling

[SoiBiker]

Just now, Bob9 said:

Obviously the Dems were holding on to this, with the plan to release it when some bad news about Hillary came to light, or just before the election. That Wikileaks did not 'leak' and maybe actually have nothing, and that Trump was starting to win in the polls, means they jumped and released this now. Maybe too early?

 

Trump will take a hit but with nearly a month to go, he can recover, starting in the next debate. Has crooked Hillary got the timing wrong - I certainly hope so.  The next debate will be very 'entertaining' indeed - all viewing records will be broken.

 

I am still wondering - what has wikileaks got on Hillary??  Will they release it when she has no time to recover? Maybe just before the last debate?

 

 

 

Trump was starting to win in the polls?

 

Er, no. 

[Chicog]

5 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

So it goes for the Clinton New Network...desperate for views and clicks. Fox has got more babes on one show then they've got on the whole network.

 

That's because it's an entertainment channel, not a news one.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Nickymaster said:

It's very relevant. The last 10 hours or so many high profile republicans, including governors, have cancelled meetings and/or said they wouldn't vote for Trump anymore. Surely this will have an impact on voters.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

So what...he lost what, a maximum of 28 votes. Are you so in awe of politicians that you base your presidential vote on who the governor of your state is voting for?

[Chicog]

I bet Pence is extremely relieved that this didn't come out before the VP debate!

 

But if he had any integrity he would withdraw from the ticket.

 

 

 

[keemapoot]

2 minutes ago, Chicog said:

I bet Pence is extremely relieved that this didn't come out before the VP debate!

 

But if he had any integrity he would withdraw from the ticket.

 

 

 

 

He needs to think in survival mode now. His career in politics is over if he doesn't withdraw I would think, unless the GOP leaders have a plan for him to somehow take the ticket and Trump withdraws or they dump Trump.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

I do socialise with men. Just not knuckle dragging, brain dead, sexist dinosaur types.

I meant not the girly ones.

[Cory1848]

19 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The point is that she didn't see such a serial sexual predator unfit for the presidency and insist he resign forthwith...but says someone who called a woman "fat" 20 years ago is unfit for the same office.

 

But, no, that’s not the point at all. Despite Bill Clinton’s affairs, by most accounts he was a not bad president and tremendously popular (despite well-founded criticisms of his repeal of parts of Glass-Steagall, perhaps his biggest screw-up). Some posters here have mentioned Kennedy, who was an inspiring president despite being a notorious womanizer. Trump, on the other hand, misogyny and bigotry and vileness of character aside, has shown no evidence that he would be anything but an utterly horrendous and destructive president -- his “policies” such as he’s been able to articulate them are either incoherent or absent. This “pussygate” business as one poster called it makes for a convenient flashpoint and is indeed revealing of character, but in the end it's other things that should qualify or disqualify a candidate from the presidency.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

I think you may have missed the sarcasm...

Social Justies are so humourless making it hard to tell.

[Chicog]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I meant not the girly ones.

 

I'm sure you did. You seem somewhat obsessed with them.

[mtls2005]

"Don't judge me by something I said 10 years ago, I'm a different person."

 

"Judge Hillary based on something her husband did 20 years ago."

 

OK. Sure. Doofus.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

.

Sorry, I haven't seen any of these molestation charges/convictions, perhaps you could elaborate.

 

 

Added: Although I did read this yesterday. The MSM seem to be covering it up.

 

Federal Judge Orders Hearing in Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit

You don't hear anything because lawsuits are just words on paper...they don't mean anything and aren't even presented under oath. Anyone can file one and say anything they want for any reason they want...kinda like all the lawsuits the New York Democratic Lapdog Attorney General keeps filing against Trump. Criminal complaints/indictments, on the otherhand, have to actually be sworn under oath by the attorney for the prosecuting government agency...that's why they're aren't any of those to be seen.

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

If you mean is audio evidence more convincing than whackjob innuendo, then you're right.

So you dismiss out of hand Monica's testimony and the semen stained dress...better be careful or Gloria Stinem will yank your NOW membership.

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Cory1848 said:

 

Forty percent and rapidly shrinking. As for "liberal shibboleths," I base my opinions on what the candidates actually say, and on what they've actually done. Every time Trump talks, his stupidity rings loud and clear. And please don't preach to me about "listening"; I listen plenty, and what I hear from diehard Trump supporters I find discouraging and unsettling.

Well I base mine on what they've DONE...especially when they are in government and acting in my name...so let's start with the vote for war in Iraq and the untold death, destruction, and cost that has caused the nation...and weigh that against calling someone fat and copping a feel...and I could go on and on.

[Chicog]

12 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

So you dismiss out of hand Monica's testimony and the semen stained dress...better be careful or Gloria Stinem will yank your NOW membership.

 

Yes, that was consensual.

You don't appear to have a keen grasp of the longer words, do you?

 

 

[amykat]

35 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

African-American art form...African Americans solid base of the Democratic Party...anyone else see any congnitive dissonance going on here?

 

I think you'll find the end of your sentence should end in ...logical fallacy.

[Mekong Thunder]

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

 

Well if Bill denied this I know who I would believe.

 

This is the guy who only a few days ago was saying a woman should not be elected president because her husband was unfaithful...  

 

Hillary has stood by he her husband... 

 

And Donald? how many wives? 

Seriously,the same Hillary that came out as bisexual therefore denouncing their marriage of 40-odd years as a complete sham?Then threw Billy Bob under the bus while standing on his face to climb the greasy pole to the Presidential race,do you live in a parallel universe or something?

[keemapoot]

BBC is rhetorically asking if Trump's campaign is over, while making the case that it is, and saying that Republicans will end it.  Yup.

 

Quote

"Because few Republican lawmakers have Muslim relatives. Few Republican lawmakers are of Mexican heritage. Few Republican lawmakers have faced discrimination based on the colour of their skin. But all of them have white female relatives. And therefore, when Trump talks about grabbing white women by the genitals, they can directly relate."

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595079

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Yes, that was consensual.

You don't appear to have a keen grasp of the longer words, do you?

 

 

Monica has said she was emotionally manipulated and groomed by Bill...hardly consensual...but you keep repeating that line to keep your Democratice Party bonifides intact.

[Mekong Thunder]

21 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You don't hear anything because lawsuits are just words on paper...they don't mean anything and aren't even presented under oath. Anyone can file one and say anything they want for any reason they want...kinda like all the lawsuits the New York Democratic Lapdog Attorney General keeps filing against Trump. Criminal complaints/indictments, on the otherhand, have to actually be sworn under oath by the attorney for the prosecuting government agency...that's why they're aren't any of those to be seen.

So nothing like Hillary being subpoenaed by the FBI and questioned pending criminal charges,regarding the missing 33,000 classified emails then in that case?

[Cory1848]

7 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Well I base mine on what they've DONE...especially when they are in government and acting in my name...so let's start with the vote for war in Iraq and the untold death, destruction, and cost that has caused the nation...and weigh that against calling someone fat and copping a feel...and I could go on and on.

 

Fair enough -- Hillary Clinton was one of 29 Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq resolution (21 voted nay; and Republican senators were 48 to 1 in favor). People tend to forget the patriotic fervor that was foisted on the nation by the Bush administration at the time -- I was in the US at the time, it was ugly and pervasive -- and politicians were under considerable pressure to express the will of their constituents, at least as they perceived it.

 

That's no excuse; Clinton's vote was wrong. However, she's admitted that; she's admitted that she was wrong. And to somehow imply that her single vote among scores of others (hundreds, include House votes) was solely responsible for the "death, destruction, and cost" that followed is a bit of a stretch. I would put the bulk of the blame for the mayhem in Iraq squarely where it belongs -- the neoliberal fantasies of the Bush administration.

[mtls2005]

Amazing that any of the donald's minions are trying to defend, deny, deflect and attack on but one of what will be an Advent Calendar of "surprises" by the great orange monster. Sure Sean Hannity and Roger Stone are to be counted on to battle all the way down, but seriously, save some your energy for the next 20 or so bombs to be dropped, some of which will be self-thrown by his own tiny fingers tweeting at 3 AM when his meds are petering out.

 

I think he will probably lose it during Sunday's debate and have to skulk away. His campaign has already canceled sizable media reservations in many key battleground states; this seems like capitulation. But I'm sure he'll try to burn the house down on his way out.

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 minute ago, Mekong Thunder said:

So nothing like Hillary being subpoenaed by the FBI and questioned pending criminal charges,regarding the missing 33,000 classified emails then in that case?

Or all her top-level state department aides taking the Fifth in their testimony before Congress. It's more important to obsess over calling a woman fat than Hillary's high crimes and misdemeanors.

[nemrut]

Many men have said some variation of what Trump claims as 'locker room talk.'  That said, many men would probably also be more discreet if they knew that they were being recorded for public viewing.

 

The fact that Trump showed little regard knowing his opinions would be aired, reveals a highly ego-centric sociopath.

[Cory1848]

23 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Well I base mine on what they've DONE...especially when they are in government and acting in my name...so let's start with the vote for war in Iraq and the untold death, destruction, and cost that has caused the nation...and weigh that against calling someone fat and copping a feel...and I could go on and on.

 

And further to the above, here's what Trump has proposed doing in Iraq. He wants to bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age and steal the oil as spoils of war. How he proposes to do this he hasn't specified, but it sure sounds like plenty of death, destruction, and cost. This is how Trump proposes to act "in your name" should he win the election, at least as far as Iraq (and Syria) are concerned. Does this sound like a good idea to you?

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

 

Fair enough -- Hillary Clinton was one of 29 Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq resolution (21 voted nay; and Republican senators were 48 to 1 in favor). People tend to forget the patriotic fervor that was foisted on the nation by the Bush administration at the time -- I was in the US at the time, it was ugly and pervasive -- and politicians were under considerable pressure to express the will of their constituents, at least as they perceived it.

 

That's no excuse; Clinton's vote was wrong. However, she's admitted that; she's admitted that she was wrong. And to somehow imply that her single vote among scores of others (hundreds, include House votes) was solely responsible for the "death, destruction, and cost" that followed is a bit of a stretch. I would put the bulk of the blame for the mayhem in Iraq squarely where it belongs -- the neoliberal fantasies of the Bush administration.

I'm not arguing that her single vote was the cause...only that her judment was bad...very bad...and that while it's nice she finally admitted that and apologized for it a decade later, that still doesn't erase the original error in judgment not did either action do anything to ameliorate the past and continuing damage that was done. It also shows, as you seem to admit, that she's certainly no "profile in courage" and to me that eliminates her from serious considderation for the presidency.

[mtls2005]

I'm sure the folks at Verizon are just thrilled at all the play this is getting..."Can you hear me now?"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/magazine/donald-trump-tape.html

 

I guess "furniture shopping" is one of those euphemisms from the 60's?

[Cory1848]

4 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'm not arguing that her single vote was the cause...only that her judment was bad...very bad...and that while it's nice she finally admitted that and apologized for it a decade later, that still doesn't erase the original error in judgment not did either action do anything to ameliorate the past and continuing damage that was done. It also shows, as you seem to admit, that she's certainly no "profile in courage" and to me that eliminates her from serious considderation for the presidency.

 

Well, OK, I agree -- she exercised bad judgment, in that vote; I wish she had voted otherwise. I wish that she had made stirring speeches in the Senate against the resolution, even in a losing cause. I think some Democrats probably did make such speeches; I don't recall. But hers was not a "profile in courage" on that occasion.

 

But if you count this as reason to disqualify her, whereas you seem happy to vote for Trump -- to my mind, to think of Trump as some sort of "profile in courage" is more than a little ludicrous! -- well, I simply disagree with your logic. Clinton has intelligence, knowledge, and the ability to reason; Trump, an empty shell, has none of these things.

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

 

And further to the above, here's what Trump has proposed doing in Iraq. He wants to bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age and steal the oil as spoils of war. How he proposes to do this he hasn't specified, but it sure sounds like plenty of death, destruction, and cost. This is how Trump proposes to act "in your name" should he win the election, at least as far as Iraq (and Syria) are concerned. Does this sound like a good idea to you?

That's just campaign rhetoric...you've heard the term: "Campaign in poetry...Govern in prose."

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

 

Well, OK, I agree -- she exercised bad judgment, in that vote; I wish she had voted otherwise. I wish that she had made stirring speeches in the Senate against the resolution, even in a losing cause. I think some Democrats probably did make such speeches; I don't recall. But hers was not a "profile in courage" on that occasion.

 

But if you count this as reason to disqualify her, whereas you seem happy to vote for Trump -- to my mind, to think of Trump as some sort of "profile in courage" is more than a little ludicrous! -- well, I simply disagree with your logic. Clinton has intelligence, knowledge, and the ability to reason; Trump, an empty shell, has none of these things.

So that's why she voted for the Iraq war...you're not helping your case here. Hillary has been in government in one capacity or another for 30 years and we know her record...failed healthcare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagal (techincally on Bill's watch but are you going to argue they didn't have pillow-talk conversations about decisions he made), unalloewed support for Wall Street and the rape of the US Treasury and taxpayers during the lead up to and after the 2008 financial collapse, her support for the ouster of the Quadafi regime in Libya and all that has followed from that. The point is that Hillary has a record in government and it isn't a good one...and I'm not one to support giving her up to 8 more years at the very tip-top of that government.

 

PS: Please note I'm not even taking into account her collosal misjudment in the emal server fiasco, which again shows the bad judgment that follows this woman around like a bad rash...I know I know, she has appoligized for that too after the fact and eqivocating on it for months so that makes it ok I guess.

[Cory1848]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

That's just campaign rhetoric...you've heard the term: "Campaign in poetry...Govern in prose."

 

No it's not -- it's what he said, on several occasions. And it's not very poetic, at least to my ears! Trump supporters consistently claim that Trump's plainspokenness, his no-BS approach, is what they admire most about him. So suddenly, when he says something screwy (which is 95 percent of the time), it's all just rhetoric and poetry, in other words BS? Why shouldn't I take him for his word? Isn't that what's so great about him?

 

One thing that's clear, though, is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. On some occasions, rather than the US plundering foreign oil, he's suggested that Russia should take care of ISIS. On other occasions -- private meetings with defense advisers, which should be campaign-rhetoric-free zones -- he's asked repeatedly why the US can't use its nuclear arsenal. I honestly don't believe, should he somehow find his way in the White House, that he'd lead us straight to nuclear war -- I'm not a total alarmist, and someone would manage to put a lid on him -- but the whole picture here is one of a man who has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about.