Trump is vulgar towards women?

[Abbey Marie]

In light of the latest "expose" on Trump's comments about women:

1. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know that this is how many men talk
2. No modern-day President was a bigger hound than JFK and Clinton were

Next problem?

[pete311]

The rationalizing and excuses for this degenerate Muppet is truly unprecedented. I really do think he could shoot a person on the street in cold blood and it wouldn't faze his supporters. As a man I am insulted by that talk. That is a creepy old married man talking not some high school jock in the lockeroom after a home coming win.

[Abbey Marie]

The rationalizing and excuses for this degenerate Muppet is truly unprecedented. I really do think he could shot a person on the street in cold blood and it wouldn't faze his supporters.

Well, Hillary already has. Voting for her, Pete?

[Kathianne]

I don't know any men that speak about women like that. Then again, I don't know any women that would act in personal life or public life like Hillary.

I'm voting for Johnson, because he IS the best choice out of the 3.

[pete311]

Well, Hillary already has. Voting for her, Pete?

Source

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know any men that speak about women like that. Then again, I don't know any women that would act in personal life or public life like Hillary.

I'm voting for Johnson, because he IS the best choice out of the 3.

The thing is, they don't talk like that in front of us. Be a fly on the wall when a bunch of guys go to lunch together from work and you may hear a different story. So I am told.

[Abbey Marie]

Source


Lol, open your eyes and ears, my friend.

[pete311]

The thing is, they don't talk like that in front of us. Be a fly on the wall when a bunch of guys go to lunch together from work and you may hear a different story. So I am told.

As a man who's played sports all his life and hits the bars every weekend this is not so. Maybe for the degenerate men out there. But then again I don't want them as POTUS.

[revelarts]

If Obama talked about woman the same way would it be forgivable?
If Obama said miss universe looked like miss piggy, and call her "miss housekeeping" would that be OK?
If Obama said that Megan Kelly was being "mean" and had 'blood coming out of everywhere' would that be fine?
many men talk like that. right. men say stuff like that to you or about you publicly all the time at work right?
Heck if Reagan said it wouldn't it sound weird... out of character.... LOW class?

[Russ]

The rationalizing and excuses for this degenerate Muppet is truly unprecedented. I really do think he could shot a person on the street in cold blood and it wouldn't faze his supporters.

Strange you should say that, Pete, because the exact same thing has been said about Bill Clinton for about 25 years. And in his case, there is actual rape and molestation involved, and it is verifiable. And the exact same thing has been said about Hillary, also, except that you have to change the word "he" to "she". I think. Dems and the media did not seem to be bothered by those things for the last 25 years, if it involved the Clintons.

I do not like the way Trump behaves in the tape, but it not surprising or disappointing because I already knew he was like this. I still support him because I already knew that in every area Trump is bad, Hillary is much worse. And Trump at least has the advantage that he can actually bring jobs back to this country.

[Abbey Marie]

As a man who's played sports all his life and hits the bars every weekend this is not so. Maybe for the degenerate men out there. But then again I don't want them as POTUS.


Congratulations for leading a perfect life.

[Kathianne]

The thing is, they don't talk like that in front of us. Be a fly on the wall when a bunch of guys go to lunch together from work and you may hear a different story. Or so I am told.


Actually I don't think so, not the type of guys I've always hung with and been related to. Obviously the ex was not a nice guy, but he never would talk about women like that. Actually I don't know any guys that wouldn't be offended by any other guy saying some of those words.

I've known women that have forgiven a cheating spouse, but never have I heard them overlook those indiscretions as it were. Quite the contrary. No excuses.

The public behavior of the Clintons regarding policies, rules, etc., do not bode well for our future.

[pete311]

Strange you should say that, Pete, because the exact same thing has been said about Bill Clinton for about 25 years. And in his case, there is actual rape and molestation involved, and it is verifiable. And the exact same thing has been said about Hillary, also, except that you have to change the word "he" to "she". I think. And Dems and the media did not care for that entire 25 years.


Bill is a piece of shit. I'll never forgive him for not acting on the Rwanda genocide.


Congratulations for leading a perfect life.

I'm sorry you support and defend such nasty discourse towards your own gender.

[Abbey Marie]

If Obama talked about woman the same way would it be forgivable?
If Obama said miss universe looked like miss piggy, and call her "miss housekeeping" would that be OK?
If Obama said that Megan Kelly was being "mean" and had 'blood coming out of everywhere' would that be fine?
many men talk like that. right. men say stuff like that to you all the time at work right?
Heck if Reagan said it wouldn't it sound weird... out of character.... LOW class?


None of it is nice, or moral, or "OK". And I never claimed Trump was a great guy. But it's an infinity better than a man or a woman who is in favor of partial birth abortion, or a woman who is responsible for deaths in Benghazi, or who will appoint liberal judges who will erode our Constitutional rights down to a nub. Etc., etc. etc.

[Abbey Marie]

Actually I don't think so, not the type of guys I've always hung with and been related to. Obviously the ex was not a nice guy, but he never would talk about women like that. Actually I don't know any guys that wouldn't be offended by any other guy saying some of those words.

I've known women that have forgiven a cheating spouse, but never have I heard them overlook those indiscretions as it were. Quite the contrary. No excuses.

The public behavior of the Clintons regarding policies, rules, etc., do not bode well for our future.


We will have to disagree. The way many men talk when women are not around can be appalling. And they will certainly not be telling us about it.

[pete311]

None of it is nice, or moral, or "OK". And I never claimed Trump was a great guy. But it's an infinity better than a man or a woman who is in favor of partial birth abortion, or a woman who is responsible for deaths in Benghazi, or who will appoint liberal judges who will erode our Constitutional rights down to a nub. Etc., etc. etc.

I get that, those positions are fine, but that doesn't mean you have to defend such comments from your guy. This is like a ​Stockholm syndrome.

[Abbey Marie]

Bill is a piece of shit. I'll never forgive him for not acting on the Rwanda genocide.



I'm sorry you support and defend such nasty discourse towards your own gender.

False conclusion. Typical Dem pretzel logic.

[Russ]

I'm sorry you support and defend such nasty discourse towards your own gender.

She is not supporting or defending it, so don't imply that she is, "Pete". And watch your mouth.

[pete311]

She is not supporting or defending it, so don't imply that she is, "Pete". And watch your mouth.

Her thread starter is a defense. Watch my mouth?

[hjmick]

He'll probably land a deal to direct a big budget historical drama for Hollywood...

[Kathianne]

Character does matter, at the very least that one does make an attempt to cover their flaws, an acknowledgment that they know what their flaws are. JFK being an example. He was a dirtbag with women, but did try to keep a cover on it, at least as well as a seriously ill drug addict could.

Presidents being human, many have covered many faults, mostly with the willing help of the press. Now they try to do that with whom they support, but even then it becomes a race to air what they can find. (See Clinton and two missing bank boxes re: emails).

When the flaws are aired though, it seems there are good reasons for the 'citizens' to say, "No. Not acceptable." That's not happening today, not with Trump. Not with Clinton.

[Abbey Marie]

Her thread starter is a defense. Watch my mouth?

Anyone who knows me here knows I have no tolerance for vulgarity.
It's a comparison to your guys. I guess I could conclude that you are defending them.

[Russ]

Her thread starter is a defense. Watch my mouth?

It sounded like you were trying to imply things about Abbey. If you weren't, then let's drop it.

[revelarts]

None of it is nice, or moral, or "OK". And I never claimed Trump was a great guy. But it's an infinity better than a man or a woman who is in favor of partial birth abortion, or a woman who is responsible for deaths in Benghazi, or who will appoint liberal judges who will erode our Constitutional rights down to a nub. Etc., etc. etc.

At lest I can understand THAT.
But you claimed that "MANY MEN" talk like that and Clinton was/is a rapist and JFK was nearly one tooo....
So the implied ...THEREFORE IT's OK that Trump is a scumbag to women.... when you say "next problem" as if it his scumbaggery is NOT a problem.

If you're now saying that you're willing to put up with low view of and his crapping on women on regular basis because Clinton would be worse policy wise.
that's a different story.
If you're willing to live with it fine, Ok, but lets not make excuses for it.

[hjmick]

Anyone who knows me here knows I have no tolerance for vulgarity.
It's a comparison to your guys. I guess I could conclude that you are defending them.


Surely no one would defend a woman who enables a rapist and philanderer by assassinating the character of his accusers...

[Abbey Marie]

At lest I can understand THAT.
But you claimed that "MANY MEN" talk like that and Clinton was rapist and JFK was nearly one tooo....
So the implied ...THEREFORE IT's OK that Trump is scumbag to women.... when you say "next problem" as if it his scumbaggery is NOT a problem.

If you're now saying that you're willing to put up with low view of and his crapping on women on regular basis because Clinton would be worse policy wise. that's a different story.
If you're willing to live with it fine, Ok, but lets not make excuses for it.


I see this "outrage" by many people (not everyone; certainly not you and Kathianne) as hypocrisy, because I know that this kind of behavior is all too common. Believe me, I've had my share of being on the receiving end of bad behavior by men. I guess I've lived long enough to have faced reality.

It also kills me that people can be "so outraged" while they happily accept a society that adores and values beauty and sex above all else. Women who think Fifty Shades of Grey and Mistresses are fine entertainment, but this is unacceptable? Hypocrisy.

Again, present company excepted.

[Kathianne]

Anyone who knows me here knows I have no tolerance for vulgarity.
It's a comparison to your guys. I guess I could conclude that you are defending them.

I've never known you to be vulgar. Today's riff off of one of Tyr's posts actually mildly shocked me!

Truth is, this election, these candidates, have added to the coarsening of our culture. It will remain when they are gone. It's a continuation of the legacy of Bill Clinton, this time though both parties are in on it.

So now we have our 'October surprise,' and it mentions, 'grabbing women by their p****.' Different indeed, but right up there with the unacceptable response to Benghazi or to the FBI basically giving both Clinton and Obama a pass on emails-

It's all unacceptable and as noted by Abbey, foreseeable by the characters of both candidates. Yet, both have garnered enough supporters to be the two finalists for the presidency of the US. Both of their supporters either excuse the character issue or say, "Better than the other..."

[pete311]

It also kills me that people can be "so outraged" while they happily accept a society that adores and values beauty and sex above all else. Women who think Fifty Shades of Grey and Mistresses are fine entertainment, but this is unacceptable? Hypocrisy.

We should hold those with the nuclear codes to a higher standard than average joe plummers.

[Abbey Marie]

Surely no one would defend a woman who enables a rapist and philanderer by assassinating the character of his accusers...

Surely...

:clap:

[Kathianne]

I see this "outrage" by many people (not everyone; certainly not you and Kathianne) as hypocrisy, because I know that this kind of behavior is all to common. Believe me, I've had my share of being on the receiving end of bad behavior by men. I guess I've lived long enough to have faced reality.

It also kills me that people can be "so outraged" while they happily accept a society that adores and values beauty and sex above all else. Women who think Fifty Shades of Grey and Mistresses are fine entertainment, but this is unacceptable? Hypocrisy.

Again, present company excepted.

I agree with all you just said, the difference is while those with these types of characters have always been amongst us, when made known, they would have been shunned by the public if running for office. Not now. They are applauded and cheered and called 'radical' and 'ground breaking' and 'needed to shake things up.'

I'm always reminded of 'no good coming out of bad.'

We are where we are today.

[Russ]

At lest I can understand THAT.

If you're now saying that you're willing to put up with low view of and his crapping on women on regular basis because Clinton would be worse policy wise.

Clinton is not just worse in terms of policy. She is worse in terms of morals, too.

Would you say Hillary knew Juanita Broderick was being honest about being raped by Bill? And yet Hillary attacked her and did her best to ruin her life. Would you say Hillary knew her defendent was guilty of raping 12-year-old Kathy Shelton, when she put that 12-year-old on the stand and attacked her?

Let's face it, Trump has problems but Hillary has many more.

[Abbey Marie]

We should hold those with the nuclear codes to a higher standard than average joe plummers.


So, a vulgar guy cannot handle nuclear codes? I wait breathlessly for the logical connection.

[Kathianne]

I remember that Clinton's were said to be gathering lots of stuff on Trump, many said that 'they must not have found anything or it would have been released by now.' It's October 7 and there's still a bit more than a month to the election. Smart money would say that there's more to come.

Trump has not been under the years of scrutiny that the Clinton's have been. Nothing will surprise the electorate about the Clintons. Add to the fact that we now know she's being protected by the White House, DOJ, FBI, and likely the IRS is dumping Trump's tax info out there. Then there's the whole MSM that will spin for her, if things do come up. Trump has Hannity.

The 'unfairness' of the Hillary advantage doesn't mitigate Trump's flaws. Nor do his make her's disappear.

One of these jewels is going to lead this country, which will put 'fail' on this:


Alexis de Tocqueville (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville) > Quotes (https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville) > Quotable Quotehttps://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1448356574p2/465.jpg (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville)“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”




― Alexis de Tocqueville (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville)

[aboutime]

We should hold those with the nuclear codes to a higher standard than average joe plummers.


Hey pete. Why don't you talk about the same outrage over Hillary and her treatment-vulgarity toward women?
Then again. Why would a Hillary supporter say anything HONEST about her?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/12/hillary-clintons-vulgarity-makes-trump-look-like-shakespeare/

Don't forget Hillary calling half of Americans DEPLORABLE....http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/

[Drummond]

No hostile, sanctimonious (- whatever ! -) judgementality is intended by my following remark, folks. But American elections are known, over here, to be overly steeped in 'dirty tricks' fighting.

As I see it, this latest 'revelation' just proves my point. An effort has been made to dig up 'dirt' on Trump, so as to discredit him as a 'fit' candidate for the POTUS position.

This latest issue ... didn't Trump say this at least a DECADE ago ?? Was Trump, back then, dreaming of / aspiring to become your President ? I hardly think so. No, a consideration of the full context and circumstances should surely place this in 'storm in a teacup' territory.

I'd suggest a consideration be given to the squalid motivation behind releasing such 'material'. The moral fiber of the dirt-diggers who gleefully disseminate all this kind of stuff, to say nothing of all those who feed off of it.

And I'd also suggest, when considering how condemnatory the likes of Hillary Clinton will of course be, just how willing she was to remain allied with a wife-abuser, such as can be reasonably said for Bill Clinton .. when he was busily abusing his own marriage to Hillary with his extra-marital activities involving Monica Lewinsky !

[Elessar]

The thing is, they don't talk like that in front of us. Be a fly on the wall when a bunch of guys go to lunch together from work and you may hear a different story. So I am told.

Be a fly on the wall when women get together and gossip!
It works both ways.

Me? I avoid such conversation.

[aboutime]

No hostile, sanctimonious (- whatever ! -) judgementality is intended by my following remark, folks. But American elections are known, over here, to be overly steeped in 'dirty tricks' fighting.

As I see it, this latest 'revelation' just proves my point. An effort has been made to dig up 'dirt' on Trump, so as to discredit him as a 'fit' candidate for the POTUS position.

This latest issue ... didn't Trump say this at least a DECADE ago ?? Was Trump, back then, dreaming of / aspiring to become your President ? I hardly think so. No, a consideration of the full context and circumstances should surely place this in 'storm in a teacup' territory.

I'd suggest a consideration be given to the squalid motivation behind releasing such 'material'. The moral fiber of the dirt-diggers who gleefully disseminate all this kind of stuff, to say nothing of all those who feed off of it.

And I'd also suggest, when considering how condemnatory the likes of Hillary Clinton will of course be, just how willing she was to remain allied with a wife-abuser, such as can be reasonably said for Bill Clinton .. when he was busily abusing his own marriage to Hillary with his extra-marital activities involving Monica Lewinsky !



Sir Drummond. Agreed. And you already know....many of us know how the rest of the World is laughing at us as well. Our History is steeped in this kind of political, school-yard, bully talk.
GOD SAVE US ALL????

[Kathianne]

Well I do find the behavior unacceptable, as I've always found the Clinton's.

With that said, this story is the bait to make sure the 'cool and controlled' Trump does not show up at the next debate, which is about 48 hours away.

[aboutime]

Well I do find the behavior unacceptable, as I've always found the Clinton's.

With that said, this story is the bait to make sure the 'cool and controlled' Trump does not show up at the next debate, which is about 48 hours away.


Kathianne. Unfortunately for the Clinton gang. Just the opposite will probably take place. TRUMP is not only good at throwing MUD, but he knows how the Democrats originated the DIRTY TRICKS they learned from NIXON. So Clinton's advisers will make the mistake of trying to THROW the mud, but it won't be sticking to any WALL, without them first SMEARING themselves in the DUNG.

[Elessar]

We should hold those with the nuclear codes to a higher standard than average joe plummers.

Where did that come from in the OP?

Inventing trouble again?

[Abbey Marie]

Be a fly on the wall when women get together and gossip!
It works both ways.

Me? I avoid such conversation.

Gossip, certainly. Vulgarity, not my experience with women. Though I will agree that younger women today seem much more vulgar than previous generations. At least if their language is any indication.

[Abbey Marie]

Well I do find the behavior unacceptable, as I've always found the Clinton's.

With that said, this story is the bait to make sure the 'cool and controlled' Trump does not show up at the next debate, which is about 48 hours away.


Interesting point. I've not yet decided whether I will even watch this one.

[Kathianne]

Gossip, certainly. Vulgarity, not my experience with women. Though I will agree that younger women today seem much more vulgar than previous generations. At least if their language is any indication.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Then there's the whole 'what is sex' discussion that was a daily part of our news. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html)

As I said earlier, the coarseness began then. Think it will improve with either Trump or Clinton? I don't. It will worsen and yes, the 'people' are voting for one or the other, knowing this.

[Noir]

Haven't seen the video but given the reaction here I imagine it's not pleasant. Trump supporters are finding themselves defending/supporting and candidate that's getting worse and worse becuase their only viewpoint is Clinton or Republican nominee.
I guess in these final weeks we'll see how much folks are willing to bend to that.

[Drummond]

Haven't seen the video but given the reaction here I imagine it's not pleasant. Trump supporters are finding themselves defending/supporting and candidate that's getting worse and worse becuase their only viewpoint is Clinton or Republican nominee.
I guess in these final weeks we'll see how much folks are willing to bend to that.

.. So tell me, Noir. Have you ever said anything lamentable, something you later regretted, or at least, chose to consign to the 'dustbin of history' .. ? AND ... if you ever had, would you - now, today, A DECADE LATER - consider that it should be made public knowledge without your permission, and most particularly, be used to define your very character and worth as a person ??

This is what 'storm in a teacup' rot such as this latest 'Trump revelation' really amounts to.

In my view, dissemination of this reflects badly on those choosing to aid that dissemination. I choose not to try and understand the mentality that would glory in such an act.

[Kathianne]

Haven't seen the video but given the reaction here I imagine it's not pleasant. Trump supporters are finding themselves defending/supporting and candidate that's getting worse and worse becuase their only viewpoint is Clinton or Republican nominee.
I guess in these final weeks we'll see how much folks are willing to bend to that.

Trump's support appears solid for 40%, how much more he'll get? He's gone up, right now is down-but it's obvious whatever gains he gets have been and will be soft above that 40%.

Clinton doesn't seem to fair much better, even her supporters don't like her. However, her 'base' seems to be 44-45% which gives her a substantial advantage.

The reaction of Trump in the next 48 will be interesting. Seems his defense, which his base is buying is that 'it's guy talk, Bill Clinton said worse on the golf course.' One is judged by the company one keeps. Birds of a feather...

Anyways going to be interesting how this plays out, along with the wikileaks just released about Clinton and donor speeches.

[Elessar]

Haven't seen the video but given the reaction here I imagine it's not pleasant. Trump supporters are finding themselves defending/supporting and candidate that's getting worse and worse becuase their only viewpoint is Clinton or Republican nominee.
I guess in these final weeks we'll see how much folks are willing to bend to that.

How ignorant can you be?

21 year old intern gives an 50 year old man a blow-job, and he says "I did not have sex with
that woman"? Bullshit.

When your boyfriend sucks on you and pleasures you, is that not having sex? When you
do the same; is that not having sex?

Your complaint is weak, as usual.

[Kathianne]

How ignorant can you be?

21 year old intern gives an 50 year old man a blow-job, and he says "I did not have sex with
that woman"? Bullshit.

When your boyfriend sucks on you and pleasures you, is that not having sex? When you
do the same; is that not having sex?

Your complaint is weak, as usual.

Actually I don't think this response actually addresses what Noir wrote. What we're seeing from the responses-here and elsewhere is 'It's about sex, nothing to see here.' Oh, add on that Trump didn't grab or anything-not on the video.

The lack of looking at character, that it really isn't important, really started with Clinton and a similar lack of outrage at his behavior.

Most folks will point to Watergate as the 'beginnings of the problems,' but let's remember that Nixon was guilty of aiding a cover-up of a crime, not taking part in the crime. He resigned.

[Noir]

.. So tell me, Noir. Have you ever said anything lamentable, something you later regretted, or at least, chose to consign to the 'dustbin of history' .. ? AND ... if you ever had, would you - now, today, A DECADE LATER - consider that it should be made public knowledge without your permission, and most particularly, be used to define your very character and worth as a person ??

This is what 'storm in a teacup' rot such as this latest 'Trump revelation' really amounts to.

In my view, dissemination of this reflects badly on those choosing to aid that dissemination. I choose not to try and understand the mentality that would glory in such an act.

Wow, I have just seen the statements, under any reasonable circumstances Trump should be dead in the water, I know for a fact I have never talked about women like that. What a disgrace of a person he is to have done so.

People will still vote for him becuase he's 'not Clinton and has the best chance of beating her' but seriously, ugh.

Also to your point, yes what people have done/said in their lives (even a whole decade ago - ten whole years omg!) should be considered when running for public office, which brings into question how Clinton and Trump ever got near the top of their respective tickets.

[Noir]

How ignorant can you be?

21 year old intern gives an 50 year old man a blow-job, and he says "I did not have sex with
that woman"? Bullshit.

When your boyfriend sucks on you and pleasures you, is that not having sex? When you
do the same; is that not having sex?

Your complaint is weak, as usual.

This has litterally nothing to do with what I posted.

[Kathianne]

Wow, I have just seen the statements, under any reasonable circumstances Trump should be dead in the water, I know for a fact I have never talked about women like that. What a disgrace of a person he is to have done so.

People will still vote for him becuase he's 'not Clinton and has the best chance of beating her' but seriously, ugh.

Also to your point, yes what people have done/said in their lives (even a whole decade ago - ten whole years omg!) should be considered when running for public office, which brings into question how Clinton and Trump ever got near the top of their respective tickets.
Ah, but Hillary's husband has done much worse, she's known it, aided and abetted it. She's called women he groped and allegedly raped names that go along with this topic of conversation.

Then there are her own misdeeds.

There isn't a good candidate to vote for. So I'll be voting for the one that is honest-to a fault-and seems to be at least hold some personal level of character.

[Noir]

Ah, but Hillary's husband has done much worse, she's known it, aided and abetted it. She's called women he groped and allegedly raped names that go along with this topic of conversation.

Then there are her own misdeeds.

There isn't a good candidate to vote for. So I'll be voting for the one that is honest-to a fault-and seems to be at least hold some personal level of character.

Spot on.

For the Trump supporters wondering 'how can anyone support Clinton after what she's done' consider what you are supporting, and wonder how you're still supporting him.

[Kathianne]

Spot on.

For the Trump supporters wondering 'how can anyone support Clinton after what she's done' consider what you are supporting, and wonder how you're still supporting him.

and seriously to any Clinton supporters, though I think that means Gabby here. She's alone. LOL!

[Drummond]

Wow, I have just seen the statements, under any reasonable circumstances Trump should be dead in the water, I know for a fact I have never talked about women like that.

Glorying in this, aren't you, Noir ?

So tell me, Noir. Do a person's outlook and opinions never change ? Do contexts for remarks never play a part in their true meaning or worth ? What we're discussing here is at least a DECADE old - and covers a scenario far removed from one involving electioneering, or anything involved in the duties and responsibilities of the job being sought.

You've never talked about women in such a fashion ? Well, congratulations. But if you HAD, would it be reasonable for everyone to assume that in the following decade, there could never have come a time when you reappraised your comments ? OR, would you simply have moved on from them, as people DO in life .. ?


What a disgrace of a person he is to have done so.

As I said, you're glorying in this. Let me guess ... you're, ahem, 'politically neutral' :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ....


Also to your point, yes what people have done/said in their lives (even a whole decade ago - ten whole years omg!) should be considered when running for public office, which brings into question how Clinton and Trump ever got near the top of their respective tickets.

Nobody ever evolves their attitudes and thinking generally ? Noir, when I was a teenager, I was, for a time, myself a Leftie. BUT I LEARNED MY LESSON. These days, I hate the Left with a passion you can probably not hope to imagine.

But from your argument, I can have no 'right' to ever move my actions and opinions towards something far more decent and reputable .. and if I do, I must nonetheless be forever tarred and feathered by my past mistakes.

Well -- sorry, Noir. Life just isn't like that. Reality is different. People aren't fossilised, unbending, throughout life.

If they were ... as an example ... and were the fossilisation to become absolute, say, in the early 1980's, in Britain ... should we in the UK have forever elected Conservative Governments with landslide victories ?

My guess, Noir, is that you'd very sharply disagree. YET ... the logic of your position must be that opinions, values, culpability for actions taken, should forever remain in force and continue to define the reality of people.

In which case ... I look forward to your disapproval of anything other than landslide Conservative victories !!

[Kathianne]

I'd love to see someone point out where Trump says he was wrong to talk like that. Hasn't happened. What he said was that 'he'd heard worse from Bill Clinton on the golf course.' Then he says if anyone was offended, he apologizes. Non-apology, but more than he's done in the past.

Both Trump and Clinton are dogs with fleas. Those that lie down with them...

[revelarts]

We will have to disagree. The way many men talk when women are not around can be appalling. And they will certainly not be telling us about it.


I have to comment on this.
and just say It depends on the men.
Like Noir I don't talk about woman like that. (concerning one of trumps insults ..well in fact I like women on the plump side.)
But as far as talking about them like pieces of meat all the time. in general. nope. Teenage boys Ok maybe.
But not most guys.
I drove a cab for while not to long ago and picked up a lot of guys going to and coming from parties/bars/clubs and i have to say on a consistent bases mainly the young NAVY guys talked like that about women. and not ALL of them. but I've driven PLENTY who did. There were groups of "civilian guys" ...20 somethings in age... that talked like that as well. but not as consistently. Just saying my experience. Some college guys would go there but not to the point that you got the impression that they really disrespected woman. It sounded mainly like "guy talk" not so much guy belief or real attitude.
But sad to say some... to many... of the navy guys sounded heartless and abusive in their conquest and dismissive talk and stories of women.

If you want to test what sober guys think about women. put a mic in a few barber shops... not the bars.
If you're wondering what men secretly say about women. I'll tell you.
We love women... until we don't and we generally think all woman are a bit crazy. that sums it up i think.

But guys that generally call women names and think of them only a sex object, or are only always looking for their own version of beauty and personal service from women are generally douch bags kind of guys, no matter their money, talent or position.
Like other bad behavior it's just part of the dark side of the human condition. Some people can't seem to grasp the concept of treating ALL humans with respect.

[Kathianne]

I have to comment on this.
and just say It depends on the men.
Like Noir I don't talk about woman like that. (concerning one of trumps insults ..well in fact I like women on the plump side.)
But as far as talking about them like pieces of meat all the time. in general. nope. Teenage boys Ok maybe.
But not most guys.
I drove a cab for while not to long ago and picked up a lot of guys going to and coming from parties and i have to say on a constant bases mainly the young NAVY guys talked like that about women. and not ALL of them. but I have to PLENTY did. There were groups of "civilian guys" 20 somethings in age that talked like that as well. but not as consistently. Just saying my experience. Some college guys would go there but not to point that you get the impression that they really disrespected woman. It was mainly "guy talk" not so much guy belief or real attitude.
But sad to say some , to many, of the navy guys sounded heartless and abusive in their conquest and dismissiveness toward women.

If you want to test what sober guys think about women. put a mic in a few barber shops... not the bars.
If you're wondering what men secretly say about women. I'll tell you.
We love women... until we don't and we generally think all woman are a bit crazy. that sums it up i think.

But guys that generally call women names and think of them only a sex object, or only always look for their own version of beauty in women are generally douch bags kind of guys, no matter their money, talent or position.
Like other bad behavior it's just part of the dark side of the human condition. Some people can't seem to grasp the concept of treating ALL humans with respect.


I think you stated this pretty well. As I said, I don't think any of the guys I've associated with, including nearly all here, would think this was acceptable behavior if they were present. Grown men do not act like this, not ones that work, marry, and have kids. Teens? Some no doubt, proving themselves 'male,' without a clue. I'll take your word on the Navy guys, though the ones I've known I'd hope not.

Do I think guys might say, "She's cute or hot?" Sure. Women do the same. Then again, even if you might say something 'inappropriate' with a close friend, would you with a relative stranger? In a work environment? That is what this was.

According to WaPo this happened in Sept '05, he married in Jan. '05. Son born in '06. He would have been in his late 50's, far from those teens and twenties.

[Noir]

Glorying in this, aren't you, Noir ?

So tell me, Noir. Do a person's outlook and opinions never change ? Do contexts for remarks never play a part in their true meaning or worth ? What we're discussing here is at least a DECADE old - and covers a scenario far removed from one involving electioneering, or anything involved in the duties and responsibilities of the job being sought.

You've never talked about women in such a fashion ? Well, congratulations. But if you HAD, would it be reasonable for everyone to assume that in the following decade, there could never have come a time when you reappraised your comments ? OR, would you simply have moved on from them, as people DO in life .. ?

You have completely lost your way in an effort to defend this guy Drummond, recognise that.


As I said, you're glorying in this. Let me guess ... you're, ahem, 'politically neutral' :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ....

When have I ever said I'm politically neutral?




Nobody ever evolves their attitudes and thinking generally ? Noir, when I was a teenager, I was, for a time, myself a Leftie. BUT I LEARNED MY LESSON. These days, I hate the Left with a passion you can probably not hope to imagine.

But from your argument, I can have no 'right' to ever move my actions and opinions towards something far more decent and reputable .. and if I do, I must nonetheless be forever tarred and feathered by my past mistakes.

Well -- sorry, Noir. Life just isn't like that. Reality is different. People aren't fossilised, unbending, throughout life.

If they were ... as an example ... and were the fossilisation to become absolute, say, in the early 1980's, in Britain ... should we in the UK have forever elected Conservative Governments with landslide victories ?

My guess, Noir, is that you'd very sharply disagree. YET ... the logic of your position must be that opinions, values, culpability for actions taken, should forever remain in force and continue to define the reality of people.

In which case ... I look forward to your disapproval of anything other than landslide Conservative victories !!

We are talking about a 60 year old man bragging about getting away with sexually assaulting women becuase he could 'get away with it'. This isn't a teenager changing political affiliation. He couldn't even give a non-conditional apology first time around... and judging by the reactions of Trump Staffers and GOP Sens/Reps on Twitter this could well be a death blow to his campaign.

Maybe the GOP will be able to wisk in somebody who isn't dreadful and Clinton can be stopped...a slim chance but a chance nonetheless.

[Kathianne]

There's no excuse for Trump's vulgar behavior.

There's no excuse for Bill's behaviors, which went beyond his golf course talk.

and there's no excuse for Hillary's attacking the victims:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430081/she-threatened-me-juanita-broaddrick-hillarys-role-covering-bill-clinton?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=tuttle?utm_campaign%3Dbroaddrick

[revelarts]

I think you stated this pretty well. As I said, I don't think any of the guys I've associated with, including nearly all here, would think this was acceptable behavior if they were present. Grown men do not act like this, not ones that work, marry, and have kids. Teens? Some no doubt, proving themselves 'male,' without a clue. I'll take your word on the Navy guys, though the ones I've known I'd hope not.

Do I think guys might say, "She's cute or hot?" Sure. Women do the same. Then again, even if you might say something 'inappropriate' with a close friend, would you with a relative stranger? In a work environment? That is what this was.

According to WaPo this happened in Sept '05, he married in Jan. '05. Son born in '06. He would have been in his late 50's, far from those teens and twenties.

Yeah it's pretty sad.

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/30/76/b4/3076b4138bb050aeab68c4478f2eea00.jpg

[Drummond]

You have completely lost your way in an effort to defend this guy Drummond, recognise that.

Actually, no, I haven't ...

I recognise reality for what it is. Reality isn't static. Reality moves with the changing of circumstances, perspectives, contexts. You cannot possibly 'know' that Trump is exactly the same person, today, that he was a decade ago. Besides, the applicability of due context itself plays a part. Noir, you're too busily being fossilised in your thinking - in order to further your Leftie agenda ? - to recognise any of that.


When have I ever said I'm politically neutral?

Well, exactly.

My sense of humour sometimes intrudes in the most ludicrous of ways ....


We are talking about a 60 year old man ...

Nope.

We're talking about a man older than that. Someone who passed his 60th birthday quite some time ago.

We're talking about a man who WAS sixty years old, quite a few years ago, who said things back then which he may well not say now. You can't know I'm wrong. BUT, you insist upon tarring and feathering him for something which goes back into Trump's history, from a scenario and under circumstances not represented today.


bragging about getting away with sexually assaulting women becuase he could 'get away with it'. This isn't a teenager changing political affiliation. He couldn't even give a non-conditional apology first time around... and judging by the reactions of Trump Staffers and GOP Sens/Reps on Twitter this could well be a death blow to his campaign.

Oh, you wish !! As you said, you never claimed political neutrality .. and it shows. You have your agenda. You are pursuing it, of course.

The only real question is, to what extent will others choose to follow you, and support you, while you do so, and to what degree ...


Maybe the GOP will be able to wisk in somebody who isn't dreadful and Clinton can be stopped...a slim chance but a chance nonetheless.

You want Clinton stopped ? Really ?? :rolleyes:

If you're even halfway serious about your suggestion, I'm sure that you'd calibrate such a 'less dreadful' figure according to the extent he or she bent to Left-wing thinking.

Be honest, Noir. That's what you'd hope for. You fear a Trump Presidency because you dislike the capacity Trump would have to steer America to a far more Right-wing future.

[aboutime]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/30/76/b4/3076b4138bb050aeab68c4478f2eea00.jpg


rev. YOU should get out more. Guess you haven't had the chance to see, or hear young women, teenagers, and twenty-something's in a movie theater, or a Mall.
If you are convinced Trump used terrible language....you need to hear those young women, out in public, even bragging about their SEXUAL achievements without fear of personal responsibility taking place.

As for all the other Whiners complaining about Trump. Too bad you ignored the same charges from Hillary. Hypocrisy like this is NON-PARTISAN.

By the way. Many of those younger females RESENT being called Ladies, Young Ladies, Girls, or anything else. Most of them are insulted with the use of actual WORDS...that aren't part of a TEXT.

[Elessar]

This has litterally nothing to do with what I posted.

It does.

You choose to deny it.

[revelarts]

rev. YOU should get out more. Guess you haven't had the chance to see, or hear young women, teenagers, and twenty-something's in a movie theater, or a Mall. If you are convinced Trump used terrible language....you need to hear those young women, out in public, even bragging about their SEXUAL achievements without fear of personal responsibility taking place. As for all the other Whiners complaining about Trump. Too bad you ignored the same charges from Hillary. Hypocrisy like this is NON-PARTISAN. By the way. Many of those younger females RESENT being called Ladies, Young Ladies, Girls, or anything else. Most of them are insulted with the use of actual WORDS...that aren't part of a TEXT.


I was going to skip this reply but
2 things AT
1. I believe i've started a few threads about Hillary's and Bill's mistreatment of women, you must have missed those.
and secondly This thread isn't about some random "young ladies" mistreatment of themselves and their misbehavior. None of them are running for president. If they were I'd bring them up too. If you want to start a thread about the low morals of some young women OK. go for it.

[Russ]

Haven't seen the video but given the reaction here I imagine it's not pleasant. Trump supporters are finding themselves defending/supporting and candidate that's getting worse and worse becuase their only viewpoint is Clinton or Republican nominee.
I guess in these final weeks we'll see how much folks are willing to bend to that.

Not true. I'm not defending Trump in the tape. But I can still support him because I know Hillary has all the same vices.

By the way, am I the only one thinking that Hillary's had this tape for 6 to 12 months? And calculated that now was the best time to release it?

[gabosaurus]

Trump's vulgar attitude toward women has been common knowledge for years. I don't think this particular incident hurts him at all. In fact, it might help him among his primary support group, which is less educated white males. Because this is how many of them feel about women.

At this point, there is nothing that Trump can say or do that will dissuade his core supporters. He could sexual abuse female staff, beat their their children, kill their pets and piss on their lawns. The response would always be "I bet Hillary Clinton does worse things than that!"

The Trump vortex is totally insulated from the outside world. Nothing matters but Trump.

The normal world will continue to be repulsed. And Trump will lose.

[Black Diamond]

I have to comment on this.
and just say It depends on the men.
Like Noir I don't talk about woman like that. (concerning one of trumps insults ..well in fact I like women on the plump side.)
But as far as talking about them like pieces of meat all the time. in general. nope. Teenage boys Ok maybe.
But not most guys.
I drove a cab for while not to long ago and picked up a lot of guys going to and coming from parties/bars/clubs and i have to say on a consistent bases mainly the young NAVY guys talked like that about women. and not ALL of them. but I've driven PLENTY who did. There were groups of "civilian guys" ...20 somethings in age... that talked like that as well. but not as consistently. Just saying my experience. Some college guys would go there but not to the point that you got the impression that they really disrespected woman. It sounded mainly like "guy talk" not so much guy belief or real attitude.
But sad to say some... to many... of the navy guys sounded heartless and abusive in their conquest and dismissive talk and stories of women.

If you want to test what sober guys think about women. put a mic in a few barber shops... not the bars.
If you're wondering what men secretly say about women. I'll tell you.
We love women... until we don't and we generally think all woman are a bit crazy. that sums it up i think.

But guys that generally call women names and think of them only a sex object, or are only always looking for their own version of beauty and personal service from women are generally douch bags kind of guys, no matter their money, talent or position.
Like other bad behavior it's just part of the dark side of the human condition. Some people can't seem to grasp the concept of treating ALL humans with respect.

I know guys who talk vividly about their sex lives. But they wouldn't do it in front of a CAB driver, barber,or even a bartender. I find that odd.

[Black Diamond]

The thing is, they don't talk like that in front of us. Be a fly on the wall when a bunch of guys go to lunch together from work and you may hear a different story. So I am told.

This

[Noir]

Not true. I'm not defending Trump in the tape. But I can still support him because I know Hillary has all the same vices.

By the way, am I the only one thinking that Hillary's had this tape for 6 to 12 months? And calculated that now was the best time to release it?

Protip - You don't have to support either Clinton or Trump.

[Noir]

I know guys who talk vividly about their sex lives. But they wouldn't do it in front of a CAB driver, barber,or even a bartender. I find that odd.

Trump wasn't talking about his 'sex life' he was talking about his 'sexually assaulting women life'.

[bullypulpit]

Well, Hillary already has. Voting for her, Pete?

Got any proof of that Abbey? No? Dismissed.
More to the point, Drumpf's misogyny in this instance exemplifies the rape culture in this country. A culture which objectifies women and regards them as nothing more than chattel.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9418&stc=1

This is but another episode that begs the question of how anyone who claims to be "Christian, conservative and Republican"...as Mike Pence and so many others do, honestly support this troglodyte? If Drumpf is your man, it says more about you than it does him.

[Drummond]

Got any proof of that Abbey? No? Dismissed.
More to the point, Drumpf's misogyny in this instance exemplifies the rape culture in this country. A culture which objectifies women and regards them as nothing more than chattel.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9418&stc=1

This is but another episode that begs the question of how anyone who claims to be "Christian, conservative and Republican"...as Mike Pence and so many others do, honestly support this troglodyte? If Drumpf is your man, it says more about you than it does him.

Thanks.

You not only illustrate your case, but also, what is wrong with it.

You clearly speak - if truth be told - from a position of inbuilt political bias. You are advancing your case in order to serve that bias. Nowhere in your posting is there any recognition of either the time that's elapsed from the time Trump said what he did, the circumstances of its being said, or its whole context.

I've made my point already. Reality isn't static, people evolve over time, and context MATTERS. A decade ago, Trump wasn't trying to be President, he wasn't aspiring to the standards the job should require, he had neither need nor reason to make any adjustment in his attitudes to adapt to such responsibilities. In fact, you're only assuming he remains the very same person he was back then, something you just DO NOT KNOW.

Prove to me that human nature doesn't allow for anybody to change their thinking, EVER, and you can reasonably make your case. But if you can't, then your case is fundamentally flawed.

[Not that this will stop you, though .. you have an agenda to pursue .. isn't that so ?]

[Noir]

Sure it's okay that he lived til he was atleast 60 thinking it was okay to sexually assault women because he didn't think he was going to run for president at the time. That's grand, nothing of interest here.

[Drummond]

Sure it's okay that he lived til he was atleast 60 thinking it was okay to sexually assault women because he didn't think he was going to run for president at the time. That's grand, nothing of interest here.

Locker-room banter doesn't have to reflect total reality, Noir.

Granted that you're a Leftie, so it's possible that you see nothing wrong with such a scenario where people are condemned, judged, convicted and sentenced, purely on the grounds of a mere thought process failing to conform to your own specific requirements. In reality, though, it's how you translate them into actions that, surely, really counts. I can indulge a thought process in which I think about robbing a bank, but that doesn't mean that police can then come knocking on my door, arrest me, try a case in court, and I get a jail sentence !!

Trump's case is even worse. He's being publicly 'tried' over something said over a DECADE ago !! Consider ... did Trump give ANY detail of anything he'd 'done', anything checkable and open to prosecution ? Can you know for sure that he ever did a thing ?

But some muck-raking (which says much about the muckraker involved ?) at a politically opportune time means he's being 'tried', nonetheless. For mere locker-room banter, when you get down to it.

[Noir]

Locker-room banter doesn't have to reflect total reality, Noir

This is apparently the battle-cry of the Trump defenders.
Good luck dying on this hill for that man.

[Kathianne]

This is apparently the battle-cry of the Trump defenders.
Good luck dying on this hill for that man.

I agree, there seems to be nothing that won't be excused by the 40%, which is not enough for him to win.

However, the non-reaction of the left to Hillary's 'troubles' is every bit as morally bankrupt. Whether it's emails, revelations regarding the FBI, or now the leaked speeches, her supporters just ignore.

Again, the vast majority of Americans will vote for one or the other morally vacant candidate.

[revelarts]

I know guys who talk vividly about their sex lives. But they wouldn't do it in front of a CAB driver, barber,or even a bartender. I find that odd.
You kind of add to the point.
Those guys you know have enough class to keep their mouth shut in most venues about the kind of stuff that's playing out in their heads. It's not for public consumption and some probably know some is wrong. I don't think Trump really gets either of those ideas.

[Noir]

I agree, there seems to be nothing that won't be excused by the 40%, which is not enough for him to win.

However, the non-reaction of the left to Hillary's 'troubles' is every bit as morally bankrupt. Whether it's emails, revelations regarding the FBI, or now the leaked speeches, her supporters just ignore.

Again, the vast majority of Americans will vote for one or the other morally vacant candidate.

Yep, the mere presence of an R or a D beside your name is apparently more than enough for many American voters.

[Kathianne]

Yep, the mere presence of an R or a D beside your name is apparently more than enough for many American voters.

Folks pretty much solidify their political ID by their 30's. It's very disconcerting to have found myself with a party that seemed ready and willing to elect someone with no conservative cred or seeming political philosophy. His past was anything but 'conservative' in any form on personal or public life.

Now that was me and there's no doubt that a significant portion of those supporting him found ways to deal with his 'issues' whether from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 1 year ago, or yesterday.

This forum has always 'leaned right' so it's certainly easier to focus on the failings of Trump and the party.

The country though is nearly split 50/50 or rather 40/40+/+/- 20. The coming weeks though will find movement from that last group to one or the other for the most part. If the election were today, it will be Hillary elected. The problem though is that few like her and with those wikileaks, her soft supporters are going to find over time that she pretty much considers them 'deplorables' too.

So the race to the bottom is likely to play out.

I fully expect to see more and more 'surprises' up to the election. These are two very bad candidates, with very bad pasts.

[Drummond]

This is apparently the battle-cry of the Trump defenders.
Good luck dying on this hill for that man.

Your reply lacks any substance, and doesn't counter the points I made. I'm gratified, Noir .. you've had to fall back to sarcasm to make your response.

A 'Thought Police' approach is something I'd have thought should be seen as undesirable ? Yet .. the pro-Leftie, anti-Trump case, seems to be centred on exactly such an approach. Someone, a DECADE ago, says something questionable .. so, a decade later, and with NO allowance made for any evolution of thought or attitude in the interim, the 'Thought Police' condemn the originator of it, try and convict the 'perpetrator', and as publicly done as possible.

I suggest this: acceptance of all this is fodder for all of those who demand that 'political correctness' imperatives be implemented in a society ! You dare not think in an un-approved of manner, without incurring consequences.

Is this a DESIRABLE thing to see, or NOT ?

Ask any Leftie. They're very keen on such things.

[Abbey Marie]

And now, for those who cannot see degrees of severity, some extremely anti-woman stuff:



https://pics.onsizzle.com/Facebook-Hillarys-problem-on-one-page-6c7928.png

[Kathianne]

I totally agree with Abbey, Hillary is also unacceptable.

[revelarts]

If Trump had some real redeeming qualities.
And he hadn't already been known as a scum bag and hadn't publicly said so much foul crap to and about women,
then comments from the that bus thing wouldn't be a big deal to me.

Scene from one of my favorite action films.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdihnnqP_BA

"it's a guy thing, alright"
"...You can see those tits coming around the corner . you've got time to comb your hair..."

He's the hero of the film IMO. He does, thinks and says borderline scummy stuff but at bottom he's a good soul in general.
Not the impression i get from Trump.

[Drummond]

I totally agree with Abbey, Hillary is also unacceptable.

So let's have nobody elected as President, then ! Because nobody else, in the real world, has a hope of getting to the top job, other than Trump or Clinton.

In truth, I'm sure we all recognise that a falling-away of support for Trump WILL work in Hillary's favour. Those working to see Trump denied his voter-base will, if successful, see the Dems back in power.

Who doubts this ? Anyone ?

[pete311]

Locker-room banter doesn't have to reflect total reality, Noir.


It's ok to say anything as long as you label it locker room banter? He could have said something pedophilic but it's ok because it's locker room banter and not reality.

[pete311]

I fully expect to see more and more 'surprises' up to the election. These are two very bad candidates, with very bad pasts.

Yes but there is a very false equivalence going on.

[Kathianne]

Yes but there is a very false equivalence going on.

Hardly, they are very similar candidates, with very similar character defects.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440862/krauthammer-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-leaks-are-evidence-against-both?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=ctake%3Futm_campaign%3Dctake


Krauthammer’s Take: Trump & Clinton Leaks ‘Increase the Negatives on Both of Them’



Looking at the recording of Donald Trump demeaning women compared to the secret Hillary Clinton speeches to Goldman Sachs, Bret Baier asked which would be worse, and Charles Krauthammer said that they are notably similar:


That’s a little bit hard to judge, we also haven’t had a chance to go through all the transcripts of what Hillary said. But based on a very small sample, there is some devastating ammunition there — particularly open borders and open trade.

These are going to be in Trump ads and Republican ads within days. But here is what’s interesting about this. None of this is surprising; if someone had asked you about Trump, “Do you think he talks like this in private?” You would answer, of course, “Yes.” But it’s hearing it; this is what video/audio evidence does. Once you hear it, it becomes information of a different order. The same with Hillary: Everybody knows that on every issue she has a private position and a public, and if they intersect, that’s nice, but if it doesn’t, that’s the way she operates. But when you hear her say it in a speech in public, it becomes evidence.

So I think what this is going to do is increase the negatives on both of them. It’s going to make it without a doubt an election between the two most increasingly unpopular candidates ever. These are of a different order: with her it is about policy and with him it is about temperament and attitude towards women. And I don’t think either of them is defensible in any way, it’s a question of how skillfully the opponent is going to be able to actually use it against them.

[Kathianne]

This is the only time where I've found myself in the position of having to seek 'a bit of honor' rather than doing what is winning or basically partisan.

So, I will choose 'honor' or at least what I see as principled. Neither of these beyond flawed candidates deserve to lead this country.

[Drummond]

It's ok to say anything as long as you label it locker room banter? He could have said something pedophilic but it's ok because it's locker room banter and not reality.

Surely, 'something pedophilic' would incur a question of whether there either was incitement to break the law, or (IF including anything of real substance) an actual violation of the law.

Isn't that substantially worse than what we're really concerned with here ?

No, Pete. Being a Leftie, you're pushing the 'Thought Police' line ... hoping to get as wide an acceptance of 'PC' restrictiveness as possible. What's next ... never daring to think in an unapproved-of manner ? So - who decides what is or is not 'unapproved' ? And why ? And .. how far would it go ?

I invite your insights, Pete, concerning just how far this SHOULD go ... and what you'd recommend for the powers which your Thought Police should have available to them to enforce punishments for transgressions ...

[Drummond]

This is the only time where I've found myself in the position of having to seek 'a bit of honor' rather than doing what is winning or basically partisan.

So, I will choose 'honor' or at least what I see as principled. Neither of these beyond flawed candidates deserve to lead this country.

This does not address voting practicality.

We all know that one or other of these two candidates WILL win through. A falling-away of Trump's voter base will lead to a Clinton win.

Can you deny that this is the truth of it ?

What needs to be decided on an individual-by-individual basis is whether the United States of America really deserves to have yet another term of Lefties in charge. Is this an acceptable option, or not ? Personal aesthetics - or, the future of your country - which should win through ?

[Kathianne]

If everyone had voted for the best character candidate or at the very least, not for the candidate that demonstrated only bad character traits in the primaries, we wouldn't be here.

Yet we are here. Our country is on the brink of being run by at the best a person of bad character. See Petey, they are similar, even in their politics.

[pete311]

Lots of calls for Trump to quit
http://www.businessinsider.com/will-donald-trump-quit-republican-party-2016-10

I don't think he will, but if he does, who replaces him and does he/she have a chance?

[crin63]

Honestly, this is the kind of thing I expected to be coming out about Trump just prior to the election.

It's not surprising in the least and just one of the many reasons I didn't want Trump to be the nominee.

[Russ]

Sure it's okay that he lived til he was atleast 60 thinking it was okay to sexually assault women because he didn't think he was going to run for president at the time. That's grand, nothing of interest here.

I take your point, Noir, but I think that anyone who was not already outraged at the Clinton's, for Bill's criminal attacks on women in the past and for Hillary's vicious attacks toward the women who reported it, has sacrificed their right to complain about Trump's remarks. As vulgar as Trump's remarks are, they are still not as bad as Bill's rape and molestation or Hillary's viciously attacking women who reported the rape and molestation.

[Russ]

If everyone had voted for the best character candidate or at the very least, not for the candidate that demonstrated only bad character traits in the primaries, we wouldn't be here.

Yet we are here. Our country is on the brink of being run by at the best a person of bad character. See Petey, they are similar, even in their politics.

True. We can all blame the sleazy, early-primary-privileged jerk voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, and a few other states, for weeding out the better candidates before the rest of us had a chance. Iowa and New Hampshire should have their primaries rescinded for the next 20 years.

[Kathianne]

I take your point, Noir, but I think that anyone who was not already outraged at the Clinton's, for Bill's criminal attacks on women in the past and for Hillary's vicious attacks toward the women who reported it, has sacrificed their right to complain about Trump's remarks. As vulgar as Trump's remarks are, they are still not as bad as Bill's rape and molestation or Hillary's viciously attacking women who reported the rape and molestation.

I've been outraged about both candidates from the start. You are right about actions being worse than words. Yet, implicit in Trump's words are that he had taken liberties with women-at least from 'just kissing' when he wanted.

Actually the real issue though is not about degrees of awfulness, but about character or lack thereof.

[Noir]

I take your point, Noir, but I think that anyone who was not already outraged at the Clinton's, for Bill's criminal attacks on women in the past and for Hillary's vicious attacks toward the women who reported it, has sacrificed their right to complain about Trump's remarks. As vulgar as Trump's remarks are, they are still not as bad as Bill's rape and molestation or Hillary's viciously attacking women who reported the rape and molestation.

As bad as Trumps remarks are, will you be voting for him?

[Bilgerat]

As bad as Trumps remarks are, will you be voting for him?


Yes. Any other choice is would lead to the Hildabeast. THAT is not to be a consideration

She has many hidden agenda's, NONE of which are good for this country

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14610880_1189500571126169_4170397440986773085_n.jp g?oh=f97ef4009983ec449f66143e9820f9c4&oe=586B93FA

[Elessar]

Trump's vulgar attitude toward women has been common knowledge for years. I don't think this particular incident hurts him at all. In fact, it might help him among his primary support group, which is less educated white males. Because this is how many of them feel about women.



I doubt seriously that I am a less educated white male.

To you, the Clintons are as pure as fresh driven snow.

[gabosaurus]

Republicans have only themselves to blame for this predicament. Many of them knew what kind of person that Trump was. They knew what his issues were. But they nominated him anyway.

There are a lot of liberals (like myself) who don't like Hillary Clinton. We don't trust her. But the appalling ignorance of the GOP doesn't give us a choice. We HAVE to vote for Clinton to save our preferred way of life.

You can blame Clinton for every fault present in American society. You can blame the rest on Obama. It doesn't matter. Because Trump will also be a much larger shitpile, we have no choice but to vote for Clinton.

If you supported Trump in the GOP primaries, congratulations! You have elected Hillary Clinton.
You have no one to blame but yourself.

[aboutime]

Republicans have only themselves to blame for this predicament. Many of them knew what kind of person that Trump was. They knew what his issues were. But they nominated him anyway.

There are a lot of liberals (like myself) who don't like Hillary Clinton. We don't trust her. But the appalling ignorance of the GOP doesn't give us a choice. We HAVE to vote for Clinton to save our preferred way of life.

You can blame Clinton for every fault present in American society. You can blame the rest on Obama. It doesn't matter. Because Trump will also be a much larger shitpile, we have no choice but to vote for Clinton.

If you supported Trump in the GOP primaries, congratulations! You have elected Hillary Clinton.
You have no one to blame but yourself.



gabby. Your combined liberal, democrat hypocrisy is showing again with Trump.

USING YOUR WORDS..differently. Your first sentence
"Democrats have only themselves to blame for this predicament. Many of them knew what kind of person that Clinton was. They knew what his issues were. But they nominated him anyway." AND...they even elected him TWICE! Sound familiar gabby?????

[pete311]

gabby. Your combined liberal, democrat hypocrisy is showing again with Trump.

USING YOUR WORDS..differently. Your first sentence
"Democrats have only themselves to blame for this predicament. Many of them knew what kind of person that Clinton was. They knew what his issues were. But they nominated him anyway." AND...they even elected him TWICE! Sound familiar gabby?????

Pretty sure this thread is about Trump. Start one of Clinton if you want.

[Black Diamond]

Pretty sure this thread is about Trump. Start one of Clinton if you want.

It's morphing into a thread about hypocrisy.

[aboutime]

Pretty sure this thread is about Trump. Start one of Clinton if you want.


Why talk about Trump when most of us know the Pete idea is one of Sol ALINSKI, no need to start one about Clinton. He did much more than just TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF.