WAPO: Vulgar video of Trump Recorded in 2005

misterx said:
There's no morals clause in the guidelines. I'm sorry you think Trump's sexual activities are more important than our sovereignty.
Click to expand...


plus rep.

yeah, some people like living in a soap opera versus REAL issues affecting all our lives.

too damn many hillary supporters in here.
 
Last edited:
idiot+signs.jpg
 
How much would you bet that had this story been about Hillary saying these vulgar words, many of these mouth breathers defending Trump would be using this to attack her? You degenerates are the problem not just with politics but with society. Die away from these boards, you people are a disgrace to humanity.
 
juleswin said:
How much would you bet that had this story been about Hillary saying these vulgar words, many of these mouth breathers defending Trump would be using this to attack her? You degenerates are the problem not just with politics but with society. Die away from these boards, you people are a disgrace to humanity.
Click to expand...

Honestly? If it were a woman saying "I'd grab him by the dick"? I'd be even more confused as to why it's an issue, though I bet it would be. Women aren't supposed to actually talk like that, apparently, and certainly not actually WANT sex. And of course everyone would then be evaluating the attractiveness of the woman doing the grabbing (just like they are currently evaluating the attractiveness of the women people are discussing grabbing).

And it still would have just about nothing to do with my vote.

The sad part here is simply that there's no counterbalance. If I was really behind a Trump policy of some kind, I could say "That is foul-mouthed of him, but I don't care as long as...". There's nothing I can fill that blank with. I am not enthused by anything he's proposing, not enough to go out and vote for him. In the absence of some novel, astoundingly wonderful policy he's put forth, I have to look at what's left, which is a guy whose eloquence is lacking, who's unable to sell himself at a debate, and whose apologies sound pretty hollow. It's not impressive. I will just have to hunker down for the next 4-8 years, regardless of the outcome.
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/trump-clinton-sex-then-vs-now/index.html

In a 2008 interview with CNN, Trump called the Lewinsky scandal "totally unimportant" and said it was "nonsense" that Republicans tried to impeach him.

In another interview, with CNBC in 1998 and first unearthed by the Washington Post, Trump called Clinton accuser Paula Jones "a loser." In August 1998, Trump again dismissed Jones, and said Bill Clinton was actually the victim.

"I don't necessarily agree with his victims," Trump said to Fox News' Neil Cavuto in a clip uncovered earlier in the year by the "Daily Beast." "His victims are terrible. He is, he is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position."
Click to expand...
 
MelissaWV said:
Honestly? If it were a woman saying "I'd grab him by the dick"? I'd be even more confused as to why it's an issue, though I bet it would be. Women aren't supposed to actually talk like that, apparently, and certainly not actually WANT sex. And of course everyone would then be evaluating the attractiveness of the woman doing the grabbing (just like they are currently evaluating the attractiveness of the women people are discussing grabbing).

And it still would have just about nothing to do with my vote.

The sad part here is simply that there's no counterbalance. If I was really behind a Trump policy of some kind, I could say "That is foul-mouthed of him, but I don't care as long as...". There's nothing I can fill that blank with. I am not enthused by anything he's proposing, not enough to go out and vote for him. In the absence of some novel, astoundingly wonderful policy he's put forth, I have to look at what's left, which is a guy whose eloquence is lacking, who's unable to sell himself at a debate, and whose apologies sound pretty hollow. It's not impressive. I will just have to hunker down for the next 4-8 years, regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What are some policy proposals that would make you say, "at least if I vote for him ____"?
 
misterx said:
I get the feeling so much more drama like this is going to be dredged up every week so that Trump is on the defensive this entire last month.
Click to expand...

They apparently have worse dirt on him. I'm guessing they're going to space it out leading up to election day.
 
misterx said:
Fair enough. What are some policy proposals that would make you say, "at least if I vote for him ____"?
Click to expand...

A believable desire to withdraw our troops, roll back the ridiculous quantities of foreign aid, and withdrawing from the UN.
An actual push to cut spending, going hand-in-hand with simplification of the tax code in preparation for disbanding the IRS in the future.
Disbanding at least three large Government agencies over the course of an eight-point-plan.
Anything that would make me believe that my beliefs, my gender, my race, my sexual orientation, and any number of other things will not be used either for my benefit or against me as far as the Government is concerned (since those are not their business).
A reduction in high-level Government with no increase in local Government, but with power decentralized.
Decentralization of education (once again, not the Gov's business).
Any appointments having at least rudimentary knowledge of wtf they are being appointed to.


It's a few things off the top of my head. They would go on the scales.

To give an example, Ron Paul takes a number of very Christian positions on issues when you ask him. His desire to make others adhere to those beliefs at the end of a gun, however, was incredibly minimal. That helps me give him a pass when he and I disagree on something. The restraint with which he would use Government makes it easier to accept something we might disagree on.
 
MelissaWV said:
Honestly? If it were a woman saying "I'd grab him by the dick"? I'd be even more confused as to why it's an issue, though I bet it would be. Women aren't supposed to actually talk like that, apparently, and certainly not actually WANT sex. And of course everyone would then be evaluating the attractiveness of the woman doing the grabbing (just like they are currently evaluating the attractiveness of the women people are discussing grabbing).

And it still would have just about nothing to do with my vote.

The sad part here is simply that there's no counterbalance. If I was really behind a Trump policy of some kind, I could say "That is foul-mouthed of him, but I don't care as long as...". There's nothing I can fill that blank with. I am not enthused by anything he's proposing, not enough to go out and vote for him. In the absence of some novel, astoundingly wonderful policy he's put forth, I have to look at what's left, which is a guy whose eloquence is lacking, who's unable to sell himself at a debate, and whose apologies sound pretty hollow. It's not impressive. I will just have to hunker down for the next 4-8 years, regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...

Well why assume the person Hillary would be grabbing be a man? imagine audio coming out with Hillary boasting how she was trying to cheat on newly married Bill with another married woman and on top of that boasting how she can start grabbing pussies of hot women and kissing em just on the count of her being rich and famous. Anyone making excuse for her in that case just because she is a party member would be considered a degenerate just like the Trump supporters trying to make this whole episode as "boys being boys"

Btw, no way this incident would cause me to change my vote if I was for Trump the day before the release. But you would also not see me make excuses for him and trying to dismiss the deviancy that is Trump. Hillary is devil re-spawned monster and the only redeeming quality about Trump is that he might be a bit less intelligent monster i.e. that less dangerous that the Hillary
 
MelissaWV said:
A believable desire to withdraw our troops, roll back the ridiculous quantities of foreign aid, and withdrawing from the UN.
An actual push to cut spending, going hand-in-hand with simplification of the tax code in preparation for disbanding the IRS in the future.
Disbanding at least three large Government agencies over the course of an eight-point-plan.
Anything that would make me believe that my beliefs, my gender, my race, my sexual orientation, and any number of other things will not be used either for my benefit or against me as far as the Government is concerned (since those are not their business).
A reduction in high-level Government with no increase in local Government, but with power decentralized.
Decentralization of education (once again, not the Gov's business).
Any appointments having at least rudimentary knowledge of wtf they are being appointed to.


It's a few things off the top of my head. They would go on the scales.

To give an example, Ron Paul takes a number of very Christian positions on issues when you ask him. His desire to make others adhere to those beliefs at the end of a gun, however, was incredibly minimal. That helps me give him a pass when he and I disagree on something. The restraint with which he would use Government makes it easier to accept something we might disagree on.
Click to expand...

What I've bolded are all Trump's positions. Hillary will not take any of these positions, so isn't it better if Trump wins and at least those policies are moved forward? I know a lot of Libertarians are leery of Trump on the war issue because of his talk on ISIS. I think if you dig deep it becomes clear that is just a public policy position, and that he would rather keep Muslims out of the country and let them sort out their own battles. The book that convinced him to run for president, Adios America, takes that very position, that terrorists wouldn't be our problem if we just didn't import people from those countries.
 
misterx said:
What I've bolded are all Trump's positions. Hillary will not take any of these positions, so isn't it better if Trump wins and at least those policies are moved forward? I know a lot of Libertarians are leery of Trump on the war issue because of his talk on ISIS. I think if you dig deep it becomes clear that is just a public policy position, and that he would rather keep Muslims out of the country and let them sort out their own battles. The book that convinced him to run for president, Adios America, takes that very position, that terrorists wouldn't be our problem if we just didn't import people from those countries.
Click to expand...

Believable. You also didn't bold the withdrawing from the UN, I noticed, which has to be done in order to go hand-in-hand with the other stuff. Mr. "I LOVE war!" is not interested in keeping out of others' business. He's interested in leveraging things to his advantage.

Yeah, okay, sure... he has a position about decentralizing education. *Slow clap* Doesn't balance out.

What you're asking me is whether it's better to have my leg chopped off with a hacksaw or a chainsaw. I don't want my leg chopped off, period. If it's going to happen, anyhow, then offering me a false choice based on which one might do slightly less damage is insulting and pointless.
 
misterx said:
What I've bolded are all Trump's positions. Hillary will not take any of these positions, so isn't it better if Trump wins and at least those policies are moved forward? I know a lot of Libertarians are leery of Trump on the war issue because of his talk on ISIS. I think if you dig deep it becomes clear that is just a public policy position, and that he would rather keep Muslims out of the country and let them sort out their own battles. The book that convinced him to run for president, Adios America, takes that very position, that terrorists wouldn't be our problem if we just didn't import people from those countries.
Click to expand...

Trump has said he would send 30,000 troops to Syria. He watches the shows, and knows more about ISIS than the generals.
 
MelissaWV said:
Believable. You also didn't bold the withdrawing from the UN, I noticed, which has to be done in order to go hand-in-hand with the other stuff. Mr. "I LOVE war!" is not interested in keeping out of others' business. He's interested in leveraging things to his advantage.

Yeah, okay, sure... he has a position about decentralizing education. *Slow clap* Doesn't balance out.

What you're asking me is whether it's better to have my leg chopped off with a hacksaw or a chainsaw. I don't want my leg chopped off, period. If it's going to happen, anyhow, then offering me a false choice based on which one might do slightly less damage is insulting and pointless.
Click to expand...

We will see what happens, I think you're wrong though.

More like I'm asking you if you'd rather lose a pinky or an index finger. I'd rather lose neither, but I'm smart enough that if I have to lose one I'm not going to leave it up to someone else to decide which, I'll choose the pinky.
 
CPUd said:
Trump has said he would send 30,000 troops to Syria. He watches the shows, and knows more about ISIS than the generals.
Click to expand...

Like your idol, Hillary, said, you have a public position and a private position. Trump would never get elected if his public position was the same as Ron Paul's. We already know that from experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Snowball
Trump: We're going back into Afghanistan.
2
Replies
32
Views
949
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
PAF
Trump Wants To Bring Back Department of War
Replies
9
Views
284
acptulsa
acptulsa
jmdrake
Ghislaine Maxwell clears Trump, Clinton and all the other elites.
Replies
15
Views
381
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Trump deploys National Guard to Memphis, calls it ‘replica’ of Washington crackdown
Replies
0
Views
120
PAF
PAF
PAF
Netanyahu To Visit White House for 4th Time
2
Replies
24
Views
697
69360
6
Back
Top