777Jet wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

777jet.

So is America under Hillary, which is a shame. America was once the greatest nation on Earth.

Let us not be dramatic, nor unrealistic. Hillary will do fine as all Presidents have done. Hillary is not to blame for Trump, just the people who voted for this Buffoon should take the blame. Not even congress can be blamed and that is saying something.

America's position has been slowly weakening under Obama. I believe the trend will continue under Hillary. I'd rather see American take care of her own and do what's in her own best interest. I believe Trump is better suited to achieve that.

We still are, but unfortunately our trusted politicians, our powerful corporations, our US Chamber of Commerce and our wealthy folks and certainly our corrupted congress have done far more damage to our country than any other country or leader. "We have met the enemy and they is us" Trump is a Rump.

pu wrote:

Every hetero male talks like this in my experience, I assume homo males do as well although not in front of me.

If every hetero male you know talks like that, you're either spewing hyperbole, or you're one of the sleaziest guys I've ever conversed with. The number of men I've ever known who would make a statement like that and actually mean it - as Trump obviously did - are in a small minority; and I've traveled around so to speak.

A lot of men tell crude jokes, or have told crude jokes at one time in their lives, I would guess it to be in the order of half to two thirds, but here I'm talking about jokes and that isn't what Trump was doing. He was relating life experience.

stlgph wrote:

Ah cool, so you can't say it.
Bill Cosby is innocent, too.

Thanks for proving my logic, which goes way over your head there, sugar. But it's ok, I'm sure there's a great website out there where you can attempt to find yourself a friend for some pus....I mean, Trump grabbing. You enjoy your Friday night there, love.

Whether Cosby is guilty or not is completely separate to whether Clinton is guilty or not. Different times, different places, different people involved. I have no opinion on Cosby but have expressed a view on Clinton in response to your erroneous claim. He may well have been guilty of sexual harassment but that is not rape and rape was never alleged by Jones. Saying that is neither defence of Clinton nor justification for harassment.

777Jet wrote:

Despite me being more on the right / conservative side, I take each issue on a case by case basis and I do not support the conservative view on Abortion and the traditional family. Women should have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion and nobody should be regulating their vagina. Only women should be deciding on issues concerning their bodies. Men and political parties should not be regulating women. I totally oppose the conservative view on that, and on other issues I might ad (I despise religion), despite still, overall, being on the right side of politics.

You support the "traditional" family, then go out of your way to defend a guy who hits on married women and makes vulgar comments about it?

And you can make that comment with a straight face? That's the ultimate hypocrisy. Unbelievable.

salttee wrote:

pu wrote:

Every hetero male talks like this in my experience, I assume homo males do as well although not in front of me.

If every hetero male you know talks like that, you're either spewing hyperbole, or you're one of the sleaziest guys I've ever conversed with. The number of men I've ever known who would make a statement like that and actually mean it - as Trump obviously did - are in a small minority; and I've traveled around so to speak.

A lot of men tell crude jokes, or have told crude jokes at one time in their lives, I would guess it to be in the order of half to two thirds, but here I'm talking about jokes and that isn't what Trump was doing. He was relating life experience.

In my youngest wildest most horny days, I never and still do not like or use crudity when talking about women such as Trump used and is obviously still using. Locker talk my ass.

Hillis wrote:

The man isn't qualified at any level to be President of the United States.

Bill (and subsequently Hillary) Clinton say otherwise.

Hillis wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Despite me being more on the right / conservative side, I take each issue on a case by case basis and I do not support the conservative view on Abortion and the traditional family. Women should have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion and nobody should be regulating their vagina. Only women should be deciding on issues concerning their bodies. Men and political parties should not be regulating women. I totally oppose the conservative view on that, and on other issues I might ad (I despise religion), despite still, overall, being on the right side of politics.

You support the "traditional" family, then go out of your way to defend a guy who hits on married women and makes vulgar comments about it?

And you can make that comment with a straight face? That's the ultimate hypocrisy. Unbelievable.

Please read my comment again: " I do not support the conservative view on Abortion and the traditional family."

I do not support the traditional family view in the conservative sense. Got it?

Now learn how to read.

WarRI1 wrote:

salttee wrote:

pu wrote:

Every hetero male talks like this in my experience, I assume homo males do as well although not in front of me.

If every hetero male you know talks like that, you're either spewing hyperbole, or you're one of the sleaziest guys I've ever conversed with. The number of men I've ever known who would make a statement like that and actually mean it - as Trump obviously did - are in a small minority; and I've traveled around so to speak.

A lot of men tell crude jokes, or have told crude jokes at one time in their lives, I would guess it to be in the order of half to two thirds, but here I'm talking about jokes and that isn't what Trump was doing. He was relating life experience.

In my youngest wildest most horny days, I never and still do not like or use crudity when talking about women such as Trump used and is obviously still using. Locker talk my ass.

I knew people who talked like that-when there were 18 or 19, but they grew out of it. It's like in the old Dennis DeYoung song "Desert Moon" with the lines "Those summer nights, when we were young, we bragged of things, we'd never done". That's how pubescent boys talk, not allegedly grown 60 year old men.

I was never comfortable talking like that or hearing that from others. It's one thing to think in your mind "oh, nice ass", and keep it to yourself, or maybe share it sotto voce with a friend, but to be so vulgar and over the top? I can't think of one grown male I know that is like that. So I guess our friend pu lives in a different circle of males, and it's no wonder he supports Donald Trump.

As for 777Jet and stlpgh, the only thing we get from them is "well, what about Bill Clinton"? That's no answer, but a weary cop-out from people who are either not bright enough to relize what a sleazeball Donald Trump is, or are excactly like he is in the way they treat women.

Trump plays it off because Bill Clinton. I don't get it. Hillary is running for president. Not Bill. Yes, Bill was a philanderer, like Trump probably is still. The difference is: Trump has three marriages under his belt, Bill has one. Sanctity of marriage and one man, one woman and all. But, most important:

HILLARY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, NOT BILL!!!!

Hillis wrote:

As for 777Jet and stlpgh, the only thing we get from them is "well, what about Bill Clinton"? That's no answer, but a weary cop-out from people who are either not bright enough to relize what a sleazeball Donald Trump is, or are excactly like he is in the way they treat women.

Obviously you haven't read the entire thread, or you can't comprehend much.

I'm surprised you had the ability to start a thread! Well done on that!

777Jet wrote:

Hillis wrote:

As for 777Jet and stlpgh, the only thing we get from them is "well, what about Bill Clinton"? That's no answer, but a weary cop-out from people who are either not bright enough to relize what a sleazeball Donald Trump is, or are excactly like he is in the way they treat women.

Obviously you haven't read the entire thread, or you can't comprehend much.

I'm surprised you had the ability to start a thread! Well done on that!

I comprehend just fine. And I noticed you avoided my last sentence. Which one is it? Because all you've done is spent time on here defending this vulgar sleazeball.

Hillis wrote:

The man isn't qualified at any level to be President of the United States. That's been the view of many since he began this charade. But if you want to, quite literally, put the cherry on top, this is it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/ ... index.html

He is just a disgusting, lowlife dirtbag. Period.

Since this sort of thing is no different than Bill Clinton's behaviour (And Bill was far more promiscuous and allegedly raped a number of women), and Hillary knew about it, facilitated it, and actively threatened and attacked women who dared to speak up, what does that make Bill and Hillary?

Hillis.

I knew people who talked like that-when there were 18 or 19, but they grew out of it. It's like in the old Dennis DeYoung song "Desert Moon" with the lines "Those summer nights, when we were young, we bragged of things, we'd never done". That's how pubescent boys talk, not allegedly grown 60 year old men.

I was never comfortable talking like that or hearing that from others. It's one thing to think in your mind "oh, nice ass", and keep it to yourself, or maybe share it sotto voce with a friend, but to be so vulgar and over the top? I can't think of one grown male I know that is like that. So I guess our friend pu lives in a different circle of males, and it's no wonder he supports Donald Trump.

As for 777Jet and stlpgh, the only thing we get from them is "well, what about Bill Clinton"? That's no answer, but a weary cop-out from people who are either not bright enough to relize what a sleazeball Donald Trump is, or are excactly like he is in the way they treat women.

Peace

Nor can I think of anyone anywhere near my age. Like you said, teenage trash talk at best. Not a so called family man and 59 years old and married 5 months. That does not say much about class and moral standards and does speak loudly of a person running for President who has no filter or class.

The offensive sexual comments of Trump from tapings of his 'Apprentice' show but not shown, an interview he did a number of years ago, others comments like on the Howard Stern show, on the campaign trial and a rapidly changing attitude as to sexual assault and sexism have come an explosive point in the media against Trump.
Almost all Democrats have condemned Trump with these latest revelations.
Gov. Huntsman (R-UT) has called for Trump to resign from the nomination and I expect more Republicans to also call for Trump to resign as well as many leading Newspapers by Sunday in their editorials.
Ryan has dis-invited Trump from an appearance in Wisconsin Saturday, Trump's VP is avoiding the press.
It is possible Sunday's Town Hall/Debate will be cancelled by the Commission or by either candidate withdrawing.
Trump is facing a class 5 Political Hurricane and I don't think he will make it to election day or at the least face the worst defeat by a Presidential nominee in history but for the issues of HRC including new disclosures of e-mails with details as to her Goldman Sachs and other speeches that don't look good for her.
Could we turn back the clock to early 2015 and restart this Presidential election process ?

seb146 wrote:

Trump plays it off because Bill Clinton. I don't get it. Hillary is running for president. Not Bill. Yes, Bill was a philanderer, like Trump probably is still. The difference is: Trump has three marriages under his belt, Bill has one. Sanctity of marriage and one man, one woman and all. But, most important:

HILLARY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, NOT BILL!!!!

The old "he did it too" defence does appear lame but it is not surprising that the GOP wants to undermine the Democratic Party nominee through Bill Clinton. Even in the days of the Roman Empire it was said that Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach. Although there is no Constitutional provision for a post of First Lady, in recent decades the wives of presidents have expanded the role and importance of the position. Now for the first time in history, the US may be facing its first First Gentleman. With the roles now reversed, if Calpurnia (Hillary) had to be squeaky clean, should not Julius (Bill)?

Hillis wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Hillis wrote:

As for 777Jet and stlpgh, the only thing we get from them is "well, what about Bill Clinton"? That's no answer, but a weary cop-out from people who are either not bright enough to relize what a sleazeball Donald Trump is, or are excactly like he is in the way they treat women.

Obviously you haven't read the entire thread, or you can't comprehend much.

I'm surprised you had the ability to start a thread! Well done on that!

I comprehend just fine. And I noticed you avoided my last sentence. Which one is it? Because all you've done is spent time on here defending this vulgar sleazeball.

If you could comprehend then you would have read more than "well, what about cheating Bill Clinton" from me.

Your last sentence was not a question. He apologized for these comments he made over 10 years ago (before you were born?). The part about just wanting to kiss beautiful women was spot on, but the part about grabbing was rude. Nonetheless, he won't be the first or last guy to make such comments but he will be one of the few guys whose made such comments that we hear about because he is Trump and in a dirty election battle.

I'm not defending him, I'm questioning the tactics against him. These comments were made 10 years ago. More so in private. Hilary calling tens of millions of Americans deplorable was done just weeks ago, in public, during the election campaign. This is just looking for dirt on Trump to make people forget about the contempt Hillary showed towards tens of millions of Americans very, very recently - whilst she knew she was running for president!

Dreadnought wrote:

Hillis wrote:

The man isn't qualified at any level to be President of the United States. That's been the view of many since he began this charade. But if you want to, quite literally, put the cherry on top, this is it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/ ... index.html

He is just a disgusting, lowlife dirtbag. Period.

Since this sort of thing is no different than Bill Clinton's behaviour (And Bill was far more promiscuous and allegedly raped a number of women), and Hillary knew about it, facilitated it, and actively threatened and attacked women who dared to speak up, what does that make Bill and Hillary?

This is Trump we are talking about, not a man who was President in the nineties. Hillary and Donald, head to head. That was then , this is now. Stop trying to cloud the issues in this election by quoting accusations which mean nothing now. Bill Clinton served no time, but his eight years as US President. Time were good back then though financially.

Is it just me or are comments disappearing with no notification from the moderators? Did Jeffrey Epstein purchase this website?

Duplicate post

Pyrex wrote:

Is it just me or are comments disappearing with no notification from the moderators?

We don't get the deleted post notifications anymore under the new system, which I prefer, as my e-mail no longer fills up with them

Given that posts are being removed, and I have to go to work now for 12 hours so that I can pay my tax and support those on welfare who choose not to work, I will not be able to post again in this thread today.

I just wanted to say that I really like you all - all of you - even MaverickM11, Seb146, WarRI1, PacificBeach88 (this thread misses you), and one of my all time favorite posters who has huge potential LAX772LR.

I hope you all have a great weekend!

777Jet wrote:

He apologized for these comments he made...

No, his statement said "I apologize if anyone was offended."

That is not an apology.

Dreadnought wrote:

Since this sort of thing is no different than Bill Clinton's behaviour (And Bill was far more promiscuous and allegedly raped a number of women), and Hillary knew about it, facilitated it, and actively threatened and attacked women who dared to speak up, what does that make Bill and Hillary?

You make yourself irrelevant with posts like this. Bill Clinton is not alleged to have raped a number of women, except maybe in some storm trooper site. And Hillary did not "facilitate" his episode with Monica.

777jet.

I also do not dislike anyone on here, I am also glad that I made your list of non-deplorable people I am also proud to be American, land of free speech and thought. You have also made my point, no one as I have long advocated along with Hillary should have to work 12 hours a day to survive in this country. We should all be able to earn and pay our taxes equitably and enjoy a good living. Go Hillary!

Between this revelation of his crude sexism and now his raising the Central Park five story once again - on top of his fading poll numbers - we can all relax; there is no way he will win the election next month.

Central Park five story: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/k ... ump-936418

It's understandable that HRC supporters have to point to comments made by Trump from 10 or 20 years ago, as they know she cannot run on her record. To me, while what he said was unacceptable, this election still comes down to what matters more; what a private citizen said a decade or more ago, or what a public servant did (or failed to do!) while actively earning a government paycheck.

Sec. Clinton, based on her past testimony, is either incompetent, lying, or both. And that's reason enough for me to look toward someone else in this "Hobson's Choice 2016" campaign.

777Jet wrote:

I'm not defending him, I'm questioning the tactics against him. These comments were made 10 years ago. More so in private. Hilary calling tens of millions of Americans deplorable was done just weeks ago, in public, during the election campaign. This is just looking for dirt on Trump to make people forget about the contempt Hillary showed towards tens of millions of Americans very, very recently - whilst she knew she was running for president!

Bigots, racists, white supremacists, sexists, and the like are deplorable. If they're offended because Hillary called them out on it, they should stop being those things. What I'm interested in is whether you were similarly upset by Mitt Romney's 47% comment. Your post about working to support those on welfare suggests you likely agreed with it.

777Jet wrote:

but the part about grabbing was rude.

The part about grabbing was him admitting he sexually assaults women.

Pyrex wrote:

Is it just me or are comments disappearing with no notification from the moderators? Did Jeffrey Epstein purchase this website?

In this thread? There were only four posts deleted at the very beginning of the thread. Nothing else has been deleted.

HGL wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Trump plays it off because Bill Clinton. I don't get it. Hillary is running for president. Not Bill. Yes, Bill was a philanderer, like Trump probably is still. The difference is: Trump has three marriages under his belt, Bill has one. Sanctity of marriage and one man, one woman and all. But, most important:

HILLARY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, NOT BILL!!!!

The old "he did it too" defence does appear lame but it is not surprising that the GOP wants to undermine the Democratic Party nominee through Bill Clinton. Even in the days of the Roman Empire it was said that Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach. Although there is no Constitutional provision for a post of First Lady, in recent decades the wives of presidents have expanded the role and importance of the position. Now for the first time in history, the US may be facing its first First Gentleman. With the roles now reversed, if Calpurnia (Hillary) had to be squeaky clean, should not Julius (Bill)?

Only if the "first gentleman" was a Republican.

The first spouse has an agenda. No one questions that. Nancy had "say no to drugs" and Hillary had health care for all. Great ideas and do what they want. I am just so sick of Trump attacking Bill. Bill is not running for president. We know Bill cheated. He is not running. Hillary is running. Hillary did not cheat on Bill. Let's talk about issues. Hillary is running.

seb146 wrote:

Hillary is running. Hillary did not cheat on Bill. Let's talk about issues. Hillary is running.

Ok, how about the issue of being a champion for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment rather than investigating and publicly shaming them? I bet I know who Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and a few other women will be voting for, and it sure ain't Hillary.

777Jet wrote:

I'm not defending him, I'm questioning the tactics against him. These comments were made 10 years ago. More so in private ... This is just looking for dirt on Trump to make people forget about the contempt Hillary showed towards tens of millions of Americans very, very recently - whilst she knew she was running for president!

It is perhaps a sad reflection on the level of political debate the parties resort to "mud-slinging" rather than concentrating on policy. If half as much time were spent discussing policy as is spent trying to paint the opposition as evil, perhaps the state of the country would be a lot better.

But the problem with "mud-slinging"is that some of that mud sticks and not just to the intended target. The person who throws the mud ends up with it stuck on their own fingers. Given that the GOP has throughout the campaign brought up Bill Clinton's past "indiscretion", is it really that surprising dirt on Trump would emerge?

And it isn't just what he said ten years ago: in 1997 Trump was named in a suit alleging the very same thing as the GOP accuse Clinton of: sexual harassment and rape. The suit was dropped after Trump settled with the alleged victim's partner in another matter. But if the allegations in the suit are true, then his remarks ten years later show that he hadn't changed his opinion of women since. Neither do some of his more recent remarks.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/300193678/19 ... th-Lawsuit

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Hillary is running. Hillary did not cheat on Bill. Let's talk about issues. Hillary is running.

Ok, how about the issue of being a champion for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment rather than investigating and publicly shaming them? I bet I know who Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and a few other women will be voting for, and it sure ain't Hillary.

Agreed: let's concentrate on the issues. I support championing the victims of sexual harassment and assault but to do so surely means investigating allegations. If you believe Clinton won't, will Trump support such a move?

HGL wrote:

It is perhaps a sad reflection on the level of political debate the parties resort to "mud-slinging" rather than concentrating on policy. If half as much time were spent discussing policy as is spent trying to paint the opposition as evil, perhaps the state of the country would be a lot better.

And what do you do when the opposition is actually evil?

*Deportation force "rounding people up" (Mr. Trump's words) to the tune of 15 million. Know what that echoes of?
*Banning a religious group from entering a country. Know what that echoes of?
*Locking up women for having an abortion. Know what that echoes of?

DocLightning wrote:

And what do you do when the opposition is actually evil?

*Deportation force "rounding people up" (Mr. Trump's words) to the tune of 15 million. Know what that echoes of?
*Banning a religious group from entering a country. Know what that echoes of?
*Locking up women for having an abortion. Know what that echoes of?

These are very much policy matters that you can argue for or against, they are not simply looking for dirt. The conditions in today's USA are very different to those in Germany in 1933, if those are the echoes to which you are referring.

So long as trump isn't organising a paramilitary force with the stated aim of subverting democracy, the Constitutional checks mean that you can still argue against mass deportations, and locking people up for having an abortion. To achieve these things Trump would have to gain the support of Congress and have a supportive Supreme Court. Is he guaranteed that support?

I despise this years election on so many levels, and the one thing I will say-that im sure has maybe been posted somewhere before if only as food for thought: The more Trump goes off the wall with his comments, the more I think he might be in it to throw it-cause it certainly seems he doesn't give a crap.

That being said... the REAL politics I want to see on here is Airbus vs Boeing (Airbus) who's Y/Y+seats are most comfortable (B6/CX imo) and which engine maker is the best (RR/PW/GE in order for sound, RR/GE/PW for design)

HGL wrote:

These are very much policy matters that you can argue for or against, they are not simply looking for dirt. The conditions in today's USA are very different to those in Germany in 1933, if those are the echoes to which you are referring.

So long as trump isn't organising a paramilitary force with the stated aim of subverting democracy, the Constitutional checks mean that you can still argue against mass deportations, and locking people up for having an abortion. To achieve these things Trump would have to gain the support of Congress and have a supportive Supreme Court. Is he guaranteed that support?

Fortunately the conditions are very different, yes. However, the men are not. And if Mr. Trump were to win the Presidency he would indeed have a supportive Supreme Court quickly.

salttee wrote:

pu wrote:

Every hetero male talks like this in my experience, I assume homo males do as well although not in front of me.

If every hetero male you know talks like that, you're either spewing hyperbole, or you're one of the sleaziest guys I've ever conversed with. The number of men I've ever known who would make a statement like that and actually mean it - as Trump obviously did - are in a small minority; and I've traveled around so to speak.

A lot of men tell crude jokes, or have told crude jokes at one time in their lives, I would guess it to be in the order of half to two thirds, but here I'm talking about jokes and that isn't what Trump was doing. He was relating life experience.

Totally agree with your opinion. The type of comments that Trump has made are totally out of line with how men should be treating and respecting women in today's modern society, I am a Trump supporter but the revelation of his latest comments regarding women are seriously making me re-consider my commitment to his campaign.

It's amusing watching a lot of people defending Trump and his inexcusable action over at Breitbart, WND, and Conservative Treehouse.

DocLightning wrote:

And what do you do when the opposition is actually evil?

*Deportation force "rounding people up" (Mr. Trump's words) to the tune of 15 million. Know what that echoes of?

Enforcing a country's immigration laws can be compared to Nazi Germany? I don't know how much farther off the rails one can get.

You know what evil is? Not respecting and enforcing your country's laws to the detriment of your fellow citizens. Or actively enhancing the immigration of people out to harm your citizens, fracture your culture, and/or reject your rule of law. That's tyrannical. That's disgusting, evil behavior. It makes immoral sexual behavior child's play.

777Jet wrote:

So is America under Hillary, which is a shame. America was once the greatest nation on Earth.

The 20th century was the century of America, like the 19th century was from England and the 21th century will be from China (most probably, if not something radical happens over there).

For its citizens, America was a great country from WWII till the 1970th, after that the NEO's took over and that was bad news for the middle class. Grasshopper-economics I would like to call that. The infrastructure is in decline, the average education level declining, the middle class not really improving since the '70, social mobility (the American dream) is less and less (less then in Europe for instance), the top 10% increasing in wealth in a spectacular manor. That all is causing a lot of friction in society.

I am an outsider and would be considered (far) left in America - B. Sanders would be considered middle of the road in The Netherlands - but I think America needs to invest in their society otherwise it will decline further and that would be a shame. Taxes needs to be increased especially for the wealthiest and then especially on capital. And probably the military needs to be decreased, America is spending way too much on that, more then the next five nations combined. Obama had a great plan for increasing spending in the infrastructure and in clean energy to take America out of the crisis of 2008, it was unfortunately voted down by congres.

As far as I can see, the basis of the rise to power of the populist like Trump, or Wilders in the Netherlands for that matter, is the insecurity of especially white male and that needs to be addressed, doesn't mater if Trump wins or Clinton.

HGL wrote:

The conditions in today's USA are very different to those in Germany in 1933, if those are the echoes to which you are referring.

You are right. However, what Trump currently spouts makes it seem like conditions are similar: how Mexicans are stealing jobs (you know...the ones people don't want to work because they're too underpaid or trivial), how manufacturing is going downhill (which is true, but it means higher skilled jobs are also up for grabs), and how the American dream is dead.

When you say "Make America Great Again", you're saying that you're in such bad shape that there's nowhere to go but up. So yeah, you and I know we're not pre-WW2 Germany, but Trump supporters seem to think so.

MSPNWA wrote:

Enforcing a country's immigration laws can be compared to Nazi Germany? I don't know how much farther off the rails one can get.

Two differences:
1. Are you willing to break a family apart, where the child (a natural born US citizen) could be left alone while its parents return to the country of origin?
2. If you see a Hispanic, will you be able to know if they're here illegally or not?

If you answered no to the second one (as I suspect you will since I doubt you'll be able to distinguish between who's here legally or not), it means you have to start signalling out Hispanics and harass them to show papers, which means that you're already signalling out a minority, which (surprise) was what Nazi Germany did.

Trump's "apology" is an insult to every woman and every man who has a daughter.

He didn't apologize for his behavior. He apologized for letting his 'locker room' comments be caught on tape.

He just couldn't say he was sorry that behavior and comments. He tried to justify the comments as normal.

That is why I personally cannot stand him. He NEVER takes responsibility for his actions. He always has an excuse.

Kind of like a guy involved in looting a store in a riot. It wasn't wrong because everybody else does it.

MSPNWA wrote:

You know what evil is? Not respecting and enforcing your country's laws to the detriment of your fellow citizens. Or actively enhancing the immigration of people out to harm your citizens, fracture your culture, and/or reject your rule of law. That's tyrannical. That's disgusting, evil behavior. It makes immoral sexual behavior child's play.

"Fracture your culture"? Do you even listen to yourself talk every once in a while?

How would you explain immigration "fracturing" the culture of the US? Immigration is, has always been and will always be a central part of the American culture, the country's DNA in a more metaphorical way. The nation was built by and on immigration.
Apart from that, what type of immigration are you even dramatizing here?

Central Americans? Should not be too much of a conflict, those are roughly from the same cultural background... or those 20000 Syrian refugees? In a nation of 320 Million people that must really be a danger to the culture right? 20000 refugees live within a 10-mile radius of my home and our culture has not changed a bit...

Too late to edit my previous post.

Trump did release a video apology this morning. He said he was wrong to make those comments.

He didn't try to justify the comments in any way.

-------

One think which really bothers me about this thread is how few people say such comments are wrong, insulting, inappropriate, etc.

The thread, in my opinion, should be about Trump's comments, not about justifying them.

Those who say his comments are just like other people's comments are using situational ethics

777Jet wrote:

Given that posts are being removed, and I have to go to work now for 12 hours so that I can pay my tax and support those on welfare who choose not to work,

And that ladies and gentlemen should be all you really need to read.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Hillary is running. Hillary did not cheat on Bill. Let's talk about issues. Hillary is running.

Ok, how about the issue of being a champion for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment rather than investigating and publicly shaming them? I bet I know who Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and a few other women will be voting for, and it sure ain't Hillary.

Why not? The times they are a changin' as the song goes. Rape culture is being talked about and things are being done about it. We already know Bill cheated. But, again:

BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE!!!

People keep excusing Trump for things. Like being a poor businessman or for being a misogynist or for making Hitler-type remarks. Hillary/Kaine do none of those things and they are hated. I guess, to get all the votes, Hillary/Kaine should start objectifying women, talking about how great rape is and talk about setting up internment camps.

MSPNWA wrote:

Enforcing a country's immigration laws can be compared to Nazi Germany?

Yes. Mass round-ups of millions can be compared to Nazi Germany where the Gestapo were also enforcing their laws.

Any other questions?

HGL wrote:

But if the allegations in the suit are true, then his remarks ten years later show that he hadn't changed his opinion of women since. Neither do some of his more recent remarks.

Exactly - his remarks from last week show he hasn't changed his opinion of women.

MSPNWA wrote:

Enforcing a country's immigration laws can be compared to Nazi Germany? I don't know how much farther off the rails one can get.
.

No, but blaming all immigrants for all the problems of the US and focusing the deranged vitriol the trumpanzees on them *is* firmly on the road to something that resembles Nazi Germany. On what planet does "ban all Muslims" make sense to you? Or calling all Mexicans rapists and criminals (granted, "some" are alright)? Or blocking all war refugees from entering the country despite all evidence to the contrary? Or whipping up angry white ignorant men into a frenzy when illegal immigration is at a recent low and deportations at a high? If Jesus ever returned, Republicans would round him up and eject him from the country faster than they can say "thoughts 'n prayers"...if they didn't shoot him first.

seb146 wrote:

BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE!!!

What???? And all these right wingers finally convinced me not to vote for him this election...

Now that Trump has done more apologizing, think we can get the Clintons to apologize for their treatment of woman? Would be more than fair to demand it.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Two differences:
1. Are you willing to break a family apart, where the child (a natural born US citizen) could be left alone while its parents return to the country of origin?
2. If you see a Hispanic, will you be able to know if they're here illegally or not?

If you answered no to the second one (as I suspect you will since I doubt you'll be able to distinguish between who's here legally or not), it means you have to start signalling out Hispanics and harass them to show papers, which means that you're already signalling out a minority, which (surprise) was what Nazi Germany did.

1. Absolutely. Any American citizen should be willing to make the tough choice if it's the right thing (that child isn't just "left alone" by its parents, you can be sure of that). They broke the law. There MUST to be consequences for doing so. A country without borders isn't a country. A country without laws isn't a country. Anyone who's against enforcing the most basic immigration laws is un-American. PERIOD.
2. That's an irrelevant "problem", but it would not be impossible to clear that hurdle. You know, the same party who thinks government has a solution for everything suddenly believes there's no solution when it comes to enforcing immigration. And besides, it would not single out one culture, and it would not punish those that followed the basic immigration laws that every country has. Even the lawbreakers would get treated respectfully. I can get pulled over and checked for minor offenses, or just suspicion of offenses, on the road. And funny, I have to provide a legal right to operate a motor vehicle. That's a far cry from being allowed to lawfully occupy a country, and yet I have to prove my right. Yet we can't check citizenship because it might hurt someone's feelings? Ridiculous! Again, there is simply no comparison. It's disgusting that you're even trying to justify that comparison.

DocLightning wrote:

Yes. Mass round-ups of millions can be compared to Nazi Germany where the Gestapo were also enforcing their laws.

See above. Disgusting comparison.

lugie wrote:

"Fracture your culture"? Do you even listen to yourself talk every once in a while?

You ever lived where immigrants, legal or otherwise, occupy a large number of the population and have no desire to assimilate into your culture? Where I grew up is now that way. Where I live now is that way. Sorry if reality is hard to comprehend.

seb146 wrote:

BILL IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE!!!

Doesn't matter. What we know that Hillary was a key enabler of Bill's sexual behavior. And second, anyone saying that Trump's behavior someone how doesn't "qualify" him (as arbitrary as that is), is a hypocrite if they believe that Bill (and subsequently Hillary) Clinton are.

I find Trump's comments to be awful. They shouldn't ever be said. But they don't give the green light to hypocrisy.

Dreadnought wrote:

Hillis wrote:

The man isn't qualified at any level to be President of the United States. That's been the view of many since he began this charade. But if you want to, quite literally, put the cherry on top, this is it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/ ... index.html

He is just a disgusting, lowlife dirtbag. Period.

Since this sort of thing is no different than Bill Clinton's behaviour (And Bill was far more promiscuous and allegedly raped a number of women), and Hillary knew about it, facilitated it, and actively threatened and attacked women who dared to speak up, what does that make Bill and Hillary?

BILL CLINTON IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. It has nothing to do with this! Nothing! What part of that don't you get? And I'm sure, as a good card-carrying rightie, you were all over Bill Clinton for that, and probably felt his "crime" was worth losing the Presidency over, then why don't condemn Trump for the same thing? I know why. Because it's not about this at all. It's about your personal hatred of the Clinton's that, I'm sure, goes back 30 some years, and is heaped in old "scandals" that only existed in the minds of bitter Repubicans.

This doesn't make Hillary anything. Why are you trying to say it says anything about her? It doesn't. And that's where decent people are drawing the line here. What Trump said is vulger, disgusting and demeaning towards woman. Do you not have the decency to admit that? If you don't, I question whether you should have the right to vote.