flyingturtle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Worse? What I don't get is that Trump has just about insulted everyone and only now - because of a 15 y/o piece - everyone is getting upset?

It has gotten worse because people can now vividly imagine how Trump treats women. Before, it was just slander: "Cruz, your wife looks like an old hag!" or something like that. In the same manner, a picture is more vivid than a text describing the same stuff. It's more memorable, it is more accessible.

David

Interesting, I thought it was quite vivid how he plans to build a wall, or he doesn't care if nucleair weapons are used in Europe, or...

Treatment of women is repulsive, but nothing that wasn't known before. I genuinely am surprised of this reaction of the American public. But I guess that is the difference between European politics and American one.

flyingturtle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Worse? What I don't get is that Trump has just about insulted everyone and only now - because of a 15 y/o piece - everyone is getting upset?

It has gotten worse because people can now vividly imagine how Trump treats women. Before, it was just slander: "Cruz, your wife looks like an old hag!" or something like that. In the same manner, a picture is more vivid than a text describing the same stuff. It's more memorable, it is more accessible.

David

But what's wrong with Trump treating certain kind of women in a certain way? Women who allow you to grope them and have sex with you just because you're rich and famous don't exactly have high morals to begin with. That doesn't mean Trump would treat all women like that, just those who are clearly into it, the Kim Kardashian type that is growing more and more numerous each passing year thanks to commercialization and general degeneracy.

A significant percentage of western of women would love to get groped by Trump if in return he bought them fancy gifts.

pvjin wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Worse? What I don't get is that Trump has just about insulted everyone and only now - because of a 15 y/o piece - everyone is getting upset?

It has gotten worse because people can now vividly imagine how Trump treats women. Before, it was just slander: "Cruz, your wife looks like an old hag!" or something like that. In the same manner, a picture is more vivid than a text describing the same stuff. It's more memorable, it is more accessible.

David

But what's wrong with Trump treating certain kind of women in a certain way? Women who allow you to grope them and have sex with you just because you're rich and famous don't exactly have high morals to begin with. That doesn't mean Trump would treat all women like that, just those who are clearly into it, the Kim Kardashian type that is growing more and more numerous each passing year thanks to commercialization and general degeneracy.

A significant percentage of western of women would love to get groped by Trump if in return he bought them fancy gifts.

There is something really wrong with your moral compass if you truly mean this.

pvjin wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Worse? What I don't get is that Trump has just about insulted everyone and only now - because of a 15 y/o piece - everyone is getting upset?

It has gotten worse because people can now vividly imagine how Trump treats women. Before, it was just slander: "Cruz, your wife looks like an old hag!" or something like that. In the same manner, a picture is more vivid than a text describing the same stuff. It's more memorable, it is more accessible.

David

But what's wrong with Trump treating certain kind of women in a certain way? Women who allow you to grope them and have sex with you just because you're rich and famous don't exactly have high morals to begin with. That doesn't mean Trump would treat all women like that, just those who are clearly into it, the Kim Kardashian type that is growing more and more numerous each passing year thanks to commercialization and general degeneracy.

A significant percentage of western of women would love to get groped by Trump if in return he bought them fancy gifts.

Are you serious with this?

I will grant you there are women who would have sex with Trump just to get a lovely parting gift, but women do not want unsolicited gropes and grabs. Would you want Kanye to just walk up to you and grab your junk without so much as a hello?

777Jet wrote:

America's position has been slowly weakening under Obama.

The US has two modes of moving ( down ).
Under GOP presidents the downfall is actively managed from the top.
( though the top boss is an industrial actor doing what he is paid for.)
Under DEM presidents the president is defanged by an uncooperative/destructive oppostion.
the downfall is furthered by a multitude of faction leads that power up on an ineffective president.

Outcome is GaGa in both cases.

Last president who seems to have had some autonomy was Kennedy.
( shot fast. seems to have been a system break down that brought him to power.)

There is something really wrong with your moral compass if you truly mean this.

Nah, but there's something really wrong with moral compasses of many western women. We live in shallow times based on my observations, money is the greatest aphrodisiac.

Are you serious with this?

I will grant you there are women who would have sex with Trump just to get a lovely parting gift, but women do not want unsolicited gropes and grabs. Would you want Kanye to just walk up to you and grab your junk without so much as a hello?

I'm pretty sure in practice Trump wouldn't just go to random woman and grope her without any previous interaction, not everything he says should be taken literally.

pvjin wrote:

But what's wrong with Trump treating certain kind of women in a certain way? Women who allow you to grope them and have sex with you just because you're rich and famous don't exactly have high morals to begin with. That doesn't mean Trump would treat all women like that, just those who are clearly into it, the Kim Kardashian type that is growing more and more numerous each passing year thanks to commercialization and general degeneracy.

Since your moral compass seems to point incorrectly, allow me to correct it:

The Golden Rule Is The Most Important Moral Rule.

*If you wouldn't want a big huge man backing you up against a wall and having his way with you, don't do it to other people.

*What two (or three or six) consenting adults do together in private is none of your business unless you are one of those adults.

*There is a major difference between consensual sexual acts and forced sexual acts.

*Sexual assault is always the assaulter's fault.

I am always stunned when I have to explain these basics to other adults.

Oh, and one more thing, if Western women are so morally loose and willing to give up their virtue for money, what's this about?

http://www.russianbrides.com/Pages/Sear ... Anlj8P8HAQ

pvjin wrote:

There is something really wrong with your moral compass if you truly mean this.

Nah, but there's something really wrong with moral compasses of many western women. We live in shallow times based on my observations, money is the greatest aphrodisiac.

A very dangerous statement to make. And to make a generalizing comment like this on your own observation is not recommended. I see a lot of other women whom aren't obsessed with money.

pvjin, you've just highlighted why there are such tensions between Russia and, not just the US, but between Russia and the west. It is why Russia has never been completely accepted as a part of Europe. You're attitude towards women and civility reflects the Russian attitude towards each other and the world. At some point in the future, Russia is going to have to shed its penchant towards boorish thuggery, why don't you begin the process on a personal level and disavow the idea of exerting physical dominance against women?

Just thought of another reason that if this creep ever got to be POTUS why his views on woman could be dangerous for the nation.

Back in the early 60's, there were rumors that JFK slept with a woman who was rumored to be a Russian spy. I don't think it was ever corroberated, but the implications of something like that would have far-reaching consequences for this nation of a POTUS somehow let something slip that shouldn't have been heard by just anyone. The same thing was true for Bill Clinton, and it would be true for Trump. He could be a ripe target for sexual blackmail by a foreign power.

Would creepy Hillary's aversion to using secure communications be a danger for the nation?

Allright, allright, I agree with the golden rule. But I don't think Trump has actually sexually assaulted anyone, assuming that flirting doesn't count as sexual assault.

Oh, and one more thing, if Western women are so morally loose and willing to give up their virtue for money, what's this about?

Never claimed Russian women were any different, ultimately Russia exactly have very religious population thanks to the Soviet times, and religion based morals are the main thing restricting that kind of behaviour.

pvjin, you've just highlighted why there are such tensions between Russia and, not just the US, but between Russia and the west. It is why Russia has never been completely accepted as a part of Europe. You're attitude towards women and civility reflects the Russian attitude towards each other and the world. At some point in the future, Russia is going to have to shed its penchant towards boorish thuggery, why don't you begin the process on a personal level and disavow the idea of exerting physical dominance against women?

At least I'm not making threads to non-av where I claim, against all evidence, that Russians are evil monsters who would intentionally shoot down a random passenger plane for no reason, and then refuse to accept the facts when they are thrown in front of my face.

Also, based on current trends I would say that in 100 years from now males exerting physical dominance against women is a norm in Western Europe, thanks to dropping birth rates and massive migration from countries where such behaviour is an absolute norm rather than exception. Then Western European women will wish they lived in Russia instead.

After all this, Trump will still have his billions and his business deals, Hillary will become president, and Billy Bush will have a painful career reality when he learns he needs to be careful who he associates with and what he does with them.

Something is wrong with system if some one like this gets this far. Period.

YZF101 wrote:

Would creepy Hillary's aversion to using secure communications be a danger for the nation?

You should keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State at the time she used her own server. Nobody could have been in a better position to decide what was really an important secret than her, after all she set policy for the State Department. The fact that she ignored the bureaucratic process which assigned security levels to various communications, which were set up for underlings, was a trivial breach of bureaucratic procedure - as were the same actions by other Secretary of States before her.

This is, and always was, a mountain made out of a molehill - a big nothing.

And it is hilarious that someone who is from the faction that gave us Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Richard Nixon, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Trey Gowdy and Ted Cruz would ever bring up the word "creepy", you fools wear that word as you do your skin.

So now I have to make a separate post to say that Roy Cohn was Donald Trump's lawyer.

Which adds a little creepyness to the both of them.

salttee wrote:

YZF101 wrote:

Would creepy Hillary's aversion to using secure communications be a danger for the nation?

You should keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State at the time she used her own server. Nobody could have been in a better position to decide what was really an important secret than her, after all she set policy for the State Department. The fact that she ignored the bureaucratic process which assigned security levels to various communications, which were set up for underlings, was a trivial breach of bureaucratic procedure - as were the same actions by other Secretary of States before her.

This is, and always was, a mountain made out of a molehill - a big nothing.

And it is hilarious that someone who is from the faction that gave us Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Richard Nixon, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Trey Gowdy and Ted Cruz would ever bring up the word "creepy", you fools wear that word as you do your skin.

LOL. This is truly brilliant, glad you brought this up. Funny thing is, I was taking a tongue in cheek retort to the even more brilliant post made by one of the annointed, Hillis. You know, the post just before mine where Trump was referred to as "this creep".

But aside from the very lame shot at me, you do make a very good point - one that shows that she NEVER should become president, nor does she have the capability to hold that office. " Nobody could have been in a better position to decide what was really an important secret than her, after all she set policy for the State Department. The fact that she ignored the bureaucratic process which assigned security levels to various communications, which were set up for underlings, was a trivial breach of bureaucratic procedure - as were the same actions by other Secretary of States before her." Sounds a lot like she knows better than anyone, and therefore cannot be made to be wrong. Even if she was. Kinda feeds the conspiracy types, don't you think? Sheesh, try and be a little more circumspect in what you write - you make her out to be more of a tyrant than she might be.

Oh, and procedure is procedure, is it not? Or is just followed when you figure you can get away with it? Hate to think what she'd actually do if she wins. At least, for the time being, there is a constitution. Will she follow it like her predecessor, or just when she thinks she has to.....

YZF101 wrote:

As I said - a mountain out of a molehill.
There never was anything to this story.

Just months ago, these same people who think Trump's comments and actions are nothing are the same people who were worried that men would be putting on dresses and raping women in ever North Carolina bathroom....

phatfarmlines wrote:

After all this, Trump will still have his billions and his business deals, Hillary will become president, and Billy Bush will have a painful career reality when he learns he needs to be careful who he associates with and what he does with them.

I honestly don't think he has "billions", and if you look at his record, he's a shitty businessman.

YZF101 wrote:

Would creepy Hillary's aversion to using secure communications be a danger for the nation?

First off, follow the Trump script, it's "Crooked Hillary".

Secondly, no more so than when Powell or Rice did the same thing.

salttee wrote:

YZF101 wrote:

As I said - a mountain out of a molehill.
There never was anything to this story.

We will certainly find out in the debate tonight and the polls and election to follow. A gutter mouth billionaire Grandfather who insults, women and just happens to be running for our highest office is certainly news and there is no doubt more coming when they dig it out. I feel for his yes, wealthy children and Grandchildren, especially the Trump girls. Wealth and position can only erase so much shame. I will not say that Trump the Rump should bow out, him staying in is more valuable to the Democrats. Like what was said in jest yesterday. The Republicans will need until 2096 to repair the damage done in this election

Hillis wrote:

YZF101 wrote:

Would creepy Hillary's aversion to using secure communications be a danger for the nation?

First off, follow the Trump script, it's "Crooked Hillary".

Secondly, no more so than when Powell or Rice did the same thing.

I'm not good at following scripts, so I guess I'm just steerage-class despicable?

Ok, so I understand that others did it too - does that make it right or the correct way to do things? I mean, you know, Nixon did things....will she, if elected? Bush bombed the heck out of places...she would too? Obama flew into sovereign airspace, would she? JFK went to the moon - we'd all be better off if she did too

She would rise above all that nonsense....yes?

pvjin wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Worse? What I don't get is that Trump has just about insulted everyone and only now - because of a 15 y/o piece - everyone is getting upset?

It has gotten worse because people can now vividly imagine how Trump treats women. Before, it was just slander: "Cruz, your wife looks like an old hag!" or something like that. In the same manner, a picture is more vivid than a text describing the same stuff. It's more memorable, it is more accessible.

David

But what's wrong with Trump treating certain kind of women in a certain way? Women who allow you to grope them and have sex with you just because you're rich and famous don't exactly have high morals to begin with. That doesn't mean Trump would treat all women like that, just those who are clearly into it, the Kim Kardashian type that is growing more and more numerous each passing year thanks to commercialization and general degeneracy.

A significant percentage of western of women would love to get groped by Trump if in return he bought them fancy gifts.

I can't believe that so many people in here actually think that people necessarily do what they brag about doing, especially when it comes to sexual claims! LOL The same people who claim that Trump is a liar seem to take his word on his sexual conduct. A bit of irony there

Trump did grab those vaginas, but hypothetically, Imagine if he did not grab any unwanting vaginas. These comments come out, and that opens the floodgate of greedy Western females looking for a freed ride to come forward and claim that he assaulted him. Whether he actually did or not, it wouldn't matter as he foolishly admitted that in his comments. May this be a lesson for guys that try to big note themselves, especially the ones who bs and makes fantasy claims about their sexual conduct just to big note themselves

Dutchy wrote:

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.

China's positioning is getting more strong, that has nothing to do with Obama. As I understand it, Trump wants to turn his back on the rest of the world, well then the influence of America will weakening even more and more rapidly.

What do you mean by: "American take care of her own and do what's in her own best interest."

America needs to take care of Americans and do what's in the best interest of Americans, before trying to help others. Charity begins at home.

777Jet wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

777Jet wrote:

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.

China's positioning is getting more strong, that has nothing to do with Obama. As I understand it, Trump wants to turn his back on the rest of the world, well then the influence of America will weakening even more and more rapidly.

What do you mean by: "American take care of her own and do what's in her own best interest."

America needs to take care of Americans and do what's in the best interest of Americans, before trying to help others. Charity begins at home.

Golly, gee whilakers! Why didn't the American people think of that? The whole reason Republicans got a majority in Congress in 2014 was because they promised to create good paying jobs and a better alternative to Obamacare. Where is that?

ltbewr wrote:

It is possible Sunday's Town Hall/Debate will be cancelled by the Commission or by either candidate withdrawing.

Not long until the entertainment begins!

At least Trump apologized as soon as questioned about these comments. Can't say the same for then incumbent POTUS Bill Clinton at the time who lied, and lied, and lied, in office about not having sexual relations with "that women". Then there's Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. But yeah, Hillary is running now, not Bill. So then, let's not forget the child rapist, Thomas Alfred Taylor, that Hillary helped get off the hook in 1975 for raping a 12 year old girl... Of course Hillary didn't feel comfortable in her role, but actions speak louder than words...

777Jet wrote:

seb146 wrote:

777Jet wrote:

America needs to take care of Americans and do what's in the best interest of Americans, before trying to help others. Charity begins at home.

Golly, gee whilakers! Why didn't the American people think of that? The whole reason Republicans got a majority in Congress in 2014 was because they promised to create good paying jobs and a better alternative to Obamacare. Where is that?

Muted by the leftist rainbow warriors who talk over anything that neither fits nor suites their progressive agenda of far more important issues that MUST be addressed or the planet will stop turning?

So, Republicans decide to not take up any jobs bills or any alternative to Obamacare because.....? Bathroom bills? Cake? You make no sense.

How Congress works is: the party in the majority (Republicans now for almost two years) get to set the agenda. So far, they have done nothing. Because Republican leadership has decided to take the most days off of any Congress ever. But, yeah, go ahead and keep blaming those who want equality. Those are the real monsters not making jobs and health care and affordable college.

777Jet wrote:

At least Trump apologized as soon as questioned about these comments.

He did no such thing: he made a qualified apology, saying "if I have offended somebody". That is not a real apology, particularly when he went on to justify or trivialise the comments by reference to the former President. Whatever wrong Bill Clinton did in no way excuses Trump's own behaviour. Treump could have said, "I was wrong to hold these attitudes, for which I apologise", and left it at that. Instead he tried to minimise the impact and turn it around by bringing some of the women involved to join him at a media show.

It might have been interesting if Hillary Clinton had brought to her media show the women that have lodged claims against trump in the past, including Jill Harth who accused him of attempted rape. If you are really concerned about hypocrisy, doing so would certainly expose that of Trump. Interesting that he invited Paula Jones given what he has said about her in the past. He described her as "loser", going on to say “It’s just a really unattractive group. I’m not just talking about physical,” while describing Clinton “he is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position”.

777Jet wrote:

Of course Hillary didn't feel comfortable in her role, but actions speak louder than words...

Are you suggesting that Clinton should have simply assumed guilt and refused to take the case as ordered? It is not up to a lawyer, any lawyer, to like a client. However, it is their duty to represent the client to the best interest of the client. The adversarial nature of the courts can lead to outcome that we don't like but to criticise Clinton for doing her job appears a bit bizarre.

777Jet wrote:

So then, let's not forget the child rapist, Thomas Alfred Taylor, that Hillary helped get off the hook in 1975 for raping a 12 year old girl... Of course Hillary didn't feel comfortable in her role, but actions speak louder than words...

That's been debunked a million times. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-f ... -about-it/

MaverickM11 wrote:

777Jet wrote:

So then, let's not forget the child rapist, Thomas Alfred Taylor, that Hillary helped get off the hook in 1975 for raping a 12 year old girl... Of course Hillary didn't feel comfortable in her role, but actions speak louder than words...

That's been debunked a million times. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-f ... -about-it/

By an article by the failed liberal blogger Kim Lacapria... LOL... I just spilled my coffee...

777Jet wrote:

By an article by the failed liberal blogger Kim Lacapria... LOL... I just spilled my coffee...

Have you refilled your cup? Then have a read of this one:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clinto ... rape-case/

HGL wrote:

777Jet wrote:

By an article by the failed liberal blogger Kim Lacapria... LOL... I just spilled my coffee...

Have you refilled your cup? Then have a read of this one:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clinto ... rape-case/

Prove that the conversation between Clinton & Mahlon Gibson actually took place.

She defended the creep.

777Jet wrote:

She defended the creep.

As was her job. She succeeded because the case against the creep fell apart because the State lacked evidence.

Again, are you saying that a lawyer should not represent their client (and remember that Clinton was directed by the Court to do so)?

HGL wrote:

777Jet wrote:

She defended the creep.

As was her job. She succeeded because the case against the creep fell apart because the State lacked evidence.

Again, are you saying that a lawyer should not represent their client (and remember that Clinton was directed by the Court to do so)?

That was her choice. Just like it was her choice to delete and acid bleach the 33,000 emails after knowing that they were subpoenaed / preserved items.

The more contempt Hillary shows as she gets older the more it paints her moral character in a dim light.

777Jet wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Except for you! Because you are a fool, as everybody knows.

So no proof. As I expected. Well done.

Google Kathy Shelton. It's all there.

So nothing. You can't even defend your own squawking.

seb146 wrote:

Muted by the leftist rainbow warriors who talk over anything that neither fits nor suites their progressive agenda

Perhaps we can edit the above now as you glibly ignore the point that the "creep" was not acquitted of rape because Clinton got him off but because the State was unable to provide evidence of guilt. Instead of criticising the prosecution for having stuffed up by losing the vital evidence, you point the blame at a politician of whom you disapprove. That's fine if you believe that the presumption of innocence should be removed from our criminal law.

Instead of acknowledging this simple fact, you now shift ground because it doesn't fit with your own "agenda". Please remind me who it was that levels charges of hypocrisy.

777Jet wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... uilty.html

Took all but ten seconds to find.

There are hundreds more articles just like it.

That is funny. No, I mean it, it is funny. Only a few minutes ago you complained of a link to "the failed liberal blogger Kim Lacapria" and then post the Daily Mail, whose most famous headline ever was "Hurrah for the Black Shirts!" There is a reason why most people in the UK refer to that paper as the Daily Fail.

It won't win him over independents, but his core voter base certainly won't care about it. Might make some conservative women decide that they can't be screwed coming out to vote for him.

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

SOBHI51 wrote:

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

This reminds me very much of the Joe McCarthy era. As a US senator McCarthy actually did launch investigations into hundreds of people and destroyed many of their lives and careers. His Schtick was anti-communism but really it was about cynical self promotion, much as Trump's charges against Hillary are today.

Joe McCarthy's attorney was a complete sleazebag named Roy Cohn, a person absolutely devoid of ethics. Later in his life Cohn served as an attorney for Trump.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... thy-213799

SOBHI51 wrote:

I said it before, i am not too much into American politics. But, did ever a nominee ever threatened to jail the other nominee if he wins the election? It sounds more like a third world country much more that the USA.

Trump doesn't care about the trias politica, which should be quite worrying, his core voters won't care unfortunately. Trump is a jester, he can attack the ruling class with impunity, but society has a problem if a jester thinks he can be king.

pvjin wrote:

Never claimed Russian women were any different, ultimately Russia exactly have very religious population thanks to the Soviet times, and religion based morals are the main thing restricting that kind of behaviour.

Nope. Sorry, your women are just as loose as ours. Your culture is not superior to ours.

I am waiting for the first accusation against Trump for abuse or assault or some other similar charge. I fully believe that there are a number of women who have been paid a settlement along with a rock solid non-disclosure agreement.

Hmmm.... Maybe that is why he won't release his taxes. And I am nearly positive he never will release his returns if he wins or not. At this point there is no benefit to him, he has already proven himself a bald faced liar and his supporters are OK with that. So why bother?

Tugg

How can some Republican's NOT think that groping a woman's vagina is not sexual assault.....
I rarely quote "The Blaze" but this is too much, presenting Jeff Sessions being stupid:

Sessions told The Weekly Standard that Trump used “very improper language, and he’s acknowledged that.”

John McCormack, a writer for The Weekly Standard pressed, “But beyond the language, would you characterize the behavior described in that as sexual assault if that behavior actually took place?”

“I don’t characterize that as sexual assault,” Sessions replied. “I think that’s a stretch. I don’t know what he meant—”

“So if you grab a woman by the genitals, that’s not sexual assault?” McCormack interjected.

“I don’t know,” Sessions said. “It’s not clear that he — how that would occur.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10 ... l-assault/

Tugg

DocLightning wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Never claimed Russian women were any different, ultimately Russia exactly have very religious population thanks to the Soviet times, and religion based morals are the main thing restricting that kind of behaviour.

your women are just as loose as ours.

Are you talking from experience Doc?

As for the Russian bride stuff, Russian women are far more petite, feminine and attractive / sexy than Western females, particularly American females, hence the market for Russian brides that men would be willing to pay for. Very few would pay for an American bride. Credit to Russian women that they are in demand!

777jet.

America needs to take care of Americans and do what's in the best interest of Americans, before trying to help others. Charity begins at home.

On that we agree 100 % and you will not find a word of mine that says differently unless I am getting senile. Of course I have been called that on here also by one of our recently not heard from right wingnuts. He has not been missed either.

Would the costs of a large "non-disclosure" agreement to silence a rape claim be allowed as a federal tax deduction? How would you disguise it on the return? Oh......the possibilities!

777jet

As for the Russian bride stuff, Russian women are far more petite, feminine and attractive / sexy than Western females, particularly American females, hence the market for Russian brides that men would be willing to pay for. Very few would pay for an American bride. Credit to Russian women that they are in demand!

I wonder if the attraction of the Russian woman is they are more submissive than American women who I just love. I myself having having grown up during the cold war years when Russian women looked like they could throw a man over a fence, I find the Petite and feminine claim a little bit of a stretch. I will not even go into the Russian women athletes of the of the Olympics. Now everything changes, so I am not an expert on Russian woman, of course I am with American women.