Donald vs Hillary

Derek 2.0 · October 14, 2016

5 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

And I never called him a rapist. I said he bragged about sexual assault. Whether he did it or not doesn't matter. Someone running for president of the free world shouldn't be such a disgusting creep. It's indefensible.

Sure, on paper, but I highly doubt of the last dozen or so Presidents (absent maybe Carter, Nixon and Bush the elder) that much has changed in terms of "sexual bravado" among other men......Trump is just more pronounced and got caught.........It would have been interesting to transpose JFK and RFK into today's 24/7 media cycle.

14 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

And I don't for a second buy that this is some "boys will be boys" garbage. That's insulting to men everywhere. Nobody I hang out with has ever bragged about groping women against their will, saying they could do whatever they want with them because they're afraid to say no.

I'd liken that to being subjective to ones own self and circle of family, friends and acquaintances.......off color sexual "bravado" is as taboo and offensive to some as racist and dark humored jokes....to others its old hat, funny or it is what it is......bullshit, no more worth the consumption of thought then rumors and astrology.

cybercoma · October 14, 2016

I'm pretty sure Trump could admit to murdering someone and you would defend him. In fact, I'm certain of it because you're defending him admitting to rape. This was not sexual bravado. Sex is consensual. This was rape bravado.

Edited October 14, 2016 by cybercoma

Derek 2.0 · October 14, 2016

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

I'm pretty sure Trump could admit to murdering someone and you would defend him. In fact, I'm certain of it because you're defending him admitting to rape. This was not sexual bravado. Sex is consensual. This was rape bravado.

Why would I do that? I'm not even defending him over what I consider "sexual bravado".......I don't like the guy.......I don't let such remarks get me bent out of shape though.

BC_chick · October 14, 2016

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

That's him, not her. In the post I responded to, you were talking about allegations against Ms. Clinton, not Mr. Clinton.

As for the allegation that *she* tried to destroy these women, I don't think the article you linked really says that. To me it reads more that it was a political decision, taken by Bill and his advisers that she either agreed with or at least didn't fight. I didn't get the sense from the article that she was leading this charge at all.

I feel like I'm going in circles here because I've already responded to this issue but I'll repeat. This was the 'two for the price of one' couple. The 'we are the president' couple. She was very much involved in his presidency and his campaign.

I don't know about you, but if my husband cheated on me and his strategy for damage control was to hire an investigator to dig up anything on the women's pasts to discredit them, I'd be appalled.

You may just shrug your shoulders (best case scenario of what Hillary did).... or you may say yes baby, go get 'em (worst case scenario of what she did)... I don't know. Maybe that's why you don't find anything wrong with what she did.

Although I think she's much more qualified to be POTUS, I find that that part of her behaviour, well... deplorable.

Edited October 14, 2016 by BC_chick

BC_chick · October 14, 2016

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

So all the allegation against Trump about the sexual misconduct is nothing more than allegations. I mean if the Clinton's have not been charged for their nefarious dealings over the years I think we can let this one thing about Trump slide. Like a cigar in the oval (oral?) office.

If everything is based on reputation and he said vs. she said then I agree, both sides are being obliviously blind to one side's misconduct.

But in Clinton's defense, while both are pigs, at least Bill Clinton was a qualified president.

Trump is a despot who wants to erode civil rights, drop nukes and jail political opponents.

dialamah · October 14, 2016

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

I don't know about you, but if my husband cheated on me and his strategy for damage control was to hire an investigator to dig up anything on the women's pasts to discredit them, I'd be appalled.

You may just shrug your shoulders (best case scenario of what Hillary did).... or you may say yes baby, go get 'em (worst case scenario of what she did)... I don't know. Maybe that's why you don't find anything wrong with what she did.

Although I think she's much more qualified to be POTUS, I find that that part of her behaviour, well... deplorable.

Simply, I don't think anyone outside of politics would do that. Therefore, I see this as a political move and essentially normal, inasmuch as politics can be normal. In many, or even most ways, I would agree that politics are deplorable.

Although maybe I'm wrong and people outside of politics do hire investigators to try to discredit their spouse's lovers/accusers. I have to say, though, that I would have little trouble with the idea of discrediting a woman who chose to screw my husband, knowing he was married. Doesn't mean I would be excusing him, but I don't think either of them gets a free pass.

betsy · October 14, 2016

It ain't over til it's over!

Rasmussen report narrows Hillary's lead.

The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%.

Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.

White House Watch - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

Edited October 14, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 14, 2016

Looks like "unshackled Trump," is working.

Edited October 14, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 14, 2016

deleted. See below.

Edited October 14, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 14, 2016

6 hours ago, BC_chick said:

I feel like I'm going in circles here because I've already responded to this issue but I'll repeat. This was the 'two for the price of one' couple. The 'we are the president' couple. She was very much involved in his presidency and his campaign.

I don't know about you, but if my husband cheated on me and his strategy for damage control was to hire an investigator to dig up anything on the women's pasts to discredit them, I'd be appalled.

You may just shrug your shoulders (best case scenario of what Hillary did).... or you may say yes baby, go get 'em (worst case scenario of what she did)... I don't know. Maybe that's why you don't find anything wrong with what she did.

Although I think she's much more qualified to be POTUS, I find that that part of her behaviour, well... deplorable.

6 hours ago, BC_chick said:

If everything is based on reputation and he said vs. she said then I agree, both sides are being obliviously blind to one side's misconduct.

But in Clinton's defense, while both are pigs, at least Bill Clinton was a qualified president.

Trump is a despot who wants to erode civil rights, drop nukes and jail political opponents.

So, both of you find nothing wrong with Hillary's method of climbing to power? Her ambition trumps all. (No pun intended).

She's shown to have no qualms at throwing the Constitution - and people like these women - under the bus.....just to get to the top! She also obstructs justice. You guys can't stomach crude language....and yet you find sociopathic Hillary, acceptable.....<scratching head>

Edited October 14, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 14, 2016

It ain't over til it's over!

According to Rasmussen, there actually still are millions of undecideds and flexibly committeds.

Eighty-four percent (84%) now say they are certain how they will vote in this year’s presidential election, and among these voters, Trump posts a 49% to 46% lead over Clinton. Among voters who say they still could change their minds between now and Election Day, it’s Clinton 40%, Trump 37%, Johnson 19% and Stein four percent (4%).

Wow, 40% of Hillary’s voters could change their minds. And Wikileaks keeps leaking.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/rasmussen_poll_today_shows_trump_in_the_lead.html#ixzz4N3mwBPm9

Edited October 14, 2016 by betsy

cybercoma · October 14, 2016

1 hour ago, betsy said:

It ain't over til it's over!

Rasmussen report narrows Hillary's lead.

The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%.

Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.

White House Watch - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

Someone doesn't understand statistical variability. One point is within the margin of error. Trump hasn't moved, according to those numbers. Like I said to Derek, the only website you need to concern yourself with is FiveThirtyEight. Every election they get it down to a single seat and the presidency within a couple electoral college votes.

cybercoma · October 14, 2016

Trump, the guy who said he can grab women's pussies and force himself on them because they can't do anything about it, told a couple of 14-year old girls that he will be dating them in a couple years, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Niw I'm not gonna say that Trump is a pedophile, but people are talking. Lots of smart people. And they say he's made questionable "donations" but we just don't know. He hasn't released his tax returns, so we just don't know. It looks suspicious and people are talking. Now we have this Tribune article. You decide, folks. You decide.

?Impact · October 14, 2016

8 hours ago, BC_chick said:

I don't know about you, but if my husband cheated on me and his strategy for damage control was to hire an investigator to dig up anything on the women's pasts to discredit them, I'd be appalled.

I think you are mixing up different issues; the cheating, and the damage control.

Lets assume the cheating happened, you found out about it, and you forgave your husband. I don't know if that is the case with all of these women, but lets say it is. If it wasn't, then there would be damage control for false allegations which I expect you would understand.

Why would you be interested in damage control for the actions of a woman who cheated on your husband?

If his sexual relations with a woman were consensual, and that woman knew she was getting involved with a married man (which is highly unlikely any of these women can make the claim otherwise), then that woman is equally responsible for what occurred. To come after the fact and try and make some [monetary] claim against the man is wrong, and it should not be accepted.

I don't now the [real] circumstances of all these 'affairs', but if they fit the above profile (which is highly likely) then I say investigate away and trash that gold seeking bytch.

cybercoma · October 14, 2016

18 hours ago, Rue said:

I think Hilary Clinton is a a serial liar and a deliberate one.

Reconcile this with Politifacts. Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. Trump's statements are true or mostly true 15% of the time. How are you going to call Clinton a liar and show support for Trump when he tells the truth a mere three times for every twenty things he says? Compared to Clinton who tells the truth more than half the time and that's not including half-truths. Reconcile that for me.

cybercoma · October 14, 2016

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I don't now the [real] circumstances of all these 'affairs', but if they fit the above profile (which is highly likely) then I say investigate away and trash that gold seeking bytch.

I would highly recommend reading about the allegations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Hal 9000 · October 14, 2016

This entire scandal is about nothing more than securing the women vote. Nothing here has happened by chance, no information "just came out". We all knew Hillary would play the women card, I don't think any of us knew just how much or how much the press would be involved, but we all knew that this was her biggest play.

When the press can literally cover this "story" for 24 hours straight for a week and hardly (some not at all) mention wikileaks or emails, don't you people consider for a minute that you're being manipulated?

"10 years ago, he kissed me...and I didn't want to be kissed", "30 years ago, he put his hand hear my inner thigh on an airplane"....C'mon people really! Both those things have happened to me and it was just some female "hitting on me", I never considered it sexual assault. If you want to hear what sexual assault is, try finding stories of Clinton's accusers - and you will have to try because they're certainly not being shown by the MSM.

?Impact · October 14, 2016

Yes, we are being manipulated by the charitable billionaire.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ?Impact

dialamah · October 14, 2016

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

"10 years ago, he kissed me...and I didn't want to be kissed", "30 years ago, he put his hand hear my inner thigh on an airplane"....C'mon people really! Both those things have happened to me and it was just some female "hitting on me", I never considered it sexual assault.

Just because you are ok with being groped doesn't mean everyone is or even should be.

Quote

If you want to hear what sexual assault is, try finding stories of Clinton's accusers - and you will have to try because they're certainly not being shown by the MSM.

A civil case is pending against Trump for raping a 13-year-old. That's barely made MSM either, most likely because the facts are so slim as to be essentially non-existent.

betsy · October 14, 2016

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

Trump, the guy who said he can grab women's pussies and force himself on them because they can't do anything about it, told a couple of 14-year old girls that he will be dating them in a couple years, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Niw I'm not gonna say that Trump is a pedophile, but people are talking. Lots of smart people. And they say he's made questionable "donations" but we just don't know. He hasn't released his tax returns, so we just don't know. It looks suspicious and people are talking. Now we have this Tribune article. You decide, folks. You decide.

Really, Cyber.....you do need glasses!

Your source said this, too:

In both instances, the line appears to be somewhat in jest,

However, they put a dirty spin on them, to put them in-line with the smear campaign they're waging on Trump!

though the girls' ages and recent accusations of sex assault against Trump call that into question.

It's a whole one big orchaestrated smear campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems/Washington Post already had the taped video quite a while back....and were just waiting for the right timing to unleash it.

Edited October 14, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · October 14, 2016

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's a whole one big orchaestrated smear campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems/Washington Post already had the taped video quite a while back....and were just waiting for the right timing to unleash it.

Do you think Donald was in on it when he went on Howard Stern and when he made the comments to Billy Bush? Do you think it's true he's still the Democrat he always was and is successfully fulfilling his plan to destroy the GOP?

betsy · October 14, 2016

Now, "grabbing pussies" is all but a big joke! Even PETA joked about it.

http://www.peta.org/blog/grab-a-pussycat/#foobox-1/0/Capture.jpg

Even butchers make fun of Hillary's breasts and thighs!

THE HILLARY CLINTON PACKAGE

1 small turkey breast

2 big turkey thighs

1 left wing

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/trump-clinton-meat-sasloves-special-1.3803692

Gross. Not only do they describe her thighs bigger that her breast ....they called her a turkey, too!

What Hillary and the media had accomplished is to TRIVIALIZE sex assaults!

dialamah · October 14, 2016

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

Do you think it's true he's still the Democrat he always was and is successfully fulfilling his plan to destroy the GOP?

Is Hillary paying him?

?Impact · October 14, 2016

It's a a conspiracy by those damn Mexicans, build that wall.

I predict this is the 'evidence' Trump will offer in his defence.

betsy · October 14, 2016

9 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Do you think Donald was in on it when he went on Howard Stern and when he made the comments to Billy Bush? Do you think it's true he's still the Democrat he always was and is successfully fulfilling his plan to destroy the GOP?

I don't know what he said to Howard Stern.....but I know Stern is called a SHOCK JOCK!

A shock jock is a type of radio broadcaster or disc jockey who entertains listeners or attracts attention using humor and/or melodramatic exaggeration that some portion of the listening audience may find offensive. The term is usually used pejoratively to describe provocative or irreverent broadcasters whose mannerisms, statements and actions are typically offensive to many members of the community. It is a popular term, generally not used within the radio industry. A shock jock is considered to be the radio equivalent of the tabloid newspaper, for which entertaining readers is as important as, or more important than, providing factual information. Within the radio industry, a radio station that relies primarily on shock jocks for its programming is said to have a hot talk format.