Trump / Clinton--Final Presidential Debate Thread

[Vouthon]

In short, a boorish man is terrifying (Truman was too, and LBJ was boorish well beyond Trump; JFK was astonishingly immoral) while an air war with Russia is not.

A very common view of things here as, apparently it is in Britain as well. And breathtakingly misguided. It truly boggles the mind.

Surely both Shakespeare and Chaucer will soon be banned in Britain as being “crude” and “boorish”. Prigs in America once assayed to do that, so it wouldn’t be without precedent.

JFK was certainly a philandering sleazeball behind the scenes.

But he did not advocate the vilification of minorities, banning people from entering the US because of their religion, mock disabled reporters or cruelly insult women in public for their looks and weight.

And, so far as I am aware (although I am no historian of his life and could be wrong), he was a relatively youthful, handsome guy who had a lot of consensual sex with women. Consent is the key factor here.

JFK’s bedroom antics apparently started at college. His medical records show that he came down, at this time, with a lot of STIs that had resulted in painful urethritis which then turned into chronic prostatitis. He was put on sulfas (antibiotic therapy) to kill the constant bouts of bacterial infection he suffered down low. Despite the harm it seemed to cause him, he couldn’t control his thirst for sex. He was seriously addicted to love, or lust should I say.

Yet from what I can tell, women genuinely wanted to have sex with John F Kennedy. Just after he had left college, at the age of 24, he was pursued by an older woman called Inga Arvad, a former beauty-queen-and-film-star from Denmark, then estranged from her second husband and apparently enticed by the idea of having some action with a randy (as it turned out very randy) younger dude.

On Nov. 27, 1941, in the Washington Times Herald Inga Arvad introduced a 24-year-old John F. Kennedy to readers as “a boy with a future.”

“He had the charm that makes the birds come out of their trees,” she later wrote of her first meeting with Kennedy, who was serving as an ensign in the U.S. Navy at the time. “He looked like [his sister’s] twin, the same mop of hair, the same blue eyes, natural, engaging, ambitious, warm and when he walked into a room you knew he was there, not pushing, not domineering, but exuding animal magnetism.”

Needless to say, Ms. Arvad was not groped by JFK. He didn’t grab her by the genitals or put his hand up her skirt. She was the one who had the hots for him and made it clear that he was not “pushing, not domineering” but that the “birds” flocked to him.

I’m not aware of Marilyn Monroe claiming that he assaulted her either. If her birthday wishes to him are anything to go by, she took an active role in the flirtation and courtship. I’ve yet to hear anyone say the same for Trump, although perhaps I’m being mean as to his sex appeal.

JFK was a sleazy sex addict. He isn’t alone in that respect, either, sadly.

But if the allegations against Trump have merit and if we can trust his own statements regarding his past conduct towards the fairer sex, Trump’s sexual proclivities are darker. What he describes himself as doing and what is alleged against him amounts to sexual assault upon unwilling women.

In other words, Trump may be guilty of sexually predatory behaviour - he certainly talks glibly about it - whereas JFK is guilty of chronic sexual addiction with consenting women that was harming his own health.

 

[openmind77]

I think the questions allegedly given to Clinton by Donna Brazille were for the second
debate.

This is referring to a question at the March 13 Democratic presidential town hall in Columbus, Ohio. Donna Brazile worked for CNN at that time. So the questions were for Clinton and Sanders. Nothing to do with Trump or the second debate between them.

 

[Vouthon]

To add a little more on the Inga Arvad/JFK romance…

**To put it more succinctly, “I have gooey eyes for him,” she confided to another friend at the Times Herald.

Arvad, who at 28 was four years Kennedy’s senior, quickly took him under her wing, reading and critiquing his writing, discussing politics and history with him, and offering shrewd advice on his potential political career. All the while, Arvad was also giving Kennedy an education on sex.

“With a nod to the European tradition of the older female who undertakes to educate a young lover, Inga declared that Jack still had a lot to learn and that she was pleased to be the one to teach him,” Leaming writes.

Arvad and Kennedy enlisted Kick and her then-boyfriend John White to help them carry out their affair in secret. Arvad’s Hungarian-born husband, Paul Fejos, was living in New York at the time and was known to be “explosively jealous.”

At first, everything went according to plan. Kick and White would regularly appear with Arvad and Kennedy at the start of an evening, and then discreetly leave the two lovers alone for a while, before rejoining them at the end of the night. To all the world, they appeared to be a group of four friends out for a lively evening.

**

Nothing predatory. Quite the opposite, Inga took the young JFK under her wing …ahem…

 

[mikekle]

I didnt get to watch the debate last night due to work stuff, but watching the news this morning, almost every network I turned on, they were all talking about how bad trump did and they were all saying its a 100% lock for hillary now, majority of them were talking like the election was already over and done with, and they were talking about how trump was going to react to loosing…

But when I was at work, talking with other people in public today, everyone I talked to thought trump did great, Its really sad how low the media is going, they are trying to make people believe we all missed something about the debate and they were the only ones to recognize it.

Its almost to the point, I think our lawmakers need to rethink all the rights the press has, the press of today is NOTHING like the press of the past, Somehow this needs to change and go back to the way it used to be, when they were actually unbiased.

 

[gracepoole]

In short, a boorish man is terrifying (Truman was too, and LBJ was boorish well beyond Trump; JFK was astonishingly immoral) while an air war with Russia is not.

A very common view of things here as, apparently it is in Britain as well. And breathtakingly misguided. It truly boggles the mind.

Surely both Shakespeare and Chaucer will soon be banned in Britain as being “crude” and “boorish”. Prigs in America once assayed to do that, so it wouldn’t be without precedent.

Some other things that boggle the mind: the claim that Trump is merely “boorish” and the insinuation that opposition to him is based on a prudish dislike of those who are “crude.” This is a man who refuses to provide any information regarding his “secret plan” to defeat ISIS – apparently because he believes his opponent will then steal it. What’s the real goal here, because defeating ISIS doesn’t seem to be it. This is a man who has stated he will have his opponent jailed if he wins; this is what a dictator does, not the leader of a democratic society. This is a man who has undercut yet another pillar of our democratic community by refusing to say he’ll accept the election’s results if they don’t benefit him. This is a man who’s been accused of sexual assault…and bragged about committing it, thereby confirming it. This is a man who does not value equality, as evidenced by his desire for a Muslim ban.

Yes, he’s boorish. But really, if that were his only fault, perhaps one might be able to see him as a serious contender.

 

[openmind77]

I didnt get to watch the debate last night due to work stuff, but watching the news this morning, almost every network I turned on, they were all talking about how bad trump did and they were all saying its a 100% lock for hillary now, majority of them were talking like the election was already over and done with, and they were talking about how trump was going to react to loosing…

But when I was at work, talking with other people in public today, everyone I talked to thought trump did great, Its really sad how low the media is going, they are trying to make people believe we all missed something about the debate and they were the only ones to recognize it.

Its almost to the point, I think our lawmakers need to rethink all the rights the press has, the press of today is NOTHING like the press of the past, Somehow this needs to change and go back to the way it used to be, when they were actually unbiased.

I guess it depends on what part of the country you live in or what place you work. Here in California not many people think that Trump did well. If you go to twitter, they are laughing their heads off at some of the things he said - ‘bad hombre’, ‘nasty woman’, ‘I am not a puppet. You are a puppet’ etc.

 

[Vouthon]

A very common view of things here as, apparently it is in Britain as well. And breathtakingly misguided. It truly boggles the mind.

Surely both Shakespeare and Chaucer will soon be banned in Britain as being “crude” and “boorish”. Prigs in America once assayed to do that, so it wouldn’t be without precedent.

I should think that we Brits are far from being a nation of prudes. Have you fallen for the Victorian propaganda?

Clearly you must not know the history of the reign of the “Merry Monarch” Charles II, who came to power in 1660 with the Restoration. After our Civil War of 1641-1652 the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Wales had been ruled by killjoy Puritans. The people tired of that pretty quickly and restored the decadent monarchy.

Post-1660, hedonism became the new dogma by royal fiat - most of the Puritans fled to the American colonies, where you had witch trials and all that jazz.

Well the literature of this period is still studied and it…um…well, its not for the strait-laced as you might be able to see from the Earl of Rochester’s A Satyre on Charles II:

ealasaid.com/fan/rochester/charles.html

In the isle of Britain, long since famous grown
For breeding the best c** in Christendom,
There reigns, and oh! long may he reign and thrive,
The easiest King and best-bred man alive.
Him no ambition moves to get renown 5
Like the French fool, that wanders up and down
Starving his people, hazarding his crown.
Peace is his aim, his gentleness is such,
And love he loves, for he loves f****** much.

—Nor are his high desires above his strength: 10
His scepter and his prick are of a length;
And she may sway the one who plays with th’ other,
And make him little wiser than his brother.
Poor prince! thy prick, like thy buffoons at Court,
Will govern thee because it makes thee sport. 15
'Tis sure the sauciest prick that e’er did swive,
The proudest, peremptoriest prick alive.

Though safety, law, religion, life lay on 't,
'Twould break through all to make its way to c***.
Restless he rolls about from whore to whore, 20
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor.

—To Carwell, the most dear of all his dears,
The best relief of his declining years,
Oft he bewails his fortune, and her fate:
To love so well, and be beloved so late. 25

For though in her he settles well his tarse,
Yet his dull, graceless ballocks hang an arse.
This you’d believe, had I but time to tell ye
The pains it costs to poor, laborious Nelly,
Whilst she employs hands, fingers, mouth, and thighs, 30
Ere she can raise the member she enjoys.
**

See this:

theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/30/the-kings-bed-sex-power-court-charles-ii-review

**In The King’s Bed: Sex, Power and the Court of Charles II, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh argue that Pepys’s time saw a sexual revolution with the king on top. In their telling, the nation emerged from a period of strait-laced puritan rule into a bodice-ripping Restoration, in which new ideas about sex and sexuality were put into practice in and around a court presided over by the famously priapic “merry monarch”.

The authors see Charles’s many liaisons as the key not only to his character, but to his rule. A scurrilous verse by the Earl of Rochester said of Charles that “His sceptre and his prick are of a length / And she may sway the one who plays with th’other”. **

Yep, that’s my country in all its wretched glory…

But sexual assault is not the same as consensual sexual indiscretion. There is a mountain of difference between the two.

It does not make one a prude to point that out either.

 

[RCinMT]

JFK was certainly a philandering sleazeball behind the scenes.

But he did not advocate the vilification of minorities, banning people from entering the US because of their religion, mock disabled reporters or cruelly insult women in public for their looks and weight.

And, so far as I am aware (although I am no historian of his life and could be wrong), he was a relatively youthful, handsome guy who had a lot of consensual sex with women. Consent is the key factor here.

JFK’s bedroom antics apparently started at college. His medical records show that he came down, at this time, with a lot of STIs that had resulted in painful urethritis which then turned into chronic prostatitis. He was put on sulfas (antibiotic therapy) to kill the constant bouts of bacterial infection he suffered down low. Despite the harm it seemed to cause him, he couldn’t control his thirst for sex. He was seriously addicted to love, or lust should I say.

Yet from what I can tell, women genuinely wanted to have sex with John F Kennedy. Just after he had left college, at the age of 24, he was pursued by an older woman called Inga Arvad, a former beauty-queen-and-film-star from Denmark, then estranged from her second husband and apparently enticed by the idea of having some action with a randy (as it turned out very randy) younger dude.

On Nov. 27, 1941, in the Washington Times Herald Inga Arvad introduced a 24-year-old John F. Kennedy to readers as “a boy with a future.”

“He had the charm that makes the birds come out of their trees,” she later wrote of her first meeting with Kennedy, who was serving as an ensign in the U.S. Navy at the time. “He looked like [his sister’s] twin, the same mop of hair, the same blue eyes, natural, engaging, ambitious, warm and when he walked into a room you knew he was there, not pushing, not domineering, but exuding animal magnetism.”

Needless to say, Ms. Arvad was not groped by JFK. He didn’t grab her by the genitals or put his hand up her skirt. She was the one who had the hots for him and made it clear that he was not “pushing, not domineering” but that the “birds” flocked to him.

I’m not aware of Marilyn Monroe claiming that he assaulted her either. If her birthday wishes to him are anything to go by, she took an active role in the flirtation and courtship. I’ve yet to hear anyone say the same for Trump, although perhaps I’m being mean as to his sex appeal.

JFK was a sleazy sex addict. He isn’t alone in that respect, either, sadly.

But if the allegations against Trump have merit and if we can trust his own statements regarding his past conduct towards the fairer sex, Trump’s sexual proclivities are darker. What he describes himself as doing and what is alleged against him amounts to sexual assault upon unwilling women.

In other words, Trump may be guilty of sexually predatory behaviour - he certainly talks glibly about it - whereas JFK is guilty of chronic sexual addiction with consenting women that was harming his own health.

Wow…just wow. Bill Clinton has certainly been accused by several women of being a predator–even a rapist–and Hillary has been the chief architect of the smear campaigns against them. Bill also took several flights aboard the infamous “Lolita Express” private jet that featured underage prostitutes and for which his buddy is now serving time.

Most importantly, however, since you touched on policy, how about Clinton’s policy of unencumbered taxpayer funded abortion? How about her probable EEOC and Civil Rights Commission directors advocating freedom of worship instead of freedom of religion? How about her campaign manager starting group to undermine the Church?

 

[RCinMT]

I should think that we Brits are far from being a nation of prudes. Have you fallen for the Victorian propaganda?

Clearly you must not know the history of the reign of the “Merry Monarch” Charles II, who came to power in 1660 with the Restoration. After our Civil War of 1641-1652 the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Wales had been ruled by killjoy Puritans. The people tired of that pretty quickly and restored the decadent monarchy.

Post-1660, hedonism became the new dogma by royal fiat - most of the Puritans fled to the American colonies, where you had witch trials and all that jazz.

Well the literature of this period is still studied and it…um…well, its not for the strait-laced as you might be able to see from the Earl of Rochester’s A Satyre on Charles II:

ealasaid.com/fan/rochester/charles.html

See this:

theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/30/the-kings-bed-sex-power-court-charles-ii-review

Yep, that’s my country in all its wretched glory…

But sexual assault is not the same as consensual sexual indiscretion. There is a mountain of difference between the two.

It does not make one a prude to point that out either.

Explain away Bill Clinton and Hillary’s enabling then get back to us on Trump.

 

[RCinMT]

Some other things that boggle the mind: the claim that Trump is merely “boorish” and the insinuation that opposition to him is based on a prudish dislike of those who are “crude.” This is a man who refuses to provide any information regarding his “secret plan” to defeat ISIS – apparently because he believes his opponent will then steal it. What’s the real goal here, because defeating ISIS doesn’t seem to be it. This is a man who has stated he will have his opponent jailed if he wins; this is what a dictator does, not the leader of a democratic society. This is a man who has undercut yet another pillar of our democratic community by refusing to say he’ll accept the election’s results if they don’t benefit him. This is a man who’s been accused of sexual assault…and bragged about committing it, thereby confirming it. This is a man who does not value equality, as evidenced by his desire for a Muslim ban.

Yes, he’s boorish. But really, if that were his only fault, perhaps one might be able to see him as a serious contender.

Hillary Clinton has vowed to repel the Hyde Amendment thereby providing taxpayer funded abortions. She supports partial birth abortions. Her campaign manager has started groups that have as their goal undermining the Catholic Church. Hillary has said that political will must be used to force backwards religious into accepting a radical progressive agenda. Hillary’s probable EEOC and Civil Rights directors want to deny people the right to live out their faith other than going to Church (for now). She supports repel of the law banning the US from using foreign aid funds to pay for and promote abortions in third world countries.

She illegally erased emails and lied about it. She lied to congress under oath. She ran smear campaigns against the several women who accused her husband of sexual predation, including rape. She used her role as Secretary of State to secure donates for the Clinton Global Initiative in exchange for various favors. Her policy in the Middle East had been a disaster.

As a non-Catholic you’re obviously not obligated to uphold the doctrine of the Catholic Church nor it’s moral teachings but you are on a Catholic website so expect some opposition.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Some other things that boggle the mind: the claim that Trump is merely “boorish” and the insinuation that opposition to him is based on a prudish dislike of those who are “crude.” This is a man who refuses to provide any information regarding his “secret plan” to defeat ISIS – apparently because he believes his opponent will then steal it. What’s the real goal here, because defeating ISIS doesn’t seem to be it. This is a man who has stated he will have his opponent jailed if he wins; this is what a dictator does, not the leader of a democratic society. This is a man who has undercut yet another pillar of our democratic community by refusing to say he’ll accept the election’s results if they don’t benefit him. This is a man who’s been accused of sexual assault…and bragged about committing it, thereby confirming it. This is a man who does not value equality, as evidenced by his desire for a Muslim ban.

Yes, he’s boorish. But really, if that were his only fault, perhaps one might be able to see him as a serious contender.

:clapping:

 

[gracepoole]

Hillary Clinton has vowed to repel the Hyde Amendment thereby providing taxpayer funded abortions. She supports partial birth abortions. Her campaign manager has started groups that have as their goal undermining the Catholic Church. Hillary has said that political will must be used to force backwards religious into accepting a radical progressive agenda. Hillary’s probable EEOC and Civil Rights directors want to deny people the right to live out their faith other than going to Church (for now). She supports repel of the law banning the US from using foreign aid funds to pay for and promote abortions in third world countries.

She illegally erased emails and lied about it. She lied to congress under oath. She ran smear campaigns against the several women who accused her husband of sexual predation, including rape. She used her role as Secretary of State to secure donates for the Clinton Global Initiative in exchange for various favors. Her policy in the Middle East had been a disaster.

As a non-Catholic you’re obviously not obligated to uphold the doctrine of the Catholic Church nor it’s moral teachings but you are on a Catholic website so expect some opposition.

Um, I’m a Catholic. And I’ve been a Catholic on this forum for quite some time. Nothing you’ve written here refutes anything I said about Trump.

 

[RCinMT]

Um, I’m a Catholic. And I’ve been a Catholic on this forum for quite some time. Nothing you’ve written here refutes anything I said about Trump.

Oop…sorry Grace. I was looking at the wrong person or maybe misreading your positions.

No, Donald Trump is second only to Hillary Clinton in terms of the least desirable candidate in my lifetime. That said, nothing you have said refutes anything I have said about Clinton.

Her hostility to Church teachings had long been known. Her hostility toward the Church in general is newly revealed.

We all make decisions and live with the consequences. Catholics voting for Clinton make clear their priorities: liberal progressive policies over the Church.

Can I ask you a question in all sincerity and without any snark or accusation: which Church teachings do you support or believe? What keeps you in the Church, considering yourself a Catholic?

 

[tweedlealice]

Honestly can’t see how anyone could, with a straight face, claim Trump dominated in this final debate. He started out uncharacteristically calm, but quickly devolved into a mess after he continuously took the bait Clinton kept waving in front of him. Clinton won this debate, hands down. And, judging by the fact that Trump doesn’t even have a state like Texas locked down, I can’t see how he wins the presidency.

That said, he never said he wouldn’t accept the results. He said “we’ll see”. Far be it from me to defend Mr. Trump, but that was the only way he could answer. Saying he would accept the results would go against the conspiracy theories he’s been feeding his supporters, and saying he would accept would run too many people the wrong way.

And I agree with others. Mr. Wallace was far and away the best moderator we’ve seen. He kept the candidates in line and was swift in transitioning from topic to topic. I think it’s thanks to him we got a much more substantive debate.

Salutations,
A debate guides us but what you see in a public forum can be altered w insecurity in front of a crowd and all public speakers have moments of this.
Look at the party platform. David had Bathsheba scandal and God still used him. Trump is pro life. He is pro-faith. His Supreme court judges pass conservative critics. He got them from the Heritage Foundation It is a conservative think tank.
The wikileaks show how Hillary thinks of religion. They infiltrated us w 2 groups to guide our beliefs away from church teachings. Catholics Unite is oNE aND Catholics Allegience for good ?? FORGOT WORD. They encourage abortion aND birth control. Just read DECISION AMERICA by FRankin Graham.
He did a bus tour around America w prayer in state capitals. It listed beliefs of both candidates for policies for our country. We can’t have Hillary. She will continue Christian persecution as under Obama. One cannot follow their conscience on abortion, same sex marriages and Transgender issues.
Trump may have had a potty mouth and inappropriate behavior and thinking about women but men near me use same phrases. I am in a military community. God is working in Trump. Search for his apology. The Supreme Court is important and his judges pass muster. He will rebuild our military. Improve status of Veterans.
As God is our judge and Savior, our love and light,
Vote for Trump. Wikileaks had that statement where they have to have bastardization of our faith. As said they infiltrated us w those 2 groups. They are after Evangelicals and Catholics. The DNC is evil in its agenda. See if Decision America is online. Franklin Graham.
Research Clinton s Crimes in Arkansas. Watch video if you can. Real people involved.
If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face. I will hear their prayer and heal their land.
In Jesus name,
Tweedlealice

 

[lmachine]

My point is that everybody is acting like this has never happened before, and it is just horryfying. Its all a sham because they supported a candidate for President that challenged the election results and it wasn’t so horrifying then or a threat to democracy!

If you think Gore challenged the election results I’d love to hear your account of what happened in Florida in the 2000 election. People seem to remember things differently than what actually happened. Trump’s refusal to say he will accept the election results is in no way comparable to what happened in 2000.

 

[kat07]

JFK was certainly a philandering sleazeball behind the scenes.

And, so far as I am aware (although I am no historian of his life and could be wrong), he was a relatively youthful, handsome guy who had a lot of consensual sex with women. Consent is the key factor here.

My uncle’s grandfather was MA Senator James P. Timilty, an Irish bootlegger and close friends with Joe Kennedy. My uncle’s uncle was Boston Police Commissioner, Joe Timilty - JFK’s godfather. He was also Rose’s dear friend, and escorted her to events, while covering for Joe who was out gallivanting with other women. JFK was a lot more than just a sex addict and same is true of his father Joe; however the media fiercely hid all this from the public, publishing fairy-tale versions of JFK’s presidency as "Camelot.”

What happened to the 11-year rule? Trump said the word “p*ssy” 11 years ago, in a secretly recorded conversation. Eleven years before Sen. Teddy Kennedy ran for president, he killed a girl - but he ran, not only without apology, but, as the “Conscience of the Democratic Party.”

The media’s enthusiastic interest in sex scandals goes back and forth, depending upon their needs at the moment. When the last name of the perp is Kennedy or Clinton, they’re not interested. When it’s “the Duke lacrosse team”: Guilty. As general rule, the only sex stories our media accept and believe are the false ones.

Emma Sulkowicz, or “Mattress Girl,” claimed she had been raped by a fellow student at Columbia University and that administrators refused to take action against her rapist. Mattress Girl’s claim that administrators at Columbia turned a deaf ear to her brutal rape was entirely credible to our media and political class. After Mattress Girl had spent a couple of years accepting awards, her alleged rapist finally released her texts to him, both before and after the alleged rape. I won’t post all them but they were very sexually explicit, and there were others less explicit but were texts like: "I love youuuu” , "I wanna see yoyououoyou” "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!” .

Unlike Trump’s secretly recorded hot-mic conversation 11 years back, the Times never thought it helpful to quote any of Sulkowicz’s messages to Paul , much less on its front page, bold face. The closest the Times came to acknowledging these texts was to carefully note that the two had "traded mutually affectionate messages.”

The same individuals who presented us the Duke lacrosse case, Mattress Girl and the Rolling Stone abomination, but who quietly left John Edwards’ sex outrage to the National Enquirer; Bill Clinton’s serial rapes to private defendant Paula Jones; and the Kennedy family’s harlotry to investigative journalists Seymour Hersh (30 years later) and Leo Damore (20 years later) are the people who let us know they’re almost certain Donald Trump is a groper.

Throughout 2009, good, decent Americans who opposed Obamacare were called the name of a gay sex act hundreds of times on TV (MSNBC/CNN – Anderson Cooper). Among the people using this sexual slur were members of Congress such as U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez and Rep. Barney Frank. Were they fit to hold office?

The same media gasping in horror at the word "pssy" sure didn’t mind Sara Palin and many other female Republics being called a cnt repeatedly on Comedy Central broadcast. And when I say “didn’t mind,” I mean they thought it was awesome.

The same media that are pretending to believe the use of a bad word equivalent to rape don’t care about real rape, real sexual assault, real harlotry, even real homicide, depending on who did it. But saying “p*ssy” 11 years ago is over the line.

A couple years ago, Sen. Al Franken joked on a Comedy Central roast about producer Rob Reiner having anal sex with his children. Does Hillary and the media and others think he’s fit to be a U.S. senator? Is he fit enough for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, but not the Senate Finance Committee?

None of these were leaks of secretly recorded conversations considered a hanging offense in the Clinton years. These vulgarities were intentionally, publicly broadcast by the same media that today pretend to need smelling salts after hearing the word “p*ssy.”

At least this new proper standard explains why rappers like Jay Z are banned from the White House. Oh wait.

Maybe realizing their oh so clean virgin act wasn’t cutting it, the media turned to their let’s pretend we don’t understand English method of argument, and claimed that Trump was confessing to having committed a sexual assault. Trump said: "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the p*ssy. You can do any of that. (Laughter.)” Journalists spun this into “sexual assault” by being literal on the “grab” part, non-figurative on the “you” part, and on the “they let you do it” part? Stone cold deaf. If they let you do it, it’s not an assault.

con’t below…

 

[kat07]

Like most of Trump’s bragging, his ill-mannered boast was not intended to be taken seriously. Far from whipping out his pencil and taking notes, ACCESS HOLLYWOOD’s Billy Bush laughed. The essence of what Trump was saying is that women like to sleep with celebrities. I don’t know if some people haven’t heard that before….

But hey at least we’re back to the media pretending to care about sexual assault, or until further notice.

This is the same media that ran interference for a real sexual predator in the WH, ignoring Bill Clinton’s serial pants-dropping, groping and raping for nearly a decade, while happily vilifying his accusers. Clinton talking about p*ssy was one of his more distinguished moments, proudly attested to by his friend Vernon Jordan in a nationally broadcast interview with Mike Wallace.

In the pages of The New York Times, Gloria Steinem even announced the one-free grop" rule, specially developed for the Clinton era. Former Time magazine correspondent Nina Burleigh said of Clinton, “I would be happy to give him a blw job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.” Time magazine’s Margaret Carlson said Linda Tripp had “lost membership in the family of man" for secretly tape-recording Monica Lewinsky. Tripp kept the recordings not for something as stopping Clinton, but to protect herself from a charge of perjury. Even when the law began to close in Bill Clitnon, he won because of the media’s heroic self-censorship and we all had to listen to liberals say “Guys like blw jobs,” “Everybody does it” and "Let’s move on.” When Clinton was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick, NBC deliberately held the story until a week after the Senate had voted in Bills impeachment trial. Explaining NBC’s inconceivable decision to hold its own investigative report, Myers told Broaddrick: "The good news is you’re credible. The bad news is that you’re very credible.” NBC ran the story eventually. The name “Juanita Broaddrick” never crossed the lips of “CBS Evening News” anchor Dan Rather. Asked by Bill O’Reilly why he never got around to mentioning that the commander in chief was, more likely than not, a rapist, Rather said, "When the charge has something to do with somebody’s private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it.”

Billy Bush had to be fired from NBC’s Today show so the media can pretend that Trump’s using vulgar language is a very serious offense. Meanwhile, Billy’s ex-president uncle and cousin openly socialize with the rapist. The second President Bush calls Bill Clinton his “brother from another mother” and praises Clinton’s “character”, something even Clinton’s defenders never did with a straight face.

So according to our media, committing a rape is “somebody’s private sex life,” but using a bad word is rape.

Trump has been a rich celebrity for 40 years, employing thousands of women, but this is the first time he has been seriously accused of any sexual offensiveness. In May, The New York Times conducted a major investigation into Trump’s treatment of women and came up empty-handed.

Trump denies the allegations, but don’t expect a “correction” like this one from the Chicago Tribune, dated Sept. 5, 1996. Linda Bowles stated that “President Clinton and the former campaign adviser Dick Morris both were 'guilty of callous unfaithfulness to their wives and children, and neither man has admitted to being or been proven to have been unfaithful. The Tribune regrets the error.”

Trump is against amnesty, for building a wall, against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for Social Security and for extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants. The Media’s entire campaign against Trump is to prevent him from talking about policy. They would rather talk about fat-shaming than trade, immigration and jobs. That’s why the media have to change the subject to something showy that will capture the attention of the most down-market, easily fooled voters. “Trump is a groper!” All three weeks before a major presidential election.

The only reason for these 11th-hour claims is that the ruling class doesn’t want voters thinking about the immigration policies, trade deals and wars. Ever since Trump started raising the issues that no one else would, the media and the political class have done everything in their power to try to stop him. Now the networks are holding casting calls for some women willing to falsely accuse Trump of sexual assault, so they can hype it like the Duke lacrosse case, Mattress Girl and Rolling Stone’s fraternity rape. Unfortunately for us, fortunately for the media by the time the truth comes out, the election will be over.

 

[tweedlealice]

I am unfortunately pretty sure it is a certainty under Trump, too, alas. That is a streak of hard-heartedness I don’t see being eradicated by legal means. Permissiveness about abortion is too entrenched in the lie that offering abortions is a mercy and the matter of abortion is private.

Hi,
Trump evolved to be pro life and clearly proclaimed it. Thanks to Melania and Ivanka.
He has picked his Supreme court judges. He went to Heritage Foundation to get list. It is a conservative think tank. So, on that issue alone God has to get him in.
The trilateral commission and skull and bones have been putting their candidates forward. They are our G8. The popular vote is pushed into their candidate most of the time. The electoral college makes the winner. Example: NAFTA, Bush I was leaving and Clinton was moving in. Bush I started the talk of NAFTA. CLINTON
follows and initiates NAFTA. I say to myself why a Rep and DEM want the same things. I thought I don’t want Mexican pottery and blouses,skirts and hats.
Well, Bush I ,Clinton and Bush II all went to Yale. All.belong to SKULL AND BONES.
These are our wealthy people. They want profits. Unions raised salaries so much our factories left.
LOOK UP NATIONAL DEBT UNDER YEARS OF CLINTONS. They profess a surplus. Unless I’m reading it wrong, there was a deficit. Did you notice when the Clinton left, and Bush II went in. Within 2 weeks factories started to close. Each week 1 or 2 more factories closed. Bush wasn’t in long enough to cause
trouble . How or why did they hold on till the Clinton left.??? Curious.
Research: CLINTON CRIMES IN ARKANSAS. Watch video if you can. It is the real people involved. The typed documents have same info. They worked w cocaine cartel and gave it away free. The cartel are the ones that left a trail of 114 bodies
In their wake. One decapitated man’s cause of death was a suicide. Now, really, one could get through one coratid and trachea but, he’d pass out by then.
I found this stuff out years ago. Not conspiracy. It is real.
God help us.
Hear our prayers , Oh Lord.
David had his Bathsheba and God still used him.
Trump has good people around him.
Clinton wikileaks w Podesta and our Catholic church being infiltrated on purpose
By left wing pro abortion people is outrageous. They are after Evangelists, too.
Father Johnathon was furious on Fox news. The NY Cardinal was very mad.
Their votes have changed. George Soros backed the two groups. Catholics United and Catholics Allegience for good ??? Forgot word. Soros as a child in Hungry would find out where Jews were hiding and tell his Dad who worked for Nazis.
St. Michael defend us in battle. Protect against the snares of the devil.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Michael68]

If you think Gore challenged the election results I’d love to hear your account of what happened in Florida in the 2000 election. People seem to remember things differently than what actually happened. Trump’s refusal to say he will accept the election results is in no way comparable to what happened in 2000.

He didn’t say he wouldn’t accept the results. He said “we’ll see”

 

[chero23]

Al Gore anyone? youtube.com/watch?v=34cB9jpTEKc

So, people say conservatives are mature in regards to liberals. Yet, when they make a mistake they point to a democrat doing it too. Where’s the maturity?