• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sex scandals du jour...

code1211 said:
If you live in Seattle, if you don't vote for Trump or do, it will make no difference in the outcome for your state.
Click to expand...
That imo is the huge flaw in our electorial college system. It should not be winner takes all. They should be allotted proportionately. If your state gets 10 votes and its 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B they should split it 6 to 4.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
code1211 said:
I'll admit that when this crap comes up on the radio, i go deaf and turn the channel. That said...

Most victims do seem to talk to someone about a traumatic experience.

Are their supporting stories coming from confidants?
Click to expand...
CNN anchors claim they contact the alleged victim's confidants. I can't speak to the voracity of the other media outlets.

In Trump's defense, I can say one of the alleged victim's first cousins came out against her.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
That imo is the huge flaw in our electorial college system. It should not be winner takes all. They should be allotted proportionately. If your state gets 10 votes and its 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B they should split it 6 to 4.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Then you obviously don't understand the concept of the electoral college system. Why should the leftist coastlines rule the entire country? It's actually a brilliant system, which at least mitigates mob rule to some degree.
 
code1211 said:
I think McCain had something like this come up in the closing weeks, didn't he?

Romney became an animal hater in the closing weeks.

Of course, Bush was a draft dodger according to Dan Rather and his imaginary friends.

The media plays the populace like a fiddle and beats us like a drum.

I think Reagan was being characterized a dim witted former actor unfit to lead and afflicted by early onset Alzheimers when he asked the the American people if they were better off today than they were 4 years ago.

Perrot was the darling of the press, like Trump, until he was the enemy of the Democrat.

Are seeing a pattern here?
Click to expand...
As a rule of thumb i assume if i see something in the news its a lie until proved otherwise when its a political story.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
That imo is the huge flaw in our electorial college system. It should not be winner takes all. They should be allotted proportionately. If your state gets 10 votes and its 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B they should split it 6 to 4.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I personally think we should just count the popular vote instead, but hey, that's just me.
 
MaggieD said:
Sigh. There was no sexual assault claim made by Trump. Where are the police reports? Where is independent corroboration? If he made passes, he made passes. Big freakin' deal.
Click to expand...

This is deja vu of sorts, Maggie. Yes, everything is an allegation now. You're right, no hardcore evidence has come forth at this time that would influence his supporters. But this is the same type of conversation that people were having with regard to say Bill Cosby early in the story.

I personally think that where there's smoke there's fire. Unfortunately for Trump, the Billy Bush video isn't his only captured comments. They keep on coming from various recorded sources (i.e. audio interviews with Howard Stern). Whether or not they're truthful, I can't say. Trump could be a harmless liar - with regard to his locker room conversations and what people are inferring from such comments about his past sexual conduct has been with women (of any number).

But lacking any case worthy evidence being released to the public, I think that it's simply too early for us media spectators to know anything for certain.

However, in spite of the refrain of condemning Trump that maybe we should all have until such evidence of misconduct is publicly available, do we also refrain from applying some mathematical probability in this situation? Given the many emerging audio/video comments "actually made by Trump" over the past years is it all likely to be locker room talk?
 
MaggieD said:
I posted this within a thread as I talked about breasts and ******s and our Trump sex scandal du jour. Never thought I'd be posting in a forum like that, but if mainstream is going to cover it so thoroughly and let it cloud EVERYTHING ELSE about our presidential election this round and all rounds in the future, then we've got to learn to discuss it.

In a post where I'm almost apologizing for my frankness, I posted this. And I think it may deserve its own thread...





Did we ever think we'd be having these kinds of conversations about a presidential candidate? There was a time when this **** NEVER would have made the 5 o'clock news because the media wouldn't have been so cheaply distracted. Further, there was a time when media didn't MAKE the news. JFK was hound. Teddy Kennedy was a hound.

Bill Clinton was a hound. The coverage started with him, I think.

Thomas Jefferson had five children with a slave. Warren Harding, two known affairs while he was in office. FDR had his Lucy for thirty years, as a matter of fact. Eisenhower. JFK was more LIKE Clinton than different. Swarms of women. LBJ...had and supported a child with one of his dalliances. The affair lasted for years.

Those are just the ones I found recently. Did the press shove them in our faces? Did these affairs cloud policy discussions? Did they wind up at our dinner tables? No, but the press - especially mainstream - is very threatened right now. So they will cover our politics from the lowest common denominator.

We should demand better. Not shame on them. Shame on us.


Your thoughts...
Click to expand...
The media has their favorite. That's not news.

The media's rule is that the more extreme, outrageous, scintillating, shocking, etc., they'll present it, get the masses attention, then hit them with a commercial. That's good for business. And, their sponsors/advertisers .. those who own the media .. love it, as they don't really care all that much what sells their products, just as long as their products sell.

What's lost in all this Donald Trump v. Bill Clinton alleged and public fact respectively taking advantage of women war is what it means regarding the two candidates.

For Donald Trump, we see him fighting back a number of rather specious allegations that have hit "coincidentally" right as he began playing the Bill Clinton infidelity card .. but his governing ability and policies won't be affected by what he allegedly did.

With Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, her husband Bill Clinton's, definitely known fact philandering .. with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office that led to him getting House impeached, with others publicly known past and present .. has not only been a major embarrassment to Hillary, the fact that she just put up with it and didn't divorce him, despite her top aide, Huma Abedin showing her how it's done in dealing with her soon-to-be ex-husband for his very public dalliances, speaks to her weakness.

Indeed, with Hillary, I accurately presented the real concern about her in this regard here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/260238-hillarys-potential-h-bomb-misdirection-against-dad-and-bill.html.

Hillary and her media are attempting to divert attention away from Bill's infidelities, and how her response speaks to her very relevant personal weakness, with allegations about Donald's, which they're doing so that the public won't connect the obvious dots that, though Donald's won't affect him in his leadership role, Bill's have most definitely had a very negative affect on Hillary's ability to deal with strong male leaders .. such as Putin .. and to the possible detriment of the lives of us all.

Though many have a difficult time with Donald's out-there-in-the open mannerisms and declarations, we would all do well to focus on the hidden-in-her-psyche real liabilities of Hillary, as Hillary's will have a much greater affect on us than Donald's.

A word to the wise.
 
Removable Mind said:
This is deja vu of sorts, Maggie. Yes, everything is an allegation now. You're right, no hardcore evidence has come forth at this time that would influence his supporters. But this is the same type of conversation that people were having with regard to say Bill Cosby early in the story.

I personally think that where there's smoke there's fire. Unfortunately for Trump, the Billy Bush video isn't his only captured comments. They keep on coming from various recorded sources (i.e. audio interviews with Howard Stern). Whether or not they're truthful, I can't say. Trump could be a harmless liar - with regard to his locker room conversations and what people are inferring from such comments about his past sexual conduct has been with women (of any number).

But lacking any case worthy evidence being released to the public, I think that it's simply too early for us media spectators to know anything for certain.

However, in spite of the refrain of condemning Trump that maybe we should all have until such evidence of misconduct is publicly available, do we also refrain from applying some mathematical probability in this situation? Given the many emerging audio/video comments "actually made by Trump" over the past years is it all likely to be locker room talk?
Click to expand...

I don't know. How did you react when we had a president in the White House getting blow jobs underneath his desk? And a wife who attacked the messengers and STILL does?

No offense. I'm just so disgusted by the lies, by the press, and by the ridiculousness of the 2016 election cycle..talking about ******s and breasts instead of ISIS, terrorism and healthcare. Really to you and ALL I know I'm coming off like a witch ;) but it's just disgusting. Never seen anything like it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Most victims never go to the police, especially if the perpetrator is powerful or well known.

If she filed a report the National Enquirer would be all over her and every detail of her life be public knowledge. I can't blame her for not reporting. And I'm not a prosecutor, I'm not voting to send someone to jail, I'm voting for an elected office, we don't need beyond all reasonable doubt to make the latter call
Click to expand...

That door swings both ways. If you've got a name and some money you're also a target for exaggerated or completely false claims of sexual harassment.
 
TheGoverness said:
I personally think we should just count the popular vote instead, but hey, that's just me.
Click to expand...
The idea behind the electorial college was to balance the weight of votes between rural and urban living. If it was strictly a popular vote the north east is where the candidates would focus most of their efforts. A state like wyoming would be virtually ignored. I support the overall concept of the college but i think its in need of reform.

I like how Maine does there. They give out 1 or 2 for who wins the state majority and they give 1 to the winner of each congressional district.

Being a democrat in texas or a republican in ny must feel like your vote is meaningless. If i was in that position i would use my vote to communicate to my party the type of candidate i wanted them to run by write in unless of course i liked who they nominated to begin with. Im in a crucial swing state so i feel a certain amount of pressure to cast the best vote

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Removable Mind said:
This is deja vu of sorts, Maggie. Yes, everything is an allegation now. You're right, no hardcore evidence has come forth at this time that would influence his supporters. But this is the same type of conversation that people were having with regard to say Bill Cosby early in the story.

I personally think that where there's smoke there's fire. Unfortunately for Trump, the Billy Bush video isn't his only captured comments. They keep on coming from various recorded sources (i.e. audio interviews with Howard Stern). Whether or not they're truthful, I can't say. Trump could be a harmless liar - with regard to his locker room conversations and what people are inferring from such comments about his past sexual conduct has been with women (of any number).

But lacking any case worthy evidence being released to the public, I think that it's simply too early for us media spectators to know anything for certain.

However, in spite of the refrain of condemning Trump that maybe we should all have until such evidence of misconduct is publicly available, do we also refrain from applying some mathematical probability in this situation? Given the many emerging audio/video comments "actually made by Trump" over the past years is it all likely to be locker room talk?
Click to expand...
The timing isnt coincidental. They held the stories so there was enough time to raise doubts about him but not enough time for him to crediably refute them.

They had the stern tapes and billy bush video from the very begining and they are just releasing them now. This was timed to maximize the damage it could do to his bid.

Think about this. Say it all turns out to be true. The media just left you no option but to vote for clinton because they held it till the last minute. If these are crediable accusations the press had an ethical obligation to bring them up during the primary to allow the gop to present us with a better alternative.

Does it anger you that the media is trying to co-opt your vote and choose our next potus for us?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I posted this within a thread as I talked about breasts and ******s and our Trump sex scandal du jour. Never thought I'd be posting in a forum like that, but if mainstream is going to cover it so thoroughly and let it cloud EVERYTHING ELSE about our presidential election this round and all rounds in the future, then we've got to learn to discuss it.

In a post where I'm almost apologizing for my frankness, I posted this. And I think it may deserve its own thread...





Did we ever think we'd be having these kinds of conversations about a presidential candidate? There was a time when this **** NEVER would have made the 5 o'clock news because the media wouldn't have been so cheaply distracted. Further, there was a time when media didn't MAKE the news. JFK was hound. Teddy Kennedy was a hound.

Bill Clinton was a hound. The coverage started with him, I think.

Thomas Jefferson had five children with a slave. Warren Harding, two known affairs while he was in office. FDR had his Lucy for thirty years, as a matter of fact. Eisenhower. JFK was more LIKE Clinton than different. Swarms of women. LBJ...had and supported a child with one of his dalliances. The affair lasted for years.

Those are just the ones I found recently. Did the press shove them in our faces? Did these affairs cloud policy discussions? Did they wind up at our dinner tables? No, but the press - especially mainstream - is very threatened right now. So they will cover our politics from the lowest common denominator.

We should demand better. Not shame on them. Shame on us.


Your thoughts...
Click to expand...

You left out Eisenhower and his secretary and the probability of Eleanor Roosevelt and her best female friend...

It is shame on us for allowing the press to make a big deal out that kind of nonsense. We didn't hear that stuff in days gone by, because the press had some scruples and were honorable about things that were asked to be "off the record". What's happened is that we fell into Rupert Murdoch's "National Enquirer" trap: "if it bleeds it leads" BS and at the same time we as a judgmental society have the gall to condemn the "chum" of politics for pointing out how actually normal those people are when compared to the rest of us - everywhere.

That's what's wrong with our political system.

Will you be watching the next presidential debate for proof of that?
 
Lutherf said:
That door swings both ways. If you've got a name and some money you're also a target for exaggerated or completely false claims of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...
Your right and there isnt any history of him paying women hush money or fighting them in court. All these woman come forward overnight. Its highly suspect imo

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Removable Mind said:
This is deja vu of sorts, Maggie. Yes, everything is an allegation now. You're right, no hardcore evidence has come forth at this time that would influence his supporters. But this is the same type of conversation that people were having with regard to say Bill Cosby early in the story.

I personally think that where there's smoke there's fire. Unfortunately for Trump, the Billy Bush video isn't his only captured comments. They keep on coming from various recorded sources (i.e. audio interviews with Howard Stern). Whether or not they're truthful, I can't say. Trump could be a harmless liar - with regard to his locker room conversations and what people are inferring from such comments about his past sexual conduct has been with women (of any number).

But lacking any case worthy evidence being released to the public, I think that it's simply too early for us media spectators to know anything for certain.

However, in spite of the refrain of condemning Trump that maybe we should all have until such evidence of misconduct is publicly available, do we also refrain from applying some mathematical probability in this situation? Given the many emerging audio/video comments "actually made by Trump" over the past years is it all likely to be locker room talk?
Click to expand...
I think this is a very good post, and echos my sentiments.

Trump has two huge problems here, and the first is the shear number of allegers. That is in my mind, a big problem for him.

Second - he is on video describing his historical actions in this regard, and the M.O. he describes is nearly exactly what these women claim. These women are claiming to supply first-hand experiential eye-witness to the narrative Mr. Trump has described. (to be fair, I must point-out the accusers all saw the video - so their public complaint is post-video)

But in addition, I saw several interviews yesterday on CNN, and I've got to say the two I saw came across as forward, direct, and in my opinion - reasonably sincere & heartfelt. IOW, to my eyes they appeared legit. Now, would it be the first time I've been conned by a man or women? No, of course not. But I'm just describing the appearances. Obviously 'we shall see', and it may be possible some are legit and some are indeed copy-cat or by other motives.

However, all this seems very Cosby-like to me. Obviously the (current) accusations do not reach the full level of Cosby's male-penetration drugged rape. But they do range from unwanted sexual advances (nearly all from a position of power - essentially workplace sexual harassment), to actual sexual assault (the unwanted groping of one's genitals).

So these are extremely serious charges IMO, especially considering the serial predator nature (from a position of power), if multiple instances of the accusations were to be substantiated.
 
countryboy said:
Then you obviously don't understand the concept of the electoral college system. Why should the leftist coastlines rule the entire country? It's actually a brilliant system, which at least mitigates mob rule to some degree.
Click to expand...
I understand the principle the problem is that as our country grows cities grow and people consolidate in them. Urban life is overpowering the rural votes state by state. The concern you raised is what the current system allows. If texas goes blue you can forget about the republicans ever winning again

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
MaggieD said:
I don't know. How did you react when we had a president in the White House getting blow jobs underneath his desk? And a wife who attacked the messengers and STILL does?

No offense. I'm just so disgusted by the lies, by the press, and by the ridiculousness of the 2016 election cycle..talking about ******s and breasts instead of ISIS, terrorism and healthcare. Really to you and ALL I know I'm coming off like a witch ;) but it's just disgusting. Never seen anything like it.
Click to expand...

Maggie, I found Bill Clinton's sexual escapades inexcusable, deplorable, and it cost him - as it should have. But Hillary's reaction to Bill's conduct has turned into guilt by association game, in my opinion. Did she enable his behavior by standing by her man (as the song goes). Yep, I think so. But that's just my opinion. What's your opinion about people who don't stand by their marriage vows, which usually mean when you get married, you stay that way through the good, bad, or indifferent?

The media outlets are selling a product that people buy. Obviously their product isn't always truthful, or at the very least, is often biased, but in this case, the media presented the world with a video that Trump was talking about ******s and breast, not the media. This kind of product sells more than stories about ISIS. Media, like politicians follow the money. And in this case, given that the product is related to a presidential nominee at near election time, it's not rocket science as to what will be the most bought product. Apparently public figure scandals sells better than death in wars. Or even terrorism.

Wanna know why media outlets have become the shysters that they are? Look at who the corporation are that own them.
 
trouble13 said:
The timing isnt coincidental. They held the stories so there was enough time to raise doubts about him but not enough time for him to crediably refute them.

They had the stern tapes and billy bush video from the very beginning and they are releasing now. This was timed to maximize the damage it could do to his bid.

Think about this. Say it all turns out to be true. The media just left you no option but to for clinton because they held it till the last minute. If these are crediable accusations the press had an ethical obligation to bring them up during the primary to allow the gop to present us with a better alternative.

Does it anger you that the media is trying to co-opt your vote and choose our next potus for us?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Really? And can you prove that this was a strategical move by these folks who have had these audio and video tapes just to bring down Trump a few weeks ahead of the election? This is probably more about medial outlets making money the same way they always do. They sell facts, opinion, lies, truth, fiction, etc, and if they find something that really sells they dump it in every conceivable way on to public eyes and ears.

And what makes you think that I'm not angry with media...or our political system. I've posted a lot of comments about my discontent with our system and media.

What the hell are you talking about...

The media, big corporations, elitists..all have not just tried to, but has co-opted my vote in one way or another over the span of my lifetime, which has been a while. They've been doing it to you and probably over the course of your entire life. It's not been covertly done. Shouldn't that have angered Americans for eons (many, many decades)? This isn't media's first rodeo by a long-shot.
 
Ontologuy said:
The media has their favorite. That's not news.

The media's rule is that the more extreme, outrageous, scintillating, shocking, etc., they'll present it, get the masses attention, then hit them with a commercial. That's good for business. And, their sponsors/advertisers .. those who own the media .. love it, as they don't really care all that much what sells their products, just as long as their products sell.

What's lost in all this Donald Trump v. Bill Clinton alleged and public fact respectively taking advantage of women war is what it means regarding the two candidates.

For Donald Trump, we see him fighting back a number of rather specious allegations that have hit "coincidentally" right as he began playing the Bill Clinton infidelity card .. but his governing ability and policies won't be affected by what he allegedly did.

With Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, her husband Bill Clinton's, definitely known fact philandering .. with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office that led to him getting House impeached, with others publicly known past and present .. has not only been a major embarrassment to Hillary, the fact that she just put up with it and didn't divorce him, despite her top aide, Huma Abedin showing her how it's done in dealing with her soon-to-be ex-husband for his very public dalliances, speaks to her weakness.

Indeed, with Hillary, I accurately presented the real concern about her in this regard here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/260238-hillarys-potential-h-bomb-misdirection-against-dad-and-bill.html.

Hillary and her media are attempting to divert attention away from Bill's infidelities, and how her response speaks to her very relevant personal weakness, with allegations about Donald's, which they're doing so that the public won't connect the obvious dots that, though Donald's won't affect him in his leadership role, Bill's have most definitely had a very negative affect on Hillary's ability to deal with strong male leaders .. such as Putin .. and to the possible detriment of the lives of us all.

Though many have a difficult time with Donald's out-there-in-the open mannerisms and declarations, we would all do well to focus on the hidden-in-her-psyche real liabilities of Hillary, as Hillary's will have a much greater affect on us than Donald's.

A word to the wise.
Click to expand...
I have come to dislike Trump to the point of despising him.

And I disagree with your assessment of his governing abilities. I believe him to be totally unfit for the office. He does not have the proper disposition.

But I will say this: Your post is otherwise excellent, and I can't argue with your description of HRC.

I just believe Trump, due to his emotional immaturity and narcissistic personality, would be worse for the country.

Not that Hillary is that good. But I do see her as the more competent world leader, and it seems the polls in that specific category agree with me. She will also have a co-partner in Bill, who has proven his mettle as world leader when he last had the job (sexual scandals notwithstanding).
 
Removable Mind said:
Really? And can you prove that this was a strategical move by these folks who have had these audio and video tapes just to bring down Trump a few weeks ahead of the election?
Click to expand...

There's no way he could prove that definitively without any real evidence behind it. At the very most, the only thing he can do is speculate.
 
trouble13 said:
The timing isnt coincidental. They held the stories so there was enough time to raise doubts about him but not enough time for him to crediably refute them.

They had the stern tapes and billy bush video from the very begining and they are just releasing them now. This was timed to maximize the damage it could do to his bid.

Think about this. Say it all turns out to be true. The media just left you no option but to vote for clinton because they held it till the last minute. If these are crediable accusations the press had an ethical obligation to bring them up during the primary to allow the gop to present us with a better alternative.

Does it anger you that the media is trying to co-opt your vote and choose our next potus for us?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think I can agree with you on the bolded.

But these women are claiming they were motivated by seeing the video, then Trump's categorical denial at the 2nd debate, and then further motivated by the sheer number of other women coming forward.

This is all very Cosby-like, and I think we can agree that Cosby very, very, likely has an extreme problem.

I will give it that these are all accusations at this point, but they cannot summarily be dismissed as a political ploy. Like Cosby's accusers now appear, they may indeed be legit.
 
TheGoverness said:
There's no way he could prove that definitively without any real evidence behind it. At the very most, the only thing he can do is speculate.
Click to expand...

That's my take, and I think I just read that the video has to be legally authenticated. But even it being authenticated doesn't prove it's been sitting on the shelf waiting to use it against Trump just weeks ahead of the election.
 
Removable Mind said:
That's my take, and I think I just read that the video has to be legally authenticated. But even it being authenticated doesn't prove it's been sitting on the shelf waiting to use it against Trump just weeks ahead of the election.
Click to expand...
I don't see a huge collusion here, but there may have been political motive with the individual releasing the video or those assisting him. Or, it may be simply greed; the individual or entity may want maximum exposure for maximum $$$.
 
Chomsky said:
I have come to dislike Trump to the point of despising him.

And I disagree with your assessment of his governing abilities. I believe him to be totally unfit for the office. He does not have the proper disposition.

But I will say this: Your post is otherwise excellent, and I can't argue with your description of HRC.

I just believe Trump, due to his emotional immaturity and narcissistic personality, would be worse for the country.

Not that Hillary is that good. But I do see her as the more competent world leader, and it seems the polls in that specific category agree with me. She will also have a co-partner in Bill, who has proven his mettle as world leader when he last had the job (sexual scandals notwithstanding).
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump's alleged situations with women have/will affect his leadership.

That being said, everything you say about him -- emotionally immature, narcissist (malignant even), my reaction has been similar, so I agree with you. Yes, that could be a purposeful pander by Trump to behave that way to garner a large following .. but he does it so well it just seems his malignant narcissistic emotional immaturity is real.

I can't vote for him, obviously.

But I can't vote for Hillary either.

They're both simply unfit to be President in my mind each for various reasons.

Hillary, however, is more likely to get us into nuclear hot-water with Russia via Putin than Trump is likely to do with China.

And, I greatly fear Hillary's policies more than I fear Trump's. Trump "may" want to return us to 1950's "greatness" .. but Hillary will make a damn U.N. city-state out of us while lowering wage scales in the process.

Though both these two are too evil for any one of them to be the "lesser of" to garner my vote, Trump is the more patriotic, and lost patriotism is one of the foundational problems in America that's lead our citizens who run corporations to treat our citizens who are workers as a mere cost item in a balance sheet and replaceable via off-shoring, out-sourcing, and the really egregious in-sourcing.

Though neither candidate seems to show how to solve our foundational problems in a capitalist system without harming either corporations or workers (and harming either would end up harming both!), if I absolutely had to vote for one, it would be Trump, simply because I think Clinton is considerably more likely to get us into a nuclear WWIII than Trump.

Fortunately, I'm free to not vote for either.
 
Lutherf said:
That door swings both ways. If you've got a name and some money you're also a target for exaggerated or completely false claims of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...



The only difference here is that you actually have Trump boasting how he can grab women's vaginas and be like a bitch all over them. He was basically saying he does that to women and can get away with it because he is a Star which is what these women are saying what occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom