• 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!

Trump Caught On Hot Mic In 2005: 'Grab Them By The P***y'

coldjoint said:
It is love for the country not hate for Hillary. I swear hate is all some of you can say. It really gets old.
Click to expand...

Yes you are the only one here not hating. :roll:

Did it ever occur to you that the reason that people hate certain politicians is because they love their country? I am sure that many Venezuelans hated Chavez. That hate is a good thing. Hell its even patriotic for Americans to hate/distrust politicians. I know that I dont trust any politician and I am very critical of everything they do.

Its the people that trust individual politicians that scare me. In the case of Trump (this thread is about Trump in case you missed that) not only should no one trust a business man, Trump has a long history of doing things that do not make him trustworthy. I dont know if you have had the displeasure of dealing with the real estate industry but, those people are like used car salesman. So when Trump says something the first thing you should do is question what he really is up to.
 
justabubba said:
yes, the posts of someone using the pseudonym "muslimbasher" causes me to question the rationality and credibility of such person at that keyboard, lamely attempting to provide the donald cover
more so since we can see tRump is a muslim basher
Click to expand...

You can question all you want but you really have no idea what the name represents and are going on imagination.




FreedomFromAll said:
You are basing your argument off of some guy on the internet. You have no way of knowing that Muslimbasher is telling the truth.
Click to expand...
iLOL No, it is not an argument, it is a presentation of available information.





Cardinal said:
I'm familiar with the phenomenon of "gaslighting." Thanks, but I'll take Trump at face value over your claim that I didn't hear the thing that I heard. Maybe it's you whose ears aren't working correctly.
Click to expand...
The thing you heard? iLOL
You imaged what you heard while ignoring what was really said. And what you imagined is based in your own convoluted bias.

Again, he spoke to what they allowed. Not what they didn't allow. And he didn't even say he engaged in it the ***** grabbing. So far you have been unable refute this and the reason is obvious, you can not refute the factual information.




Absentglare said:
He was explicitly talking about what he did to them without permission.
Click to expand...

Your blathering above is the epitome of dishonesty. He spoke to what they allowed. You have failed to refute that fact.




calamity said:
anything over 270 EV's would be wiping floor since you lose.
Click to expand...
No. Simply losing is not a "floor wiping".
Funny that you think it is.
 
Excon said:
You can question all you want but you really have no idea what the name represents and are going on imagination.





iLOL No, it is not an argument, it is a presentation of available information.






The thing you heard? iLOL
You imaged what you heard while ignoring what was really said. And what you imagined is based in your own convoluted bias.

Again, he spoke to what they allowed. Not what they didn't allow. And he didn't even say he engaged in it the ***** grabbing. So far you have been unable refute this and the reason is obvious, you can not refute the factual information.






Your blathering above is the epitome of dishonesty. He spoke to what they allowed. You have failed to refute that fact.




No. Simply losing is not a "floor wiping".
Funny that you think it is.
Click to expand...

He's looking at a 340 to 198 loss right now.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

That would be not only a floor-wiping but also an ass kicking.
 
Excon said:
1. Which is a far cry from simply losing.
2. As for 538/Nate Silver? iLOL He has already been wrong in regards to Trump. So there is no reason to believe this time either.
Click to expand...

Hold on tight to your dreams.
 
beefheart said:
So, those horrible shirts make Trump's comments OK? :roll:
Click to expand...
No it makes it not ok for people to act so indignant about what he said when they say equally deplorable things and worse, when it suits their political agenda. I can understand if you dont like trump because of what he said. It is one of many legitimate reasons to not like but he didnt commit any crime. He is guilty of being crass and a braggart.

Let me ask you something that seems to be going unadressed. Regardless of what your opinion is about Trump. Does the infotmation in the wikileak emails bother you?

They indicate that clinton and the press are working in colussion. Nbc purposely held the story to hijack the debate with it and when the hurricane took the news cycle some exec who wanted it so badly leaked it to the post before billy bush could be edited out of it. The intent was to keep his name protected. Not to mention recording Trumps conversation was illegal. None of this defends trump but it certainly does bring his accusers integrity into question.

Dont think this sabatoge is an isolated incident either. This just has the emails that confirm them working together. Its strange how you can flip from one station to another and they all say the exact same thing word for word when its a politival story. Its pretty obvious the dnc frames the argument. Hands out the talking points to the press and they push the narrative. This is a cordinated and orchestrated attack. People are allowing their votes to be hijacked by the press who are acting as dishonest brokers.

That is more alarming for me than if donald objectifies women or if hilliary is going to use the whitehouse as her own personal ATM machine. Does it bother you that the press is picking our potus?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Mr Person said:
Have we got to the part of the thread where it's all the liberal media's fault?
Click to expand...
I just covered it for you. Feel gtee to respond to the same questions i asked of beefheart if you wish

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Excon said:
You can question all you want but you really have no idea what the name represents and are going on imagination.





iLOL No, it is not an argument, it is a presentation of available information.






The thing you heard? iLOL
You imaged what you heard while ignoring what was really said. And what you imagined is based in your own convoluted bias.

Again, he spoke to what they allowed. Not what they didn't allow. And he didn't even say he engaged in it the ***** grabbing. So far you have been unable refute this and the reason is obvious, you can not refute the factual information.






Your blathering above is the epitome of dishonesty. He spoke to what they allowed. You have failed to refute that fact.




No. Simply losing is not a "floor wiping".
Funny that you think it is.
Click to expand...

My ears heard him bragging about sexual assault, and I have no good reason to think that your ears are better than my ears. You're exactly what Richard Pryor was talking about.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Just going to leave this here...

efb5321098d27d14045305e0c7294403.jpg
Click to expand...

The problem isn't that he said "*****."

 
calamity said:
The dream that 538 is wrong.
Click to expand...
You are again showing that you know not of what you speak.

Clearly I said the following.
2. As for 538/Nate Silver? iLOL He has already been wrong in regards to Trump. So there is no reason to believe this time either.​

Are you really ignorant of Nate Silver's track record in regards to Trump?
 
Cardinal said:
My ears heard him bragging about sexual assault,
Click to expand...
Your ears are lying to you. He spoke of what women allow. Not sexual assault.
His comments are in print even, so you clearly don't even believe your eyes. He spoke about what women allow.
You still have failed to refute that and that is because you can't.


Cardinal said:
and I have no good reason to think that your ears are better than my ears.
Click to expand...
Clearly they are, which is why I can point out what he actually said. Which is nowhere near what you fabricated to believe.


Cardinal said:
You're exactly what Richard Pryor was talking about.
Click to expand...
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Absentglare said:
Your blathering above is the epitome of dishonesty. He spoke to what they allowed. You have failed to refute that fact.
Click to expand...
The irony of this claim cannot be overstated.
Click to expand...
Oh look, you are still blathering dishonesty. Figures you would dishonestly deflect instead of admitting to reality. He spoke to what they allowed. You have again failed to refute that.




Cardinal said:
Ohhhh, right. That must be it.
Click to expand...
Of course it is.
What did you not understand about "they let you"?
 
Excon said:
Oh look, you are still blathering dishonesty. Figures you would dishonestly deflect instead of admitting to reality. He spoke to what they allowed. You have again failed to refute that
Click to expand...

No, you are lying. He spoke to what they tolerated, not what they permitted.
 
Absentglare said:
No, you are lying. He spoke to what they tolerated, not what they permitted.
Click to expand...
Saying I am lying is a lie.

He spoke only of what women allowed.
The specific wording used was "... they let you ...".
Not, they don't let you. Not, they object but let you anyways.
They let you. That speaks of allowance.

Even your use of "tolerated" means they allowed. Duh.
"to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction"​
 
Excon said:
Saying I am lying is a lie.

He spoke only of what women allowed.
The specific wording used was "... they let you ...".
Not, they don't let you. Not, they object but let you anyways.
They let you. That speaks of allowance.

Even your use of "tolerated" means they allowed. Duh.
"to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction"​
Click to expand...

He was talking about forcing himself on women before they had an opportunity to say no.

Stop lying.
 
Absentglare said:
He was talking about forcing himself on women before they had an opportunity to say no.

Stop lying.
Click to expand...
:lamo
1. As already pointed out now, between the two of us, you are the only one lying.
2. Wrong. He only spoke to what women allow. You instead have made up a narrative to believe out of your own hatred and bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom