• 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!

How did Trump Overcome Genital Grabbing Scandal?

katzgar said:
expected, you resort to name calling
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you misunderstood me... Your statement was a cop-out, which is what I was addressing...but I guess, if the shoe fits
 
katzgar said:
did you know clintons sleazy behaviour isnt applicable here. Trying to defend Trumps sleaziness is really an issue for you isnt it? Hmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Yes it is, it the context of an explanation. I'm not surprised you would be incapable of understanding that. If the left can excuse documented behavior by President Clinton, it certainly indicates the right might dismiss an audio of crude remarks made many years ago.

I mean hell, the left destroyed the career of the guy Trump was talking to without batting an eye, so I have no expectation they apply any objectivity to matters pertaining to President Trump.
 
haymarket said:
To this day one of the things I find several steps beyond jaw dropping amazing is that Trump won the election despite the worst publicity ever garnered by and major party candidate which severely should have assassinated his character - and by that I mean he ***** grabbing comments that took over the campaign and must have been heard by at least 90% of voters.

What amazes me is this: I cannot think of one single candidate for either party in the last 100 years in a relatively close election who could have survived that and won. Not one.

Sure, LBJ in 64 could have done it..... Nixon in 72 would have won despite such comments. But both had such huge leads and their opponents were so marginalized that nothing could have helped them. But in an election where the difference was around five points or so in polls, I cannot see any candidate surviving such devastating publicity.

But Trump did and managed to put together enough states to win the EC and the office.

One simple question: why was this possible?
Click to expand...

The right doesn't have any standards or moral expectations for its own.
 
humbolt said:
Yeah, ah, allegations are not evidence. They're just claims made without proof. Evidence is proof. Got any?
Click to expand...


just another attempt to recreate a trump reality. what kind of people side with sleaze?
 
haymarket said:
To this day one of the things I find several steps beyond jaw dropping amazing is that Trump won the election despite the worst publicity ever garnered by and major party candidate which severely should have assassinated his character - and by that I mean he ***** grabbing comments that took over the campaign and must have been heard by at least 90% of voters.

What amazes me is this: I cannot think of one single candidate for either party in the last 100 years in a relatively close election who could have survived that and won. Not one.

Sure, LBJ in 64 could have done it..... Nixon in 72 would have won despite such comments. But both had such huge leads and their opponents were so marginalized that nothing could have helped them. But in an election where the difference was around five points or so in polls, I cannot see any candidate surviving such devastating publicity.

But Trump did and managed to put together enough states to win the EC and the office.

One simple question: why was this possible?
Click to expand...

I think it was because it was only that one clip and not enough women came forward. A lot of stuff was said about what he did but there wasn't a lot of evidence to back it up and Trump already hammered it into his followers minds that the left was out to get him. A lot needs to happen before people can see beyond that rhetoric. You still have people defending O'Reilly.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes it is, it the context of an explanation. I'm not surprised you would be incapable of understanding that. If the left can excuse documented behavior by President Clinton, it certainly indicates the right might dismiss an audio of crude remarks made many years ago.

I mean hell, the left destroyed the career of the guy Trump was talking to without batting an eye, so I have no expectation they apply any objectivity to matters pertaining to President Trump.
Click to expand...


you should reread the title of this thread, that and understand how karma works.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I think it was because it was only that one clip and not enough women came forward. A lot of stuff was said about what he did but there wasn't a lot of evidence to back it up and Trump already hammered it into his followers minds that the left was out to get him. A lot needs to happen before people can see beyond that rhetoric. You still have people defending O'Reilly.
Click to expand...


15trump accusers have come forward.
 
haymarket said:
To this day one of the things I find several steps beyond jaw dropping amazing is that Trump won the election despite the worst publicity ever garnered by and major party candidate which severely should have assassinated his character - and by that I mean he ***** grabbing comments that took over the campaign and must have been heard by at least 90% of voters.

What amazes me is this: I cannot think of one single candidate for either party in the last 100 years in a relatively close election who could have survived that and won. Not one.

Sure, LBJ in 64 could have done it..... Nixon in 72 would have won despite such comments. But both had such huge leads and their opponents were so marginalized that nothing could have helped them. But in an election where the difference was around five points or so in polls, I cannot see any candidate surviving such devastating publicity.

But Trump did and managed to put together enough states to win the EC and the office.

One simple question: why was this possible?
Click to expand...

Several reasons.

Anyone can say something dumb and childish, and anyone can be overheard, or eavesdropped. It's accepted that the conversation was not meant to be recorded as part of the show, and was an incidental collection of what amounts to "bar talk". Hillary's server was more of a violation of a law we all could imagine ourselves ensnared in if we were in a position of trust and tried it and got caught. It begs the question: "WTF did she think she was doing? Answer: Being a Clinton!"

As hard as the media tried, the election was not about the man. We were not electing a pope. Most guys and one or two gals, can think back and find some things they did or said that they would be horrified if they were resurrected and made public. We were electing someone to stop socialism, stop the assault on jobs, business, police, and the middle class, and for us squints, stopping the assault on our culture.

Trump is one of us. Hillary is one of those who f us out of eight years of economic growth and prosperity.

As painful as it is to some, the electoral college did exactly what it was designed to do. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy, thus each state has representation. As the population map is drawn today, a simple majority would marginalize forty six or so of the other states. It would be a challenge to keep the republic together.
 
katzgar said:
just another attempt to recreate a trump reality. what kind of people side with sleaze?
Click to expand...

So you have no proof. There's an explanation. There isn't any evidence. You only have that void where evidentiary facts would reside if you had any.
 
humbolt said:
So you have no proof. There's an explanation. There isn't any evidence. You only have that void where evidentiary facts would reside if you had any.
Click to expand...


just another attempt to defend Trump. you have a tough future ahead of you.
 
katzgar said:
trying to defend sleaze? really? what kind of person are you?
Click to expand...

So I take it you fully renounced Hillary for defending her sleazy husband. Amirite?
 
katzgar said:
15trump accusers have come forward.
Click to expand...

You need nothing short of video evidence for someone as slippery as Trump. If those 15 women leaked video evidence, then it would be a much different story and Trump wouldn't be President. People need visuals in the world of click-bait.
 
katzgar said:
you are confused read the title of the thread again. there is nothing there about corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

Nor did my post mention such. I'm talking about the lib penchant for taxing the middle class to death in order to support able bodied layabouts.
 
celticwar17 said:
An awesome one... I know I'm a good person, I don't need your reaffirmation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, in order to be a "good person", you must pretend to care about the little guy, while supporting​ policies that screw him at every turn. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
Sorry, in order to be a "good person", you must pretend to care about the little guy, yet support policies that screw him at every turn. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Do I? You know what policies I support? O_o
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, personal character was taken off the table with "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Not only can you get away with having extra marital sex in the White House you can get away with lying about it too. It's not as if Hillary was of higher moral character after being caught in similar distortions of the truth. Politicians can lie, cheat and steal (even smoke crack with prostitutes) and still get elected - it mainly depends on who they are running against.
Click to expand...

What woman did Hillary have sex with while in the White House?
 
countryboy said:
Nor did my post mention such. I'm talking about the lib penchant for taxing the middle class to death in order to support able bodied layabouts.
Click to expand...


ignoring corporate welfare just means you are a corporate shill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom