Donald Trump, Groper in Chief

[fantome profane]

If the alternative is Hillary? Yes.
If the alternative were Bernie? Probably not.



So, if Trump gets into office and literally gropes a female (other than his wife) while anywhere in the White House, I would expect him to possibly face impeachment, especially if he tries to weasel out of it by claiming he didn't do it, or he didn't understand how 'sex' was being defined. Short of that, and saying because he has a past of alleged groping is not grounds for impeachment. To me, a huge difference between Bill and Trump is that to this day Bill passes it off like it's only been Monica and that's it. Bring up another female, and then it's him maybe saying, okay Monica and that other woman, and that is it. Could likely keep going for about another 100 women, and then he'd be like "and that's it!" Some with Bill have been consensual, and some clearly haven't been.

Plus the kicker of all this and why it is relevant to the election is that Hillary sought to shame / take down the women. That's worst case scenario, but there is definitely allegations of it. Best case scenario is she enabled it for her own political career, because as much as Bill was impeached, during the 1990's and pretty much up to this moment, the idea of a 40+ year old man having sex with a 20+ year old intern, at work, in an office that is very very popular, has routinely been spun as you'd have to be a total prude to see anything wrong with that. So sticking a cigar in Monica's P, and that being well known, is seen as 'eh, not that bad.' But talking about groping a P when you're a star, and they'll let you do that is treated as BFD.

But then as this thread brings up, there's non-consexual allegations by both men (and many other men in society) and that's the stuff where Hillary has jumped in to defend her man and belittle/shame the females. How beautiful is that? A groper in chief being tied to a what could be the Rapist Enabler In Chief.

Yes, Hillary did defend Bill's actions. And she defended them well past the point where she should have known better. And I hold her responsible for her actions, absolutely. But I don't agree that the words she spoke, no matter now nasty, are the equivalent of either Bill's or Donald's actions. And I will tell you this about the debate tonight. Trump needs to make serious gains with women if he is going to have a chance to win this election. And if he tries to justify his actions by attacking Hillary, women are not going to be impressed.


But more to the point, If Hillary Clinton is elected I see a zero percent chance that Hillary Clinton will be groping people in the Whitehouse. Can you say the same about Donald Trump?

 

[ShivaFan]

"Bill Clinton isn't running for President" ...

Don't be silly. Of course he is. It is the complete package of the Clinton cartel including the Bush's and all the cronies et all.

It is 20 more years of CLINTON-BUSH, BUSH-CLINTON verse Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

So unlike Trump, Obama can read.

Teleprompters.


Oh, come on.....you know I had to post something like this!
How could I not.

 

[Mindmaster]

Don't worry, the Trumpets are on the way to rationalize this behavior like they have all day.

It's mostly that it's he said-she said, and there are no lawsuits other than frivolous ones. Where are the charges of sexual assault that go with the allegations? I mean, if he's such a womanizer and sexual predator where are the Juanita Brodricks and Gennifer Flowers of the situation? See, it's a load of crap. You people should be ashamed of being distracted by these contrived scenarios, and put your energies on the issues rather than this tabloidesque turd-fling.

 

[fantome profane]

Teleprompters.


Oh, come on.....you know I had to post something like this!
How could I not.

Ok, point taken. Donald Trump can read teleprompters. Not very well, but he can read them. I rescind my statement.

 

[columbus]

I'm curious how this is playing in Gods country, like Utah.
Tom

 

[McBell]

 

[Notanumber]

Is that when Bill is in the room?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Silence?
BS much?

You're quite right. I shouldn't categorise conservatives or Republicans as a group because some are actually reacting to this and not ignoring it.

But then as this thread brings up, there's non-consexual allegations by both men (and many other men in society) and that's the stuff where Hillary has jumped in to defend her man and belittle/shame the females. How beautiful is that? A groper in chief being tied to a what could be the Rapist Enabler In Chief.

So basically Trumpet logic looks like this:

"What Trump said or did a decade ago shouldn't be allowed to influence this election."

"You're voting for Hillary? Do you know how she acted to protect Bill from Monica in the 90s?! How can that not be a factor here?!"

 

[Revoltingest]

So basically Trumpet logic looks like this:
"What Trump said or did a decade ago shouldn't be allowed to influence this election."

Hillary's fans also want her past problems ignored, eg, Whitewater, troublesome quotes.
The difference is that she's more successful at keeping those quiet.in the media.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Hillary's fans also want her past problems ignored, eg, Whitewater, troublesome quotes.

... and?

The difference is that she's more successful at keeping those quiet.in the media.

I laughed. With all that people here and on the wider web go on about Hillary and what she does, I don't think this is true at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

... and?
I laughed. With all that people here and on the wider web go on about Hillary and what she does, I don't think this is true at all.

I work hard here to wallow in the past.
But in the media, it's different.
I need my own news show on TV, but alas....I'm just not as pretty as Sean Hannity or Megyn Kelly.

 

[Acim]

Yes, Hillary did defend Bill's actions. And she defended them well past the point where she should have known better. And I hold her responsible for her actions, absolutely. But I don't agree that the words she spoke, no matter now nasty, are the equivalent of either Bill's or Donald's actions. And I will tell you this about the debate tonight. Trump needs to make serious gains with women if he is going to have a chance to win this election. And if he tries to justify his actions by attacking Hillary, women are not going to be impressed.


But more to the point, If Hillary Clinton is elected I see a zero percent chance that Hillary Clinton will be groping people in the Whitehouse. Can you say the same about Donald Trump?

To me, Hillary's words/actions are actually worse. They are both bad, so not looking to excuse a male who thinks it okay to do things to anyone (male or female) because they think they have upper hand/control in the situation. Yet, if I were doing that (excusing it in some way), wouldn't anyone reading this, think that bad? If say my brother, father, friend proceeded to do minor actions of sexual assault that were clearly uwarranted to say you, and then I came along to shame you for daring to say that about this man (that I know) and went after your character, all to make you out as liar - wouldn't that be bad? How bad, is a matter of opinion, but I think it worse because it really does throw the first item (the assault) into plausible category of - didn't happen, or if it did you are really the one making too big of deal out of it, and deserved to be shamed for that. And even if somehow I were persuaded to back off of it being worse, which I'm currently not, I would be very interested in the arguments that are continuing in vein of "nowhere near as bad" or "totally different."

IMO, enabling bad stuff is very much at the heart of why bad stuff occurs in the world. Way too many examples to list, but lying by politicians comes to mind as something that just makes it perfectly clear. Because of enabling that, we're now at a place where we fully expect that to occur, as if it is part of the job requirement for being a politician. I think we (partisan folk) acknowledge lying as bad by (opposing) politicians, but does anyone think telling a lie means automatic disqualification? Anyone?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It seems that you have never been seduced by a woman in your entire life

Oh ****, I'd better inform my girlfriend that she's never seduced me before. Not even that one time when we... well, I'll save it for the Eros Room.

Nice one, by the way. You're a real ambassador for your faith.

You mean like Sarkozy, all of you are religious today, OH MY GOD, Hallelujah

Unless Sarkozy actually harassed or assaulted anyone, that's not a very good example. A better example would be Silvio Berlusconi, former PM and media tycoon of Italy, (hey, this analogy is becoming sounder by the minute) who ruined his political career and made himself a laughing stock because of his inability to think with anything other than his cock (wow, the censor doesn't think that's bad). America is at risk of voting for its own Berlusconi.

 

[FearGod]

Oh ****, I'd better inform my girlfriend that she's never seduced me before. Not even that one time when we... well, I'll save it for the Eros Room.

I think you lack the charisma, maybe you're jealous because of it.

Nice one, by the way. You're a real ambassador for your faith.

Yes I'm, but it has nothing to do with faith, it's about politics and human personal affairs.

Unless Sarkozy actually harassed or assaulted anyone, that's not a very good example. A better example would be Silvio Berlusconi, former PM and media tycoon of Italy, (hey, this analogy is becoming sounder by the minute) who ruined his political career and made himself a laughing stock because of his inability to think with anything other than his cock (wow, the censor doesn't think that's bad). America is at risk of voting for its own Berlusconi.

You mean you don't want president like Bill Clinton, but you have no problem with his wife in which
both are the same one family.