Trump

Go Beavers · November 2016

muskydan said:

Go Beavers said:
Trump really loves the ladies: "You know, it doesn't really matter what [they] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."

"You have to treat em like shit"

“I have days where, if I come home — and I don't want to sound too much like a chauvinist,” the Republican said, “but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof.”

“I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing,” said Trump. “Unfortunately, after they're a star, the fun is over for me. It's like a creation process. It's almost like creating a building. It's pretty sad.”

“Why do people think it’s egotistical of you to say you could’ve gotten with Lady Di?” Stern asked him. “You could’ve gotten her, right? You could’ve nailed her.”

“I think I could have,” Trump said.

"All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me - consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected."

For the creepy file: “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

Beauty queen Carrie Prejean wrote about the ‘Trump rule’ in her book, referring to the Miss USA pageant, of which Trump was co-owner. She claimed that the billionaire had the girls parade in front of him so he could separate those he found attractive from those he didn’t.

She wrote: “Many of the girls found this exercise humiliating. Some of the girls were sobbing backstage after [he] left, devastated to have failed even before the competition really began . . . it was as though we had been stripped bare.”

Take the creepy to eleven, don:

A tape of Trump's appearance on The Wendy Williams Show from 2013 has emerged, in which he cracks an inappropriate gag about his daughter (again). Asked by Williams what she and her father had in common, Ivanka replied "either real estate or golf."

Her father? He said: "Well, I was going to say sex, but I can't relate that to her" - pointing at his mortified daughter.

He tweeted this "If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?"

Can the creepy dial go to 12, apparently so:
Trump: “Now, somebody who a lot of people don’t give credit to but in actuality is really beautiful is Paris Hilton. I’ve known Paris Hilton from the time she’s 12, her parents are friends of mine, and the first time I saw her she walked into the room and I said, ‘Who the hell is that?’”

Stern: “Did you wanna bang her?”

Trump: “Well, at 12, I wasn’t interested. I’ve never been into that ... but she was beautiful.”

He went on to admit he'd watched her sex tape.

There's more, but you get the picture. Nice work, trump voters!
The Don is so entertaining on Stern, best interviewer on the planet. I cannot wait till he goes back on as President Donald Trump. You may want to buy a few extra boxes of Kleenex that week. I Hope Stern asks him how long it took to bang First Lady Melania in every room of the White House....

Looks like you're the one who needs the kleenex based on your arousal from living vicariously through our sex offender president.

JC29856 · November 2016

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:
Let's see how those politicians on both sides react to congressional term limits and lobby firms revolving door!
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-washington-insiders-2016-11

Undrainable swamp?

Gern Blansten · November 2016

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/305821-mcmullin-slams-bannon-appointment

McMullin gets it. How can you tell the racists to stop their attacks and then appoint Bannon? Fucking insane.

Gern Blansten · November 2016

JC29856 said:
Let's see how those politicians on both sides react to congressional term limits and lobby firms revolving door!

That's an issue that I can support him on.

PJPOWER · November 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:
ENTERTAINMENT
It must be blowing people's minds that as shitty of a person as Trump may be in person, people still like him better than that nasty Hildabeast. I don't think it has to do with racism at all, just anti-establishment/dynasty people in droves. Trump is face value, Clinton was payed for and was in the pockets of so many politicians and fully engulfed in a pay to play scheme. I would have voted for the Taco Bell dog over her. I don't even know why I'm still talking about her. She is a loser and her political status is now irrelevant.
And then again... there is this perspective which I can appreciate.

But Trump? I don't know, man. That's a hell of a price to stick it to the establishment.
It is, the biggest middle finger that I can think of, right? I'm not happy about the Donald being president, but hopefully it is a wake up call to the smug politicians that never thought they would have to actually work.
Long term... maybe.

This is truly a wait and see type event. I am hoping he was simply yapping away with some of his bold promises. I get the feeling he was running for president just to run for president- a venture that spiralled upwards, slightly unexpectedly, and with results that he never initially imagined. Once things began to take the form of potentially working out for him... I feel he got excited and optimistic- unable to contain himself and act with levels of grace people in such positions normally do.

Who knows?

Time will definitely tell. There are signs that some of his proposals are already in the works. That crazy wall may actually get built. Cannot remember where I read it, but I read the other day that funds were already allotted for it. That and a few gun control measures, such as national reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act look to have easy paths...

JC29856 · November 2016

Gern Blansten said:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/305821-mcmullin-slams-bannon-appointment

McMullin gets it. How can you tell the racists to stop their attacks and then appoint Bannon? Fucking insane.

Let me get this straight....
Criticism for putting outsiders in his cabinet and criticism for putting insiders in his cabinet.

Gern Blansten · November 2016

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.

And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.

JC29856 · November 2016

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.

Similar to saying you won a chess match playing under checkers format.

PJPOWER · November 2016

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.

More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting? We have states and state rights for a reason. Shouldn't this discussion be in the Electoral College thread?

Gern Blansten · November 2016

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
Similar to saying you won a chess match playing under checkers format.

Not at all. It would be saying you won the chess match playing chess rules but the guy that got all your pawns won versus your checkmate.

Gern Blansten · November 2016

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting?

Did more people vote for Trump or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000 as of today

Did more people want Trump as President or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000

Again....4th time. I'm not disputing the electoral college. I'm saying that more people wanted Clinton and therefore it is incorrect to say that more people wanted Trump.

PJPOWER · November 2016

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting?
Did more people vote for Trump or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000 as of today

Okay, if all people's votes were thrown into a puddle, more individual people voted for Clinton...fair enough? Does not overcome the fact that most of the country outside of the hugely populated cities did not vote for her. This was not a local election, it is representative of each individual state.

Gern Blansten · November 2016

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting?
Did more people vote for Trump or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000 as of today
Okay, if all people's votes were thrown into a puddle, more individual people voted for Clinton...fair enough? Does not overcome the fact that most of the country outside of the hugely populated cities did not vote for her. This was not a local election, it is representative of each individual state.

And that still has nothing to do with whether or not more citizens voted for Trump or Clinton. More voted for Clinton.

PJPOWER · November 2016

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting?
Did more people vote for Trump or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000 as of today
Okay, if all people's votes were thrown into a puddle, more individual people voted for Clinton...fair enough? Does not overcome the fact that most of the country outside of the hugely populated cities did not vote for her. This was not a local election, it is representative of each individual state.
And that still has nothing to do with whether or not more citizens voted for Trump or Clinton. More voted for Clinton.

Awesome, maybe she will win a local election in one of those blue places where so many voted for her...if she can stay out of jail.

Gern Blansten · November 2016

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting?
Did more people vote for Trump or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000 as of today
Okay, if all people's votes were thrown into a puddle, more individual people voted for Clinton...fair enough? Does not overcome the fact that most of the country outside of the hugely populated cities did not vote for her. This was not a local election, it is representative of each individual state.
And that still has nothing to do with whether or not more citizens voted for Trump or Clinton. More voted for Clinton.
Awesome, maybe she will win a local election in one of those blue places where so many voted for her...if she can stay out of jail.

Oh the intelligent comment about her going to jail. Got it. I would normally ask "for what?" but I don't see a point.

PJPOWER · November 2016

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
No, you can just say that people in more states wanted Trump. Do you really want people in the largest cities determining how the whole country is run? Agriculture would go to shit. Starting to sound a little hunger gamish.
And AGAIN....you must have a thick skull....that has nothing to do with Clinton winning the popular vote. I'm not saying to do away with the electoral college....I'm saying you CAN'T say that more people wanted Trump. They didn't. By 700,000 or so. That's a lot of people.
More people in most states did not vote for Hillary. Maybe not the case in Cali, New York, Illinois...but those places do not represent the whole country...what am I not getting?
Did more people vote for Trump or Clinton?

Answer: Clinton by 700,000 as of today
Okay, if all people's votes were thrown into a puddle, more individual people voted for Clinton...fair enough? Does not overcome the fact that most of the country outside of the hugely populated cities did not vote for her. This was not a local election, it is representative of each individual state.
And that still has nothing to do with whether or not more citizens voted for Trump or Clinton. More voted for Clinton.
Awesome, maybe she will win a local election in one of those blue places where so many voted for her...if she can stay out of jail.
Oh the intelligent comment about her going to jail. Got it. I would normally ask "for what?" but I don't see a point.

Exactly, she is irrelevant now. No point talking about her any further. In fact, if I never hear her name again, it will be too soon.

chadwick · November 2016

neither trump nor clinton are innocent. they are both bullshit artists. clinton is not going to jail. to believe trump is not full of shit is insanely naive

PJPOWER · November 2016

chadwick said:
neither trump nor clinton are innocent. they are both bullshit artists. clinton is not going to jail. to believe trump is not full of shit is insanely naive

To believe any politician is not full of shit is insanely naive.

vaggar99 · November 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

vaggar99 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:
Holy shit you guys....I understand the electoral college. My point is you can't say that more people wanted Trump when he LOST THE POPULAR VOTE.

That's a simple thing to understand.
Patience man. Patience.

Think of whom you are talking to.
and who would that be?
People who are waiting for their wildest dreams to come true.

fair enough. Trump won. I do think that there may be some legal contests coming though. Who knows. Right now the media and politicians are all trying to make nice.

vaggar99 · November 2016

chadwick said:
neither trump nor clinton are innocent. they are both bullshit artists. clinton is not going to jail. to believe trump is not full of shit is insanely naive

true. This election was really no different than any other in terms of 'you got to pick the lesser of two evils'. Still surprises me how the pussy grabbing didn't 'Trump' all the emails etc.

That said. Voting for Obama never felt like picking the lesser of two evils. He was my type of person. You can call him an elitist snob. Whatever...The guy had soul. He had ideas. He had wisdom. He had a conscience.

Trump

Comments

Categories