Trump

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....

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.