Breaking WP: Donald Trump was recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005(Text)

[Meathead]

**** you, deranged, deplorable. It's not my job to teach you English. But being the kind-hearted Liberal I am, I'll give you a clue..... the word, "stupid," which you ascribed to me -- is actually nowhere in my post.

Perhaps "stupidity" permeates in your posts.

 

[Faun]

**** you, deranged, deplorable. It's not my job to teach you English. But being the kind-hearted Liberal I am, I'll give you a clue..... the word, "stupid," which you ascribed to me -- is actually nowhere in my post.

Perhaps "stupidity" permeates in your posts.

Nah. It's perfectly understandable that I didn't say it's "stupid to have a Republican candidate who wants to appoint conservative justices to the court."

 

[Meathead]

Nah. It's perfectly understandable that I didn't say it's "stupid to have a Republican candidate who wants to appoint conservative justices to the court."

See, we agree about stupidity permeating your posts.

 

[Faun]

Nah. It's perfectly understandable that I didn't say it's "stupid to have a Republican candidate who wants to appoint conservative justices to the court."

See, we agree about stupidity permeating your posts.

Ummm... you agreeing with yourself doesn't actually amount to "we" agreeing. No one else but you can hear the voices in your head.

 

[koshergrl]

 

[candycorn]

Feel free to explain how they will repeal the 2nd amendment. I need a good laugh.

Simple. When a case gets challenged to the Supreme Court, they simply rule we don't have a constitutional right to guns in this country outside of those in a state militia which of course really doesn't exist.

What that would mean is that any city or state could make any gun regulations they want. They could place a $10,000 tax on guns, maybe $5.00 per round of ammunition, get rid of CCW laws, force gun owners to have liability insurance, make it illegal for somebody to use a weapon for self-defense in their home. The sky would be the limit because you would no longer have a constitutional right to fight them with.

Several years ago my city suggested they be allowed to sue gun manufacturers for victims of their weapons. Of course if they could have done that, gun manufacturers would no longer sell firearms in or around the city. But they wouldn't spend the money knowing that it would eventually be ruled unconstitutional, so they gave up the idea.

That may not be the case if some Commie leftists flood our courts. You don't have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You can get the same results other ways.

And don’t you think a state like California would have done that already if it were anywhere near as “simple” as you make it out to be?

 

[bripat9643]

That's how I characterized what you said. So far you have posted nothing that refutes it.

It's not incumbent upon me to educate you.

It is incumbent on you to explain yourself when you deny you said what you obviously said.

Nope, it's not incumbent to explain myself because you're too stupid to keep up.

Quote me saying, "it was stupid to have a Republican candidate who wants to appoint conservative justices to the court," as you idiotically claimed I said.

You won't because you can't because I never said that but you think I did because you're a conservative idiot.

You've jumped the shark on this issue. You were caught saying something stupid and now you're making a fool of yourself trying to deny it.

Just like I predicted, you won't quote me because you can't because I never said what you claimed I said; but you think I did because you're a conservative idiot.

You're nothing if not predictable.

Puhleeze. Anyone can go back up the thread and see what you posted, and they can see that my interpretation of your imbecile remarks is exactly correct.

 

[bripat9643]

Feel free to explain how they will repeal the 2nd amendment. I need a good laugh.

Simple. When a case gets challenged to the Supreme Court, they simply rule we don't have a constitutional right to guns in this country outside of those in a state militia which of course really doesn't exist.

What that would mean is that any city or state could make any gun regulations they want. They could place a $10,000 tax on guns, maybe $5.00 per round of ammunition, get rid of CCW laws, force gun owners to have liability insurance, make it illegal for somebody to use a weapon for self-defense in their home. The sky would be the limit because you would no longer have a constitutional right to fight them with.

Several years ago my city suggested they be allowed to sue gun manufacturers for victims of their weapons. Of course if they could have done that, gun manufacturers would no longer sell firearms in or around the city. But they wouldn't spend the money knowing that it would eventually be ruled unconstitutional, so they gave up the idea.

That may not be the case if some Commie leftists flood our courts. You don't have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You can get the same results other ways.

And don’t you think a state like California would have done that already if it were anywhere near as “simple” as you make it out to be?

State courts get overruled by federal courts, dumbass.

 

[candycorn]

Feel free to explain how they will repeal the 2nd amendment. I need a good laugh.

Simple. When a case gets challenged to the Supreme Court, they simply rule we don't have a constitutional right to guns in this country outside of those in a state militia which of course really doesn't exist.

What that would mean is that any city or state could make any gun regulations they want. They could place a $10,000 tax on guns, maybe $5.00 per round of ammunition, get rid of CCW laws, force gun owners to have liability insurance, make it illegal for somebody to use a weapon for self-defense in their home. The sky would be the limit because you would no longer have a constitutional right to fight them with.

Several years ago my city suggested they be allowed to sue gun manufacturers for victims of their weapons. Of course if they could have done that, gun manufacturers would no longer sell firearms in or around the city. But they wouldn't spend the money knowing that it would eventually be ruled unconstitutional, so they gave up the idea.

That may not be the case if some Commie leftists flood our courts. You don't have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You can get the same results other ways.

And don’t you think a state like California would have done that already if it were anywhere near as “simple” as you make it out to be?

State courts get overruled by federal courts, dumbass.

California would have tried it at least if there was such an avenue to overturning it; as would half a dozen liberal states.
The no-buy/no-fly may be enforced but the 2nd Amendment aint going anywhere.

 

[Slade3200]

How in the world do you compare Trumps comment about grabbing ***** to Obama reading a passage from a book? Are you really trying to imply that this is comparable or that it makes it ok for Trump to say what he said?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And don’t you think a state like California would have done that already if it were anywhere near as “simple” as you make it out to be?

That's the point. California couldn't do it because if it was contested up to the Supreme Court, they would lose the case. The right-leaning SC would rule that it was against the 2nd Amendment.

It's the same thing that happened in DC and Indiana. They refused to have a CCW program for their citizens. It was fought up to the SC and they ruled that not allowing citizens the right to carry firearms was unconstitutional.

 

[playtime]

he has a consistent history of 'remarks' & behavior reports are just coming out from the apprentice. many witness' are saying he's a ******* orange dirtbag.

. Still yet we have a woman that got a man off for raping a 12 year old girl, and then joked about it... Your talking blowhard talk by Trump, but Hillary is the more ominous character in this race. So what does that make her voter base that is holding their noses on her ???

lol, perhaps you can learn yourself some facts cowboy, instead of repeating talking points that just ain't true....

Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case

• By Ilana Nathans
• Posted on June 17, 2016

Q: Did Hillary Clinton volunteer in 1975 to defend a rapist, who was found not guilty, and laugh about it in an interview in 1980?

A: Clinton defended an accused rapist, but she did not volunteer. He pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. She laughed when recalling unusual aspects of the case.


FULL QUESTION
Did Hillary Clinton volunteer to defend a child rapist in 1975, accuse the 12-year-old victim of fantasizing about older men, later state that she knew he was guilty but got the charges dropped and laugh?

FULL ANSWER
In 1975, Hillary Clinton — then known as Hillary Rodham — taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law, where she founded the University of Arkansas School Legal Aid Clinic. It was during this time that she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.
[...]

Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case

Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist
Hillary Clinton's role in a 40-year-old rape case became the focal point of a viral meme in 2016, but the claims made about it were mostly inaccurate.

Kim LaCapria
Updated: Aug 13, 2016


Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.

mostly false
WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.


WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.
[...]
Audio tapes from the 1980s of Hillary Clinton describing the case to journalist Roy Reed surfaced in 2014 and were incorporated into a video clip associated with the image macro's claims...

The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as "terrible." She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)
[...]

FALSE: Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist, Laughed About It

'...
At PolitiFact, we decided to review what’s known about the case to see if Clinton accurately portrayed how she came to represent the defendant. Because some of the key players have died, we won’t issue a rating on our Truth-O-Meter.

Overall, we did find a few inconsistencies in Clinton’s recollection of the nearly 40-year-old events. But we also found significant evidence suggesting she had little choice but to take the case. And the story itself provides insights in the early career of a potential 2016 presidential candidate...'

NoneNone

. Well everyone will have to make their own opinions based upon the entire story or facts in the case, but as the above states that there are alot of gray areas to fill in, and that most of it was inaccurate, but yet some of it was accurate. Now how much was accurate, and was the accurate part quite damming if interpreted in that way ?

what gray areas? verified facts are not inaccurate.

 

[candycorn]

And don’t you think a state like California would have done that already if it were anywhere near as “simple” as you make it out to be?

That's the point. California couldn't do it because if it was contested up to the Supreme Court, they would lose the case. The right-leaning SC would rule that it was against the 2nd Amendment.

It's the same thing that happened in DC and Indiana. They refused to have a CCW program for their citizens. It was fought up to the SC and they ruled that not allowing citizens the right to carry firearms was unconstitutional.

Apples and oranges. But whatever….

 

[Harry Dresden]

Political Correctness, safe spaces, trigger warnings, participation medals?

Oh no, not at ALL.


.

Your ridiculous myths and contrivances such as ‘political correctness’ and ‘safe spaces’ exhibit your ignorance of, and disdain for, a free and democratic society, and the right of the people to express themselves in the context of our free and democratic society, absent unwarranted interference from government or the courts.

Indeed, accusations of ‘political correctness’ represent the right’s desire to stifle free expression and dissent, to compel conformity, and undermine public debate.

Conservatives’ fear and contempt of a free and democratic is the true threat, not the myth of ‘political correctness.’

is that an ad hoc fallicy?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

I wasn’t aware the rules for changing the constitution were being voted on in this election. But then again, I’m not a right wing nut job with shit for brains.

And obviously ignorant as to what Supreme Court justices can do as well.

Which is why it's imperative Hillary wins the election. So she can fill Scalia's seat with a bleeding heart Liberal.

That's exactly why it's imperative that she lose. She might put Obama or Loretta Lynch on the Supreme Court. Talk about disasters.

Republicans and conservatives made this election about Scalia's seat. They gambled on getting a Republican in office who would nominate a conservative.

They got what they asked for.

I hope Hillary nominates the most Liberal person on the planet and Democrats win the Senate and confirm them.

Not counting on conservatives learning a lesson from this but I can always hope.

you can tell you have the best interests of the country in mind....

 

[Flopper]

. Sunday will sure let everyone know where it all stands after that.

I have my doubts. Americans have short memories and a lot can happen between now and nearly a month from now. Hillary will get some ticks in her numbers, and then they will come back down again I suspect.

The only people upset by this are the liberals, and they weren't going to vote for Trump anyway. Our cowardly Governor came out today to say he wouldn't support Trump. Like gee, you would have supported him if not for this tape? Seriously.

There have been more tapes from the Howard Stern Show emerge this weekend which confirm Trump's misogynistic attitude toward women, overt racism, lack of discipline, and self control. You're kidding yourself to think Trump voters are unmovable regardless of what he says or does.

A "Clinton is worse" attack is just not working anymore as more and more real evidence keeps coming out revealing the true character of Trump. Most of the attacks on the Clintons are just accusation, many of which have been totally disproved 10 or 20 years ago.

 

[Flopper]

Except he is personally responsible for both defrauding his supporters and losing the election (where is the $1B he said he would spend?)

How did he do that, by making half-million dollar speeches for twenty minutes to people hoping to gain influence once he became President?

You almost got it right.
President of the Learning Annex, Bill Zinker, said that Trump is by far the best speaker with the largest draw. Zinker, pays Trump anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million dollars an appearance, adding that Trump attracts massive audiences.
Think Clinton Got Big Speaking Fees? Here's What Trump Gets

Hillary Clinton's speaking fees are well less than the average celebrity speaker charges. Her fees run typically $50,000 to $200,000 well below Donald Trump's 1.5 million fee. The notion that Clinton accepts speaking fees in return for political favors is ridiculous because she was not in office when she made these speeches and there was no certainly that she ever would be.
The fight over Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees is ridiculous

 

[Vigilante]

Trump hater Miley Cyrus reminds us how democrats stand against objectifying women.

 

[Timmy]

He is an alpha male. Alpha males are conquerors. They conquer business. They conquer nations. They conquer women. That is the hallmark of an alpha male.

WTF?
You want a stupid "alpha male" running the most powerful country?
That's like having a frat boy running a Fortune 1 company.

You'd prefer a Lying Crooked Rape Enabler?

Better than a lying crooked rapist , like Trump.

Who did Trump rape?

Case details, please.

His first wife . So she said in a deposition , under oath.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He is an alpha male. Alpha males are conquerors. They conquer business. They conquer nations. They conquer women. That is the hallmark of an alpha male.

WTF?
You want a stupid "alpha male" running the most powerful country?
That's like having a frat boy running a Fortune 1 company.

You'd prefer a Lying Crooked Rape Enabler?

Better than a lying crooked rapist , like Trump.

Who did Trump rape?

Case details, please.

His first wife . So she said in a deposition , under oath.

Charged? Convicted?