How to win back the women's and Latinos' vote....

[the_human_being]

Most people still don't get it .. none of the morons who support the orange clown get it.

Trump is PT Barnum .. playing brain dead people for fools.

Actually, according to the leaked emails, it is folks like you whom the Democratic Part mocks as being easily manipulated by whatever they wish for the Liberal media to feed you.

 

[the_human_being]

If you really don't know then get informed.

I don't care who she or Donald beds, so long as it's consensual. The lesbian tag sounds more like the endless faggot insults that get used on political rivals in the flame zone, and has nothing to do with anything that anyone ought to care about.

I see. You have no problem with infidelity in marriage. Got it. Do you have an open marrige?

Nice try at deflection. Shows how truly indefensible your pathetic clown of a candidate is.

The question had nothing at all to do with politics. I see you refused to answer. That leaves me to form my own conlusions.

If you're going to continue writing vague posts that can be taken in various ways, you will continue to receive answers that disappoint you.

As you typically continue to refuse to respond to a simple question.

 

[the_human_being]

Most people still don't get it .. none of the morons who support the orange clown get it.

Trump is PT Barnum .. playing brain dead people for fools.

Actually, according to the leaked emails, it is folks like you whom the Democratic Part mocks as being easily manipulated by whatever they wish for the Liberal media to feed you.

Indeed, marking a post "funny" is the answer.

 

[kaz]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

It's as if he were trying to be the worst candidate ever.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Takes some serious dedication to accomplish that when he's up against Hillary. Not sure if he's going to be able to pull it off

 

[the_human_being]

The idiot war mongering Hillary even spoke of taking back Rappua during the debate. She is advocating invading Syria. She certainly wants to start WWIII.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yes indeed. Because she is a woman she has the right to interrupt and talk over him though, right?

The comments I wrote make no remark about what behaviors anyone else exhibits. The reason they do not is because I was not writing about anyone other than Trump.

What is it with folks on this forum that when one person makes a remark, among the most hackneyed responses to be found is that of asking some inanly oversimplified question about someone or something other than the person, place or thing that was actually being discussed? In your case, if you care to refute or describe your objections to my explanation for what be "the big deal" about Trump's "nasty woman" interjection, by all means do so. If, however, you don't differ with what I posited, then talk to someone else. Whatever route you chose is fine by me, but at least demonstrate a modicum of coherence and focus your remarks on the person, Trump, whose behavior and words are being discussed.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yup. The Tweets were coming out of his mouth and he was in full Trump mode. Rude behavior which is widely accepted in some circles thanks to immersion in social media. I just don't think it rates as misogynistic. Ill bred, yes.

Okay....the remark need not be misogynistically inspired. Is an ill bred candidate one who deserves our electoral benediction? I sure don't think so. At this point, I think we all can see Trump's character does not genuinely accord much respect to women. Whether the man's dissoluteness manifests itself via remarks and deeds imbued with misogyny, churlishness, or simple crassness doesn't matter all that much. None of that is acceptable.

You are preaching to the choir, 320. But keep up the good work. It's nice to see a liberal lifeboat in the storm.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yes indeed. Because she is a woman she has the right to interrupt and talk over him though, right?

The comments I wrote make no remark about what behaviors anyone else exhibits. The reason they do not is because I was not writing about anyone other than Trump.

What is it with folks on this forum that when one person makes a remark, among the most hackneyed responses to be found is that of asking some inanly oversimplified question about someone or something other than the person, place or thing that was actually being discussed? In your case, if you care to refute or describe your objections to my explanation for what be "the big deal" about Trump's "nasty woman" interjection, by all means do so. If, however, you don't differ with what I posited, then talk to someone else. Whatever route you chose is fine by me, but at least demonstrate a modicum of coherence and focus your remarks on the person, Trump, whose behavior and words are being discussed.

Yes, I must allow you to smear Trump without pointing out anything at all concerning your own candidate's faults. Grow up. It doesn't work that way.

 

[OldLady]

I don't care who she or Donald beds, so long as it's consensual. The lesbian tag sounds more like the endless faggot insults that get used on political rivals in the flame zone, and has nothing to do with anything that anyone ought to care about.

I see. You have no problem with infidelity in marriage. Got it. Do you have an open marrige?

Nice try at deflection. Shows how truly indefensible your pathetic clown of a candidate is.

The question had nothing at all to do with politics. I see you refused to answer. That leaves me to form my own conlusions.

If you're going to continue writing vague posts that can be taken in various ways, you will continue to receive answers that disappoint you.

As you typically continue to refuse to respond to a simple question.

I've forgotten the question, but I do recall that it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So drop it, troll.

 

[nat4900]

Yes, I must allow you to smear Trump without pointing out anything at all concerning your own candidate's faults. Grow up. It doesn't work that way.

You, of course, are fully capable of starting a thread listing all of Clinton's faults (of which there are many)...however, this current thread is about the charlatan, Trump.

 

[the_human_being]

I see. You have no problem with infidelity in marriage. Got it. Do you have an open marrige?

Nice try at deflection. Shows how truly indefensible your pathetic clown of a candidate is.

The question had nothing at all to do with politics. I see you refused to answer. That leaves me to form my own conlusions.

If you're going to continue writing vague posts that can be taken in various ways, you will continue to receive answers that disappoint you.

As you typically continue to refuse to respond to a simple question.

I've forgotten the question, but I do recall that it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So drop it, troll.

You are correct. It had to do with your character. No problem though. I now realize you have none.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yes indeed. Because she is a woman she has the right to interrupt and talk over him though, right?

The comments I wrote make no remark about what behaviors anyone else exhibits. The reason they do not is because I was not writing about anyone other than Trump.

What is it with folks on this forum that when one person makes a remark, among the most hackneyed responses to be found is that of asking some inanly oversimplified question about someone or something other than the person, place or thing that was actually being discussed? In your case, if you care to refute or describe your objections to my explanation for what be "the big deal" about Trump's "nasty woman" interjection, by all means do so. If, however, you don't differ with what I posited, then talk to someone else. Whatever route you chose is fine by me, but at least demonstrate a modicum of coherence and focus your remarks on the person, Trump, whose behavior and words are being discussed.

I believe this may be a real live troll, exhibiting the behavior of doing his level best to get under a poster's skin for absolutely no reason except it's fun.
It's exciting to spot one in the wild, huh? See how much you'll miss if you really bow out on the 9th?

 

[the_human_being]

Yes, I must allow you to smear Trump without pointing out anything at all concerning your own candidate's faults. Grow up. It doesn't work that way.

You, of course, are fully capable of starting a thread listing all of Clinton's faults (of which there are many)...however, this current thread is about the charlatan, Trump.

I am participating by comparing Hillary's character against his. You should be happy with the comparrison instead of whining like a spoiled little kid.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yup. The Tweets were coming out of his mouth and he was in full Trump mode. Rude behavior which is widely accepted in some circles thanks to immersion in social media. I just don't think it rates as misogynistic. Ill bred, yes.

Okay....the remark need not be misogynistically inspired. Is an ill bred candidate one who deserves our electoral benediction? I sure don't think so. At this point, I think we all can see Trump's character does not genuinely accord much respect to women. Whether the man's dissoluteness manifests itself via remarks and deeds imbued with misogyny, churlishness, or simple crassness doesn't matter all that much. None of that is acceptable.

You are preaching to the choir, 320. But keep up the good work. It's nice to see a liberal lifeboat in the storm.

TY, I think. LOL

You know quite well I'm not by any means a liberal, most especially on economic matters. If merely having some manners and trying to adhere to the Golden Rule makes me a liberal, well, okay then, I guess I am.

 

[OldLady]

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yup. The Tweets were coming out of his mouth and he was in full Trump mode. Rude behavior which is widely accepted in some circles thanks to immersion in social media. I just don't think it rates as misogynistic. Ill bred, yes.

Okay....the remark need not be misogynistically inspired. Is an ill bred candidate one who deserves our electoral benediction? I sure don't think so. At this point, I think we all can see Trump's character does not genuinely accord much respect to women. Whether the man's dissoluteness manifests itself via remarks and deeds imbued with misogyny, churlishness, or simple crassness doesn't matter all that much. None of that is acceptable.

You are preaching to the choir, 320. But keep up the good work. It's nice to see a liberal lifeboat in the storm.

TY, I think. LOL

You know quite well I'm not by any means a liberal, most especially on economic matters. If merely having some manners and trying to adhere to the Golden Rule makes me a liberal, well, okay then, I guess I am.

Until I fell down this rabbit hole, I didn't consider myself a liberal either, but I seem to have fit into that pigeon hole for certain attitudes and opinions I hold.
Don't matter.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yes indeed. Because she is a woman she has the right to interrupt and talk over him though, right?

The comments I wrote make no remark about what behaviors anyone else exhibits. The reason they do not is because I was not writing about anyone other than Trump.

What is it with folks on this forum that when one person makes a remark, among the most hackneyed responses to be found is that of asking some inanly oversimplified question about someone or something other than the person, place or thing that was actually being discussed? In your case, if you care to refute or describe your objections to my explanation for what be "the big deal" about Trump's "nasty woman" interjection, by all means do so. If, however, you don't differ with what I posited, then talk to someone else. Whatever route you chose is fine by me, but at least demonstrate a modicum of coherence and focus your remarks on the person, Trump, whose behavior and words are being discussed.

Yes, I must allow you to smear Trump without pointing out anything at all concerning your own candidate's faults. Grow up. It doesn't work that way.

• What is the precise "smear" I levied against Trump in my "red" remarks quoted above?
• Since when is pointing out the dichotomy between what one says and one's subsequent actions a smear?
  • Did Trump call Mrs. Clinton a nasty woman? Yes.
  • Is calling someone "nasty" derogatory? Yes.
  • Did Trump lean into his mic when he made the remark? Yes.
  • Did Trump make that remark while Mrs. Clinton was speaking? Yes.
  • Is it disrespectful to interrupt someone while they're speaking? Yes.
  • Did Trump assert that nobody respects women more than he? Yes.
  • Is Mrs. Clinton a woman? Yes.
• When one says "A" and then proceeds to do the opposite of "A," who bears the burden for one's contradictory words and deeds? Oneself or others?

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

Yes, you would appreciate Trump much more were he a lesbian baby butcher like Hillary.

It's comments like this that prevent the Republicans from EVER getting the women's vote.

 

[bendog]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

The suburban women will be up for grabs (-: in 20-20, but the gop can kiss off latino/Hispanics for a generation.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes, good ol' moronic Trump throws out such "wonderful" phrases as, "what a nasty woman" and "bad hombres"......That's the way to do it, you racist and misogynistic orange clown.....LOL

Yes, you would appreciate Trump much more were he a lesbian baby butcher like Hillary.

It's comments like this that prevent the Republicans from EVER getting the women's vote.

No Dear. My own wife is a woman. She voted for Trump on Monday. There are women and then there are females. You will find many women in churches this coming Sunday who will or already have voted for Trump. You will even find some Democrat women voting for Trump. Many women do not subscribe to the LGBT movement nor to murdering a baby wlready within the birth canal. There are decent and moral women out there.

 

[the_human_being]

I have no idea why everyone is latching on to "what a nasty woman." Big fucking deal. That's not misogynistic. And I'm Miss Sensitivity when it comes to that shit, as you know.

I think it's less about his specifically calling her nasty and more about the fact that he made a point of doing so, made a point of insulting her and leaning into his mic no less, while she was speaking, and the brickbat was thoroughly unrelated to topic being discussed. It's hard to demonstrate that one respects women -- or anyone else for that matter, but Trump claimed expressly that nobody respects women more than he -- when one goes out of one's way to affront a woman while she's speaking. One might want to argue that he forgot it was a woman with whom he shared the stage, but that line doesn't hold water for his epithet makes the point that she is a woman.

Yes indeed. Because she is a woman she has the right to interrupt and talk over him though, right?

The comments I wrote make no remark about what behaviors anyone else exhibits. The reason they do not is because I was not writing about anyone other than Trump.

What is it with folks on this forum that when one person makes a remark, among the most hackneyed responses to be found is that of asking some inanly oversimplified question about someone or something other than the person, place or thing that was actually being discussed? In your case, if you care to refute or describe your objections to my explanation for what be "the big deal" about Trump's "nasty woman" interjection, by all means do so. If, however, you don't differ with what I posited, then talk to someone else. Whatever route you chose is fine by me, but at least demonstrate a modicum of coherence and focus your remarks on the person, Trump, whose behavior and words are being discussed.

Yes, I must allow you to smear Trump without pointing out anything at all concerning your own candidate's faults. Grow up. It doesn't work that way.

• What is the precise "smear" I levied against Trump in my "red" remarks quoted above?
• Since when is pointing out the dichotomy between what one says and one's subsequent actions a smear?
  • Did Trump call Mrs. Clinton a nasty woman? Yes.
  • Is calling someone "nasty" derogatory? Yes.
  • Did Trump lean into his mic when he made the remark? Yes.
  • Did Trump make that remark while Mrs. Clinton was speaking? Yes.
  • Is it disrespectful to interrupt someone while they're speaking? Yes.
  • Did Trump assert that nobody respects women more than he? Yes.
  • Is Mrs. Clinton a woman? Yes.
• When one says "A" and then proceeds to do the opposite of "A," who bears the burden for one's contradictory words and deeds? Oneself or others?

Hillary Insisted America Fact Check Her, So We Did…Here’s 6 Huge Lies From The Debate