This lady is good.

[detbuch]

Misogynist Trump has some impressive women in his administration:

[Ian]

He does, doesn’t change the fact that he’s a misogynist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Has he grabbed her by the pussay yet? He can do anything....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Would
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

And so is this lady, who probably has the most insight into Trump of anyone outside his family. Actually, his relationship with her was longer than any of his marriages so far. No, it's not all bad.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...w-barbara-res/

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Has he grabbed her by the pussay yet? He can do anything....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Grabbing pussy was referring to certain types of women, not all women, who will let you do it. He did say that they would let you do it, not that he could indiscriminately force himself on any woman. I'll leave it up to Trump's discretion on what those types are. I've never been in, nor ever will be, in the position to have the money and fame that attracts certain women in a way that they will let you touch their pussy without having a previous relationship. I'll take it on the basis of his experience and expertise on the matter.

Contrary to the manufactured persona of Trump being a misogynist, he has and has had, perfectly respectful, proper, and friendly relations with women, as demonstrated by the number in his administration. He has voiced a respect for excellence and competence, and has commented on those qualities in the women he as hired or appointed.

[Pete F.]

20% of Trumps appointees so far have been women as contrasted with 27% for Obama and 15% for Bush.
Nothing praiseworthy or groundbreaking there.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Grabbing pussy was referring to certain types of women, not all women, who will let you do it. He did say that they would let you do it, not that he could indiscriminately force himself on any woman. I'll leave it up to Trump's discretion on what those types are. I've never been in, nor ever will be, in the position to have the money and fame that attracts certain women in a way that they will let you touch their pussy without having a previous relationship. I'll take it on the basis of his experience and expertise on the matter.

Contrary to the manufactured persona of Trump being a misogynist, he has and has had, perfectly respectful, proper, and friendly relations with women, as demonstrated by the number in his administration. He has voiced a respect for excellence and competence, and has commented on those qualities in the women he as hired or appointed.

Riiiight. That’s called a double standard. I bet he’s only racist to some people and not others. Oh right... he is.

Keep defending this clown.... it’s a laugh to watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And so is this lady, who probably has the most insight into Trump of anyone outside his family. Actually, his relationship with her was longer than any of his marriages so far. No, it's not all bad.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...w-barbara-res/

I was writing up my post while you posted this. You're right. It's not all bad . . . not very bad at all. It certainly, in my reading, debunks the notion that Trump is a misogynist, and pretty much backs up my post that followed yours. And it shows him to be quite human and intelligent, and competent. Too big an ego in his later years? Maybe. But the Alpha Male big ego has been a mark of Presidents and politicians forever.

As for Res's final verdict about him not being qualified to be President because he does not have the proper expertise in law and politics, that depends on the notion that politics is separated from We the People. That it is some arcane discipline or science that requires a study of law and political machination. Some successful President's come to mind, Eisenhower for example, that didn't go through the political factories.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

20% of Trumps appointees so far have been women as contrasted with 27% for Obama and 15% for Bush.
Nothing praiseworthy or groundbreaking there.

Nothing there to show him to be a misogynist. Quite the contrary.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Riiiight. That’s called a double standard. I bet he’s only racist to some people and not others. Oh right... he is.

Keep defending this clown.... it’s a laugh to watch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously?
I can appreciate the humor.

Much more entertaining watching the snowflakes melt on a daily basis. Six more years of humor is a real possibility without any viable alternatives in sight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Seriously?
I can appreciate the humor.

Much more entertaining watching the snowflakes melt on a daily basis. Six more years of humor is a real possibility without any viable alternatives in sight.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the 2nd funniest thing on here (after people trying to defend Pres. Trump for all the stupid things he does) is watching you follow people around complaining about other people's posts yet you never add anything.

[PaulS]

Bubbe

[Pete F.]

Six more years, Ha Ha
The reason Trump's approval rating is stuck within a few digits is because that is his base. He has demonstrated no ability or desire to grow support outside of his base. His approval ratings are consistently almost as low as Carters and how did he do?
Now if the economy turns down at all, which is a very real possibility, and he absolutely owns it, what has he done that any other Republican could not have holding both houses?
Supreme Court justices, what Republican would have done anything substantially different?
Tax reform, same question, though I think some may have been more moderate looking back at the history of tax cuts. Odds are very good that they will be rolled back shortly based on history.
Immigration, he has accomplished nothing other than to make the Republican party look mean, numbers haven't changed substantially.
Healthcare, all he has accomplished is to screw up what is there. No improvement and he left all the candidates in the last election scrambling, saying we will keep this, really we will.
There is a long list of things pushed by Bannon and Miller, that he has done that no other Republican would have, and are not in the best interest of the long term growth of the Republican party.
Have you seen the purported middle class tax cut, maybe that's coming with the caravan? Who's paying for it anyways?
He thinks he is surrounded by drooling sycophants kissing up to him, but they are actually salivating politicians, ready to spit him out before it rubs off on them.
If Trump survives the primary, Republicans are fools.
Never mind the general election.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Six more years, Ha Ha
The reason Trump's approval rating is stuck within a few digits is because that is his base. He has demonstrated no ability or desire to grow support outside of his base. His approval ratings are consistently almost as low as Carters and how did he do?
Now if the economy turns down at all, which is a very real possibility, and he absolutely owns it, what has he done that any other Republican could not have holding both houses?
Supreme Court justices, what Republican would have done anything substantially different?
Tax reform, same question, though I think some may have been more moderate looking back at the history of tax cuts. Odds are very good that they will be rolled back shortly based on history.
Immigration, he has accomplished nothing other than to make the Republican party look mean, numbers haven't changed substantially.
Healthcare, all he has accomplished is to screw up what is there. No improvement and he left all the candidates in the last election scrambling, saying we will keep this, really we will.
There is a long list of things pushed by Bannon and Miller, that he has done that no other Republican would have, and are not in the best interest of the long term growth of the Republican party.
Have you seen the purported middle class tax cut, maybe that's coming with the caravan? Who's paying for it anyways?
He thinks he is surrounded by drooling sycophants kissing up to him, but they are actually salivating politicians, ready to spit him out before it rubs off on them.
If Trump survives the primary, Republicans are fools.
Never mind the general election.

This opinion piece has nothing to do with the subject of this post. It's the same anti-Trump babble that appears in almost every thread
lately regardless of the thread subject. It's the same kind of personal hate narrative that fills Magazines and editorial columns on a daily basis. I believe the intent, beyond the hatred, is to numb the public mind with vitriolic repetition. At some point, people get tired of it, limp with the idea of having to cope with it, throw up there arms, and are comforted by the thought of just getting rid of the weight of negativism, and getting rid of the man at the center of it.

Your previous post in this thread was more on topic, and it actually contradicted the notion that Trump is a misogynist, or that he is stupid, unsuccessful riding on his daddy's back, sloppy, an unfeeling psychopath, but it does point out some of his flaws, which every President has had their share of, as do the rest of us. Except for the prissy saints.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I believe the intent, beyond the hatred, is to numb the public mind with vitriolic repetition.

Talk about mind numbing repetition, what about Trump endless barking no collusion or fake news or pick one from the list of his all time favorites; really Donald we don’t need to hear your opinion a thousand times a year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Tell me you were not saying haha at the thought of Trump even running for office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think the 2nd funniest thing on here (after people trying to defend Pres. Trump for all the stupid things he does) is watching you follow people around complaining about other people's posts yet you never add anything.

That’s how I roll
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This opinion piece has nothing to do with the subject of this post. It's the same anti-Trump babble that appears in almost every thread
lately regardless of the thread subject. It's the same kind of personal hate narrative that fills Magazines and editorial columns on a daily basis. I believe the intent, beyond the hatred, is to numb the public mind with vitriolic repetition. At some point, people get tired of it, limp with the idea of having to cope with it, throw up there arms, and are comforted by the thought of just getting rid of the weight of negativism, and getting rid of the man at the center of it.

Your previous post in this thread was more on topic, and it actually contradicted the notion that Trump is a misogynist, or that he is stupid, unsuccessful riding on his daddy's back, sloppy, an unfeeling psychopath, but it does point out some of his flaws, which every President has had their share of, as do the rest of us. Except for the prissy saints.

It fits exactly with this comment by dangles and all of it is correct.

"Much more entertaining watching the snowflakes melt on a daily basis. Six more years of humor is a real possibility without any viable alternatives in sight.?"

It's comical that you think it is vitriolic repetition, if so then what is "witch hunt, invaders, fake news, etc." Some call these things oft repeated by Trump, dogwhistles or verbal violence, they could also be labeled as vitriolic repetition.

Heather Nauert certainly treats the reporters with a different hand than Trump and what goes around comes around. Do you think she would take Sarah Sanders job?
I don't think he hates women, but is what the Brits call a "sex pest" not knowing proper boundaries.
And when you look at prissy saints, perhaps you could include Kavanaugh and others in that bunch for their involvement in the Clinton impeachment.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Grabbing pussy was referring to certain types of women, not all women, who will let you do it. He did say that they would let you do it, not that he could indiscriminately force himself on any woman. I'll leave it up to Trump's discretion on what those types are.

This is pretty directly condoning sexual assault. Nice work.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

This is pretty directly condoning sexual assault. Nice work.

Deny, deny, deny is SOP

Of course all these women were lying.
Consider though that it has been proven that most women do not admit they were sexually assaulted, perhaps the exception is in the case of Trump where they all made it up or really wanted it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wome...t-list-2017-12

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is pretty directly condoning sexual assault. Nice work.

If it is allowed, it is not assault.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If it is allowed, it is not assault.

I see, so if the assailant thinks it's allowed it must be allowed. Makes sense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so if the assailant thinks it's allowed it must be allowed. Makes sense.

Trump is being assailed on what he said. He said there were women who would "let" you do it. I am assuming that there are such women who, for whatever reason, would let, or even invite it from powerful, wealthy, glamourous, and influential men.

If he had said that all women would "let" you do it, that is obviously wrong . . . or worse if you want it to be so.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It fits exactly with this comment by dangles and all of it is correct.

All of it is not correct. And all of it is opinion.

t's comical that you think it is vitriolic repetition, if so then what is "witch hunt, invaders, fake news, etc." Some call these things oft repeated by Trump, dogwhistles or verbal violence, they could also be labeled as vitriolic repetition.

You can label them whatever you want . . . AND YOU DO. So are you special? You and wdmso and Spence and Nebe and Gotstripers get to label and I can't? As far the vitriolic label, in the first instance I was throwing it back to wdmso when he said "Because of Trumps endless vitriolic rhetoric and contempt for the office in which he sits."

And if "witch hunt, invaders, fake news, etc." displease you, you can show how they are not correct labels, refute them.

Heather Nauert certainly treats the reporters with a different hand than Trump and what goes around comes around. Do you think she would take Sarah Sanders job?

I don't know. Do you? She would do a good job.

I don't think he hates women, but is what the Brits call a "sex pest" not knowing proper boundaries.

That has not been proven. But proof is not required for belief. So it is not relevant for me if you think he is a sex pest. Certainly, other successful Presidents have been demonstrated to be sex pests (especially while in office), even more than Trump is refuted to be, but that has had no affect on how they governed, or how they are admired. It looks like Trump is singled out, I am sure for current political reasons.

And when you look at prissy saints, perhaps you could include Kavanaugh and others in that bunch for their involvement in the Clinton impeachment.

I'm not interested in those whataboutisms. But I'm sure you can look at it. And if you do and tell us your opinion, I, and others, may object.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Talk about mind numbing repetition, what about Trump endless barking no collusion or fake news or pick one from the list of his all time favorites; really Donald we don’t need to hear your opinion a thousand times a year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your making an equivalence point, I could buy that. But it does, if it is equivalence, admit that anti-Trumpers are also endlessly piling on.

It would be refreshing if both sides would quit. But I don't see that happening. I don't know who would offer the first olive leaf. And each has a political reason for doing what they do.

I am not "defending" Trump, just pointing out, for clarification of right and wrong, what I think is wrong. And occasionally pointing out what Trump does right. Sort of a pushback against one side of the equivalent repetition.

One reservation I have about the equivalence is that Trump seems to be heavily outnumbered.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump is being assailed on what he said. He said there were women who would "let" you do it. I am assuming that there are such women who, for whatever reason, would let, or even invite it from powerful, wealthy, glamourous, and influential men.

If he had said that all women would "let" you do it, that is obviously wrong . . . or worse if you want it to be so.

How about the women that are under the influence of his stature or even beauty contestants for his pageants? Are they going along willingly?

I can't even believe you're serious here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How about the women that are under the influence of his stature or even beauty contestants for his pageants? Are they going along willingly?

I can't even believe you're serious here.

If a women really objects, but doesn't protest or pull away, how is one to interpret that? And are you saying that there are no women who are willing for the sake of some reward whatever that may be? Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there are. And in the female realm of beauty queens and gold diggers and power seekers and seekers of advancement or for the sheer excitement and fascination of being touched or bedded by powerful and glamorous men, yes I do believe such women exist. And not just a teeny bit of them. He did say "when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." And I take it that Trump was familiar with the type and was who he meant by those who would LET you.

But I can be wrong. Maybe he did mean all women. I don't for sure know. I do believe that in his world of high fashion, high society, wealth and power, the game is different than in the normal world. In any event, it was crude, but not, in itself, misogynistic--and not so different than a JFK world.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

How about the women that are under the influence of his stature ?

bubba clinton would say "giddayup" !!

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If your making an equivalence point, I could buy that. But it does, if it is equivalence, admit that anti-Trumpers are also endlessly piling on.

It would be refreshing if both sides would quit. But I don't see that happening. I don't know who would offer the first olive leaf. And each has a political reason for doing what they do.

I am not "defending" Trump, just pointing out, for clarification of right and wrong, what I think is wrong. And occasionally pointing out what Trump does right. Sort of a pushback against one side of the equivalent repetition.

One reservation I have about the equivalence is that Trump seems to be heavily outnumbered.

I agree both sides are out of control, the days of looking for the “right” solution, ignoring party lines are sadly a thing of the past. I fear the new house control will only make things worse, unless they focus on legislation and not investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device