[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Trump To 'Completely' Sever Business Ties | The Daily Caller

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

We'll see. If his kids are still involved it'll be mostly theatrics.

Delayed until January. Great sign!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Trump To 'Completely' Sever Business Ties | The Daily Caller

Exactly how is he going to do that? Up until now he has just transferred more and more of his businesses to his children — who themselves are part of his transition team. In fact, they have sat in when foreign leaders visit or call, and discussed business afterwards. So if that's all there is to his plan of “eliminating” conflict of interest, then isn't doing anything to build a wall between the Presidency and his business interests.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Trump To 'Completely' Sever Business Ties | The Daily Caller

It looks as if Trump's daughter Ivanka will act as first lady, and Trump's kids sat at the table during Trump's meeting with the CEOs of the big tech companies.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I think the Right should deal with this the same way the Left treated them when they had issues with the Clinton Foundation.

It's customary for the in-coming president to sever all business ties, but it isn't a law.

[Chongo]

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Clinton's margin of victory was almost five million votes. Without California, Trump wins the popular vote as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Clinton's margin of victory was almost five million votes. Without California, Trump wins the popular vote as well.

Yes, and as we say in Germany, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. If 100,000 Californian votes had been shifted to Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton would be President now, winning the Electoral College narrowly, but with a wide popular margin. If only men voted, Clinton wouldn't have had a chance, and Trump would have also gotten the popular vote. If … 

At the end of the day that won't change the fact that the country is deeply divided between urban and rural areas, and that Trump was nowhere near getting the popular vote. If Trump were a humble person, he'd take that into account, e. g. by appointing Democrats to his cabinet. Obama and (Bill) Clinton appointed several Republicans to serve in their administrations.

[Waragainstsleep]

One suspects the only reason he isn't appointing solely relatives is that he can't get away with it. Or he doesn't have enough.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, and as we say in Germany, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Oh... we say that about your aunt here, too.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, and as we say in Germany, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. If 100,000 Californian votes had been shifted to Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton would be President now, winning the Electoral College narrowly, but with a wide popular margin. If only men voted, Clinton wouldn't have had a chance, and Trump would have also gotten the popular vote. If … 

Clinton still would have lost 286 to 252

Trump won the popular vote 30(+ME #2) states to 20(+DC)

At the end of the day that won't change the fact that the country is deeply divided between urban and rural areas, and that Trump was nowhere near getting the popular vote. If Trump were a humble person, he'd take that into account, e. g. by appointing Democrats to his cabinet. Obama and (Bill) Clinton appointed several Republicans to serve in their administrations.

This is why we have the Electoral College



Final result , including "faithless electors"

Two Trump electors and five Clinton electors voted for other candidates.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Clinton still would have lost 286 to 252

Trump won the popular vote 30(+ME #2) states to 20(+DC)

Yes, I forgot to add the other two states where Clinton narrowly lost. I'm sure you got the point nevertheless, though.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is why we have the Electoral College

No, that isn't the historical reason why you have the Electoral College, the main reasons were slavery, geography and a distrust that the population is educated enough to make an informed choice. None of these reasons remain in the 21st century.

It doesn't protect the small states, nor does it give smaller states a voice in the election. It gives a voice to swing states, and those need not be small (Florida and Pennsylvania come to mind). It also isn't a counterweight to urbanization, the 11 most populous states are sufficient to win the Presidency. The blue islands you see on the map are most likely urban centers. That means in the long run urbanization will actually lessen the inflence smaller states have.

A divided country remains a divided country, and a large discrepancy between popular vote and EC votes won't do much to bridge the divide.

[Chongo]

So, we should let LA, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit decide for the rest of the country?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that isn't the historical reason why you have the Electoral College, the main reasons were slavery, geography and a distrust that the population is educated enough to make an informed choice. None of these reasons remain in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, I've seen this opinion everywhere...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...?client=safari

[andi*pandi]

After reading that, I saw many subtle jabs at the left as well as the headline aimed at the right.

excuse me, gotta go google how to grow heirloom tomatoes.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is why we have the Electoral College



Final result , including "faithless electors"

Two Trump electors and five Clinton electors voted for other candidates.

Why do people insist upon displaying such maps that display geographical areas showing a sea of red to justify the unmitigated BS that is the Electoral College? Counties don't vote. People do. So any such map that doesn't take population into account is misleading at best. I mean come on people just do the freaking math here!

Wyoming ... the least populated state ... has approximately 560,000 residents. They get 3 electoral votes ... two of which result from their senators. So they get 1 electoral vote per 186,000 people. Whereas California ... the most populated state ... has approximately 37 million residents. So their 55 electoral votes works out to 1 electoral vote per 670,000 people. So the people in Wyoming essentially have 4 times the voting power in the Electoral College as the people of California. As has been stated before the EC was originally put in place to increase the voting power of whites in southern slaves states that had large populations of blacks that could not vote at all. Nowadays it has the effect of increasing the voting power of smaller, less populated states ... which just so happen to be predominantly white and rural ... over large population centers which have more diverse populations. In a statewide election for governor the residents of rural counties don't have more voting strength than the residents of urban counties. The candidate with the most votes wins. So the same should apply for POTUS.

OAW

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

After reading that, I saw many subtle jabs at the left as well as the headline aimed at the right.

Yes, they're in there. But how much have you heard about the "uneducated white" vote during the past few weeks?

excuse me, gotta go google how to grow heirloom tomatoes.

MUCH better idea than anything going on in here.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Why do people insist upon displaying such maps that display geographical areas showing a sea of red to justify the unmitigated BS that is the Electoral College?

Colors are pretty.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, we should let LA, NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit decide for the rest of the country?

You seem to forget the cause in all of this: these cities aren't given undue influence, it's the fact that there is a net movement of people from the countryside to urban centers. At a certain point, none of the balancing mechanisms will work.

If you believe that the Electoral College offsets this to some degree, you are correct now because some of the swing states happen to be small. Others aren't. But in the future if current demographic trends continue, the populations in the small states become more homogeneous, more and more states become locked in, and eventually the population-rich states will determine the election.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Meanwhile, I've seen this opinion everywhere...

This is not an opinion nor has anything to do with the election of Trump, it's just a historical fact. Have a look at No. 68 of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton writes:

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

So Hamilton says that in his view the EC will act as a buffer against electing someone who could become President because of populism and his talent for intrigue. Speaking of Electors, he further goes on to say:

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Read: electors should be well-informed, I guess you could disparagingly say “a member of the elite”. Of course, back then men on horses were the fastest mode of communication, so it really was much more difficult to know what is going on outside of your own community. In the South, literacy was also an issue, especially among blacks. To be clear: the argument was that this was not a matter of intelligence, but education, and there was concern that there would be a strong tendency to just vote for someone local whom they know. Taken from here:

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

The Southern States on the one hand wanted that their slave population counts towards their political influence but of course didn't want to give slaves the right to vote for themselves in a federal election. Therefore, the EC was also a child of the 3/5ths Compromise.

Lastly, I think it is important to mention that parties weren't part of the Constitution, so one purported advantage of the EC was to insulate it from party politics. The original idea was that you'd vote for Mr. Smith to go to Washington your state's capital and vote on your behalf.

As you can see, a lot has changed since then. Political parties, well, two political parties play an essential role. Most states give electors in a winner-takes-all manner, and hand all seats of Electors to the party of the winning candidate. In fact, unlike in the early times of the EC, the name of your Elector is no longer on the ballot, but the names of the candidates themselves, including party affiliation in case you don't know who to vote for. People would be outraged if the EC overrode “the results of the November vote” as it is understood by most people (i. e. that the outcome of the vote in the EC corresponds to the choice made in early November). We have instant communication these days, and literacy is no longer a wide-spread issue. To quote James Burke (on Common Sense #312):

Originally Posted by James Burke

Most of our institutions began in the past to solve problems of the past using the technology of the past according to the values of the past.

You are right that the small states did of course raise concerns about always being outvoted by the bigger states, and because the number of Electors essentially corresponds to the number of Congresspersons, smaller states get a boost. But it is incorrect to view this in isolation and claim that this was the sole or even most important considerations when the Founding Fathers negotiated this compromise. The EC we have today is very much removed from the original intent.
Before the 12th Amendment was passed, the runner up in the EC vote became Vice President, so if it weren't for that, we'd have to deal with President Trump and Vice President Clinton (or the other way around). Think about that for a second

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yes, they're in there. But how much have you heard about the "uneducated white" vote during the past few weeks?

I confess, I pretty much threw up my hands Nov 9 when I read how many white women voted for Trump... so I haven't seen any comments about "uneducated whites." Unless they are also women?

Perhaps people are saying that because it boggles the mind that anyone intelligent or educated could have gotten on the TrumpTrain. Of course some did, some did while holding their noses and thinking about their investments... some did because they hated Hillary so much they'd have voted for Satan if he was on the ballot against her. Wait, is Satan pro-life, or pro-choice? Dammit.

It's the flip side of the "liberal elite" coin, I guess.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yes, they're in there. But how much have you heard about the "uneducated white" vote during the past few weeks?

Not much in what I have read, at least not with the disdainful tone that you seem to imply with your post. Most of the discussion was about voters in the rust belt and rural parts of PA and the other states that much to everyone's surprise voted for Trump with a small margin. The keywords that spring to my mind are coal country, rust belt, blue collar and the like, but not dumb or unintelligent. The tone was “How did we miss this?” rather than assigning blame to the group that “cost them Clinton's victory”.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Colors are pretty.

Fair enough. So let's look examine the "pretty colors".

2016 POTUS Election Results by State



This is highly misleading because of the "winner takes all" system that the states employ. The US is simply NOT overwhelmingly "red" voters.

2016 POTUS Election Results by State adjusted for Population



When adjusted for population size the # of red and blue voters are similar. Within the confines of the "winner takes all" system. But still more red voters.

2016 POTUS Election Results by State adjusted for Electoral College Votes



And this is what the Electoral College does mathematically to the previous graph. It favors smaller, less populated states thereby increasing the voting power of red states which already had a numerical advantage anyway.

And this is why it's total nonsense that a national popular vote would result in smaller states being ignored in POTUS elections.

2016 POTUS Election Results by County



2016 POTUS Election Results by County adjusted for Population



There are "red", "blue", and "purple" counties throughout the country. It's the "winner takes all" system at the state level that results in this notion of "swing states" and "battleground states". Without that presidential candidates would conduct state or region specific campaigns at their peril.

Maps of the 2016 US presidential election results | University of Michigan

OAW

PS: Alaska and Hawaii aren't represented for technical reasons.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Don't take the brown acid.

[OAW]

^^^^



OAW

[OAW]

Surely no one could have seen this coming ...

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.

These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton's candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNNPolitics.com

It's seems pretty clear that the Russian government interfered with the election in the manner they did because their intelligence apparatus has dirt on Trump that can make him Putin's b*tch.

OAW

[Laminar]

I'm having trouble trying to think of what kind of information would actually damage his reputation. Like seriously - what could they come up with that would actually turn his voters against him?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm having trouble trying to think of what kind of information would actually damage his reputation. Like seriously - what could they come up with that would actually turn his voters against him?

The only thing I can think of is hard evidence of sexual assault, some sort of homosexual tryst, or very compromising financial information.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm having trouble trying to think of what kind of information would actually damage his reputation. Like seriously - what could they come up with that would actually turn his voters against him?

I don't think they have information that would turn his supporters against him. I merely believe IF this is true it could be something as simple as his tax returns or something more complex like documentation of illegal wrongdoing his businesses did.

But this is all moot until I see something more concrete than CNN report.

[besson3c]

I bet Trump had sex with Danny Devito.

[andi*pandi]

The irony would be delicious if there were emails from the Trump camp to Russia, and vice versa, outlining the plan for the election and the presidency.

Also, a cookie recipe.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The only thing I can think of is hard evidence of sexual assault, some sort of homosexual tryst, or very compromising financial information.

OAW

The latest reports I'm seeing are talking about Russian intelligence having videotaped evidence of Donald "Grab them by the pussy" Trump engaging in "perverted sexual acts". Of the "golden shower" variety. I just can't.

OAW

[besson3c]

Buy Pornhub stock!

[The Final Dakar]

Imma just gonna wait a few days for this to shake itself out

[Waragainstsleep]

[subego]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Guy can't pee his own bed?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Trump To 'Completely' Sever Business Ties | The Daily Caller

Well that didn't live up to hype. Unsurprisingly.

[subego]

His lawyer is a horrible public speaker.

[subego]

[Waragainstsleep]

We know he's a pervert, we know he'd have no qualms paying women to degrade themselves or each other, we know he loves anything golden, and we know he hates Obama. Its all so plausible. Will there be a shred of respect left for the office of POTUS by the time Trump leaves is impeached?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

We know he's a pervert,

No you don't.

we know he'd have no qualms paying women to degrade themselves or each other

Talking about yourself or Trump?

we know he loves anything golden

I'll give you that one.

and we know he hates Obama.

No you don't.

Its all so plausible.

Nope.

Will there be a shred of respect left for the office of POTUS by the time Trump leaves is impeached?

There wasn't much left after Obama (our soon-to-be former celebrity in chief), in the first place. Impeached? Let me borrow your crystal ball, I'd like to know what commodities are doing this spring.

Again, there's enough substantive things to dislike about the guy without lapping up every bit of fake news that leaks out of the worst media outlets online, FFS. In fact, it's absurd "journalism" like this that works to strip away the last shreds of credibility the MSM has left. If anything important does come up, fewer will believe it after the bullshit being shoveled. They choked themselves on their own impotent rage.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No you don't.

Yes actually I "grab them by the pussy" do.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Talking about yourself or Trump?

I don't wander around casually sexually sexually assaulting women or arranging to walk in on naked 15 year olds while they change in the locker room, so Trump.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I'll give you that one.

How generous of you to concede at least one undeniable truth.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No you don't.

Sure. He made all that fuss about birth certificates because he's a stickler for the rules.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nope.

Oh it is. Thats why an identical accusation against Obama or even Clinton would have been laughed at and roundly ignored. Even by the RWMCJ.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

There wasn't much left after Obama (our soon-to-be former celebrity in chief), in the first place.

Keep kidding yourself about that.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Impeached?

Unless he becomes an actual dictator. Which you'll be fine with as long as you're still free to make a few more bucks.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Again, there's enough substantive things to dislike about the guy without lapping up every bit of fake news that leaks out of the worst media outlets online, FFS. In fact, it's absurd "journalism" like this that works to strip away the last shreds of credibility the MSM has left. If anything important does come up, fewer will believe it after the bullshit being shoveled. They choked themselves on their own impotent rage.

I would have thought even you could laugh at the irony of the fake news turning the tables on its "Golden Boy" now that the buck stops with him. This should be the tip of the iceberg for this sort of thing and it serves him right. Not to mention his fans.

[subego]

My man Chuck is on it...

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The only thing I can think of is hard evidence of sexual assault,

I only hear chants of "she was asking for it" ring out.

some sort of homosexual tryst,

This might be it.

or very compromising financial information.

Like...what? What couldn't be spun as Trump being a brilliant businessman?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

something more complex like documentation of illegal wrongdoing his businesses did.

"Trump was sticking it to the man and taking advantage of loopholes in the system - he's brilliant for doing that."

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

My man Chuck is on it...

I see that he's doing an AMA today, but I don't dare click on it at work.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I only hear chants of "she was asking for it" ring out.



This might be it.



Like...what? What couldn't be spun as Trump being a brilliant businessman?




"Trump was sticking it to the man and taking advantage of loopholes in the system - he's brilliant for doing that."

I wasn't saying that's matter to his supporters but it's be legally actionable.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes actually I "grab them by the pussy" do.

All jock talk. Even if it wasn't, the women wanted him to do it, so it's fine. It's shocking how the Left is trying to normalize pedos yet still can't handle complex normal hetero relationships.

I don't wander around casually sexually sexually assaulting women or arranging to walk in on naked 15 year olds while they change in the locker room, so Trump.

"Sexually sexually"? You're very preoccupied right now, need a tissue and some privacy? You mean the 18-20 y/o models (Miss America pageant) who strip backstage, out in the open, in front of anyone, at the drop of a hat w/o any concern whatsoever? I know you want to compare peaking at swimsuits to buying hookers for watersports, but they just don't.

How generous of you to concede at least one undeniable truth.

I've been in Trump tower, it's everywhere. Besides, it's the only "undeniable truth" you stated. The rest is either stupid hearsay or hyperbole.

Sure. He made all that fuss about birth certificates because he's a stickler for the rules.

Still can't separate politics and personal feelings, can you? Wow.

Oh it is. Thats why an identical accusation against Obama or even Clinton would have been laughed at and roundly ignored. Even by the RWMCJ.

Nope.

Keep kidding yourself about that.

Nope.

Unless he becomes an actual dictator. Which you'll be fine with as long as you're still free to make a few more bucks.

*yawn*... nope.

I would have thought even you could laugh at the irony of the fake news turning the tables on its "Golden Boy" now that the buck stops with him. This should be the tip of the iceberg for this sort of thing and it serves him right. Not to mention his fans.

I would have thought you still had some common sense left, but I was wrong. You sound like the Left's version of Pizzagate, jumping on anything just because it's a negative for Trump, no matter what it is.

[andi*pandi]

All the women wanted him to? How do you know? How many might have been intimidated by his fame, scared to get fired, or just too in shock to react? Have you ever been assaulted without consent?

CT: Some Miss Teen USA contestants said he walked in on them as well.

We're having this bizarre news story precisely because of Pizzagate. As ridiculous as that was, LEO had to investigate, the CIA has to investigate these allegations, even if it turns out to be a fake story from 4chan. Did everyone who promoted Pizzagate also promote the truth once it was investigated? Of course not.

Question is, what other truths are being buried due to this coverage?

[Jawbone54]

I didn't even know about this Russian prostitute story because we're spending a week abstaining from social media, TV, and news, but when a friend texted me about it, I thought, "Holy cow, I hope that's not true. That's just embarrassing."

Point #1 - It didn't strike me as totally unbelievable. That shows how much faith this conservative has in Trump's personal integrity.

Point #2 - The source is "unverified." Do I have that correct? If so, aren't we supposed to be dismissive of fake news?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I didn't even know about this Russian prostitute story because we're spending a week abstaining from social media, TV, and news, but when a friend texted me about it, I thought, "Holy cow, I hope that's not true. That's just embarrassing."

Point #1 - It didn't strike me as totally unbelievable. That shows how much faith this conservative has in Trump's personal integrity.

Point #2 - The source is "unverified." Do I have that correct? If so, aren't we supposed to be dismissive of fake news?

1. I too have absolutely no reason to dismiss such allegations out-of-hand given what is already public knowledge about Mr. Trump's boorish behavior.

2. "Unverified" does not necessarily mean "untrue". So this would not qualify as "fake news". Intelligence reports by their very nature don't always contain hard evidence like a legal case. Here's a prime example of a report that went "unverified" for decades and only recently was proved to be true.

Yes, Nixon Scuttled the Vietnam Peace Talks - POLITICO Magazine

Not to mention that the author of the dossier is a highly respected, former MI-6 agent. We aren't talking about random idiots on the internet talking about #PizzaGate.

Ex-spy who wrote intel memos is a pro | CNN.com

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

All jock talk. Even if it wasn't, the women wanted him to do it, so it's fine. It's shocking how the Left is trying to normalize pedos yet still can't handle complex normal hetero relationships.

I forgot we covered this already and established what sort of human being misogynist you are.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You mean the 18-20 y/o models (Miss America pageant) who strip backstage, out in the open, in front of anyone, at the drop of a hat w/o any concern whatsoever? I know you want to compare peaking at swimsuits to buying hookers for watersports, but they just don't.

I mean the multiple contestants who complained that he did exactly that knowing full well that they were underage and who haven't filed lawsuits or gotten reality shows off the back of the allegations so didn't say it for money or exposure.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've been in Trump tower, it's everywhere. Besides, it's the only "undeniable truth" you stated. The rest is either stupid hearsay or hyperbole.

His absolute lack of taste is his longest standing well-known characteristic, I don't need you to verify it.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nope.


Nope.


Nope.

Derp. Derp. Derp.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I would have thought you still had some common sense left, but I was wrong. You sound like the Left's version of Pizzagate, jumping on anything just because it's a negative for Trump, no matter what it is.

And I thought you were just being your charming, terrible self but it appears that like a true Trumpie you aren't keeping up. How sad.

I'm not saying I believe it. I'm saying it sounds believable, hence the traction it has gotten elsewhere. I actually saw something quite plausible about the whole thing being fabricated on Reddit. The point is Trump got in via the miracle of fake news. Now that the American people have dimwittedly stripped the left of all political power, they have nothing to fight back with but fake news of their own. Given the easy targets they have, my guess is they will be way better at it once they get going.

Trump has four years of being a global laughing stock to look forward to.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

All the women wanted him to? How do you know? How many might have been intimidated by his fame, scared to get fired, or just too in shock to react? Have you ever been assaulted without consent?

CT: Some Miss Teen USA contestants said he walked in on them as well.

I'm glad I'm not the only one round here who finds his position on this so despicable.