President Donald J. Trump

[theONE]

I'm sure I say some things that later turn out not to be correct, and I've just admitted I troll on the odd occasion.  But, when it comes to discussing ideas, intellectual honesty is very important to me.  It didn't always used to be, but it's one of the things as I've gotten older that I've decided is essential.  This is why I get angry when assholes like 21st Century Man attack my integrity.  For the most part, it's about the only thing that makes me angry.

I totally understand the /intellectual honesty and integrity/ part, and it's very admirable that you arrived in life at that principle.
Same here.But by no means "an angel" ,o no, but I have pretty good sense when person is not genuine,decent,meek human
but a pompous selfish abusive ass, ..and then I turn into "an asshole" so to say. LOL

"it's about the only thing that makes me angry." .. nothing wrong with getting/being angry, anger is a very important emotion.
Rocks never get angry. We humans have that gift, only trick is not to cross the line while being angry.

And remember ...revenge  is a dish best always served...cold

P.S. you suck because you like Hillary, hahaha

[Uncle Duke]

Ahhh. Yes I see what you mean. Our (generally) attitude to ema is its a matter between the politician and their spouse/family. The in joke in the 80's was Tory MP's love families so much (they loved preaching about single parents being the blight on society) they had two.

However, the Trump debacle is different (just taking the sexual element), because he's admitted to forcing himself (as his right), without consent on women. That is criminal in any situation. He could even find himself going into hiding because if plod looked into it and he was later charged, convicted and imprisoned, he'd probably find he had a new husband in the pokey who wasn't so lenient towards sexual assault.

There were women who claimed Clinton forced himself on them as well, but I suppose the difference is he never admitted it. 

OK, thanks for the insight.

[Yorkshire pud]

There were women who claimed Clinton forced himself on them as well, but I suppose the difference is he never admitted it. 

OK, thanks for the insight.

I wouldn't support any unconsensual assault, (no matter who it was) I like to think most civilised people wouldn't.

[136 or 142]

Look, I'm really not an asshole.  I do like to troll on occasion just like you.  Let me be more accurate in my statement about your defense of the Clintons.  You go out of your way to excuse the Clintons when accusations are made.  If the same allegations were made about Trump, you'd be all over Trump calling him the devil incarnate.  You definitely show a bias as do I.   Why can't you accept the fact that both major Presidential candidates suck?  I do and yes I'll be voting for Trump.  You're not a citizen so you can't vote but if you could you would be voting for Hillary.  This country is in a sad state when this is the best that the major parties can put forth.

I'm sorry for upsetting you.

I go out of my way to excuse the Clinton's when false (or unverified) accusations are made about them.  You go out of your way to make false (or unverified) accusations about them. In no way are we equivalent.

I can understand this from the perspective that you aren't meaning to tell lies or half-truths.  I think you're genuinely very upset about voting for Donald Trump and you're grasping at anything you can to justify to yourself making this decision.

I have never defended Hillary Clinton on her personal use of the email server, except to point out that the head of the FBI said it wasn't "even a close call" in regards to whether it was criminal activity.  I just wrote that it was a deliberate attempt to be secretive and that is increasingly unacceptable in politics now-days.  However, I've also written that virtually every politician is secretive to the degree they can get away with it.   For instance, the George W. Bush White House 'lost' 22 million emails, so were I an American citizen, Hillary Clinton's activities would not be a deal breaker for me.

If I had to grade recent previous Presidential candidates in terms of their overall ethics, I'd put Hillary Clinton below Barack Obama, John McCain and probably Bob Dole, but pretty much on par with Mitt Romney and John Kerry.  George W. Bush was likely mostly personally decent but seemed to be dominated by absolutely vile people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.  Al Gore is just too weird for me to get a handle on him.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

I don't expect candidates to be perfect which is where much of this rather lame line about "300 million or so Americans and this is the best we can find?" comes from.  When it comes to Hillary Clinton's ethics, there is a truism in psychology (or there used to be at one time anyway) that 10% of the public would never cheat if given an opportunity, 10% would always cheat and 80% would sometimes cheat depending on the circumstances.  (or maybe it's closer to 20-20-60)  I think Hillary Clinton is one of the 80% while Trump is one of the bad 10%.  So, I don't think there is any equivalency between the two, and it seems given the nature of the political process, few of the good 10% want any part of it (and I doubt they'd be successful most of the time anyway.) 

I think Hillary Clinton easily passes the bar when it comes to the four non-ideological criteria I look at all candidates with (at least when I vote for somebody who I think might actually win)
1.Temperament
2.Judgement
3.Knowledge
4.Experience

As far as I was concerned, the only other major candidate in this election who was on the same level with Hillary Clinton was John Kasich.

Bernie Sanders seemed to lack much of any knowledge of foreign policy, and I thought in terms of his temperament, his demonization of all millionaire  businesspeople (I think he later excluded Ben and Jerry) and all big business, was as simplistic as everything Donald Trump says.

I can live with a candidate demonizing some of the people some of the time given the reality of politics, but in this case, Bernie Sanders outlook on this was completely reflected by the policies that he advocated.  Of course, I'm a Canadian so I don't have a vote, but if the election had come down to Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich I likely would have had a difficult time deciding who I wanted to see win.

[136 or 142]

There were women who claimed Clinton forced himself on them as well, but I suppose the difference is he never admitted it. 

OK, thanks for the insight.

The other difference is that Bill Clinton is not running for President.

[136 or 142]

I totally understand the /intellectual honesty and integrity/ part, and it's very admirable that you arrived in life at that principle.
Same here.But by no means "an angel" ,o no, but I have pretty good sense when person is not genuine,decent,meek human
but a pompous selfish abusive ass, ..and then I turn into "an asshole" so to say. LOL

"it's about the only thing that makes me angry." .. nothing wrong with getting/being angry, anger is a very important emotion.
Rocks never get angry. We humans have that gift, only trick is not to cross the line while being angry.

And remember ...revenge  is a dish best always served...cold

P.S. you suck because you like Hillary, hahaha

I don't think anybody who knows me in person would say that I'm either selfish or abusive. 

[21st Century Man]

I go out of my way to excuse the Clinton's when false (or unverified) accusations are made about them.  You go out of your way to make false (or unverified accusations) about them. In no way are we equivalent.

I have never defended Hillary Clinton on her personal use of the email server, except to point out that the head of the FBI said it wasn't "even a close call" in regards to whether it was criminal activity.  I just wrote that it was a deliberate attempt to be secretive and that is unacceptable in politics now-days.  However, I've also written that virtually every politician is secretive to the degree they can get away with it.   For instance, the George W. Bush White House 'lost' 22 million emails, so were I an American citizen, Hillary Clinton's activities would not be a deal breaker for me.

If I had to grade recent previous Presidential candidates in terms of their overall ethics, I'd put Hillary Clinton below Barack Obama, John McCain and probably Bob Dole, but pretty much on par with Mitt Romney and John Kerry.  George W. Bush was likely mostly personally decent but seemed to be dominated by absolutely vile people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.  Al Gore is just too weird for me to get a handle on him.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

That's a fair assessment and I think I would agree with most of it.  I personally can't stand Karl Rove. 

[WOTR]

I'm not quite sure what order you're searching through my posts in, but I just admitted above to one troll/lie.  It seems even in searching through my posts for a lie or half truth of mine, you may still have missed that.

I don't know if this suggests that people here just took that post as a fact, or what it says.

If you are actually curious- I did catch it.  I paused for a moment and considered heading off to a search engine (I usually do, when there are statements that are suspect.)  In the end, I just figured "screw it." 

Whatever site I find is going to be one of accusation with no concrete proof and would be an editorial (maybe Mother Jones?) or an anonymous poster.  I just decided to save my time and write it off as a rumour as there is no line item on a tax return for "hush money."  Even if true, his taxes would bury it as a business expense or donation and he would be able to release them.

I don't know how others saw that post- but that was my take.

[theONE]

I go out of my way to excuse the Clinton's when false (or unverified) accusations are made about them.  You go out of your way to make false (or unverified accusations) about them. In no way are we equivalent.

I have never defended Hillary Clinton on her personal use of the email server, except to point out that the head of the FBI said it wasn't "even a close call" in regards to whether it was criminal activity.  I just wrote that it was a deliberate attempt to be secretive and that is unacceptable in politics now-days.  However, I've also written that virtually every politician is secretive to the degree they can get away with it.   For instance, the George W. Bush White House 'lost' 22 million emails, so were I an American citizen, Hillary Clinton's activities would not be a deal breaker for me.

If I had to grade recent previous Presidential candidates in terms of their overall ethics, I'd put Hillary Clinton below Barack Obama, John McCain and probably Bob Dole, but pretty much on par with Mitt Romney and John Kerry.  George W. Bush was likely mostly personally decent but seemed to be dominated by absolutely vile people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.  Al Gore is just too weird for me to get a handle on him.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

I so surprised that many people think that his opinion was totally "honest" and not influenced by someone or something.
Because he said so that doesn't make it true.
Is it possible that he had his personal motives and 'lied' about his findings.
Or is it possible that he got the ..memo

[theONE]

I don't think anybody who knows me in person would say that I'm either selfish or abusive.

I hope you didn't got the impression that I suggested in my post that you are. Please....

[Value Of Pi]

If Trump was looking at my 10 year old daughter with insatiable lust, I'd go over and deck him but again he did not say he'd like to fuck the little girl now.

But he basically said he'd like to do it at a later date, no? Which means he's looking at her now and thinking about that. Also, he doesn't mind anyone knowing that he's thinking that. In fact, that's probably why he said it. Very, very tacky at best.

[21st Century Man]

But he basically said he'd like to do it at a later date, no? Which means he's looking at her now and thinking about that. Also, he doesn't mind anyone knowing that he's thinking that. In fact, that's probably why he said it. Very, very tacky at best.

Very, very tacky indeed.  But really, I'm not surprised when it comes to Trump.  He'd be running a girlie magazine if his real estate business did not work out.

[theONE]

I don't think anybody who knows me in person would say that I'm either selfish or abusive.

I totally understand the /intellectual honesty and integrity/ part, and it's very admirable that you arrived in life at that principle.
Same here.But by no means "an angel" ,o no, but I have pretty good sense when person is not genuine,decent,meek human
but a pompous selfish abusive ass, ..and then I turn into "an asshole" so to say. LOL

"it's about the only thing that makes me angry." .. nothing wrong with getting/being angry, anger is a very important emotion.
Rocks never get angry. We humans have that gift, only trick is not to cross the line while being angry.

And remember ...revenge  is a dish best always served...cold

P.S. you suck because you like Hillary, hahaha

Ooo, OK , I get it, ..this might suggest that I'm talking about you. No, not at all.
That was just general self-description why I'm not "an angel". LOL

Apology for confusion... 

[theONE]

But he basically said he'd like to do it at a later date, no? Which means he's looking at her now and thinking about that. Also, he doesn't mind anyone knowing that he's thinking that. In fact, that's probably why he said it. Very, very tacky at best.

Very, very tacky indeed.  But really, I'm not surprised when it comes to Trump.  He'd be running a girlie magazine if his real estate business did not work out.

I'm 110% SURE that everyone of us here at least at some point had very similar "sick" erotic fantasies about younger girls.
Maybe we didn't said it out loud, but it was on our minds for sure guys, for sure.

Don't tell me that you never looked at sexy looking 10 years old girl thinking 'boy when she grows up' she will be great sexy babe.
Come on guys,...unless you are gay of course, but then you would have same "SICK" fantasies about 10 years old boys...

Get real here, please !!

[136 or 142]

If you are actually curious- I did catch it.  I paused for a moment and considered heading off to a search engine (I usually do, when there are statements that are suspect.)  In the end, I just figured "screw it." 

Whatever site I find is going to be one of accusation with no concrete proof and would be an editorial (maybe Mother Jones?) or an anonymous poster.  I just decided to save my time and write it off as a rumour as there is no line item on a tax return for "hush money."  Even if true, his taxes would bury it as a business expense or donation and he would be able to release them.

I don't know how others saw that post- but that was my take.

Yes, I think I wrote this was the 'latest rumor.'  I also told it to a friend of mine and a minute later he replied "I just searched for this and it isn't reported anywhere."

In regards to business expenses:  many of his business operate as 'flow through' corporations, which does not exist in Canada, so I'm not 100% certain as to how the tax reporting works, but logically I think it would work that the business income tax statement is attached to his personal tax filings.  I don't doubt, were this actually true, he would have listed it as a 'business expense' but it would hardly be the first time that the IRS caught a false business expense that was, in reality, a bribe or a blackmail payout.

[21st Century Man]

I'm 110% SURE that everyone of us here at least at some point had very similar "sick" erotic fantasies about younger girls.
Maybe we didn't said it out loud, but it was on our minds for sure guys, for sure.

Don't tell me that you never looked at sexy looking 10 years old girl thinking 'boy when she grows up' she will be great sexy babe.
Come on guys,...unless you are gay of course, but then you would have same "SICK" fantasies about 10 years old boys...

Get real here, please !!

If I'm picturing her as a sexy 20 year old in my mind, maybe.  I'll confess though I've never had that thought looking at 10 year olds. Maybe 15 year olds.

[136 or 142]

Ooo, OK , I get it, ..this might suggest that I'm talking about you. No, not at all.
That was just general self-description why I'm not "an angel". LOL

Apology for confusion...

Thanks.

[136 or 142]

If I'm picturing her as a sexy 20 year old in my mind, maybe.  I'll confess though I've never had that thought looking at 10 year olds. Maybe 15 year olds.

When I regularly frequented IRC, in the #dylan channel there was a guy who we all got along with pretty well until he admitted that he liked looking at any girl wearing a school uniform.  One of the women who I was then and am still friendly with was horrified by that and she quit the channel.  Before she left, I defended him to her by saying 'It's creepy, but it's just a fantasy of his and he says he knows not to do anything beyond look at them for a few seconds." (I'm also still friendly with him.)

It's creepy and looking at them, I think goes slightly beyond the fantasy level of 50 Shades of Gray that the idiot Trumptards initially tried to put out to excuse Donald Trump's behavior ("If women are so offended by Trump then why did 80 million of them buy the novel?  On a less important note, I think it was 80 million world wide and not 80 million Americans and I'm sure at least a few men bought the book as well) but, the main difference is most people have the ability to differentiate between engaging in fantasy and dealing with reality.

Although there are a few differing interpretations, as far as I'm concerned, that is entirely what the play "Playboy of the Western World" is about. 
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/criticall-comment-theme-fantasy-versus-reality-276545

Spoiler:
The characters in the play were fascinated by Christy Mahon when they thought he made up his story of how he killed his father, but they were horrified with him when they found out he really did try and kill his father.

I think I mentioned here that I was supposed to read Heart of Darkness for a English Literature Critical Analysis class that I barerly started reading.  Playboy the Western World was the play that I analyzed and my essay on the write up on the play showing the difference of how people deal with fantasy vs. deal with reality earned me a B or B+ in the class even though I never handed in a paper on Heart of Darkness.  (I understand the book turns out to be very exciting, but as far as I'm concerned the first 50 pages or so are almost impossible to get through.)

[WOTR]

...I don't doubt, were this actually true, he would have listed it as a 'business expense' but it would hardly be the first time that the IRS caught a false business expense that was, in reality, a bribe or a blackmail payout.

I will rephrase.  If Trump buys a yaht he does not list it on his tax returns.  He just buys it or a car, or a helicopter.  He would not need to list $1 000 000 paid out in hush money.  Taxes would not show anything even if it were true... So there was no point in searching as I already know that is not the reason behind his refusal to publicize them...

[theONE]

If I'm picturing her as a sexy 20 year old in my mind, maybe.  I'll confess though I've never had that thought looking at 10 year olds. Maybe 15 year olds.

Exactly.
As to 10 years old, of course that depends how is she developed and how her parents, /mostly Moms/ dress her, there are many sick mothers there
who make their 10 years old daughters look like little 'sluts'.
Of course I'm not suggesting that normal descent mentally and morally balanced guy would look at her and salivate, but would be totally
possible to think 'boy' in 8 or 10 years she will be some sexy attractive young girl.

[136 or 142]

I will rephrase.  If Trump buys a yaht he does not list it on his tax returns.  He just buys it or a car, or a helicopter.  He would not need to list $1 000 000 paid out in hush money.  Taxes would not show anything even if it were true... So there was no point in searching as I already know that is not the reason behind his refusal to publicize them...

If he tried to expense the hush money payouts he'd have to itemize them as part of his business expenses.  If he paid them personally he wouldn't.  You made up the  $1,000,000 but if it were a big payout in one go, any bank withdrawal that large would be scrutinized.  Of course, that wouldn't be part of his tax returns.

If this were a true story, I would personally be shocked if Trump didn't try and claim the payouts as a business expense.  Though, I guess with the revelation that he had $915 million in business losses to carry forward to reduce his personal income tax, he wouldn't necessarily have needed to claim this as a business expense, if it were real.

Obviously he wouldn't have the firms accountants write on the list of expenses 'hush money payout' he'd try and hide the payout as a legitimate business expense, but that's why I wrote, 'this wouldn't be the first time the IRS has caught businesses trying to hide bribes or blackmail payouts.'

The IRS is actually quite sophisticated when it comes to analyzing how reasonable business expenses are in relation to business income.

[Jackstar]

It's gonna be President Trump, and you're all gonna be soppin' it up with a biscuit. Mark my words.

Look, look--it's your 'A' game.

[136 or 142]

But he basically said he'd like to do it at a later date, no? Which means he's looking at her now and thinking about that. Also, he doesn't mind anyone knowing that he's thinking that. In fact, that's probably why he said it. Very, very tacky at best.

I don't think this is evidence of tacky behavior.  When you take this into account with many other things he's said in this campaign, and other things that have come out about him, I think this is more evidence that Trump is genuinely clinically deranged.

[Yorkshire pud]

MPs in Australia pass a motion calling Donald Trump a 'revolting slug' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37640145

US Election 2016: Trump 'groped woman like an octopus' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37639839

[Jackstar]

Donald Trump a 'revolting slug'

Still more palatable than Clinton.

[Yorkshire pud]

Still more palatable than Clinton.

To you, yes I can see why.

[Jackstar]

To you, yes I can see why.

As if I'm an outlier.

massive rolleyes

[theONE]

MPs in Australia pass a motion calling Donald Trump a 'revolting slug' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37640145

US Election 2016: Trump 'groped woman like an octopus' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37639839

PLEASE keep an eye on this kangaroo , I'm sure very soon someone will dig out nasty shit about him as well, hahaha
[keep us posted if that comes to the surface]

[Yorkshire pud]

As if I'm an outlier.

massive rolleyes

I didn't say you were; I just said, to you I can see why.

[Yorkshire pud]

PLEASE keep an eye on this kangaroo , I'm sure very soon someone will dig out nasty shit about him as well, hahaha
[keep us posted if that comes to the surface]

Assaulting women comes within your lexicon of acceptability? Got it. Is that just white billionaires or all men who do it?