American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[rscott]

AreOut said:

rscott said:

So are you saying it's okay to treat her like a prostitute because she works in adult movies?

Or is it okay to offer any woman money to sleep with you?

so if he offers her sex without recording then she treats her like a prostitute but if he says let's record it on camera then she treats her like a princess?! Do you realise how ridiculous is that?!

There's nothing ridiculous about it at all. Simple fact is she's an actress, not a hooker. You, like Trump, appear to have problems understanding the difference between the two.

[Eric Mc]

AreOut said:

then why did she mention it?! Also she didn't explain how he hugged and kissed them, I really doubt he went for a french kiss so hugging&kissing someone in cheek is "standard procedure" in such circumstances, can't see any assaulting there.

Be careful when you are out with females. You obviously struggle with the "do not cross" boundaries. Just like your hero - so I can see why you empathise with him now.

[scherzkeks]

longblackcoat said:

scherzkeks said:

Journalism legend Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame) calls the Clinton Foundation "corrupt" and a "scandal."

Legend, perhaps.

But he's been guilty of distorting facts for years to sell his stories, so I'm not sure he's an entirely credible source.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/woodwards_truthine...

Actually, you will find that among critics of Woodward's work, the one consistency nearly all of them is that they agree that he is usually dead on point with the facts.

And in this case, we have many of the facts about the CF available, thanks to hackers and internal leaks.

[AreOut]

rscott said:

There's nothing ridiculous about it at all. Simple fact is she's an actress, not a hooker. You, like Trump, appear to have problems understanding the difference between the two.

"actress" lol, now tell me if you hire a regular prostitute and bring camera with you is she an actress too?! What if you record just your(or her) feet? What if you delete the "movie" after?! Does she stop being an actress rofl

Eric Mc said:

Be careful when you are out with females. You obviously struggle with the "do not cross" boundaries. Just like your hero - so I can see why you empathise with him now.

never had problems with females, and I have several female friends with whom I openly talk about this stuff, their views are mostly similar believe it or not

[JagLover]

Eric Mc said:

What I do find a bit odd is that many who would have whinged mightilly about the types of people who got involved in something like "The Occupy Movement" don't seem to realise that much of Trump's spiel actually covers an awful lot of the same topics they are railing against.

He SEEMS to be anti large corporations.
He SEEMS to be anti-globalist
He SEEMS to almost have a form of socialist attitude to many problems
He SEEMS to advocate government control of capitalist activity in the US (import tariffs, forced job creation/selection, limits on immigration etc)

Frankly, I don't believe a single word of it. He's as fat a cat as has ever lived and a product of the most rampant capitalism you could imagine. He's as much one of "them" as those he claims he wants to restrict.

Well I doubt more than a handful on PHs fully embrace all of Trump's policy agenda, if indeed it could be determined.

Many in the west however are fed up with "crony" capitalism where we have the appearance of free markets but the system is rigged in favour of the elites. Perhaps the Occupy lot had some of these themes but they looked to be the usual "Trustafarians" embracing whatever trendy cause comes along with no understanding of the issues.

Trump is touching on many of these themes but without a workable policy agenda and as a candidate is extremely poor.

Despite his massive flaws he is very popular with working class whites however. Which raises an interesting question, what if a future candidate raises the same issues far more articulately, and with no past history of dodgy business practices or inappropriate language about women....

[rscott]

AreOut said:

rscott said:

There's nothing ridiculous about it at all. Simple fact is she's an actress, not a hooker. You, like Trump, appear to have problems understanding the difference between the two.

"actress" lol, now tell me if you hire a regular prostitute and bring camera with you is she an actress too?! What if you record just your(or her) feet? What if you delete the "movie" after?! Does she stop being an actress rofl

Eric Mc said:

Be careful when you are out with females. You obviously struggle with the "do not cross" boundaries. Just like your hero - so I can see why you empathise with him now.

never had problems with females, and I have several female friends with whom I openly talk about this stuff, their views are mostly similar believe it or not

Let's just clear this up once and for all. Do you think she's a prostitute?

[scherzkeks]

JagLover said:

Well I doubt more than a handful on PHs fully embrace all of Trump's policy agenda, if indeed it could be determined.

Many in the west however are fed up with "crony" capitalism where we have the appearance of free markets but the system is rigged in favour of the elites. Perhaps the Occupy lot had some of these themes but they looked to be the usual "Trustafarians" embracing whatever trendy cause comes along with no understanding of the issues.

Trump is touching on many of these themes but without a workable policy agenda and as a candidate is extremely poor.

Despite his massive flaws he is very popular with working class whites however. Which raises an interesting question, what if a future candidate raises the same issues far more articulately, and with no past history of dodgy business practices or inappropriate language about women....

Although a 3rd-party supporter, I'd like to point out that Hillary is no further ahead in terms of presenting details. Where are these long-winded explanations that would mark her as some kind of policy wonk?

In our modern presidential debates (and I use that term very loosely), she has taken to using the same tactics as Trump. Going for zingers and condescending commentary in place of substance. And there is evidence that she's reading from a prompter to achieve even that.

[K12beano]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

As an outsider, and on a scale of mildly-disinterested-to-accepting-potential-for-profound-global-effects it certainly seems that this is what is going on.

Even for stereotypical American mentality, it seems bizarre to have gotten to this point though.

[Eric Mc]

scherzkeks said:

Although a 3rd-party supporter, I'd like to point out that Hillary is no further ahead in terms of presenting details. Where are these long-winded explanations that would mark her as some kind of policy wonk?

In our modern presidential debates (and I use that term very loosely), she has taken to using the same tactics as Trump. Going for zingers and condescending commentary in place of substance. And there is evidence that she's reading from a prompter to achieve even that.

The point I raised was specifically about Trump and his policies. The single most common answer so many Trumpites have is "Hilary is worse".
Sorry that is avoiding the question.

I ask about Trump. I want an answer about Trump.

[_dobbo_]

AreOut said:

then why did she mention it?! Also she didn't explain how he hugged and kissed them, I really doubt he went for a french kiss so hugging&kissing someone in cheek is "standard procedure" in such circumstances, can't see any assaulting there.

I really don't understand your desire to be an apologist for this kind of behaviour.

Saying "I don't think it happened" is one thing.

Explaining all the reasons why it's not that bad just makes you sound like a creepy creepy weirdo.

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

I ask about Trump. I want an answer about Trump.

Fair enough, ask Trump.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contact

Alternatively, write to this address.

Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue
New York 10022
USA

[Eric Mc]

I was asking his supporters here on PH.

I am more interested in why they support him as much as his actual policies - which to me are rambling and pretty incoherent. And I am tired of their constant "But what about Hilary?" replies.

[AreOut]

rscott said:

Let's just clear this up once and for all. Do you think she's a prostitute?

technically she is as she does sex for money, whether she records it or not isn't relevant

_dobbo_ said:

I really don't understand your desire to be an apologist for this kind of behaviour.

Saying "I don't think it happened" is one thing.

Explaining all the reasons why it's not that bad just makes you sound like a creepy creepy weirdo.

hugging&kissing someone in cheek isn't sexual assault and it's what you can see on TV without any concealment, I really don't think he went for a french kiss especially with all of them, such behaviour would have be noted before, it's not like he wasn't famous before presidential election

maybe I'm wrong for applying too much common sense I dunno

[Eric Mc]

You WANT to believe Trump.

You DON'T want to believe those who are making assertions against him.

It is YOU who are deciding what is the truth or not based on your preconceptions of who you WANT to believe.

[rscott]

A few sites offering comparisons of the main policies of the two:-

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Donald-Trump-vs-H...

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compa...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/p...

http://digg.com/2016/trump-hillary-clinton-compari...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-trum...

Probably worth comparing them all to eliminate any bias toward a particular candidate by any of these sites... ( and double-checking Trump, in case he's flip flopped again on any of these )

[rscott]

AreOut said:

rscott said:

Let's just clear this up once and for all. Do you think she's a prostitute?

technically she is as she does sex for money, whether she records it or not isn't relevant

Both are sex workers, but only one is a prostitute. Try reading this for the difference.. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ex...

[Halb]

My thread is at 117 pages, and I don't see it lasting before the actual event.
So the volume two is here.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[AreOut]

Eric Mc said:

You WANT to believe Trump.

You DON'T want to believe those who are making assertions against him.

It is YOU who are deciding what is the truth or not based on your preconceptions of who you WANT to believe.

nah I believe myself and my understanding what most possibly happened

he's been famous for decades, if he really acted that way many women would come forward to sue him, instead we have only one with very moot background

rscott said:

Both are sex workers, but only one is a prostitute. Try reading this for the difference.. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ex...

"Porn stars are paid to act (really); prostitutes are paid for sex."

why can't prostitutes "act" too, do they need an acting license?! Who decides what is acting and what is not? Every cell phone today has a camera, is it enough for a prostitute to set it to record part of the room so it stops being illegal prostitution and starts being legal acting?!

now you try to read this

http://www.covenanteyes.com/2015/03/20/is-porn-the...

[longblackcoat]

scherzkeks said:

Actually, you will find that among critics of Woodward's work, the one consistency nearly all of them is that they agree that he is usually dead on point with the facts.

And in this case, we have many of the facts about the CF available, thanks to hackers and internal leaks.

We'lo just have to disagree then. Woodward (and I could cite many sources for this) is at best good at assembling facts to meet his worldview, and at worst just makes stuff up. In any case, I don't trust his assertions unless I can see the sources.

[anonymous-user]

AreOut said:

now you try to read this

http://www.covenanteyes.com/2015/03/20/is-porn-the...

A guy says the law is wrong and a 'false distinction'. He's on a website and everything so he must be right.

You're just digging a larger hole since you called someone you have little to no idea about a 'we' and made yourself look foolish.