Sorry, I couldn't resist

[airdvr 210]

59 minutes ago, DJL said:

Are you trying to excuse this type of behavior?

Trying to excuse it is like trying to stop people from believing in global warming.  Do I excuse the sexualization of under age women?  Of course not.  Do I think Trump is a child molester?  Of course not.

[normiss 801]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Trying to excuse it is like trying to stop people from believing in global warming.  Do I excuse the sexualization of under age women?  Of course not.  Do I think Trump is a child molester?  Of course not.

Raping a 13 year old girl says something else entirely. To most people anyway. Bragging about sexual comments, actions, and perversions with underage girls should as well.

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

Are you trying to excuse this type of behavior?

How the hell is that even remotely sexual?

Should she be wearing a hijab before any adverts are made?

Where is the collective "NON Trump" outrage over any other advertising ever?

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Trying to excuse it is like trying to stop people from believing in global warming.  Do I excuse the sexualization of under age women?  Of course not.  Do I think Trump is a child molester?  Of course not.

I believe someone from a previous thread mentioned Drs Dunning and Kruger . . .

Edited May 6, 2020 by turtlespeed

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Trying to excuse it is like trying to stop people from believing in global warming.  Do I excuse the sexualization of under age women?  Of course not.  Do I think Trump is a child molester?  Of course not.

Kinda depends on where you draw the 'child molester' line.

Typically, it's pre-pubescent. 
In Trump's case, that would be a 'no'.

However, he's publicly bragged about how he was able to walk in on teenage girls changing. 

Bragged about being able to do it.

He also bragged that he and his friend, Epstein, had similar tastes in 'younger girls'. 

The story about his involvment with teenaged models (was that in this thread or another?) was pretty clear that he was going after underaged girls.

And the lawsuit that he raped a 13 year old at an Epstein party progressed quite a ways. Not sure exactly where it is now, but the story was pretty credible and backed by several supporting facts.

How much evidence do you need?

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Kinda depends on where you draw the 'child molester' line.

Typically, it's pre-pubescent. 
In Trump's case, that would be a 'no'.

However, he's publicly bragged about how he was able to walk in on teenage girls changing. 

Bragged about being able to do it.

He also bragged that he and his friend, Epstein, had similar tastes in 'younger girls'. 

The story about his involvment with teenaged models (was that in this thread or another?) was pretty clear that he was going after underaged girls.

And the lawsuit that he raped a 13 year old at an Epstein party progressed quite a ways. Not sure exactly where it is now, but the story was pretty credible and backed by several supporting facts.

How much evidence do you need?

The thing about walking in on underage girls while they were changing is accurate.  There are several accounts from this, multiple occassions and he even said so.  His daughter even said so.

[airdvr 210]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

Raping a 13 year old girl says something else entirely. To most people anyway. Bragging about sexual comments, actions, and perversions with underage girls should as well.

When did he rape a 13 year old?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

How the hell is that even remotely sexual?

Should she be wearing a hijab before any adverts are made?

Where is the collective "NON Trump" outrage over any other advertising ever?

I have a different expectation of the President of the United States than Bud Light. Don't you?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

When did he rape a 13 year old?

1994. 

Apparently the girl dropped the suit after receiving death threats.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-teen-rape-allegation-national-enquirer-ronan-farrow-jane-doe-1465652

[RonD1120 62]

32 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

1994. 

Apparently the girl dropped the suit after receiving death threats.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-teen-rape-allegation-national-enquirer-ronan-farrow-jane-doe-1465652

National Enquirer!!! Seriously???

[Phil1111 1,149]

16 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

National Enquirer!!! Seriously???

Dozens

[normiss 801]

58 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I have a different expectation of the President of the United States than Bud Light. Don't you?

Remotely sexual???

Seriously?

 

A grown man that would consider a girl, a child, to be a BABE???

There are no answers to that question. It doesn't deserve consideration.

If that's not crystal clear, the person asking is part of the problem.

Wow.

[jakee 1,497]

16 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

National Enquirer!!! Seriously???

Yeah, seriously. The owner of the National Enquirer is a friend of Trumps, and they have worked together to bury sex stories about him. The play is, the National Enquirer approaches women with dirt on Trump and offers them a bunch of cash for their story. The catch is that the Enquirer has no intention of ever publishing, and the cash is for exclusive rights meaning the women are contractually forbidden from talking to any other media outlet. They are effectively silenced. This was all gone over during the '16 election and is 100% true and verified.

 

So again, yeah. Trump and the National Enquirer. Seriously.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, normiss said:

Remotely sexual???

Seriously?

 

A grown man that would consider a girl, a child, to be a BABE???

There are no answers to that question. It doesn't deserve consideration.

If that's not crystal clear, the person asking is part of the problem.

Wow.

Not sure why you were directing that at me...

[turtlespeed 220]

27 minutes ago, normiss said:

Remotely sexual???

Seriously?

 

A grown man that would consider a girl, a child, to be a BABE???

There are no answers to that question. It doesn't deserve consideration.

If that's not crystal clear, the person asking is part of the problem.

Wow.

Do you live in today's world?

[airdvr 210]

The anonymous plaintiff—identified only as "Katie Johnson" in an initial legal filing that was dismissed in California, and "Jane Doe" in two subsequent legal filings in New York—said that she was raped by Trump during a party hosted by the now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein at his New York City apartment. In the third and final lawsuit, Doe alleged she had numerous sexual encounters with Trump and Epstein at the latter's parties and said she was also raped by Epstein, as BuzzFeed News reported at the time.

If you can't get a case like this heard in California....

[turtlespeed 220]

31 minutes ago, normiss said:

Remotely sexual???

Seriously?

 

A grown man that would consider a girl, a child, to be a BABE???

There are no answers to that question. It doesn't deserve consideration.

If that's not crystal clear, the person asking is part of the problem.

Wow.

I'm curious if you think he is in charge of all the marketing decisions, or if he is even consulted on something so trivial.  

What level of involvement are you thinking he actually has.

[normiss 801]

49 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Not sure why you were directing that at me...

Because your post had his comments. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

My apologies.

 

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

Remotely sexual???

Seriously?

 

A grown man that would consider a girl, a child, to be a BABE???

There are no answers to that question. It doesn't deserve consideration.

If that's not crystal clear, the person asking is part of the problem.

Wow.

 

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Do you live in today's world?

 

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm curious if you think he is in charge of all the marketing decisions, or if he is even consulted on something so trivial.  

What level of involvement are you thinking he actually has.

"More evidence of Donald Trump sexualizing young girls has surfaced, this time from the archives of the Chicago Tribune.

Reporter Seema Mehta of the L.A. Times wrote about the discovery on Friday morning. In a 1992 wire roundup of capsule notes called NEWSMAKERS, Trump is quoted as telling two 14-year-old girls at a holiday-singing gathering that “in a couple of years I’ll be dating you.”

The complete transcript reads:
'Donald Trump turned up Monday for a carol sing by a youth choir outside Manhattan Plaza Hotel. He asked two of the girls how old they were. After they replied they were 14, Trump said, “Wow! Just think—in a couple of years I’ll be dating you.”'

As Mehta notes, the report jibes with a recent video release that shows Trump making sexualizing cracks at a 10-year-old girl. In a holiday segment of “Entertainment Tonight” from December, 1992, Trump is heard asking a girl, “Are you going up the escalator?” When she replies “yes,” Trump says, “I’m going to be dating you in 10 years.”

Always amazing that pro-trump regulars feign such ignorance. Probably gaslighting. His supporters can't be that ____________!

[billvon 2,995]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

The anonymous plaintiff—identified only as "Katie Johnson" in an initial legal filing that was dismissed in California, and "Jane Doe" in two subsequent legal filings in New York—said that she was raped by Trump during a party hosted by the now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein at his New York City apartment. In the third and final lawsuit, Doe alleged she had numerous sexual encounters with Trump and Epstein at the latter's parties and said she was also raped by Epstein, as BuzzFeed News reported at the time.

I don't understand.  I have been told that the press will cover this sort of story 24/7 and not cover the Biden sexual assault story - and yet the opposite is true.  Could it be that all the Trump supporters are dead wrong about journalists?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

National Enquirer!!! Seriously???

Well, no. 

The story is from Newsweek. 

Did you actually read it? Or just words in the link? 
Of course, the header on the link is "Newsweek". The "National Enquirer" is part of the title.

As Jakee pointed out, the owner of the National Enquirer has/had a habit of buying the rights to a lot of stories that painted Trump in a bad light. It's detailed in the story.
That's the same outlet that also tried to blackmail Jeff Bezos with naked pics of him and his girlfriend. 

Of course, the owner of the Enquirer is a good friend of Trump and Bezos owns the Washington Post. 

[airdvr 210]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

 

 

"More evidence of Donald Trump sexualizing young girls has surfaced, this time from the archives of the Chicago Tribune.

Reporter Seema Mehta of the L.A. Times wrote about the discovery on Friday morning. In a 1992 wire roundup of capsule notes called NEWSMAKERS, Trump is quoted as telling two 14-year-old girls at a holiday-singing gathering that “in a couple of years I’ll be dating you.”

The complete transcript reads:
'Donald Trump turned up Monday for a carol sing by a youth choir outside Manhattan Plaza Hotel. He asked two of the girls how old they were. After they replied they were 14, Trump said, “Wow! Just think—in a couple of years I’ll be dating you.”'

As Mehta notes, the report jibes with a recent video release that shows Trump making sexualizing cracks at a 10-year-old girl. In a holiday segment of “Entertainment Tonight” from December, 1992, Trump is heard asking a girl, “Are you going up the escalator?” When she replies “yes,” Trump says, “I’m going to be dating you in 10 years.”

Always amazing that pro-trump regulars feign such ignorance. Probably gaslighting. His supporters can't be that ____________!

I wouldn't call that bad.  He was playing with them.  I can imagine their delite when he kidded with them about that.  Totally out of context.

[normiss 801]

32 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I wouldn't call that bad.  He was playing with them.  I can imagine their delite when he kidded with them about that.  Totally out of context.

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.

[airdvr 210]

29 minutes ago, normiss said:

I'm guessing you don't have daughters.

I do.  I just think it was probably more playful.  Here's this big time celebrity joking around about dating them in a few years.

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I wouldn't call that bad.  He was playing with them.  I can imagine their delite when he kidded with them about that.  Totally out of context.

Dude. Just no. A 46 year old "joking" to a teenager about dating them when they'll still be a minor is fifty shades of wrong.