And Bhawk - which is worse :
-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?
You didn't ask me but it's a public forum so I'll chime in. Both represent unacceptable behavior for a candidate or office holder. It would be wrong to use one to try to justify the other.
No comments about Trump vs. Cruz, Battle of the Wives? 😛
Yes...stay tuned.
Will probably show up on WWE Monday Night Raw since Trump is buds with Vince McMahon.
It's disgusting, and as an American it is embarrassing as the world looks on in disbelief.
Just shows how low Trump will go. Not too distant from his comments & attacks on Megyn Kelly. Nothing for him is off limits. Has nothing to do with policy, but since Trump really has little in the way of policies, this is typical of his strategy / shtick.
And make no mistake about it. Cruz is buying in & playing the game with Trump. Just listen to Ted's retorts. He's using all the TV time he can to play to his base and eat into Trumps.
The move & countermove are both calculated. The whole thing is disgusting. This is your GOP at work...be proud.
I am not sure Cruz is an equal partner in all this. When Trump distracts Cruz or any of them with this kind of nonsense he always seems to come out ahead.
You are correct. Just to clarify - I didn't imply that Cruz is an equal partner. Fact is no one will ever be an equal partner in Trump's never ending mind games & strategies. What I was attempting to say was that Cruz used the opportunity to do battle with Trump on this. It was a way of getting more free press and media attention for Cruz in attempts to stand up to Donald & be seen as "strong".
In the end, Cruz was asked if he will support Trump if Trump is the candidate. For the umpteenth time Cruise walked around the issue and never answered the question. I mean...enough is enough with that stupid pledge. How can any of the candidates and former candidates support Trump with everything Trump has said & tweeted. And it's really not about HC or BS here. It's all about Trump.
And Bhawk - which is worse :
-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?You didn't ask me but it's a public forum so I'll chime in. Both represent unacceptable behavior for a candidate or office holder. It would be wrong to use one to try to justify the other.
You know what, forget I asked this question, I don't care.
Yes both are unacceptable.
I should've refrained from typing.
In the Easter spirit, you all have a great weekend !
But let's face it, if Trump called whatever super pac that did put out the thing on his wife first, and said, "stop it," they wouldn't.
So Cruz should be the one to call said super pac and tell them to stop it, if he feels so passionate about it as we are led to believe by his retort.
Neither one of them can "coordinate" with any super pac. It's against the law.
And Bhawk - which is worse :
-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?
I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?
Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?
And Bhawk - which is worse :
-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?
Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?
Even Clinton knew it was wrong. That's why he lied about it. A book could be written about everything that was wrong with it. There would chapters on infidelity, committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit, national security issues raised by behaving in a way for which you could be blackmailed, lying to staff and supporters, and generally lowering the expectations of behavior for national leaders. Much of the muck in the current election cycle can be traced back to the example set by Bill Clinton.
I guess it's just me. I wonder how much extramarital sex Kennedy had in the White House? All of which he could have been blackmailed for.
Humans need sex. I'll never see it as that big of a deal.
And Bhawk - which is worse :
-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?
Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?
Billy - I'll vote you poster of the day 
Does the Rose Garden qualify as a suitable place? 😛 😛
[Edited on 3/27/2016 by gondicar]
quote:
quote:
And Bhawk - which is worse :-a sitting President getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or
-a candidate saying tacky stuff ?I've just never seen that much wrong with getting a blowjob. Is it just me?
Is it where it happened that makes it so heinous?
Billy - I'll vote you poster of the day
Does the Rose Garden qualify as a suitable place?
Only if there is a stiff breeze a blowing.
I guess it's just me. I wonder how much extramarital sex Kennedy had in the White House? All of which he could have been blackmailed for.
Humans need sex. I'll never see it as that big of a deal.
Who says he wasn't blackmailed about it? Think back of the Mafia connections around him and Bobby's war on organized crime. Why did Bobby all of a sudden move off to new York and run as a Senator?
Warren G. Harding was blackmailed to keep quiet about the daughter he had by his mistress. Well. one of them anyway.
Who says he wasn't blackmailed about it? Think back of the Mafia connections around him and Bobby's war on organized crime. Why did Bobby all of a sudden move off to new York and run as a Senator?
Warren G. Harding was blackmailed to keep quiet about the daughter he had by his mistress. Well. one of them anyway.
You're probably right. Wasn't blackmail Hoover's speciality? Other than evening gown competitions and ballroom dancing with Roy Cohn?
Since this is a Trump thread I wonder about his ties to organized crime. When I worked Trump Park the Donald was fixing Wohlman rink. I'd see him several times a week. He would often meet people on the construction site. I've seen him meeting with Ed Koch, then later with John Gotti. Once with both Mayor Koch and John Gotti. I wonder what those guys were talking about.
"Politics makes strange bedfellows"~ Charles Dudley Warner
Are not the "ignorant" the principals the Dems have so successfully courted in elections past?
![]()
"Politics makes strange bedfellows"~ Charles Dudley Warner
Are not the "ignorant" the principals the Dems have so successfully courted in elections past?
Nice try, but no.
The recent terror attacks will undoubtedly shift the conversation more towards foreign policy and the war on terror. I wonder if this will hurt Trump since he has absolutely no knowledge or experience, or if it will help him because he talks tough. Hopefully this won't turn more scared voters into suckers.
Trump is mentally challenged when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. Any sane American would never vote for such an immature, impulsive, non filtered, know nothing, egotistical, maniac. These Republicans proping up his phony con artist ass will be the ones responsible for electing Clinton or Sanders or whoever runs against this feeble idiot. When they wake up on election day and are forced to watch constant loops of Hilary or Bernie giving their victory speeches they will have nobody else to blame for the shocked expressions on their faces. There is no way Trump gets elected in a general election. I have faith that there are not enough stupid voters in the USA to get this moron elected with all of the idiocy constantly spewed by Trumps flapping lips. He is the biggest phony con man in the history of con men.
[Edited on 3/28/2016 by sixty8]
Trump is mentally challenged when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. Any sane American would never vote for such an immature, impulsive, non filtered, know nothing, egotistical, maniac. These Republicans proping up his phony con artist ass will be the ones responsible for electing Clinton or Sanders or whoever runs against this feeble idiot. When they wake up on election day and are forced to watch constant loops of Hilary or Bernie giving their victory speeches they will have nobody else to blame for the shocked expressions on their faces. There is no way Trump gets elected in a general election. I have faith that there are not enough stupid voters in the USA to get this moron elected with all of the idiocy constantly spewed by Trumps flapping lips. He is the biggest phony con man in the history of con men.
So, you are for Trump?
Seriously, I still don't believe he will get the nomination. I am even more convinced of this after watching the discussion of unbound and zombie delegates on Meet The Press yesterday. Here's a clip:
If Trump fails to get the 1,237 prior to the convention he will not be the nominee. But you are right, if he is the nominee the Republicans lose. The Democrats could run Jim Traficant from the grave and Trump would still lose. There is a finite number of people who would vote for Trump and and that number is simply not enough for him to win. Thank God.
Trump is mentally challenged when it comes to the issues, especially foreign policy. Any sane American would never vote for such an immature, impulsive, non filtered, know nothing, egotistical, maniac. These Republicans proping up his phony con artist ass will be the ones responsible for electing Clinton or Sanders or whoever runs against this feeble idiot. When they wake up on election day and are forced to watch constant loops of Hilary or Bernie giving their victory speeches they will have nobody else to blame for the shocked expressions on their faces. There is no way Trump gets elected in a general election. I have faith that there are not enough stupid voters in the USA to get this moron elected with all of the idiocy constantly spewed by Trumps flapping lips. He is the biggest phony con man in the history of con men.
[Edited on 3/28/2016 by sixty8]
We can agree that he has balls, he tells it like it is, does not back down from controversy. He said NATO is obsolete. If you look at how supportive NATO was to the US during the most recent Afghan war (2001 to current), how many countries provided support to the US and how many men did these other countries send there? It was mostly the US fighting. In ANY conflict, these other NATO allied nations provide minimal back up, it is always the US leading the fight, then if something happens (attack) in their countries, they pull their troops back. Trump said maybe some of these other countries need their own nukes and should just manage and defend themselves. I like that idea. Why is it our responsibility to put all these bases in places like Poland etc. to cover the world, let each place have their sovereignty and manage their own affairs.
He was pushed into a question (during the Town Hall with Chris Matthews) of would he use nukes on other countries, including Europe and he said he did not think so, but he would not take anything off the table. He would keep his options open and respond depending on the situation. WHAT if ISIS trounces and takes over European countries, how should they be stopped? Or would it be like Hitler and his great idea? This is a very serious issue for global security.
[Edited on 3/31/2016 by gina]
I still believe Trump never wanted this to happen. he looked at it as advertising his brand. he thought/thinks at some point i will say something so offensive it will destroy my chances. everything has turned upside down for him. i think he wants out but can not find a way to get out.
Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump's nuclear comments
By Paula Hancocks, CNN
Updated 6:20 PM ET, Thu March 31, 2016
Seoul (CNN) - Confused, shocked, bewildered. Just a few of the words used in recent days to describe Japan and South Korea's reaction to some of Donald Trump's latest comments about the region.
The front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination stunned two of America's strongest allies with the suggestion that the U.S. military would be withdrawn from their shores, with nuclear weapons replacing them.
There are currently 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea.
"Japan is better if it protects itself against this maniac of North Korea," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper Tuesday. "We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself ... they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us."
US, South Korea take part in joint military exercise
So high was the level of concern, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."
Japan remains the only country to have had nuclear weapons used against it and has had a non-nuclear policy and pacifist constitution since the end of World War II.
Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida added, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons."
North Korea claims to have miniaturized nuclear warheads
South Korea has a small minority who think Trump may have a point and welcome the idea of nuclear weapons.
Academic Cheong Seong-Chang from the non-profit think-tank the Sejong Institute said, "If we have nuclear weapons, we'll be in a much better position to deal with North Korea."
But his feeling is not mainstream.
South Korea 'a money machine'
Government reaction has been more focused on Trump's assertion that South Korea is not paying its way.
Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, "South Korea is a money machine but they pay us peanuts ... South Korea should pay us very substantially for protecting them."
Howls of inaccuracy came from the South Korean Foreign Ministry, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and even the White House.
Ambassador Mark Lippert said Seoul pays for 55% of all non-personnel costs.
And former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Christopher Hill was more succinct. He told CNN, "I don't know what he's talking about but clearly neither does he."
Trump unveils foreign policy advisers
Newspaper editorials and experts alike have taken aim at Trump's comments about introducing more nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula to counter the North Korean threat.
Daniel Pinkston of Troy University said it would play into North Korea's hands.
"The hardliners in Pyongyang would just love such an outcome because if that were to occur, it would completely justify their nuclear status ... and validate Kim Jong Un's policy line as absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct," he said.
Reflecting a growing concern, Pinkston added, "Whether he wins the Republican nomination or not, or whether he is elected president or not, even at this stage, he is already doing damage to the U.S. reputation internationally. And damaging U.S. security interests."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/trump-view-from-south-korea-japan/index.html
There is no question that Trump would be a complete and total international "disaster" (to use one of the Donald's favorite words to describe what he thinks about America now). He hasn't been elected anything yet and the US government is already having to clean up after him...
U.S. affirms Japan security backing after Trump nuclear comments
By Nicole Gaouette and Ryan Browne, CNN
Updated 7:51 PM ET, Thu March 31, 2016
Washington (CNN)The U.S. and its closest Asian allies reaffirmed decades of security cooperation Thursday as their cornerstone alliance is being challenged by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
Trump's statements scrapping years of U.S. consensus on nuclear issues have prompted discomfort and disbelief from U.S. officials and experts, while foreign governments have challenged his ideas.
Meeting with leaders of Japan and South Korea ahead of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, President Barack Obama said that the three Pacific nations aim to "restore a sense of stability and peace to the region."
The meeting looked to reinforce a security alliance that has stabilized Asia for decades and now faces new challenges in an assertive China and increasingly erratic North Korea.
Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump's nuclear comments
More broadly, the White House hopes to further its goal to eliminate -- or at least reduce -- the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and material. It's a position that Republican and Democratic administrations have held since World War II.
But Trump is ripping up the establishment playbook on foreign policy, just has he has defied the traditional storyline of the presidential campaign, repeatedly breaking rules only to emerge -- so far -- relatively unscathed.
The Republican front-runner has said that he sees nuclear proliferation as the world's biggest challenge, but he's also declared that security agreements in Europe and the Middle East might have to be redrawn. And he's suggested that Japan and South Korea may need to step out from under the U.S. security umbrella and develop their own nuclear arsenal.
"At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea," Trump told Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall in Milwaukee on Tuesday. "We're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself."
Trump's proposals on arming Asia drew censure from the administration, which has made disarmament a legacy issue for the President.
Obama has focused on nuclear dangers since his days as a U.S. senator, writing anti-proliferation legislation with Indiana's Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. His first congressional trip abroad was to inspect nuclear weapons facilities in Eastern Europe and Russia.
"Frankly, it would be catastrophic were the United States to shift its position and indicate that we somehow support proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said Thursday when asked about Trump's outlook.
"The entire premise of American foreign policy as it relates to nuclear weapons for the last 70 years has been focused on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states," Rhodes said. "That's been the position of bipartisan administrations, everybody who's occupied the Oval Office."
Japanese and U.S. officials said Trump's suggestion didn't come up in the meeting between South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Obama, but Japanese leaders have addressed it publicly.
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded after the Republican candidate's comments Tuesday by saying, "whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan's diplomacy."
Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said more bluntly, "It is impossible that Japan will arm itself with nuclear weapons."
Analysts say Trump's proposal to have South Korea or Japan embrace nuclear weapons is so unrealistic that it won't even merit discussion around water coolers at the nuclear summit.
"I don't think there'll be a discussion among the leaders or even a hallway conversation," said Victor Cha, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who was President George W. Bush's top advisor on North Korea.
"If so," Cha added, "only in jest, as people are going to refill their coffee cups."
Trump's proposal would diverge from the region's history, particularly in Japan.
The only country to have been struck by nuclear bombs, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan has a vociferous anti-nuclear constituency. And while its military is beginning to take on a more assertive posture, most experts say the scars of Japanese aggression during World War II mean the country and the region feel more comfortable with Tokyo working under the broader U.S. security umbrella.
Trump has also suggested redrawing U.S. security relationships in other regions, arguing that Germany and Saudi Arabia need to do more in their own defense or shell out bigger payments to the U.S. for the protection it provides.
"They have to protect themselves or they have to pay us," Trump said in Milwaukee.
One Western diplomat who is watching the presidential race closely said the working theory is that Trump is negotiating and that, as in all negotiations, he is starting at the most extreme positions and would slowly work his way closer to the center once the general election campaign starts.
This diplomat, who spoke anonymously to discuss U.S. politics, said another theory is that if Trump does become the Republican nominee, experts who are advising his competitors will eventually start helping the real estate magnate.
Trump trampled on yet another foreign policy axiom on Wednesday, when he refused to rule out using nuclear weapons to put a swift and definitive end to the threat of ISIS.
"I would never take any of my cards off the table," Trump told an MSNBC Town Hall.
Asked by CNN whether any coalition members had suggested using nuclear weapons against ISIS, Major Gen. Doug Chalmers, a British deputy commander with the coalition, acknowledged surprise.
"I have never heard (it) discussed amongst any of our coalition members at any stage," he said. "Actually, I have to admit, that one has taken me completely by surprise. The simple answer is no."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/politics/nuclear-summit-trump-japan-south-america/index.html
But doesn't Trump has a point when he says "if China invades Taiwan it is WWIII and what do we get out of it?" I think Taiwan was the example he gave in some interview or town hall.
Seriously, we should not have went to war in Vietnam correct? Korea? Was it worth it? Would it be worth it again?
Why must we meddle and stay financially and militarily involved in that part of the world?
Most of the time I think we do it for international trade reasons, you know the whole corptocracy thing. And think about the percentage of financial burden the US has had in Japan and South Korea which has freed up money for them to focus on their economy (perhaps at the detriment of our economy).
Just because things have been a way for 60+ years doesn't mean they must stay that way. Ofcourse people in Japan and South Korea would feel one way, it has worked out pretty well for them. How has it worked out for us?
[Edited on 4/1/2016 by nebish]
But doesn't Trump has a point when he says "if China invades Taiwan it is WWIII and what do we get out of it?" I think Taiwan was the example he gave in some interview or town hall.
Seriously, we should not have went to war in Vietnam correct? Korea? Was it worth it? Would it be worth it again?
Why must we meddle and stay financially and militarily involved in that part of the world?
Most of the time I think we do it for international trade reasons, you know the whole corptocracy thing. And think about the percentage of financial burden the US has had in Japan and South Korea which has freed up money for them to focus on their economy (perhaps at the detriment of our economy).
Just because things have been a way for 60+ years doesn't mean they must stay that way. Ofcourse people in Japan and South Korea would feel one way, it has worked out pretty well for them. How has it worked out for us?
[Edited on 4/1/2016 by nebish]
So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?
[Edited on 4/1/2016 by gondicar]
So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?
I would like to see countries defend their own regions and dream for the day that US no longer needs to offer protection and potentially become entangled with US lives and dollars on the line in foreign conflicts.
So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?
I would like to see countries defend their own regions and dream for the day that US no longer needs to offer protection and potentially become entangled with US lives and dollars on the line in foreign conflicts.
Spoken like a true politician, a non-answer answer.
So you are in favor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them currently, like Japan and South Korea?
I would like to see countries defend their own regions and dream for the day that US no longer needs to offer protection and potentially become entangled with US lives and dollars on the line in foreign conflicts.
Spoken like a true politician, a non-answer answer.
I think you can get your answer from what I said, don't be disingenuous.
Looks like Trump is now being investigated. Apparently it was illegal for him to promise Carson an administration position if Carson endorsed Trump.
I wonder if folks will immediately consider Trump guilty in the same way they assume Hillary is guilty?
Regardless. It looks like the FBI will have more to do with choosing our next President than the people will have. Hoover must be ballroom dancing in hell.
Looks like Trump is now being investigated. Apparently it was illegal for him to promise Carson an administration position if Carson endorsed Trump.
I wonder if folks will immediately consider Trump guilty in the same way they assume Hillary is guilty?
Regardless. It looks like the FBI will have more to do with choosing our next President than the people will have. Hoover must be ballroom dancing in hell.
______________________________________________________________________
No one is assuming Hillary is guilty, the facts say so.
Or is it that "vast right=wing conspiracy" by the State Department IG (an obama appointee), the Intelligence Services IG (an obama appointee) and The FBI (run by an obama appointee)?
Not one Republican is involved in either criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Try reading accurate information little billy.
Your "source" of your "Trump is now being investigated" is a liberal website:
BTW, you lied.
There is no investigation. Read your own source dumbass:
"A public interest group has written to the Justice Department seeking a criminal investigation into Ben Carson's claim that Donald Trump illegally offered him a job in his administration in exchange for his endorsement. "
There also is no proof of an offer.
Now go hide in your safe space and try on your new Hillary "Signature Series" pantsuit.
[Edited on 4/2/2016 by Muleman1994]
Wow Mule. I forgot just how vile and sick your putrid heart actually is. I feel a transcendence. I'm actually happy you are in pain. I'm happy you are so black hearted, so bitter, so filled with hate.
What kind of malignancy fills your soul? What kind of carnivorous worms are eating you from the inside out?
You are mired in the deepest black pit of hatred Son. I hope your agony ends soon. May you find the light.
Sarah Palin has gone full on insane in the name of Donald Trump. Unfukingreal.