USA Trump on Hillary's bathroom visit

[tango]

I've read a few articles about a debate in which Donald Trump made a big issue about Hillary Clinton taking a little longer than the allocated break to visit the bathroom.

Is he for real? Has he really got nothing more on Hillary than the fact she took a couple of minutes longer than the men present, as if that were an inherent failure on her part? Can he really not come up with other reasons why she isn't a good candidate for the presidency? A quote I read that was attributed to him essentially said that he knew where she had been and it was disgusting. Well Donald, I can't say I find thinking of you in the bathroom particularly pleasant either, for what it's worth. If we're going to elect a President based on whether we like the thought of them in the bathroom I suspect we disqualify just about all the candidates in the running.

I'm no fan of Hillary, to be brutally honest I think I'd vote for a turnip before I voted for Hillary, but I'd have thought that someone who wanted to be taken seriously as a Republican candidate would be able to come up with something better to attack his opponent than the fact she took a couple of minutes longer in the bathroom. I don't think it's a secret that women typically do take a little bit longer than men, even before considering reports that the ladies' room was further from the stage than the men's room.

 

[Ruth]

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Trump is grasping at straws now.

 

[Lamb]

Women don't intentionally take longer and I think his comment was a sexist stereotype.

 

[psalms 91]

I believe what appeals to Trump supporters is his honesty and not caring what he says, I find it hard to believe that people actually supportsome of his outragious statements

 

[Ruth]

Women don't intentionally take longer and I think his comment was a sexist stereotype.

I agree!

 

[tango]

I believe what appeals to Trump supporters is his honesty and not caring what he says, I find it hard to believe that people actually supportsome of his outragious statements

Up to a point that works. The trouble is where international diplomacy is concerned you don't want an apocalyptic oaf representing one of the biggest players at the table.

 

[Ruth]

Up to a point that works. The trouble is where international diplomacy is concerned you don't want an apocalyptic oaf representing one of the biggest players at the table.

Yes!!

 

[psalms 91]

Up to a point that works. The trouble is where international diplomacy is concerned you don't want an apocalyptic oaf representing one of the biggest players at the table.

True and that is why I dont think he can win

 

[Ruth]

I have this awful feeling he may win!! He is so popular right now.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes he is but there is a long way to go to election and Trump I think will lose a lot of his popularity by then

 

[Ruth]

Yes he is but there is a long way to go to election and Trump I think will lose a lot of his popularity by then

I don't know about that. As time has gone on so far he has become more and more popular.

 

[tango]

I don't know about that. As time has gone on so far he has become more and more popular.

I must admit the prospect I find terrifying is the idea of having Trump on the Republican ticket and Hillary on the Democrat ticket. That really would seem like a Ghostbusters-style "choose the form of the destroyer" scenario to me.

I think Trump's brashness must have a lot of appeal, especially among voters who believe (rightly or wrongly) that so many things they might say are censored by political correctness gone wild. There's a huge difference between looking to avoid brazenly offensive words for groups of people, and the modern-day approach that constantly tries to hide from causing any possibility of any offense to anyone. If people believe, rightly or wrongly, that they won't be able to eat pork in case it offends radical Muslims it's not surprising that they will rally behind someone who basically says "stuff the Muslims, round 'em up and send 'em home" even if "send 'em home" doesn't work because they are American citizens.

Hopefully as the final decision draws closer people will realise that a lot of Trump's bold proclamations are good for tub thumping but of little practical use in the real world. Unless people really want to walk (awake or asleep) into a situation more akin to 1930s Germany than anything that can possibly call itself the land of the free and demand that an entire religious group be marked and monitored (no doubt all the while howling manically about any perceived injustices meted out towards Christians while shouting approval of the same and worse being done to Muslims) let's hope that The Donald loses his shine before long.

 

[Lamb]

I must admit the prospect I find terrifying is the idea of having Trump on the Republican ticket and Hillary on the Democrat ticket. That really would seem like a Ghostbusters-style "choose the form of the destroyer" scenario to me.

Scary if that were to happen! I don't know what I'd want to happen next

 

[psalms 91]

I find a lot of what is going on scary for this country and for the people living here, I fear it will only get worse

 

[Ruth]

Just remember whoever is elected will have to put up with congress!!

 

[Highlander]

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Trump is grasping at straws now.

Actually, a man with a double digit lead in the polls does not grasp at straws because he does not need to.

The thing that many of you don't understand is that people do not care if Trump says an outrageous thing here & there. He is as far from being politically correct as possible -- and that is why the masses love him. They want someone in there who tells it like it is -- with pointblank language. They are sick and tired of Washington political types just saying whatever their donors and the establishment types want to hear.

He does not play political games and people love that because they recognize that politics in D.C. is rapidly destroying America and its founding principles.

As for Hillary, it really does not matter what she says or what he says about her. Hillary is a liar and an unindicted criminal -- and simply is not electable.

She would probably lose to Trump in a landslide. The only way she wins is if the Repub establishment bends the rules and steers another "system guy" (AKA Dole, McCain, Romney) into the nomination. Obama won the last election because 4 million Repub votes stayed home on election day. If another Romney type were to get the nomination, probably EIGHT million Repub votes would avoid the polls and then we would have Obama's 3rd term with Hillary.

That is if Hillary truly will be the nominee. There is a chance she could be indicted before the convention, which would automatically disqualify her from the ballot.

And that sure brings a smile to my face.

 

[tango]

Actually, a man with a double digit lead in the polls does not grasp at straws because he does not need to.

The thing that many of you don't understand is that people do not care if Trump says an outrageous thing here & there. He is as far from being politically correct as possible -- and that is why the masses love him. They want someone in there who tells it like it is -- with pointblank language. They are sick and tired of Washington political types just saying whatever their donors and the establishment types want to hear.

There's a big difference between "not being PC" and a load of tubthumping and rabble rousing. Trump appears to have well and truly crossed the line, taking what might be sensible concepts and taking them to silly extremes.

Build a wall across the Mexican border? Sure, never mind the people who currently use tunnels and private planes, let's have a wall that won't work.

Register Muslims on a central database? Sure, just like Nazi Germany would have done to Jews, had the technology been available.

Ban Muslims from entering the country? Why not, a few dozen clearly represent a billion people. Why not ban men from entering the country because a few are violent rapists.

It's easy to see why people are sick of the established parties when it seems both sides will sell the people down the river for their preferred corporate donors. But it's important to keep a sense of balance. If you routinely hit one gutter when bowling the answer isn't to aim resolutely at the other gutter.

He does not play political games and people love that because they recognize that politics in D.C. is rapidly destroying America and its founding principles.

Except some might argue that his tub thumping is a political game of its own, just not the same game people are used to.

As for Hillary, it really does not matter what she says or what he says about her. Hillary is a liar and an unindicted criminal -- and simply is not electable.

Unelectable? I suspect tens of millions of Democrat votes would disagree with you there. Personally I'd vote for a turnip before Hillary but untold numbers of people disagree with me.

She would probably lose to Trump in a landslide. The only way she wins is if the Repub establishment bends the rules and steers another "system guy" (AKA Dole, McCain, Romney) into the nomination. Obama won the last election because 4 million Repub votes stayed home on election day. If another Romney type were to get the nomination, probably EIGHT million Repub votes would avoid the polls and then we would have Obama's 3rd term with Hillary.

Doubtful to be honest. I suspect there would be enough left-leaning people who would vote for anyone to keep Trump out of the White House, and probably a fair few moderate Republicans who would struggle to cast their vote for him. Of the two parties I'd identify more closely with the Republicans than the Democrats and if I were to cast a vote for Trump it would be out of a sense of desperation to keep a greater evil out. I'd vote for Trump over Hillary but despite disliking most of what I've seen Bernie Sanders saying I'd have to seriously consider what to do if it did turn out to be Trump against Sanders.

That is if Hillary truly will be the nominee. There is a chance she could be indicted before the convention, which would automatically disqualify her from the ballot.

And that sure brings a smile to my face.

Personally I'd like to see Hillary and Jeb disqualified, simply to make it clear that the highest level of politics is about more than your last name. The list of presidents reading Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama-Obama really doesn't need another Bush or Clinton tacked on the end.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the establishment does about Hillary. Recent allegations that she may have stored Top Secret emails on her personal server should, if proven true, disqualify her from high level politics.

 

[Lamb]

So you're saying you wouldn't vote for Hilary?

With what type of group is she popular? What are the demographics?

 

[Highlander]

There's a big difference between "not being PC" and a load of tubthumping and rabble rousing. Trump appears to have well and truly crossed the line, taking what might be sensible concepts and taking them to silly extremes.

Rabble rousing is what is done by George Soros, Barack Obama and other Democrats. That is crossing the line. True that Trump sometimes says some outrageous things. But that is different than saying "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" or "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or "a woman who claims sexual assault MUST be believed and taken at her word?"

Build a wall across the Mexican border? Sure, never mind the people who currently use tunnels and private planes, let's have a wall that won't work.

I would safely guess that the vast majority of illegals are NOT coming over in private planes. And tunnels can be blocked. The wall works just fine for Israel and would work just fine for us. The only thing needed to make it work -- is to BUILD IT!

Register Muslims on a central database? Sure, just like Nazi Germany would have done to Jews, had the technology been available.

Any Muslim who is suspected of terror connections -- or anyone else for that matter -- MUST be tracked ..... unless, of course, you are satisfied with continuing murders of innocent American people by these scumbags. And, to educate you a tad, the Muslim terrorists are comparable to the Nazis -- not Trump or an American government that must keep track of suspected terrorists. Your kind of thinking, my friend, is why we are in such danger in the first place.

Ban Muslims from entering the country? Why not, a few dozen clearly represent a billion people. Why not ban men from entering the country because a few are violent rapists.

Once again, you are either lying or do not know what you are talking about. Trump said that a TEMPORARY ban on Muslims is needed for those coming from countries where terrorism is sponsored. Are you an idiot for thinking this is not a good idea?

It's easy to see why people are sick of the established parties when it seems both sides will sell the people down the river for their preferred corporate donors. But it's important to keep a sense of balance. If you routinely hit one gutter when bowling the answer isn't to aim resolutely at the other gutter.

Good point -- but probably unintentionally correct. We've been hitting the gutter for the past 7 years. And now Americans everywhere are demanding that we elect someone who is not afraid to throw strikes.

Except some might argue that his tub thumping is a political game of its own, just not the same game people are used to.

Part of it is for the bombastic impact. I'm willing to accept that as long as he continues saying the right things about how to handle the war against terrorism, how to straighten out the blackhole of Obamakare, get our economy back on track.

Unelectable? I suspect tens of millions of Democrat votes would disagree with you there. Personally I'd vote for a turnip before Hillary but untold numbers of people disagree with me.

The numbers are not untold. You can factor in the 30% or so of diehard Democrats who would vote for Hitler if he wore the big D. But very few Repubs AND swing voters will support the unelectable, unconvicted criminal named Hillary.

Doubtful to be honest. I suspect there would be enough left-leaning people who would vote for anyone to keep Trump out of the White House, and probably a fair few moderate Republicans who would struggle to cast their vote for him. Of the two parties I'd identify more closely with the Republicans than the Democrats and if I were to cast a vote for Trump it would be out of a sense of desperation to keep a greater evil out. I'd vote for Trump over Hillary but despite disliking most of what I've seen Bernie Sanders saying I'd have to seriously consider what to do if it did turn out to be Trump against Sanders.

Remember that Hillary is NOT electable -- and could even be beaten out by that 74 year-old socialist, Sanders. And now we have one of the few respectable Democrats, Jim Webb, who is threatening to run as a 3rd party candidate solely against Hillary's criminal activity. He is sickened by the fact that his party can do no better than support the candidacy of a lowlife who has engaged in criminal behavior -- and escaped prosecution -- for the past 30 years.

Personally I'd like to see Hillary and Jeb disqualified, simply to make it clear that the highest level of politics is about more than your last name. The list of presidents reading Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama-Obama really doesn't need another Bush or Clinton tacked on the end.

No argument here. LOL

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the establishment does about Hillary. Recent allegations that she may have stored Top Secret emails on her personal server should, if proven true, disqualify her from high level politics.

That should certainly disqualify her. So should many other crimes, including what she did with the White House Travel Office, illegal possession of over 900 FBI files, her allowing our embassy personnel in Benghazi to die just to save her and Obama's political careers, etc. Any of these things should have her doing 20-30 in a federal pen.

Well, at least we agree on one or two things. LOL

 

[Lamb]

Thinking about the wall and Highlander mentioned Israel having one and it worked, aren't there other countries that have built walls? Or even cities for that matter throughout history?