MaxEntropy_Man wrote:His opinion is besides the point. It's important what voters think of his crudeness.

goodcitizn wrote:If you were to ask Trump, he'd probably say that he wouldn't be the first womanizer to become the POTUS.

confuzzled dude wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:If you were to ask Trump, he'd probably say that he wouldn't be the first womanizer to become the POTUS.

But this aint 1961 or even 2000. Times have changed.

Hellsangel wrote:The irony of it is that it comes from Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" Blythe supporters.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The irony of it is that it comes from Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" Blythe supporters.

are you truly unable to distinguish between a consensual extramarital relationship and routinely getting on a radio talk show to talk crudely about women as if they were slabs of meat? what is objectionable is not that the short-fingered vulgarian had multiple sexual relationships, but that he spoke about them in terms that reduced these women to breasts, vaginas, and blow jobs. in a later post you ask if americans have become prudes suddenly when confuzzled dude reminded you that this not the era of mad men. no, americans haven't become any more prudish than they were fifty years ago, but american women have redefined the acceptability of crude speech in the public sphere, and that's not a bad thing. i reiterate, this is a motherlode and hillary's superPACs should exploit it to the hilt.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The irony of it is that it comes from Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" Blythe supporters.

are you truly unable to distinguish between a consensual extramarital relationship and routinely getting on a radio talk show to talk crudely about women as if they were slabs of meat? what is objectionable is not that the short-fingered vulgarian had multiple sexual relationships, but that he spoke about them in terms that reduced these women to breasts, vaginas, and blow jobs. in a later post you ask if americans have become prudes suddenly when confuzzled dude reminded you that this not the era of mad men. no, americans haven't become any more prudish than they were fifty years ago, but american women have redefined the acceptability of crude speech in the public sphere, and that's not a bad thing. i reiterate, this is a motherlode and hillary's superPACs should exploit it to the hilt.

Madmen? Il Professore, this is the age of Game of Thrones, Ray Donovan, Ballers and others. If anything, it is far worse. Look them up. Keep up with the times.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The irony of it is that it comes from Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" Blythe supporters.

are you truly unable to distinguish between a consensual extramarital relationship and routinely getting on a radio talk show to talk crudely about women as if they were slabs of meat? what is objectionable is not that the short-fingered vulgarian had multiple sexual relationships, but that he spoke about them in terms that reduced these women to breasts, vaginas, and blow jobs. in a later post you ask if americans have become prudes suddenly when confuzzled dude reminded you that this not the era of mad men. no, americans haven't become any more prudish than they were fifty years ago, but american women have redefined the acceptability of crude speech in the public sphere, and that's not a bad thing. i reiterate, this is a motherlode and hillary's superPACs should exploit it to the hilt.

Madmen? Il Professore, this is the age of Game of Thrones, Ray Donovan, Ballers and others. If anything, it is far worse. Look them up. Keep up with the times.

i am sufficiently up on the times to know that male sexual behavior that was considered acceptable in the workplace even ten years ago will result in loss of employment in contemporary america. i don't see why that shouldn't extend to the oval office.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The irony of it is that it comes from Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" Blythe supporters.

are you truly unable to distinguish between a consensual extramarital relationship and routinely getting on a radio talk show to talk crudely about women as if they were slabs of meat? what is objectionable is not that the short-fingered vulgarian had multiple sexual relationships, but that he spoke about them in terms that reduced these women to breasts, vaginas, and blow jobs. in a later post you ask if americans have become prudes suddenly when confuzzled dude reminded you that this not the era of mad men. no, americans haven't become any more prudish than they were fifty years ago, but american women have redefined the acceptability of crude speech in the public sphere, and that's not a bad thing. i reiterate, this is a motherlode and hillary's superPACs should exploit it to the hilt.

now that we know the extent of drumpf's crudity, it is clear he can't get a job in corporate america (good thing he is self employed), in academia, or any NGO. given that, why do  you think the position of POTUS is fair game?

silvermani wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The irony of it is that it comes from Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" Blythe supporters.

are you truly unable to distinguish between a consensual extramarital relationship and routinely getting on a radio talk show to talk crudely about women as if they were slabs of meat? what is objectionable is not that the short-fingered vulgarian had multiple sexual relationships, but that he spoke about them in terms that reduced these women to breasts, vaginas, and blow jobs. in a later post you ask if americans have become prudes suddenly when confuzzled dude reminded you that this not the era of mad men. no, americans haven't become any more prudish than they were fifty years ago, but american women have redefined the acceptability of crude speech in the public sphere, and that's not a bad thing. i reiterate, this is a motherlode and hillary's superPACs should exploit it to the hilt.

now that we know the extent of drumpf's crudity, it is clear he can't get a job in corporate america (good thing he is self employed), in academia, or any NGO. given that, why do  you think the position of POTUS is fair game?

Whose consent? Hitlary's? Bill was a predator who seduced a naive intern and shrillary, instead of dumping his sorry ass, stayed with him to fulfill her political ambitions.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:His opinion is besides the point. It's important what voters think of his crudeness.

Short fingered vulgarian is an excellent description of this anal orifice.

Hellsangel wrote:Breaking bad.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Breaking bad.

I am pretty sure Trump is going to win. Hillary - being a politician - cannot slip or make any mistake. Trump - being a clown - can afford to say/do whatever and people will justify and forgive him.

Hillary is done - fortunately or unfortunately.

Hellsangel wrote:Breaking bad.