Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
shader

Trump and the 16 women

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, tonydead said:

It really hasn't.....blah blah.....it might have indeed.   Yeah, nothing confusing with your posts.  

You (and Tim) think it's possible to impeach Trump without charging him with something illegal.   That's nuts.

Link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantherclub said:

Yeah you both want him to resign based on his policies and you both are reaching for anything and now it appears you guys are using this white knight issue as the latest reason.  It actually all makes perfect sense now.  You hate Trump so you are feigning this outrage. 

Link?

I blatantly said I think he should be removed because he has the mental capacity of a child.  You don't need to make #### up :lol:   And it gets better when in my posts I say you can throw out this sexism, allegations of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment and there's still plenty to throw him out on.  Can't make this #### up :lmao: 

I don't need this particular set of allegations to be outraged with Trump :shrug: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, tonydead said:

These two think they can get Trump out of office based on their moral view of the world

again.....Link?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It would be helpful to the discussion if you would try reading what people write a little more charitably.

"We had our chance to speak up based on morality when we voted and that didn't work, even after the locker room talk.  That ship has sailed." It really hasn't

But there's an even bigger challenge of getting the willfully ignorant to acknowledge they made a mistake. That ship may have sailed.

Those are two different propositions he spoke on. 

Don't waste your time GB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Link?

 

8 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Link?

I blatantly said I think he should be removed because he has the mental capacity of a child.  You don't need to make #### up :lol:   And it gets better when in my posts I say you can throw out this sexism, allegations of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment and there's still plenty to throw him out on.  Can't make this #### up :lmao: 

I don't need this particular set of allegations to be outraged with Trump :shrug: 

 

6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

again.....Link?

 

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Don't waste your time GB

:mellow:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

 

 

 

:mellow:

 

Well, it was my battle, but as I read, I had a realization.....I'm done.  Don't let yourself get dragged into it....it's not worth it.  They don't care about what is actually being said, just their narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Well, it was my battle, but as I read, I had a realization.....I'm done.  Don't let yourself get dragged into it....it's not worth it.  They don't care about what is actually being said, just their narrative.

Oh, come now.  Let's not be defeatist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's what I mean by reading things charitably.  We all need to be better about it - everyone on the internet.  But when there are multiple possible interpretations of what someone wrote, it can be helpful to (1) ask "did you mean X, or Y, or Z?" or just "can you explain that more so I understand what you mean?"; or (2) assume the person means the one that is reasonable.  Of course, all that goes out the window with history, and long-standing arguments and such.  Just saying it can be helpful to discussion.

Agree for sure. We all (me first) can do better there reading comments charitably. And asking questions like you did today. It's the old Steven Covey "Seek first to understand, THEN to be understood" thing. It's basic communication 101 but I see so little of it. The same idea extends to all communication or relationships. Assume the best of others. Some will laugh it off as naive. I think it's a better way to live. And I think it absolutely produces better discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Agree for sure. We all (me first) can do better there reading comments charitably. And asking questions like you did today. It's the old Steven Covey "Seek first to understand, THEN to be understood" thing. It's basic communication 101 but I see so little of it. The same idea extends to all communication or relationships. Assume the best of others. Some will laugh it off as naive. I think it's a better way to live. And I think it absolutely produces better discussion. 

I almost edited immediately and added "Think 'What Would Joe Bryant Do, if he didn't already want to beat all our heads in with a lead pipe for how discussion in this forum often goes?'" but thought better of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

And to be clear, I'm not saying immediate assumption of guilt is the wrong response. It's just an observation. Certainly, the scales had been grossly tilted toward in favor of the people doing wrong in the past. Maybe this is a necessary counter. I dunno. It's mostly just an observation. 

Immediate assumption of guilt is kind of what we do. No reason this should be any different. The Duke lacrosse case, I definitely assumed they were guilty. 

Sexual harassment is a rotten thing to be accused of, and being falsely accused of it is a nightmare.  That nightmare scenario makes people imagine large numbers of innocent men, lives ruined because of vindictive women. 

I've been waiting for the " Hey, maybe this thing is going too far now" opinion pieces.

Wherever they come out, just remember that they are complete and total BS. 

For one thing, there are not large numbers of women that are willing to go through the humiliating experience of making the accusation, and it becoming the focus of their lives. And I'm talking about women that HAVE BEEN sexually harassed or assaulted. 

We can count this new reality in terms of weeks. Women have been putting up with this, and have seen their careers ruined, for DECADES. 

We are a long, long, long way from wondering if the backlash has gone too far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Oh, come now.  Let's not be defeatist.  

I don't think it's defeatist to spit out the hook.  It should be done a lot more around here.  I am happy to reengage if it's shown that they are actually reading what I am writing, but I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I almost edited immediately and added "Think 'What Would Joe Bryant Do, if he didn't already want to beat all our heads in with a lead pipe for how discussion in this forum often goes?'" but thought better of it.

Maybe a whiffle ball bat Buddy. Not lead pipe. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

Maybe a whiffle ball bat Buddy. Not lead pipe. ;)

Makes sense.  You want to savor it.  Really take your time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Makes sense.  You want to savor it.  Really take your time.

No savor. You guys are good. Part of the game. 

I know you're being lighthearted but I do think it's been a nice vibe to the board lately. A few that didn't want to be part of what we're doing and they're out for a bit but by and large, I think we've had some good discussion. Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't think it's defeatist to spit out the hook.  It should be done a lot more around here.  I am happy to reengage if it's shown that they are actually reading what I am writing, but I'm not holding my breath.

Agreed. I think it's totally fine to drop a conversation if you don't feel it's going to be productive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 2:59 PM, pantherclub said:

I guess I missed the court proceedings, carry on then

No court proceedings for Franken, Conyers,  Farenhold, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't think it's defeatist to spit out the hook.  It should be done a lot more around here.  I am happy to reengage if it's shown that they are actually reading what I am writing, but I'm not holding my breath.

I've pointed out several places where you've contradicted yourself in a single post and how at best your posts are confusing.  But, if you want to go ahead and claim people are fishing or trolling that would just be par for the course.

23 hours ago, The Commish said:

This is the comment I read.  To answer your question about how it affects me I'll say I have a daughter and a wife and a mother.  That's plenty of skin to be had.  I don't want the Trump alleged behavior to be acceptable, ever.  So much so that I am absolutely fine with guilty until proven innocent in matters of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  I also know I am barking up the wrong tree with a guy like he who's shown what you think of women in other threads.  I know you won't get it.  The above shows that you still don't get it and that's fine.  Only you have control over that.  We can't change your mind.

Here is where you started holding Trump, and everyone else apparently, to a higher standard than our legal system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I've pointed out several places where you've contradicted yourself in a single post and how at best your posts are confusing.  But, if you want to go ahead and claim people are fishing or trolling that would just be par for the course.

Here is where you started holding Trump, and everyone else apparently, to a higher standard than our legal system.  

Just locker room talk. Amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I've pointed out several places where you've contradicted yourself in a single post and how at best your posts are confusing.  But, if you want to go ahead and claim people are fishing or trolling that would just be par for the course.

Here is where you started holding Trump, and everyone else apparently, to a higher standard than our legal system.  

If you keep reading, you'll see I clarified that I am talking about the court of public opinion and that I completely understand our legal system and how it works and respect the process.  I believe it's in a response to DW.  Want to try again?  No matter how you twist it, context will always matter even if you don't want it to :shrug: 

Sorry...I missed the posts of my contradictions.  Was it this thread or somewhere else?  Not saying I haven't contradicted myself, but I'd at least like to see what you're talking about.  

Oh, and before we go down the morality rabbit hole, I FULLY acknowledge my morality is well above what's required to be "not guilty" in our courts of law.  I wish others would join me in raising that bar, but it seems like that's a pipe dream.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

If you keep reading, you'll see I clarified that I am talking about the court of public opinion and that I completely understand our legal system and how it works and respect the process.  Want to try again?  No matter how you twist it, context will always matter even if you don't want it to :shrug: 

Sorry...I missed the posts of my contradictions.  Was it this thread or somewhere else?  Not saying I haven't contradicted myself, but I'd at least like to see what you're talking about.  

Oh, and before we go down the morality rabbit hole, I FULLY acknowledge my morality is well above what's required to be "not guilty" in our courts of law.  I wish others would join me in raising that bar, but it seems like that's a pipe dream.

That's fine.  And admittedly you wanted Trump to stand down on his own. :lol:    It was Tim who wanted us to impeach him somehow.

 

Edited by tonydead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JIslander said:

Just locker room talk. Amirite?

No.  I'm suggesting you can't get the president impeached based on your own moral system or what you think he might have done.  If he's charged, sure.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

If you keep reading, you'll see I clarified that I am talking about the court of public opinion and that I completely understand our legal system and how it works and respect the process.  I believe it's in a response to DW.  Want to try again?  No matter how you twist it, context will always matter even if you don't want it to :shrug: 

Sorry...I missed the posts of my contradictions.  Was it this thread or somewhere else?  Not saying I haven't contradicted myself, but I'd at least like to see what you're talking about.  

Oh, and before we go down the morality rabbit hole, I FULLY acknowledge my morality is well above what's required to be "not guilty" in our courts of law.  I wish others would join me in raising that bar, but it seems like that's a pipe dream.

speaking of moving the goalposts......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonydead said:

No.  I'm suggesting you can't get the president impeached based on your own moral system or what you think he might have done.  If he's charged, sure.  

Got it. I'll stand by my morals of not grabbing strangers' #####.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know that I can put a quantifiable source for why I think that. It just seems to be how things are. All the NFL Network guys are suspended or cut pending investigation. Even if the investigation comes back ok, I'd say none of these guys is getting a job anytime soon in a public position. Again, I could be totally wrong - it's just how it feels to me. 

Allegedly one of them sent a video of himself masturbating to the accuser. If true, at the very least that is gross. I have a hard time seeing how it would not be unwanted, and certainly sexual. Whether it crosses any legal boundaries I'll leave to the lawyerguys.

It would also seem like this was fairly easy to prove one way or another. Does the accuser have the video? Does it show what she claims it does. Did she receive a video file from the accused in the timeframe she claims, etc.

So, suppose she took the video to HR, showed it to the manager, and said "there's this.a and these two other guys have been doing x,y and z which I want to stop, it's really bothering me"

What will the HR manager do? Exactly what was done here in this case. Get them off the air, and start damage control/investigating.

So the nature of the complaint, fits the visual from the outside - the only thing we the public can't/haven't seen is the video and the conduct of the other two accused.

When the outward appearances of actions by the network logically indicates more fire than smoke, that the accusation contains things that are easily verifiable, and still the actions by the netword indicate fire rather than smoke, why would you assume innocence?

 

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:

Allegedly one of them sent a video of himself masturbating to the accuser. If true, at the very least that is gross. I have a hard time seeing how it would not be unwanted, and certainly sexual. Whether it crosses any legal boundaries I'll leave to the lawyerguys.

 

 

I take it you have been in a cave for the past 5 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

I take it you have been in a cave for the past 5 years

Please show your work on societal changes vis a vis this topic, with citations

TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tonydead said:

That's fine.  And admittedly you wanted Trump to stand down on his own. :lol:    It was Tim who wanted us to impeach him somehow.

 

Actually, I want him to go down in a blaze of embarrassment if at all possible.  Obstruction alone justifies that IMO.  The guy is an embarrassment to mankind IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, pantherclub said:
13 hours ago, The Commish said:

If you keep reading, you'll see I clarified that I am talking about the court of public opinion and that I completely understand our legal system and how it works and respect the process.  I believe it's in a response to DW.  Want to try again?  No matter how you twist it, context will always matter even if you don't want it to :shrug: 

Sorry...I missed the posts of my contradictions.  Was it this thread or somewhere else?  Not saying I haven't contradicted myself, but I'd at least like to see what you're talking about.  

Oh, and before we go down the morality rabbit hole, I FULLY acknowledge my morality is well above what's required to be "not guilty" in our courts of law.  I wish others would join me in raising that bar, but it seems like that's a pipe dream.

speaking of moving the goalposts......

bless your little heart :wub: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Tinder

You are Sean Rad, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani, or Whitney Wolfe?

What the heck are you spending your time in FBG for?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, pantherclub said:

Yeah you both want him to resign based on his policies and you both are reaching for anything and now it appears you guys are using this white knight issue as the latest reason.  It actually all makes perfect sense now.  You hate Trump so you are feigning this outrage. 

This is not true, at least not for me (I can't speak for the Commish, but I suspect it's not true for him either.)

I want President Trump to resign, or to be impeached, because of his history of boorish, awful behavior. If you believe that this ship has sailed, or that I am ignoring the fact that many of his bad actions might not be illegal, then you apparently don't understand our Constitution. The Constitution deliberately does not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are; they are what the Senate decides they are. Impeachment is a political process. Impeaching and removing Trump because of his past actions towards women is perfectly legitimate.

I acknowledge the fact that this will very likely not happen. But it's what I want to happen, and I believe it is the only just outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is not true, at least not for me (I can't speak for the Commish, but I suspect it's not true for him either.)

I want President Trump to resign, or to be impeached, because of his history of boorish, awful behavior. If you believe that this ship has sailed, or that I am ignoring the fact that many of his bad actions might not be illegal, then you apparently don't understand our Constitution. The Constitution deliberately does not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are; they are what the Senate decides they are. Impeachment is a political process. Impeaching and removing Trump because of his past actions towards women is perfectly legitimate.

I acknowledge the fact that this will very likely not happen. But it's what I want to happen, and I believe it is the only just outcome.

How does his "boorish" behavior affect you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

How does his "boorish" behavior affect you?

I don't mean to put you down, but this is a terrible question and it makes you sound awful that you even asked it. (And that's aside from your use of quotation marks.) It makes you sound like you regard the leadership of this country only in terms of how it directly affects you personally, and that you expect everyone else to share your selfishness. I certainly don't. If our President mistreats women, that makes him a bad man. If our President is a bad man, then it's bad for our country and for the world.

There are things I care about even if my personal life is unaffected.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

The Constitution deliberately does not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are; they are what the Senate decides they are. Impeachment is a political process. Impeaching and removing Trump because of his past actions towards women is perfectly legitimate.

Not defending Trump:

Given the bolded ... ANY impeachment proceeding at all against any President is legitimate. Obama, for example, could've been impeached for wearing the wrong color tie.

Of course, impeachment is not removal. But still. Many politicians will want to be careful with treating Trump as some kind of sui generis, even as he really is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:07 AM, Henry Ford said:

Affleck won an Oscar in February after his story had already come out.  That's less than ten months ago.  That's six months after Ailes resigned.  Two months before O'Reilly was forced to resign. 

That was then and this is now:

http://deadline.com/2018/01/casey-affleck-academy-awards-withdrawal-best-actress-me-too-movement-controversy-1202269196/

Casey Affleck Withdraws From Oscars: Won’t Present Best Actress Award

EXCLUSIVE: Casey Affleck has withdrawn from presenting the Best Actress Award at the upcoming Oscars, Deadline hears. He has notified the Academy he will not be attending the event, sources said. I’ve heard that Affleck did not want to become a distraction from the focus that should be on the performances of the actresses in the category and that is why he made the proactive move. He was in a no-win situation, with all the attention surrounding the #MeToo movement. The specter of Affleck presenting would have created controversy.

Affleck won the Best Actor Oscar last year for his performance in Manchester By the Sea. Long considered an underrated actor with strong performances in everything from Gone Baby Gone to Out of the Furnace and Good Will Hunting, Affleck turned in a career performance in the Kenneth Lonergan-directed film as the shell of a man haunted by past family trauma. But attention right now isn’t on that accomplishment as much as the outcry over a settlement and non-disclosure agreements that followed allegations of inappropriate behavior toward two women who worked on I’m Still Here, the film Affleck directed that starred Joaquin Phoenix.

It has been a tradition at Oscars that the Best Actor winner presents the Best Actress trophy while the Best Actress winner presents Best Actor. Affleck’s decision alleviates a potential sore point for the Academy, and also eliminates an awkward situation for the five nominated lead actresses. Affleck’s hope is to put the focus back on their performances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, squistion said:

That was then and this is now:

http://deadline.com/2018/01/casey-affleck-academy-awards-withdrawal-best-actress-me-too-movement-controversy-1202269196/

Casey Affleck Withdraws From Oscars: Won’t Present Best Actress Award

EXCLUSIVE: Casey Affleck has withdrawn from presenting the Best Actress Award at the upcoming Oscars, Deadline hears. He has notified the Academy he will not be attending the event, sources said. I’ve heard that Affleck did not want to become a distraction from the focus that should be on the performances of the actresses in the category and that is why he made the proactive move. He was in a no-win situation, with all the attention surrounding the #MeToo movement. The specter of Affleck presenting would have created controversy.

Affleck won the Best Actor Oscar last year for his performance in Manchester By the Sea. Long considered an underrated actor with strong performances in everything from Gone Baby Gone to Out of the Furnace and Good Will Hunting, Affleck turned in a career performance in the Kenneth Lonergan-directed film as the shell of a man haunted by past family trauma. But attention right now isn’t on that accomplishment as much as the outcry over a settlement and non-disclosure agreements that followed allegations of inappropriate behavior toward two women who worked on I’m Still Here, the film Affleck directed that starred Joaquin Phoenix.

It has been a tradition at Oscars that the Best Actor winner presents the Best Actress trophy while the Best Actress winner presents Best Actor. Affleck’s decision alleviates a potential sore point for the Academy, and also eliminates an awkward situation for the five nominated lead actresses. Affleck’s hope is to put the focus back on their performances.

 

Uh huh. He withdrew. He wasn't shunned by the Academy.  He hasn't been banned from receiving awards.

Did you read the conversation you're replying to?  The one Joe and I were having? We were talking about people not being able to have a job in their chosen industries after an allegation.  Whereas Casey Affleck won an Oscar after his.

Casey Affleck has a movie coming out with Robert Redford this year.  I think he'll still be able to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Uh huh. He withdrew. He wasn't shunned by the Academy.  He hasn't been banned from receiving awards.

Did you read the conversation you're replying to?  The one Joe and I were having? We were talking about people not being able to have a job in their chosen industries after an allegation.  Whereas Casey Affleck won an Oscar after his.

Casey Affleck has a movie coming out with Robert Redford this year.  I think he'll still be able to work.

Probably be able to find work, but if they were to rerun the best actor nominations from last year, there would probably be a different result IMO. Doubt there will be future Oscars on his mantle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

Probably be able to find work, but if they were to rerun the best actor nominations from last year, there would probably be a different result IMO. Doubt there will be future Oscars on his mantle.

There's a big difference between "Won't be able to work" and "Won't be the highest-awarded member of his profession."  Also - Affleck paid out a settlement in his case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

There's a big difference between "Won't be able to work" and "Won't be the highest-awarded member of his profession."  Also - Affleck paid out a settlement in his case.

His future work may well be impacted, may not be considered or offered roles he was even a year ago. Would not be surprised if he doesn't make the final cut for best actor nominees. We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, squistion said:

That was then and this is now:

http://deadline.com/2018/01/casey-affleck-academy-awards-withdrawal-best-actress-me-too-movement-controversy-1202269196/

Casey Affleck Withdraws From Oscars: Won’t Present Best Actress Award

EXCLUSIVE: Casey Affleck has withdrawn from presenting the Best Actress Award at the upcoming Oscars, Deadline hears. He has notified the Academy he will not be attending the event, sources said. I’ve heard that Affleck did not want to become a distraction from the focus that should be on the performances of the actresses in the category and that is why he made the proactive move. He was in a no-win situation, with all the attention surrounding the #MeToo movement. The specter of Affleck presenting would have created controversy.

Affleck won the Best Actor Oscar last year for his performance in Manchester By the Sea. Long considered an underrated actor with strong performances in everything from Gone Baby Gone to Out of the Furnace and Good Will Hunting, Affleck turned in a career performance in the Kenneth Lonergan-directed film as the shell of a man haunted by past family trauma. But attention right now isn’t on that accomplishment as much as the outcry over a settlement and non-disclosure agreements that followed allegations of inappropriate behavior toward two women who worked on I’m Still Here, the film Affleck directed that starred Joaquin Phoenix.

It has been a tradition at Oscars that the Best Actor winner presents the Best Actress trophy while the Best Actress winner presents Best Actor. Affleck’s decision alleviates a potential sore point for the Academy, and also eliminates an awkward situation for the five nominated lead actresses. Affleck’s hope is to put the focus back on their performances.

 

Yeah, it was really awkward for Affleck get the award from Brie Larson. Who won it the previous year for Room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

Yeah, it was really awkward for Affleck get the award from Brie Larson. Who won it the previous year for Room

She’s on record talking about how uncomfortable it was being on the awards season tour with him. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

“When Trump asks Carroll to advise him on what to buy, she agrees, and the two eventually make their way to the lingerie section. Trump suggests a lace bodysuit and encourages Carroll to try it on; she, deflecting, jokingly suggests that he try it on instead. After they reach the dressing rooms, events turn violent. In Carroll’s account, Trump shoves her against a wall inside a dressing room, pulls down her tights, and, “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.””

:X :X :X 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ned said:

“When Trump asks Carroll to advise him on what to buy, she agrees, and the two eventually make their way to the lingerie section. Trump suggests a lace bodysuit and encourages Carroll to try it on; she, deflecting, jokingly suggests that he try it on instead. After they reach the dressing rooms, events turn violent. In Carroll’s account, Trump shoves her against a wall inside a dressing room, pulls down her tights, and, “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.””

:X :X :X 

Is this a dig at his size?  I mean probably not, she seems a serious woman recounting a traumatic event.  Strange how truth can emerge, unbidden.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This accusation is almost certainly true.  Won’t matter.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ned said:

“When Trump asks Carroll to advise him on what to buy, she agrees, and the two eventually make their way to the lingerie section. Trump suggests a lace bodysuit and encourages Carroll to try it on; she, deflecting, jokingly suggests that he try it on instead. After they reach the dressing rooms, events turn violent. In Carroll’s account, Trump shoves her against a wall inside a dressing room, pulls down her tights, and, “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.””

:X :X :X 

Well he opening admitted to just grabbing them by the p....I guess for once he wasn't lying

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be more than 16 women by now - @shader, title update, pls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.