Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's no proof Trump had anything to do with those spurned gold digging hussies other than their unsupported claims. There are no texts, phone logs, emails - anything. As for the Access Hollywood tape, every male in this country has done similar locker room boasting. I have had numerous friends and coworkers who were getting a little on the side. That's between them and their spouses, not me.That's about the poorest defense of Trump's morality I have ever read. Obama wasn't immoral because he didn't have the opportunity so that makes Trump's immoral behavior ok.Your belief that Obama and Hillary didn't lie couldn't be more hilarious. If Obama had the kind of opportunities that have presented themselves to Trump, there is little doubt that he would have strayed. His fidelity is the result of the fact that he is not attractive to most women. Being a "community organizer" isn't exactly a glamorous job.For starters, there's sex and lies as with most politicians.So what is the "immoral behavior" you're accusing Trump of?When it comes to outrageous immoral behavior, Trump is in a league of his own. Over the last 30 years Trump used the media shamelessly to create a public image and keep that image in the headlines, often making fools of reporters and editors. Now, he is president and the media which was his most important tool in promoting himself has become his deadliest enemy. For the media, it's payback time. The free ride is over and it's time to pay the piper.So what, fucking moron?
I was talking about Trump being a piece of shit scumbag who cheated on his wife who had recently birthed his child. A brain-dead con asked, but what about Pelosi, Schumer and Waters.
I noted how their only defense of trump was another, butwhataboutism, to which you idiotically thought that made me a hypocrite.
Well, fucking moron, for me to be a hypocrite here, at least one of those Democrats would need to be a piece of shit scumbag cheater like trump.
Savvy?
However what separates Trump from his predecessors is volume and lack any remorse. Trump lies to illustrate a point, please his audience or himself. I doubt he see anything wrong with his lies. His infidelities and other sexual behavior seem to be source of pride, whether it's groping women, infidelities, or other activities he spoke of on late night shows, he seems to take great pride in his transgressions.
How many times has Trump cheated on his wives? Here's what we know
How can anyone defend Trump's morality after the Access Hollywood tape, release of recordings of Trump on the Howard Stern Show, and his involvement with porn stars while he was married to Melana and just months after she gave birth to Baron?
no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
Evidence of what? How do you post evidence of something that never happened?Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...
You repeatedly ask others for evidence, but you NEVER provide evidence of your own when asked. How odd.
Unless he has other shareholders, the businesses money is his money.no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
Evidence of what? How do you post evidence of something that never happened?Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.How about sending a goon to threaten Stormy Daniels child?
You repeatedly ask others for evidence, but you NEVER provide evidence of your own when asked. How odd.
Sure...if he actually done those things in your fantasy head.At that time, marital indiscretions were considered a personal issue and most politicians did not want to cross that line. There were people in the White House who knew about JFK's extramarital relations but most people in Washington considered it just a rumor and the public was unaware.Oh? Which of those Democrats cheated on their spouse? When you can't name one, let this serve as a reminder for why you're a fucking moron.In other words, you're proud to be a hypocrite.LOLOL
Buh... buh... buh....... butwhatabout.....!!!
People of both parties are humans... and that means people of both parties cheat on their spouses. Kennedy cheated on his wife, but he most certainly wasn't the first, and we know he wasn't the last.
Of course it's a different world today where there are no boundaries in regard to the personal life of politicians. Everything is fair game.
Trump has even used his promiscuous behavior and bedroom adventures as a stepping stone to notoriety. Whatever was needed to keep his name on the front page, he considered good press. Consider the following.
Former New York Post journalist speaks out about the famous story—and, yes, the backstory is just as ridiculous as you’d imagine.
The Story Behind Trump’s Infamous ‘Best Sex I Ever Had’ Headline
Oh yeah... I mean Trump would call newspapers and act like a PR agent for himself under an assumed identity to spread rumors and get his name in the paper. It's crazy he wants his cake and eat it too. He would use the media to get attention, but suddenly when the media reports things he doesn't like they are the enemy. He is getting what he deserves.
Evidence of what? How do you post evidence of something that never happened?Did you believe I wouldn't notice that you posted no evidence that anyone threatened Stormy's child?Now you don’t believe that? Last week you didn’t believe he colluded, or that he paid someone off to keep quiet, and now you and Rudy are arguing those things aren’t a crime because you now admit he did the things you said he didn’t do. You are losing credibilitySays no one but Stormy.
You repeatedly ask others for evidence, but you NEVER provide evidence of your own when asked. How odd.
Sure...if he actually done those things in your fantasy head.At that time, marital indiscretions were considered a personal issue and most politicians did not want to cross that line. There were people in the White House who knew about JFK's extramarital relations but most people in Washington considered it just a rumor and the public was unaware.Oh? Which of those Democrats cheated on their spouse? When you can't name one, let this serve as a reminder for why you're a fucking moron.In other words, you're proud to be a hypocrite.
People of both parties are humans... and that means people of both parties cheat on their spouses. Kennedy cheated on his wife, but he most certainly wasn't the first, and we know he wasn't the last.
Of course it's a different world today where there are no boundaries in regard to the personal life of politicians. Everything is fair game.
Trump has even used his promiscuous behavior and bedroom adventures as a stepping stone to notoriety. Whatever was needed to keep his name on the front page, he considered good press. Consider the following.
Former New York Post journalist speaks out about the famous story—and, yes, the backstory is just as ridiculous as you’d imagine.
The Story Behind Trump’s Infamous ‘Best Sex I Ever Had’ Headline
Oh yeah... I mean Trump would call newspapers and act like a PR agent for himself under an assumed identity to spread rumors and get his name in the paper. It's crazy he wants his cake and eat it too. He would use the media to get attention, but suddenly when the media reports things he doesn't like they are the enemy. He is getting what he deserves.
no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
he did those things.... I remember them happening, when they happened.... and Marla is on the record confirming it....Sure...if he actually done those things in your fantasy head.At that time, marital indiscretions were considered a personal issue and most politicians did not want to cross that line. There were people in the White House who knew about JFK's extramarital relations but most people in Washington considered it just a rumor and the public was unaware.Oh? Which of those Democrats cheated on their spouse? When you can't name one, let this serve as a reminder for why you're a fucking moron.In other words, you're proud to be a hypocrite.
People of both parties are humans... and that means people of both parties cheat on their spouses. Kennedy cheated on his wife, but he most certainly wasn't the first, and we know he wasn't the last.
Of course it's a different world today where there are no boundaries in regard to the personal life of politicians. Everything is fair game.
Trump has even used his promiscuous behavior and bedroom adventures as a stepping stone to notoriety. Whatever was needed to keep his name on the front page, he considered good press. Consider the following.
Former New York Post journalist speaks out about the famous story—and, yes, the backstory is just as ridiculous as you’d imagine.
The Story Behind Trump’s Infamous ‘Best Sex I Ever Had’ Headline
Oh yeah... I mean Trump would call newspapers and act like a PR agent for himself under an assumed identity to spread rumors and get his name in the paper. It's crazy he wants his cake and eat it too. He would use the media to get attention, but suddenly when the media reports things he doesn't like they are the enemy. He is getting what he deserves.
before you open your mouth again, may I suggest you read the court records of the indictment that I just posted....no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
another bs really gotcha this time claim
you are such a fool
before you open your mouth again, may I suggest you read the court records of the indictment that I just posted....no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
another bs really gotcha this time claim
you are such a fool
the campaign finance laws broken are listed and explained beginning on page 10....
Michael Cohen plea deal court document - August 21, 2018 | Credit | Loans
I don't think it is that major of a deal for President Trump...before you open your mouth again, may I suggest you read the court records of the indictment that I just posted....no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
another bs really gotcha this time claim
you are such a fool
the campaign finance laws broken are listed and explained beginning on page 10....
Michael Cohen plea deal court document - August 21, 2018 | Credit | Loans
go est shit ya leftie
i have long ago posted the two fake charges that this twit "plead"too
doesnt mean squat for Trump except to you leftist Kooks
this aint going nowhere
I don't think it is that major of a deal for President Trump...before you open your mouth again, may I suggest you read the court records of the indictment that I just posted....no he didn't, he spent his business's and charity's money, not his personal or individual, money? the Trump Organization/Trust/Foundation paid for it.... I do not believe that is considered the same.....??Trump spent his own money.
another bs really gotcha this time claim
you are such a fool
the campaign finance laws broken are listed and explained beginning on page 10....
Michael Cohen plea deal court document - August 21, 2018 | Credit | Loans
go est shit ya leftie
i have long ago posted the two fake charges that this twit "plead"too
doesnt mean squat for Trump except to you leftist Kooks
this aint going nowhere
yes, he is an unindicted co-conspirator in the crimes.... but really, to me, it's simply small fry....
When the tally is done though, and all the small fry crimes are added together, it could become a big deal...
but if this only, were it.... then it stays small fry, to me...
This article is nonsense. The purpose of the reform is not to steal land from farmers and give it to tribes that no nothing about farming. That is how it is being framed by opponents. The purpose of the legislation is to return the land to labor tenants.Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with whitey is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.Lol, it IS the same thing, and the killings of farmers has gone DOWN.
You are ignoring the point of me mentioning Apartheid. Again, do you know what happened to those in government that took part in Apartheid???
It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.
They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.
What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?
What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
This article is nonsense. The purpose of the reform is not to steal land from farmers and give it to tribes that no nothing about farming. That is how it is being framed by opponents. The purpose of the legislation is to return the land to labor tenants.Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with whitey is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.
It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.
They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.
What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?
What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
There are 22,000 labor tenants who submitted claims against the land owners. Most of the owners are not farmers, they are just landlords, often large corporations, trusts, or banks. Labor tenants are people who have lived on the land and worked the land for generations. But they are more than farm workers, labor tenants farm on the land in exchange for their labor. The closest equivalent in the US would be sharecroppers. However the lot these people have been dealt is worst than sharecroppers. In order to farm the land the families must labor for the land owner for the right to farm the land. In most cases they must either pay rent in addition to their labor for the landlord or a percent of the crop. Since the land owners stole the land from the these people, there is certainly justice in returning it to them. Transferring the land to labor tenants is not a major issue. It is doing so without compensating the landowner.
This article is nonsense. The purpose of the reform is not to steal land from farmers and give it to tribes that no nothing about farming. That is how it is being framed by opponents. The purpose of the legislation is to return the land to labor tenants.Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?It's not the same thing. Only a moral leper would equate the two. Apartheid is over, so it's irrelevant. Getting even with whitey is not a legitimate government function, you Stalinist douchebag. Any government that does that is a tyranny, and any who makes excuses for it is a thug.
It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.
They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.
What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?
What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
There are 22,000 labor tenants who submitted claims against the land owners. Most of the owners are not farmers, they are just landlords, often large corporations, trusts, or banks. Labor tenants are people who have lived on the land and worked the land for generations. But they are more than farm workers, labor tenants farm on the land in exchange for their labor. The closest equivalent in the US would be sharecroppers. However the lot these people have been dealt is worst than sharecroppers. In order to farm the land the families must labor for the land owner for the right to farm the land. In most cases they must either pay rent in addition to their labor for the landlord or a percent of the crop. Since the land owners stole the land from the these people, there is certainly justice in returning it to them. Transferring the land to labor tenants is not a major issue. It is doing so without compensating the landowner.
This article is nonsense. The purpose of the reform is not to steal land from farmers and give it to tribes that no nothing about farming. That is how it is being framed by opponents. The purpose of the legislation is to return the land to labor tenants.Blacks have been murdering whites ever since the end of Apartheid. You're trying to say that's acceptable. It isn't. Blacks were denied the right to vote. They weren't murdered in their beds in the middle of the nights like they are currently doing to whites. They also aren't changing their country for the better with this so-called "land reform."What does that have to do with black thugs stealing the land of totally innocent farmers and then murdering them?It's not irrelevant, it proves a point that you continue to ignore. I knew you wouldn't know what happened after Apartheid because you don't pay to attention when people you don't like do fair shit.
They did what is called Truth and Reconciliation Hearings. When Blacks took power in South Africa, they didn't act out in a vindictive manner. No they allowed people that had committed horrible crimes against to come before the commission and admit their acts in return for forgiveness and amnesty.
What "horrible crimes" are you referring to? Committed against who?
What does it have to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If Blacks had any time that could even remotely be called acceptable for them to commit violence against whites it would have been after the end of Apartheid, and it didn't happen. What is going on now is NOTHING like how you are trying to make it. After several years of widespread suppression and abuse, the Blacks of South Africa instead turned the other cheek and looked to change their country for the better. Yet here you are trying to spread a lie that there is widespread killings of white farmers by Blacks, and that isn't true.
Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)
In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.
There are 22,000 labor tenants who submitted claims against the land owners. Most of the owners are not farmers, they are just landlords, often large corporations, trusts, or banks. Labor tenants are people who have lived on the land and worked the land for generations. But they are more than farm workers, labor tenants farm on the land in exchange for their labor. The closest equivalent in the US would be sharecroppers. However the lot these people have been dealt is worst than sharecroppers. In order to farm the land the families must labor for the land owner for the right to farm the land. In most cases they must either pay rent in addition to their labor for the landlord or a percent of the crop. Since the land owners stole the land from the these people, there is certainly justice in returning it to them. Transferring the land to labor tenants is not a major issue. It is doing so without compensating the landowner.
Yeah the articles I've read said something like 72% of farm land is owned by like 2% of the population.
