Presidential power

[RiverDog]

Well, although I wouldn't characterized it as "grabbed", I've touched a woman's privates without their permission on a number of occasions. At times, I received a positive response, other times got my hand slapped. I mean, you don't normally ask a woman "do you mind if I touch your privates?" Does that prove that I'd never turn down multiple hookers?

But you're right about it being a moot point. With each passing day, Donald Trump becomes less and less relevant. These questions as to "who's pulling Trump's strings and why" will be left for historians to figure out.

Well Trump described it as "grab em by the P#$$y, grab em by whatever". I'm assuming and hoping your number of occasions involved relationships or at least dates where it was a mutual thing. Everybody not a eunuch has those stories.

I was trying to make a point. There's almost never verbal permission asked for or granted in a typical romantic encounter, at least not in the ones I've been engaged in. It's an unspoken, 6th sense type of thing. But I've always been a "no means no" type of guy.

As far as the "Grab 'em" remark goes, the outrageous part of it wasn't that Trump said it, it was the fact that he was a man in his 40's with several daughters when he said it. As an unmarried 20 something year old, I might have said the same type of thing when in an audience composed of all males. Most normal men, as they grow older, gain a certain degree of sensitivity regarding their attitudes towards women, or least that was my experience.

Trump's victims report simply being assaulted by the man in all kinds of situations, in bars, in limousines, on airplanes. Genitals and breasts grabbed, pushed up against the wall, tongue kissed by a guy they just met..Bill Barr was using the DOJ to shield Trump from lawsuits from 2 of the women which will be moot now. He's admitted walking in on nude contestants on purpose with some as young as 15 verifying his stories. Nothing about any of that is normal or excusable.

It's hard to tell what's true and what isn't, particularly when the accused is famous and with tons of money. But the fact that there's been so many complaints and accusations about Trump's behavior that has stretched over so many years that it's one of those "where there's smoke, there's fire" type of things, so basically I feel that at least some of the rumors are more likely to be true than they are false.

Both Stormy daniels and Karen McDougal say Trump tried to pay them as if they were prostitutes. Melania has referred to Daniels as a "porn hooker" which drew a lot of anger in the porn community

Just a couple of terms. Daniels and McDougal are prostitutes. They perform sexual acts and/or poses for money. My understanding of a hooker is that of a street walker or call girl that performs sex in exchange for money, a little different than performing for a camera with the object of producing for sale pictures or videos, ie pornography.

[Aseahawkfan]

[
I was trying to make a point. There's almost never verbal permission asked for or granted in a typical romantic encounter, at least not in the ones I've been engaged in. It's an unspoken, 6th sense type of thing. But I am a "no means no" type of guy.

As far as the "Grab 'em" remark goes, the outrageous part of it wasn't that Trump said it, it was the fact that he was a man in his 40's with several daughters when he said it. As an unmarried 20 something year old, I might have said the same type of thing when in an audience composed of all males. Most normal men, as they grow older, gain a certain degree of sensitivity regarding their attitudes towards women, or least that was my experience.

The tape was from a 2005 discussion. That would have made him 59 or 60 when he said it. You were kind to him to say in his 40s. I think he's taking some kind of Testosterone Replacement Therapy to be acting like this and have this much energy at his age.

[Hawktawk]

He's also on tape with Howard Stern calling his daughter Ivanka a "hot piece of a$$, if she weren't my daughter Id be dating her". Asea is also right that access hollywood tape was 2010 when he would have been 63 or 64.The depravity of the man is boundless.

I believe all of what any woman says if its her word or Trumps.

[RiverDog]

I was trying to make a point. There's almost never verbal permission asked for or granted in a typical romantic encounter, at least not in the ones I've been engaged in. It's an unspoken, 6th sense type of thing. But I am a "no means no" type of guy.

As far as the "Grab 'em" remark goes, the outrageous part of it wasn't that Trump said it, it was the fact that he was a man in his 40's with several daughters when he said it. As an unmarried 20 something year old, I might have said the same type of thing when in an audience composed of all males. Most normal men, as they grow older, gain a certain degree of sensitivity regarding their attitudes towards women, or least that was my experience.

The tape was from a 2005 discussion. That would have made him 59 or 60 when he said it. You were kind to him to say in his 40s. I think he's taking some kind of Testosterone Replacement Therapy to be acting like this and have this much energy at his age.

Yes, I was being 'kind', or maybe lazy as I didn't want to look up the date and do the math. Point being that it's not uncommon for a very young adult to talk like that but much less common for a man his age.

Men in their late 50's/early 60's don't necessarily need supplements to support their sex drive. Trust me.

[Aseahawkfan]

He's also on tape with Howard Stern calling his daughter Ivanka a "hot piece of a$$, if she weren't my daughter Id be dating her". Asea is also right that access hollywood tape was 2010 when he would have been 63 or 64.The depravity of the man is boundless.

I believe all of what any woman says if its her word or Trumps.

I wouldn't believe Trump and his supporters or those against him. Both of these sides have made it clear they will say and do anything to beat the other side. Truth is optional in the Trump vs. Anti-Trump War.

[RiverDog]

I wouldn't believe Trump and his supporters or those against him. Both of these sides have made it clear they will say and do anything to beat the other side. Truth is optional in the Trump vs. Anti-Trump War.

That's just it. People have the tendency to believe what they want to believe. If you hate Trump, you're going to believe anything and everything that's said or written that portrays him in a negative light. If you're an Idahawkman-like supporter, you'll either disbelieve it or find some way to qualify or justify the behavior.

[Hawktawk]

I’m talking about believing him or the victims of his sexual assaults , not politics . When a guy like this runs for office it’s all fair game . With a guy like Trump who lies remorselessly I’ll always believe the woman .

[Aseahawkfan]

I’m talking about believing him or the victims of his sexual assaults , not politics . When a guy like this runs for office it’s all fair game . With a guy like Trump who lies remorselessly I’ll always believe the woman .

I'm sorry. I do not believe that woman writer accusing him. Her story is as dumb as they get. If your wife came home and told you the story she is telling, you'd leave your wife. E. Jean Carroll. Sorry, not buying it. No one else much is.

Hawktawk: "What happened?"

Carroll: "I was wandering around the store and I ran into Donald Trump. We talked a bit. He said he wanted to buy some sexy lingerie for his wife. He asked if I would model it for him alone in the store after hours. I did what he asked. Then he...." starts crying.

Sorry man, I'm out. That story is ridiculous. If my gf or wife told me she willingly chose to model sexy lingerie after hours in a store with Donald Trump, a known womanizer, then tried to claim he attacked her, I'd have left her about midway through that tale. Packed my suitcase and been gone. That's a level of stupid I'm not falling for.

[RiverDog]

I’m talking about believing him or the victims of his sexual assaults , not politics . When a guy like this runs for office it’s all fair game . With a guy like Trump who lies remorselessly I’ll always believe the woman .

You don't have to choose to believe either one or the other. You can choose not to believe either person.

[I-5]

Does anyone here think ALL of the women are lying? Half of them? Most of them?

Riv, I'm sure you've never grabbed a woman's privates that you didn't even know their names, and in semi public areas, as the multiple and credible accusations against him goes. At least I hope not. Trying to get to second base/third base/home is not in the same galaxy as what we're talking about with Trump. We are talking an entirely different level of misogyny and deviancy here.

Clinton was also depraved based on what we know and there is no defending his actions, but Trump makes him look like a choir boy in that department.

[Aseahawkfan]

Does anyone here think ALL of the women are lying? Half of them? Most of them?

Riv, I'm sure you've never grabbed a woman's privates that you didn't even know their names, and in semi public areas, as the multiple and credible accusations against him goes. At least I hope not. Trying to get to second base/third base/home is not in the same galaxy as what we're talking about with Trump. We are talking an entirely different level of misogyny and deviancy here.

Clinton was also depraved based on what we know and there is no defending his actions, but Trump makes him look like a choir boy in that department.

Does anyone here think ALL of the women are lying? Half of them? Most of them?

Riv, I'm sure you've never grabbed a woman's privates that you didn't even know their names, and in semi public areas, as the multiple and credible accusations against him goes. At least I hope not. Trying to get to second base/third base/home is not in the same galaxy as what we're talking about with Trump. We are talking an entirely different level of misogyny and deviancy here.

Clinton was also depraved based on what we know and there is no defending his actions, but Trump makes him look like a choir boy in that department.

I look at Clinton and Trump as low character because they cheated on their wives. I don't really care that they womanized. I know women were throwing themselves at Clinton and Trump in their younger years. I leave it to the authorities to figure out if it was a crime. I'm not there and don't have much power to affect the situation. I just know the E. Jean Carroll story was so ridiculous that I can see why even the media on the left isn't really jumping on that wagon. That story is just dumb. It was a story where it was pretty obvious she was pushing the story to get book sales. She's kind of a nut.

I don't even know who the other women are or care to learn. If they have the juice and credible evidence to bring down Trump or anyone else, then so be it.

I'm far more the kind of person to manage my life and not worry about others. I don't jump on bandwagons to bring people down. I'm mostly sad when I see someone like Cosby fall like he did. I really liked Bill Cosby. He was a great American success story and America's dad in the 90s. I have no idea why he did what he did. Seems insane.

But that's life. Lots of good and bad and everything in-between.

[RiverDog]

Does anyone here think ALL of the women are lying? Half of them? Most of them?

That's what I was referring to in my "where there's smoke, there's fire" comment. When there are so many complaints, from widely differing circumstances, and people that don't know each other, something is going on. I've seen supervisors and managers, one of whom was my boss, that were terminated when there wasn't a lot more than 'he said, she said' for evidence in any one case, but that a definite pattern had been identified.

Riv, I'm sure you've never grabbed a woman's privates that you didn't even know their names, and in semi public areas, as the multiple and credible accusations against him goes. At least I hope not. Trying to get to second base/third base/home is not in the same galaxy as what we're talking about with Trump. We are talking an entirely different level of misogyny and deviancy here.

Certainly not like Trump's been accused of. I was just making a point about the 'without permission' remark. The brush was painting too much area for my comfort.

Clinton was also depraved based on what we know and there is no defending his actions, but Trump makes him look like a choir boy in that department.

Trump has had more accusations and more of a tawdry nature than Slick Willy, but he's also been in the public eye for a much longer period of time than Clinton, in a different line of work, and has more money, so one can argue that Trump has been a bigger target. It's an apples vs. oranges comparison, but suffice it to say that I would not want either one of them as my son-in-law.

[RiverDog]

I look at Clinton and Trump as low character because they cheated on their wives. I don't really care that they womanized. I know women were throwing themselves at Clinton and Trump in their younger years. I leave it to the authorities to figure out if it was a crime. I'm not there and don't have much power to affect the situation. I just know the E. Jean Carroll story was so ridiculous that I can see why even the media on the left isn't really jumping on that wagon. That story is just dumb. It was a story where it was pretty obvious she was pushing the story to get book sales. She's kind of a nut.

It's actually the opposite for me. If I see a guy that's womanizing, which I define as throwing himself at women more or less at random strutting around like a peacock as if he's God's gift to the opposite sex, I develop a very strong resentment towards them.

I don't consider simple acts of infidelity a criteria for considering a person low character. It's something so common in American life that we'd have to lump a whole bunch of otherwise decent individuals into that category. Dwight Eisenhower cheated on his wife, but it was while he was overseas for 4 years fighting a war. Does that put him in the same league as a Clinton or Trump?

[c_hawkbob]

I look at Clinton and Trump as low character because they cheated on their wives. I don't really care that they womanized. I know women were throwing themselves at Clinton and Trump in their younger years. I leave it to the authorities to figure out if it was a crime. I'm not there and don't have much power to affect the situation. I just know the E. Jean Carroll story was so ridiculous that I can see why even the media on the left isn't really jumping on that wagon. That story is just dumb. It was a story where it was pretty obvious she was pushing the story to get book sales. She's kind of a nut.

It's actually the opposite for me. If I see a guy that's womanizing, which I define as throwing himself at women more or less at random strutting around like a peacock as if he's God's gift to the opposite sex, I develop a very strong resentment towards them.

I don't consider simple acts of infidelity a criteria for considering a person low character. It's something so common in American life that we'd have to lump a whole bunch of otherwise decent individuals into that category. Dwight Eisenhower cheated on his wife, but it was while he was overseas for 4 years fighting a war. Does that put him in the same league as a Clinton or Trump?

I'm totally with Asea on this one. A commitment to a life partner is one of the most important commitments a person can make, but until and unless that commitment has ben made I couldn't possibly care less about how often, how many or how much sex a person has or with whom. Zero resentment at all on that score.

[Hawktawk]

I'm sorry. I do not believe that woman writer accusing him. Her story is as dumb as they get. If your wife came home and told you the story she is telling, you'd leave your wife. E. Jean Carroll. Sorry, not buying it. No one else much is.

Hawktawk: "What happened?"

Carroll: "I was wandering around the store and I ran into Donald Trump. We talked a bit. He said he wanted to buy some sexy lingerie for his wife. He asked if I would model it for him alone in the store after hours. I did what he asked. Then he...." starts crying.

Sorry man, I'm out. That story is ridiculous. If my gf or wife told me she willingly chose to model sexy lingerie after hours in a store with Donald Trump, a known womanizer, then tried to claim he attacked her, I'd have left her about midway through that tale. Packed my suitcase and been gone. That's a level of stupid I'm not falling for.

Weird how its too dumb for you but it's one of the 2 suits the federal courts had allowed to advance against Trump along with a former apprentice contestant who was groped by Trump.Unlike you I see the weirder aspects of the story as making it more credible.If she wanted to alleged rape just say the guy raped me, why get into the discussion of lingerie? That what an honest person does, tells the story how it happened.

As for crying home to her husband she told a couple friends immediately who advised her to come forward which she didn't for decades but shes got 2 people who will vouch for her. If my wife came home and told me she was having a flirty banter with a guy and he drug her into a dressing room and raped her I wouldnt divorce her.I would kill that man. Flirtation is the lubrication of life and is zero excuse for sexual assault.

E Jean Carroll purportedly HAS A GARMENT WITH HIS DNA on it. The biggest problem for dumb as dirt is that he called her a liar, a disgusting person, referenced her now 70s appearance and said he HAD NEVER MET HER. There are photographs of them together. If Bill Barr was having to use the justice department to shield Trump from discovery including a court ordered DNA test which had been ordered its probably not a hoax.

I believe her.100%. With no justice department shield we will know soon enough.

[RiverDog]

I'm totally with Asea on this one. A commitment to a life partner is one of the most important commitments a person can make, but until and unless that commitment has ben made I couldn't possibly care less about how often, how many or how much sex a person has or with whom. Zero resentment at all on that score.

As far as my own personal outlook goes, I agree with you 100%. I have never cheated on my wife nor she on me. I am simply recognizing that infidelity is an act that is so common, both in today's society as well as my parent's generation, that we'd be discounting the character of one whole lot of people that we otherwise have a great deal of respect for, including people like JFK, Martin Luther King, the aforementioned Ike, and many others that we don't know about.

[c_hawkbob]

I'm totally with Asea on this one. A commitment to a life partner is one of the most important commitments a person can make, but until and unless that commitment has ben made I couldn't possibly care less about how often, how many or how much sex a person has or with whom. Zero resentment at all on that score.

As far as my own personal outlook goes, I agree with you 100%. I have never cheated on my wife nor she on me. I am simply recognizing that infidelity is an act that is so common, both in today's society as well as my parent's generation, that we'd be discounting the character of one whole lot of people that we otherwise have a great deal of respect for, including people like JFK, Martin Luther King, the aforementioned Ike, and many others that we don't know about.

Yet you would have less resentment toward someone for cheating on their spouse than for someone unattached for having an active sex life. I don't care how common it is, one thing is wrong and the other simply isn't. I don't understand why it would bother you at all.

[RiverDog]

Yet you would have less resentment toward someone for cheating on their spouse than for someone unattached for having an active sex life. I don't care how common it is, one thing is wrong and the other simply isn't. I don't understand why it would bother you at all.

Where was it that I was comparing premarital sex with extramarital sex? All I am saying is that I wouldn't discount an individual's character simply due to infidelity. I am not particularly 'bothered' by any consensual sexual activity between adults, married or otherwise.

[RiverDog]

Flirtation is the lubrication of life and is zero excuse for sexual assault.

You're right, it is no excuse for sexual assault and I have no sympathy for those that can't or won't control their hormones. But a court of law will take into consideration things like promiscuous behavior and dressing provocatively in a trial where a jury is trying to determine if there was consent or if the alleged activity occurred at all. That kind of behavior makes them less credible as a witness.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

I see no mention of the store being closed and some pre arranged session to model lingerie. I see a guy who approaches the woman who was quite stunning at the time and a well known socialite.

She admits playing along a while with what is a pretty risky skit to be sure.Again, that makes me believe her account even more. But it clearly turns in a second, she's shoved against a wall by a 6'3" 250 lb guy. She shoves him off and laughs and then he pins her down and has his way.

And again he was/is so stupid, so legally ignorant as to claim he never met her while trashing her appearance at age 70, calls her a disgusting liar etc. He's being sued for LIBEL and if this garment that our tax dollars were being used to prevent the testing of turns up his DNA its game set match.

Had he said, yep im casanova, I bagged her he would be home free. Everything he lies about he's guilty of. He told a lot more lies to sell art of the deal than this woman told to sell her book.

[RiverDog]

She admits playing along a while with what is a pretty risky skit to be sure. Again, that makes me believe her account even more.

I'm not sure why revealing a detail like that would make the rest of her story any more believable. She certainly doesn't want to put herself in a position of lying about it then have a witness surface or a video or audio from a security camera or cell phone come up that contradicts her testimony. There are laws that she could be subject to violating if she lied about it.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="RiverDog"]

I'm not sure why revealing a detail like that would make the rest of her story any more believable. She certainly doesn't want to put herself in a position of lying about it then have a witness surface or a video or audio from a security camera or cell phone come up that contradicts her testimony. There are laws that she could be subject to violating if she lied about it.[/quote

It makes it believable because it's the facts. She has to know it sounds a little bit better for Trump when it starts with jokes about trying on lingerie but its what happened so she tells the whole story.That's not on tape or film from the 1980s. It's just an honest woman giving an honest account of what happened. She says it happened this way and he says shes a disgusting liar he never met. That right there is a provable lie based on numerous photographs.

Clearly if she's lying shes opened up to a lawsuit, especially from this guy. The only suit is the one she's opened. Trump sues everyone he can win against but discovery would sink him like it did Bill Clinton. He threatened to sue every one of the 20 plus women who verified his boasts of assaulting women and has not. The federal courts have allowed these 2 lawsuits including Carrols to proceed in spite of the phalanx of legal representation employed by the president to stop them.

Yeah I believe her..I believe DJTs accusers.

[c_hawkbob]

Yet you would have less resentment toward someone for cheating on their spouse than for someone unattached for having an active sex life. I don't care how common it is, one thing is wrong and the other simply isn't. I don't understand why it would bother you at all.

Where was it that I was comparing premarital sex with extramarital sex? All I am saying is that I wouldn't discount an individual's character simply due to infidelity. I am not particularly 'bothered' by any consensual sexual activity between adults, married or otherwise.

In the exchange between you and Asea that I quoted before this post of mine that you're quoting. Seemed pretty clear to me, he said he didn't like them for cheating on their wives but didn't care about "womanizing", you said the opposite were true for you.

[RiverDog]

Where was it that I was comparing premarital sex with extramarital sex? All I am saying is that I wouldn't discount an individual's character simply due to infidelity. I am not particularly 'bothered' by any consensual sexual activity between adults, married or otherwise.

In the exchange between you and Asea that I quoted before this post of mine that you're quoting. Seemed pretty clear to me, he said he didn't like them for cheating on their wives but didn't care about "womanizing", you said the opposite were true for you.

This?

It's (extramarital sex) actually the opposite for me. If I see a guy that's womanizing, which I define as throwing himself at women more or less at random strutting around like a peacock as if he's God's gift to the opposite sex, I develop a very strong resentment towards them.

If that's what you're talking about, let me clarify my remarks and what I consider to be "womanizing":

The fact that a guy has a sexual affair, whether that be extramarital, premarital, homosexual, or anything else between two consenting adults, doesn't bother me near as much as the guy, married or single, that tries to screw anything that has two legs and considers himself to be God's gift to women, ie my definition of a womanizer. I'm sure you know the type. I'd put Worthlessburger into the "womanizer" category. Those types of guys infuriate me.

[c_hawkbob]

And that's where we differ (exactly the same ground we just covered) I couldn't care less about the womanizer but I hate the guy cheating on his wife (or with whomever he is in a committed relationship).

You might have called me a womanizer while I was in the Navy (and for a year or two afterward) and single, but I've never cheated on a wife or girlfriend or anyone to whom I had committed myself.

[Hawktawk]

And that's where we differ (exactly the same ground we just covered) I couldn't care less about the womanizer but I hate the guy cheating on his wife (or with whomever he is in a committed relationship).

You might have called me a womanizer while I was in the Navy (and for a year or two afterward) and single, but I've never cheated on a wife or girlfriend or anyone to whom I had committed myself.

I'm with River on this. There are degrees of culpability in this area. I've tried to live my life in a moral fashion regarding most everything since my late teens till early 20s which were really embarrassing looking back. But as a relatively handsome heterosexual male I have had to make some choices over the years, some difficult to make depending on the circumstances . Some of the most dangerous are right on the block after the friday night get together with all the middle age crazies and alcohol involved .Like Mack Strong said, "nothing good happens after midnight" I've had to flee situations to do the right thing but there are guys I know who are like a buzzard circling around waiting for someone to die watching women get drunk.And it takes 2 to tango. Single adults can go at it like rabbits for all i care but why make a commitment if you would rather be with someone else all the time?


Its a powerful attraction, the forbidden fruit. I've done my best, Im not perfect but I could have been in oh so much trouble if I had not had a conscience over the years. I do not respect married men who screw around on their wives or vice versa. I truly detest men who take it to the next level and force themselves on women.

[RiverDog]

You might have called me a womanizer while I was in the Navy (and for a year or two afterward) and single, but I've never cheated on a wife or girlfriend or anyone to whom I had committed myself.

I have a high school classmate that just about every female in my class can't stand. He lives way beyond his means, in high school drove a Corvette convertible, has been accused of spiking women's drinks, has asked a classmate's daughter, 25 years younger than us, out on a date. He's always saying things in the presence of us guys like "boy, I'd like to F her", or "man, that b**** could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch" He's what I consider to be a prototypical womanizer.

I have another friend, a guy I would consider one of my best friends. He is relatively shy, at least in comparison to a big mouth like me. We never talked about sex, women, etc, rather our subject included work, sports, etc. He was married to his childhood sweetheart. At least the times I've been around him, he's never so much as turned his head when a very attractive woman walked by us. I was shocked to find out that he and his wife were getting divorced. Apparently they had both been unfaithful to each other, but I don't know any details. He was pretty embarrassed about it, didn't want to discuss his marriage problems with me or anyone else.

So you tell me: Which person do you have more respect for?

[c_hawkbob]

So all people that are sexually active are crass A-holes like the first guy you described?

I never acted like that, but I worked in strip bars, hung out with strippers and hookers and was generally always willing, but never pushy or aggressive about sex. And for the most part we were all friendly, nice people. My first wife was a stripper and when we got married we stopped playing around with others (at least I did, I heard stories about while I was deployed, but I know those can be BS). You don't have to be a callous jerk to have fun when you're single.

As for your question, I don't judge. I wouldn't hang out with the first guy cause he sounds like a jerk. I probably would have liked the second guy better on a personal basis but not because of any moral evaluation. His issues were between him and his wife.

[RiverDog]

So all people that are sexually active are crass A-holes like the first guy you described?

We seem to have a difference of opinion on what a womanizer is. I do not consider everyone that is sexually active to be a womanizer. They are a sub set of the people you are talking about.

I never acted like that, but I worked in strip bars, hung out with strippers and hookers and was generally always willing, but never pushy or aggressive about sex. And for the most part we were all friendly, nice people. My first wife was a stripper and when we got married we stopped playing around with others (at least I did, I heard stories about while I was deployed, but I know those can be BS). You don't have to be a callous jerk to have fun when you're single.

I've been around strippers, too. I treat all women the same regardless of their occupation. I don't talk to them any differently than I would a nun or a grade school teacher. I haven't encountered a hooker for a long, long time, except for those that have approached me at random, but I'd treat them the same.

As for your question, I don't judge. I wouldn't hang out with the first guy cause he sounds like a jerk. I probably would have liked the second guy better on a personal basis but not because of any moral evaluation. His issues were between him and his wife.

The first guy is what I consider to be a prototypical womanizer. They're jerks, and I have very little respect for them. The second guy has lots of company, and like you, I don't have some sort of moral litmus test even though extramarital sex is something I've never engaged in even when I was going through a divorce, which was the point I was trying to make.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's actually the opposite for me. If I see a guy that's womanizing, which I define as throwing himself at women more or less at random strutting around like a peacock as if he's God's gift to the opposite sex, I develop a very strong resentment towards them.

I don't consider simple acts of infidelity a criteria for considering a person low character. It's something so common in American life that we'd have to lump a whole bunch of otherwise decent individuals into that category. Dwight Eisenhower cheated on his wife, but it was while he was overseas for 4 years fighting a war. Does that put him in the same league as a Clinton or Trump?

If a man will break his oath to his wife and children, then no reason to believe he would keep his word as a politician. Then again honesty and keeping your word has never been a necessity for the presidency.

[Aseahawkfan]

Weird how its too dumb for you but it's one of the 2 suits the federal courts had allowed to advance against Trump along with a former apprentice contestant who was groped by Trump.Unlike you I see the weirder aspects of the story as making it more credible.If she wanted to alleged rape just say the guy raped me, why get into the discussion of lingerie? That what an honest person does, tells the story how it happened.

As for crying home to her husband she told a couple friends immediately who advised her to come forward which she didn't for decades but shes got 2 people who will vouch for her. If my wife came home and told me she was having a flirty banter with a guy and he drug her into a dressing room and raped her I wouldnt divorce her.I would kill that man. Flirtation is the lubrication of life and is zero excuse for sexual assault.

E Jean Carroll purportedly HAS A GARMENT WITH HIS DNA on it. The biggest problem for dumb as dirt is that he called her a liar, a disgusting person, referenced her now 70s appearance and said he HAD NEVER MET HER. There are photographs of them together. If Bill Barr was having to use the justice department to shield Trump from discovery including a court ordered DNA test which had been ordered its probably not a hoax.

I believe her.100%. With no justice department shield we will know soon enough.

I'm going to post an article friendly to her from the New Yorker. Even this article sounds crazy as hell. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/e-jean-carrolls-accusation-against-donald-trump-and-the-raising-and-lowering-of-the-bar

E. Jean Carroll sounds batmuck crazy. I'm not going to argue it with you, but in this instance I don't believe this Carroll woman. Sounds like she did far too many drugs and is just casually talking about all the times she's been assaulted or what not as though it was a weekly occurrence. To me it seems like she's picked a good time to sell books by making herself a victim of the president.

If she has a case, the courts will figure it out. It won't be any criminal trial like you want, but maybe she can get some money and notoriety off Trump like she wants. That's a win for her. She sounds like character from Amercan Psycho, which makes sense since Trump was part of that New York high life in the book.

As far as you wanting Trump to get taken down, I'm still doubtful it happens. I doubt the accounting firms Trump pays to handle his books will have committed crimes on his behalf. The man's 74. Seems if they were going to catch him, they would have done it ages ago. But we shall see. We did see billionaire Jeffrey Epstein finally taken down for all his scumbaggery and Harvey Weinstein. So maybe you'll get your wish.

[Aseahawkfan]

I have a high school classmate that just about every female in my class can't stand. He lives way beyond his means, in high school drove a Corvette convertible, has been accused of spiking women's drinks, has asked a classmate's daughter, 25 years younger than us, out on a date. He's always saying things in the presence of us guys like "boy, I'd like to F her", or "man, that b**** could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch" He's what I consider to be a prototypical womanizer.

I have another friend, a guy I would consider one of my best friends. He is relatively shy, at least in comparison to a big mouth like me. We never talked about sex, women, etc, rather our subject included work, sports, etc. He was married to his childhood sweetheart. At least the times I've been around him, he's never so much as turned his head when a very attractive woman walked by us. I was shocked to find out that he and his wife were getting divorced. Apparently they had both been unfaithful to each other, but I don't know any details. He was pretty embarrassed about it, didn't want to discuss his marriage problems with me or anyone else.

So you tell me: Which person do you have more respect for?

In regards to the joint cheating, I'd think they were both kind of dumb. I've had this happen with people I know too. If you're not happy together, just step up and get divorced. Why create all this additional drama and headaches. I don't get it. Why engage in tit for tat low character BS. That being said as far as one act defining a life, not really how I see it. But there's no getting around that the act of cheating on your wife is a low character move. Just like if you help your friend through a tough time, it's a high character move. People are rarely defined by a single act in their life unless it's so extreme there's no getting around it like being a serial killer.

But in a president, it's hard to trust a person willing to cheat on his wife and children. I prefer a president that can keep his word at least to those closest to him or what reason do I have to believe him when he's yapping about what he's gonna do. Just not a trait I care for in the faceman leader of the country.

[RiverDog]

In regards to the joint cheating, I'd think they were both kind of dumb. I've had this happen with people I know too. If you're not happy together, just step up and get divorced. Why create all this additional drama and headaches. I don't get it. Why engage in tit for tat low character BS. That being said as far as one act defining a life, not really how I see it. But there's no getting around that the act of cheating on your wife is a low character move. Just like if you help your friend through a tough time, it's a high character move. People are rarely defined by a single act in their life unless it's so extreme there's no getting around it like being a serial killer.

I wish it were that simple. Lots of people stay together because of their kids, some for financial or career reasons, or that they don't want to have to move out of their home. Others are in denial, won't believe that their spouse has cheated on them even if they catch them in the act. Some are afraid of the social stigma of a divorcee. It's a very painful, excruciating experience of which I've had to go through.

But in a president, it's hard to trust a person willing to cheat on his wife and children. I prefer a president that can keep his word at least to those closest to him or what reason do I have to believe him when he's yapping about what he's gonna do. Just not a trait I care for in the faceman leader of the country.

So based on that, not only would you not trust Trump and Clinton, you wouldn't trust Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. I think it was Barry Goldwater, commenting on the subject of infidelity, that said if you ran out every politician that was having an affair the place would be a ghost town. And politics isn't the only occupation where infidelity isn't uncommon. Martin Luther King had multiple affairs. Would you not trust him? If you had a doctor you really liked and you found out that he had cheated on his wife, would you trust him?

And on the other end of the spectrum, Richard Nixon was faithful to his wife and despite being one of the most pursued politicians by the press, was never even rumored as to having had an extramarital affair. But his marital fidelity sure wasn't an indicator of his honesty in other matters.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wish it were that simple. Lots of people stay together because of their kids, some for financial or career reasons, or that they don't want to have to move out of their home. Others are in denial, won't believe that their spouse has cheated on them even if they catch them in the act. Some are afraid of the social stigma of a divorcee. It's a very painful, excruciating experience of which I've had to go through.

Happened to more than a few friends. Relationships are odd.

So based on that, not only would you not trust Trump and Clinton, you wouldn't trust Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. I think it was Barry Goldwater, commenting on the subject of infidelity, that said if you ran out every politician that was having an affair the place would be a ghost town. And politics isn't the only occupation where infidelity isn't uncommon. Martin Luther King had multiple affairs. Would you not trust him? If you had a doctor you really liked and you found out that he had cheated on his wife, would you trust him?

And on the other end of the spectrum, Richard Nixon was faithful to his wife and despite being one of the most pursued politicians by the press, was never even rumored as to having had an extramarital affair. But his marital fidelity sure wasn't an indicator of his honesty in other matters.

No. I would not trust them. Like I said earlier, honesty, trustworthiness, and good character in regards to women are not a requirement to be president, or even what many consider a good president.

Then again as I've stated many times, I don't really trust any politicians. The nature of politics is such that you can't really be that guy that keeps his word because you are beholden to so many interests.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not sure why revealing a detail like that would make the rest of her story any more believable. She certainly doesn't want to put herself in a position of lying about it then have a witness surface or a video or audio from a security camera or cell phone come up that contradicts her testimony. There are laws that she could be subject to violating if she lied about it.

This lady brought this case up from 25 years ago. She did it at the exact time she was selling a book about her life as a New York socialite. She claims she's been sexually assaulted so many times from the time she was 12 that she could apparently bring charges against nearly every male in her life. Not even the left wing press is pushing this one because the more you read her story and this case, the more she looks mental.

Trump's an ass. He treats women like objects, sleeps around a lot, and obviously probably did most of it. But in this case, this sounds like a woman rewriting her mental history to her financial benefit after a long life of crazy. She's about as trustworthy as Trump. If the two crazies go at each other, who cares. Once Trump is gone, I'll stop caring.

[RiverDog]

No. I would not trust them. Like I said earlier, honesty, trustworthiness, and good character in regards to women are not a requirement to be president, or even what many consider a good president.

Then again as I've stated many times, I don't really trust any politicians. The nature of politics is such that you can't really be that guy that keeps his word because you are beholden to so many interests.

I hear ya about the credibility of politicians. I can remember surveys from decades ago and politicians ranked down there with used car salesmen with regard to trustworthiness. Will Rogers has some funny one liners about politicians.

But you didn't answer the rest of my question: Martin Luther King was well known for his indiscretion. Does that make him any less of a leader of the civil rights movement? Or what about Richard Nixon? Does the fact that he never cheated on his wife make him any more trustworthy?

The point I'm trying to make is that honesty about marital infidelity is an outlier. It's not indicative of the trustworthiness of an individual on any other matter. The only problem I had with Clinton was his lying under oath and going on national TV and shaking his finger at the camera as if to teach us a lesson. Had he told the court or the press that his sex life was none of their f-ing business my respect for him would have increased 100 fold.

[Aseahawkfan]

I hear ya about the credibility of politicians. I can remember surveys from decades ago and politicians ranked down there with used car salesmen with regard to trustworthiness. Will Rogers has some funny one liners about politicians.

But you didn't answer the rest of my question: Martin Luther King was well known for his indiscretion. Does that make him any less of a leader of the civil rights movement? Or what about Richard Nixon? Does the fact that he never cheated on his wife make him any more trustworthy?

The point I'm trying to make is that honesty about marital infidelity is an outlier. It's not indicative of the trustworthiness of an individual on any other matter. The only problem I had with Clinton was his lying under oath and going on national TV and shaking his finger at the camera as if to teach us a lesson. Had he told the court or the press that his sex life was none of their f-ing business my respect for him would have increased 100 fold.

If Martin Luther King was cheating on his wife, then yes, that lessens his character and makes him less of a leader. I did not read up on him doing so. I also heard Gandhi was a really weird person. I think if both things were well known at the time of their lives, yes, it would have lessened both men tremendously. They are lucky if what has been said is true that social media did not exist at that time or they would have become less than they are.

In the past, people were very careful about hiding these character issues for a reason. I believe a big reason politicians are no longer considered trustworthy is because of their lying including infidelity has made it so few people trust them. I believe if you are a person who rises up to a position of leadership and people find out you're a cheater, they will trust you less and it will undermine your leadership position just as it has done to Clinton and Trump. And really American politics period.

I know for a fact when I find out a man has cheated on his wife, it diminishes him greatly in my eyes. You don't just cheat on your wife when you cheat, you treat the mother of your children like some nothing that you can embarrass, hurt, and discard at will. It is a terrible thing to do. Only slightly less terrible if you don't have children, but extremely terrible if you have children. You basically take the woman you swore an oath to love, care for, and be faithful after she has born and cared for your children, then discard her for a more attractive woman or a woman of convenience because you can? I'm sorry. It is a show of very poor character. I don't like it at all.

But as I stated before, one act does not define an entire life. These men obviously got done what they needed to get done. I don't care for the behavior of cheating. It's a low character behavior.

[RiverDog]

I hear ya about the credibility of politicians. I can remember surveys from decades ago and politicians ranked down there with used car salesmen with regard to trustworthiness. Will Rogers has some funny one liners about politicians.

But you didn't answer the rest of my question: Martin Luther King was well known for his indiscretion. Does that make him any less of a leader of the civil rights movement? Or what about Richard Nixon? Does the fact that he never cheated on his wife make him any more trustworthy?

The point I'm trying to make is that honesty about marital infidelity is an outlier. It's not indicative of the trustworthiness of an individual on any other matter. The only problem I had with Clinton was his lying under oath and going on national TV and shaking his finger at the camera as if to teach us a lesson. Had he told the court or the press that his sex life was none of their f-ing business my respect for him would have increased 100 fold.

If Martin Luther King was cheating on his wife, then yes, that lessens his character and makes him less of a leader. I did not read up on him doing so. I also heard Gandhi was a really weird person. I think if both things were well known at the time of their lives, yes, it would have lessened both men tremendously. They are lucky if what has been said is true that social media did not exist at that time or they would have become less than they are.

There's no 'if' about it. MLK was a serious cheat:

FBI monitoring devices recorded audio of King during a tryst at a Washington, D.C., hotel, eventually sending the tape to Mrs. King in an effort to discredit him in his own home. King even spent the last night of his life with a woman who was not his wife. In the chaos outside the Lorraine Motel, his advisers told the young woman to stay out of the ambulance to avoid tarnishing his legacy.

King’s right-hand man, Ralph Abernathy, wrote in his 1989 autobiography that the staff “all understood and believed in the biblical prohibition against sex outside marriage. It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation.” Abernathy also wrote that King had a “weakness for women” while (President Lyndon) Johnson – who considered King’s criticism of Vietnam a personal betrayal – called him a “hypocritical preacher.”

https://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-k ... ts-1028976

But as I stated before, one act does not define an entire life. These men obviously got done what they needed to get done. I don't care for the behavior of cheating. It's a low character behavior.

With MLK, JFK, FDR, LBJ, Ike, and other notable leaders of ours, their adultery wasn't just "one act". They cheated on their wives on multiple occasions stretched over decades. Even though FDR was incapacitated by polio, he continued to meet with his mistress, Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd, of whom he had promised Eleanor that he would never see again, and concealed their relationship from her. He was with Ms. Rutherfurd on the day he died. Eisenhower's affair with his driver lasted for four years. LBJ reportedly had an affair that lasted over 20 years, and of course, JFK's multiple escapades are well known and documented.

Then there's Richard Nixon, of whom by all accounts was very faithful to his wife, yet he lied his ass off to the American public.

The point I'm trying to make is that even though we may personally disagree with adultery, it doesn't seem to be an indicator of a person's leadership qualities and that there have been many, many leaders of whom we hold in high regard that engaged in the practice.

[Hawktawk]

I have a high school classmate that just about every female in my class can't stand. He lives way beyond his means, in high school drove a Corvette convertible, has been accused of spiking women's drinks, has asked a classmate's daughter, 25 years younger than us, out on a date. He's always saying things in the presence of us guys like "boy, I'd like to F her", or "man, that b**** could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch" He's what I consider to be a prototypical womanizer.

I have another friend, a guy I would consider one of my best friends. He is relatively shy, at least in comparison to a big mouth like me. We never talked about sex, women, etc, rather our subject included work, sports, etc. He was married to his childhood sweetheart. At least the times I've been around him, he's never so much as turned his head when a very attractive woman walked by us. I was shocked to find out that he and his wife were getting divorced. Apparently they had both been unfaithful to each other, but I don't know any details. He was pretty embarrassed about it, didn't want to discuss his marriage problems with me or anyone else.

So you tell me: Which person do you have more respect for?

I respect the second couple. You can fall out of love and much easier fall out of lust. When that happens the spouse is either worth putting in the work for or the connection is just gone. In that case affairs start regardless of the personality of the person and at that point the honest thing to do is go our separate ways.

My first wife was an absolutely stunning 6 foot tall LA doll rock band groupie who had partied with the likes of Ted Nugent. As a small town Coulee City boy, totally naive I married her after knowing her 3 months. By the end 5 years later I was the only guy in our hometown she hadn't been with it seemed. I fought for that marriage but it was for the better.That divorce needed to happen .Like I say it takes 2 to tango. I had guys I considered friends playing sancho if I was out of town and that was with my 1 and 2 year old kids in the house...

My second marriage has lasted 28 years, weve had one foot in the grave and one on a banana peel a few times but we are still standing. Marriage is hard. Divorce is hard. Choose your hard.

[Hawktawk]

This lady brought this case up from 25 years ago. She did it at the exact time she was selling a book about her life as a New York socialite. She claims she's been sexually assaulted so many times from the time she was 12 that she could apparently bring charges against nearly every male in her life. Not even the left wing press is pushing this one because the more you read her story and this case, the more she looks mental.

Trump's an ass. He treats women like objects, sleeps around a lot, and obviously probably did most of it. But in this case, this sounds like a woman rewriting her mental history to her financial benefit after a long life of crazy. She's about as trustworthy as Trump. If the two crazies go at each other, who cares. Once Trump is gone, I'll stop caring.

Its obvious she told the story to sell a book or at a minimum wanted the story to come out for whatever personal reason. But I dont blame her a bit.If it's true she has a right to tell her story. Having 2 relatives including a daughter who were sexually assaulted it can be a life sentence for some. Anything that makes them feel better outside of drugs I'm all for.

If this was made up trump would sue the hell out of her. For me its about 2 things. #1 the courts have allowed it to proceed including ruling against Bill Barr and the US Justice Dept shielding Trump by claiming his allegedly defamatory comments were made as part of his official duties of being president .

#2 She claims she has DNA and the courts have affirmed her right to have a DNA sample from Trump and a deposition which Barr has been shielding him from.

Again, He said he "never met her," she's "not my type". So its pretty much impossible for her to have genetic material, right? Obviously if she does have garment and it's what she says she understood the significance of preserving it from day 1 of the incident even though I'm not sure DNA testing existed at that time.. I dont think she would embarrass or perjure herself setting up legal jeopardy if she knew it was a lie.

If I'm DJT and Im innocent I say here's my saliva, go for it and when it isn't mine I'll take every dime that crazy broad has..When he does that I'll believe him, not her.