[SK in CV]

Nicely done. Your survival is important. I’m sure your children appreciate you saving their mother.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
The “Faustian bargain” refers to the several that HRC made with her so-called “spouse” over the years. Certainly, you knew that. But maybe not. Maybe you’re not as smart as I originally thought you were, SK.[/quote]

There is zero chance that you were referring to Hillary Clinton making a faustian bargain. But great deflection there.

And you really can’t help yourself, can you? You can’t write a comment without insulting women. You and Trump are made for each other.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

One of my very first sentences about this issue today is that I didn’t understand why this “has-been” (apt description) was able to capture the attention of the MSM for FOUR WHOLE BUSINESS DAYS . You know the liberal noobs over at MSNBC love to make fun of Donald … especially when the news cycle is “slow.” Not that the Donald gives a whit.

I agree. Machado should have disappeared into oblivion after her first 14.99 minutes of fame were up.[/quote]

LOL. This really is hilarious. Blaming the media for what Trump has done himself. He could have apologized and moved on. He didn’t. He doubled down. Tweeted about it at 3 AM 4 days AFTER Ms. Machado became an issue, essentially slut-shaming her in the middle of the night, accusing her of having been in a sex tape (while he actually did that), and continuing to insult her.

They don’t make fun of Trump because it’s a slow news cycle. There were actually much more serious news, evidence of him violating numerous state and federal laws, but Trump made his insults of women the news. He, like you, can’t stop insulting women.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]SK, you must be aware that Machado, by virtue of her vitriolic attack on a US presidential candidate just ~44 days before the general election and just 45 days after she herself became a US citizen is fair game. She is a 39-year old adult who put herself out there! The fact that she did it at the behest of the Clinton campaign is irrelevant to whether her “testimony” about her experience with DJT ~20 years ago is credible . . . or not. Her words will be judged against her demeanor, any video and print “evidence” out there to corroborate her story or past history and her own track record. She has no protection and the Clinton campaign certainly can’t offer her any.

If she can’t take the heat that SHE created, she should have never walked into the kitchen to begin with. When you make a Faustian deal with the devil, sometimes you end up inadvertently selling your soul. Just ask your candidate, HRC.[/quote]

Wrong answer. What I asked is why it’s pertinent. Trump humiliated her. His response is to attempt to humiliate her again. Any decent human being would apologize. But then, based on his response, and yours, neither of you are decent human beings. There’s no reason to dispute it based on me not knowing you. You’ve told us who you are. You think it’s ok for men to humiliate women, and then humiliate them again when their called on it.

And you really shouldn’t use phrases you don’t understand. There was nothing that fits the definition of a faustian bargain in your candidates horrendous behavior.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]JFC. Trump has never denied that he called her what he was accused of calling her. Logically, we can stipulate that he did it. Only someone incapable of logic would dispute that. That really is the whole story. None of the rest is the least bit important.[/quote]He didn’t specifically deny it because the whole allegation blindsided him during the debate. He deals with so many people every day that he probably had to take time later, after the debate, to think back that far to try to remember the person better and what all went down between them. Fortunately, much of Trump’s life has been covered by the media.[/quote]

He STILL hasn’t denied it. He did it. The evidence is overwhelming he’s done it. He’s said dozens of similar things about other women. There is a pattern.

[quote=bearishgurl]
[quote=SK in CV]You have no evidence that she gained 65 lbs or any other amount of weight. She said it was 19 lbs. That you think it’s meaningful is disgusting.[/quote]The different numbers on the web for her weight after being crowned Miss U were 160, 165 and 170. I don’t know which one was correct.[/quote]

Yes, you don’t know. So we can stipulate that it’s just as likely that she gained 19 lbs as she said as it is any other number.

[quote=bearishgurl]
[quote=SK in CV]She has no reason to deny she had eating disorders. Are you blaming a young woman for eating disorders now?[/quote]Yes, I’m blaming her because she did not seek treatment and entered the pageant knowing she had a grave disorder which very well could have prevented her from fulfilling her duties should she win. Gaining too much weight (especially drastically yo-yo-ing with one’s weight) is inimical to holding the position of Miss Universe . . . or the post of any organized pageant winner, for that matter.[/quote]

Do you also blame people for having depression bipolar disorder or any other mental disorder?

[quote=bearishgurl]
[quote=SK in CV]You have a problem with Latinas, obviously. Clinton doesn’t need to use her as a token anything. You’re a liar about her getting paid. There is zero evidence that is true, yet you continue to smear this woman who is guilty of nothing but being humiliated by your candidate.

Your disdain for women and Latinas is abhorrent, as is your support for a racist fascist.[/quote]Sorry you feel that way. Once again, you are insulting me without even knowing me. You don’t know me, my family members or friends. You have no idea who the h@ll I’m associated with on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. In some ways, I hope you don’t go off the deep end if this election doesn’t turn out as you hope it will. You seem to have a lot riding on the outcome …. to the point where everyone who posts here actually stating they will vote for someone who is not your candidate is your enemy and needs to be verbally cut down and insulted and you’re just the poster to do that. I feel a little sorry for you, SK.

Again, Machado claims she was “humiliated” 20 years ago by DJT, yet when CNN’s Cooper brought up her criminal behavior 10-15 years ago, she stated that was too long ago and so essentially she shouldn’t be judged on it today and that her life is “clear” now. She also reminded Cooper that she had been Miss Universe 20 years ago and she no longer holds that title (implying that this portion of her life was dead and buried). Yet, she came up with these made-up comments from Trump 20 years ago as if she has been emotionally damaged from them all of her life. She isn’t the least bit credible.

I think you would have to agree that her statute of limitations for bringing these accusations forward (well-timed by the Clinton campaign 5 weeks before the general election) has long ago expired.
[/quote]

I’m insulting you based on the exact words you’ve said here. If they’re not representative of you, then you’ve had ample chance to change your opinions. You haven’t. You’ve just dug in.

There was no criminal behavior. Nor is it the least bit pertinent. (Maybe you can explain why it should be pertinent?) Again, you’re blaming her for Trump humiliating her. And you’re calling her a liar, absent a single shred of evidence that she’s lied. Yet you have no problem voting for someone that fact checkers, in some cases, have found that he lies more often than telling the truth.

Trump is running for President. You’re holding shit against Clinton that happened 20 years ago and longer. Yet you think stuff that Trump did during the same period isn’t important?

And this is personal to me. Trump is unquestionably the most dangerous presidential candidate from a major party in 3 generations at least. Thankfully, he has almost no chance of winning.

[SK in CV]

JFC. Trump has never denied that he called her what he was accused of calling her. Logically, we can stipulate that he did it. Only someone incapable of logic would dispute that. That really is the whole story. None of the rest is the least bit important.

You have no evidence that she gained 65 lbs or any other amount of weight. She said it was 19 lbs. That you think it’s meaningful is disgusting.

She has no reason to deny she had eating disorders. Are you blaming a young woman for eating disorders now?

You have a problem with Latinas, obviously. Clinton doesn’t need to use her as a token anything. You’re a liar about her getting paid. There is zero evidence that is true, yet you continue to smear this woman who is guilty of nothing but being humiliated by your candidate.

Your disdain for women and Latinas is abhorrent, as is your support for a racist fascist.

And Clinton is far from my idol. Another of your outright lies absent any evidence.

[SK in CV]

[quote=cvmom]Unfortunately, I think this is wishful thinking. I took an Uber ride yesterday with a Muslim immigrant driver (naturalized US citizen) from Iraq. I was so sure he would be voting Hillary…but no. He didn’t like either major party option, so is planning not to vote at all. If even a Muslim immigrant is planning to stay home on election day, it seems to me that there is a real chance of a President Trump.[/quote]

Fortunately, we have better tools at our disposal than your one person survey. National and state by state surveys confirm that Clinton is comfortably in the lead.

[SK in CV]

Well, well, well……what’s good for the only slightly overweight cheetoh with a comb over….

It seems Mr. Trump appeared in an actual porn film.

Not surprising to anyone, he has a very small….some people say he has a very tiny, part.

I guess that makes him a not very reliable ….I don’t know, what does Donald Trump appearing in an actual porn film mean?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/donald-trump-appeared-in-a-2000-playboy-softcore-porn?utm_term=.bfDDQbvJB#.nkX8kZLE5

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Machado isn’t going to get the sympathy of voters. They’re beyond fed up with the whiner/victim mentality that is so prevalent in the “PC culture” of today.

**************************************************

I must step out for an appt. Back later to engage this very interesting debate![/quote]

Actually, yes she is going to get the sympathy of particularly women voters. most women don’t approve of fat shaming or slut shaming. Unlike you, they don’t blame victims. The results are already showing in the polls.

With the latest reveals about his illegal foundation operations, along with his violation of federal laws for doing business in Cuba, he’s sealed his fate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Machado is far from being a “victim.” She wasn’t a victim in 1997 and she isn’t one now. She is an opportunist. She does whatever she gets paid for . . . including posing nude for (at least) Playboy, allegedly making porn films (I haven’t personally investigated this) and attempting to smear DJT’s character after being paid handsomely by HRC’s campaign. She’s even been working for the campaign![/quote]

Fox morning show, the morning after the debate, he said she was “a real problem” and “had gained an enormous amount of weight”. The three stooges hosts all cringed.

I don’t know that she was paid by the Clinton campaign. And neither do you. She has claimed that Trump never paid her what she earned as Miss Universe. There is no porn film. Nor any crime she’s been convicted of in Mexico that I can find. And what do those things have to do with blaming the victim? He called her Miss Piggy. He called her Miss Housekeeping. You think those are ok? Are there really mitigating circumstances that happen 20 years later? You’re really ok with Trump smearing her for being his victim of abuse? I guess you are, you don’t have any problem smearing her for being a victim. Or Hillary Clinton for having a cheating husband. Or probably rape victims.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I don’t believe he called her those names. Can you point me to a video where he states he called her those names? Yes, her crimes in another country WERE pertinent when she was seeking US citizenship. It sounds like the INS once again fell down on the job. It wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last.

The subject of “rape” has absolutely nothing to do with anything we have been discussing on this thread. That subject is just an example of a zinger you like to throw out at Piggs who disagree with you.[/quote]

She has made the claim. He hasn’t denied it. He’s made excuses for doing it.

What crimes? I don’t know anything about any crimes. If there were, it still has nothing to do with the misogyny of the presidential candidate, or your support for that misogyny. It’s blaming the victim.

The rape analogy is pertinent. You’ve shown you have no problem blaming victims, particularly when they’re women.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi] . . . Machado says that Trump was mean and cruel to her. Trump does not not deny he called her miss piggy and miss housekeeping.[/quote]

I’m not sure why he hasn’t emphatically denied it. Last night I watched 2 videos (one lengthy) where Anderson Cooper of CNN asked her point blank if Trump had called her “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.” She deflected the question and insisted that SHE was the spokesperson for ALL Latinos (wrong!). Cooper grilled her on her criminal past in South America and she ADMITTED TO IT, stating, “I haven’t been a saint but that’s not why I’m here. I speak out for all Latinos, blah, blah.” In spite of now finally attaining US citizenship (did the INS ever investigate her criminal record in SA??), her (broken) English isn’t the best. She also VOLUNTEERED the statement, “No one is paying me for this. I’m doing it on my own.” Cooper didn’t even ask her that . . . he could barely get a word in edgewise with her! In the beginning of the interview, she initially complemented him and thanked him for having her on his show … clearly for the purpose of her stumping against Trump and for HRC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2i63x6Ga2w

I also watched a recent interview of her by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly (a trained lawyer), who asked her point blank if there were any witnesses present when Donald supposedly called her those names. Again, she deflected the question and used the the Fox interview to stump against Trump and for HRC. She initially appeared nervous at the beginning of the Kelly interview and was even shaking a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DeGAV5A86w

Both commentators were incredulous and just congratulated her on her recent US citizenship and dismissed her.

I don’t understand why this loser is currently getting so much airtime as it doesn’t seem to be a slow news cycle right now. Her 14.99 minutes of “fame” have been over for at least 48 hrs and she should now go back to posing nude for mag rags and making South American porn films, where she belongs. She could very easily be summarily impeached in a US court of law in very short order by a law-student-in-training, lol.

Can’t HRC’s campaign drag anyone out of Trump’s “archives” more credible than Machado??

Next . . .[/quote]

How does anything she has ever done excuse a US presidential candidate from calling her Miss Piggy or Miss Housekeeping? I asked you before and I don’t think you answered. Do you think that rape is sometimes the fault of the victim? Is something she did in Mexico, unrelated to anything being discussed, the least bit pertinent? There is nothing that needs to be impeached. Trump has essentially admitted that he’s called her everything she claims, he just falls back on the same misogynist excuses you just used.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=SK in CV] He can’t negate the “racist, anti-woman image he has”, because it’s not an image. It is Donald Trump. He didn’t pick a woman because he doesn’t think of women as equals. He might understand TV, but he doesn’t understand politics. And he’s sharply underestimated how bad this campaign could be for his franchise. He could be bankrupt and broke in 5 years.[/quote]

SK, you posted on the other thread, but I’m following up here to keep in context of trump’s businesses.

Trump can’t find a restaurant for his DC hotel. And his brand now carries an ick factor. Who is going to hold a meeting at his hotels? For a man who care about money, Trump is committing serious business malpractice.

I’m thinking he owes a lot of money to the Russian mob. He may meet an ignoble ending.[/quote]

I have no idea about the Russian stuff, I think it’s all speculation. What I have seen is reports that not a single one of his branded hotels has ever turned a profit. That’s an astounding tidbit. 2015 was the highest RevPAR for hotels ever. 2016 is really close, but there are reports that his name branded hotels are all down at least 50% from last year, when they didn’t come close to matching the market. That’s both astoundingly bad and almost to be expected at the same time.

It also turns out, his hotel in DC, a few blocks from the white house, that he was bragging about being early and under budget was actually supposed to be completed by Dec. last year. And, as you said,
he can’t find a restaurant tenant there after Geoffrey Zakarian pulled out, essentially citing violations of the morals clause in his contract. He’s losing all his kids’ money.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte]I always figured the polls would get closer.

It looks like it has happened for several reasons:
– people typically grumble then end up falling in line with their traditional party of preference
– people have had time to get used to the idea of Trump carrying the GOP torch
– press needs to portray the elections as close so folks will get out and vote instead of thinking it doesn’t matter anyway
– Johnson siphoning off Bernie supporters

It will be interesting to see how Trump changes his stance in Debate 2.0.

[/quote]

That’s really appropriate observations from a week or 10 days ago. New polling data comes out 10 times a day, sometimes much more than that. Beginning 10 days ago, independents started losing ground, and Trump and Clinton gained. Some days one gained a little more than the other. Until Monday, even before the debate. Since then, there has been a clear spread, with Clinton continuing on the same track she’s been on (in the polling), and Trump on a decline, with Clinton now holding the largest lead she’s held since the beginning of the month.

There’s currently little evidence that Sanders supporters are now supporting Johnson.

Trump is now being who Trump is. The arrogant know-nothing narcissist, who can’t ignore an insult, and is incapable of staying focused for more than a few seconds at a time. Rather than attracting new voters, he’s convinced that his cheers from existing voters means he’s doing well, and reacting to the next shiny object rather than taking the advice of his experienced political operatives. And his own problematic past is catching up with him at the very worst time for his campaign.

He can’t negate the “racist, anti-woman image he has”, because it’s not an image. It is Donald Trump. He didn’t pick a woman because he doesn’t think of women as equals. He might understand TV, but he doesn’t understand politics. And he’s sharply underestimated how bad this campaign could be for his franchise. He could be bankrupt and broke in 5 years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]The laid-off worker is free to look for another job from day one. If they got any “severance” at all, it must be reported to EDD. The worker is still eligible for 26 weeks of UI from the week after the severance pay ends.

Let’s just say these laid-off Disney IT employees were making an average of $80K annually. That’s $20K gross for 3 months FT work plus a $2K “bonus” (~$22K) IF their cheaper foreign replacement “gets it” after 3 months (MINUS ALL PAYROLL TAXES)! It’s still not worth it . . . that is if FL has a ~$450 cap on their weekly UI paymen

[/quote]

Severance pay doesn’t affect UI benefits in California, irrespective of whether it’s paid in a lump sum or periodically. It does, however, in Florida, where maximum weekly benefits are $275/wk, and are reduced by periodic severance.

[Author]

Posts