Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

They're your words dude.. doesn't make your obvious infatuation any less real to deny it. Don't need to be Sigmund Freud to see it.


You've already admitted that the two items were unrelated. I'll admit they are in the same thread. Discussing two completely different things about the same phrase. You felt the need to chime in on a totally innocuous post that had absolutely nothing to do with the previous debate because, as you have made readily apparent, you have a raging bulge in your pants for me. You wanted to get a dig in, even though it was not relevant. I pointed out it wasn't related, you admitted they weren't, then loop around with a sticking point about quotation marks. I'd say I don't know what you want from me, but it's obvious you want my attention. The best thing for me to do (for the sake of everyone -- most of all you) is not give it to you as you have hijacked this thread with this exchange that has made you look like a total donkey. So.. pretty please with sugar on top, "let" it go.

Quote:They're your words dude.. doesn't make your obvious infatuation any less real to deny it. Don't need to be Sigmund Freud to see it.


You've already admitted that the two items were unrelated. I'll admit they are in the same thread. Discussing two completely different things about the same phrase. You felt the need to chime in on a totally innocuous post that had absolutely nothing to do with the previous debate because, as you have made readily apparent, you have a raging bulge in your pants for me. You wanted to get a dig in, even though it was not relevant. I pointed out it wasn't related, you admitted they weren't, then loop around with a sticking point about quotation marks. I'd say I don't know what you want from me, but it's obvious you want my attention. The best thing for me to do (for the sake of everyone -- most of all you) is not give it to you as you have hijacked this thread with this exchange that has made you look like a total donkey. So.. pretty please with sugar on top, "let" it go.

Again it goes back to. Things can be different and still related. A topic about Trump is amazingly related to a different topic about Trump. Or are you disputing that?

Quote:LOL. Because of typical "guy talk" this is still an issue for some people.

 

Just, you know...some women.

 

I've heard a lot of locker room-type banter. Comments about women, what guys would like to do with them, etc. What is not typical was bragging about walking up to a woman and grabbing their crotch. Not even an expression of wanting to, let alone trying to get anyone to believe it's possible because of who they are. It's an expression of arrogance and a sense entitlement most normal men don't have.

 

There's a difference, and it's not very subtle.

Quote:Cyanide and bleach are related as your insistence on continuing this dialogue makes me want to ingest both.

 

I was about to argue that your wit cannot match mine...  And then you pulled this out of your hat and made me reconsider...  Well done.

Quote:Y'all should DM this.


So far off topic!

 

And then we miss out on all the fun?  NO WAY!

Here's my two cents, for what it's worth (which I realize is next to nothing). I think that many of the posters here defending Trump actually do know, deep down, that this is entirely unacceptable behavior from a Presidential candidate, but they are way too far along in this whole ugly election argument to be able to admit it now.

 

To further what Rollerjag has been saying, there is a huge difference between 'locker room banter' or 'guy talk' (whatever you want to call it), and what Trump said. If he had simply said 'wow look at her, she has great legs, I'd love to xxxx her', then yes, you could pass this off as 'guy talk'... something that almost all of us have said at some point in our lives. Something like that, whilst not exactly what you would want to hear from a potential president, would have been easily brushed aside. Personally, I wouldn't have cared about it at all. But that is very different to what he actually said. He said that he can use his position of power to sexually molest women. That can't be denied. You can't say he was just joking, he is clearly bragging about something he does, and the numerous reports that have emerged over the last few days confirm that behavior. That is not 'guy talk'. That is 'rape talk'.

 

I have a question for anyone who considers Trump's remarks to be 'no big deal'. Imagine you have a son. That son is the captain of his High School football team and extremely popular. One day he comes home and says to you 'Dad, it's great being captain. I grab girls by the xxxxxxxx and they let me do it because I'm so popular'. How would you deal with that situation?

Trump said he can use his power as a celebrity to sexually molest women, "grab them by the hooha," then several women come forward to confirm this, and he says they are lying.  

 

So we have his statement that says he can do this, and their statement that says he does this, and there's no contradiction there. 

I do this all the time.


I never did that.

Quote:Here's my two cents, for what it's worth (which I realize is next to nothing). I think that many of the posters here defending Trump actually do know, deep down, that this is entirely unacceptable behavior from a Presidential candidate, but they are way too far along in this whole ugly election argument to be able to admit it now.

 

To further what Rollerjag has been saying, there is a huge difference between 'locker room banter' or 'guy talk' (whatever you want to call it), and what Trump said. If he had simply said 'wow look at her, she has great legs, I'd love to xxxx her', then yes, you could pass this off as 'guy talk'... something that almost all of us have said at some point in our lives. Something like that, whilst not exactly what you would want to hear from a potential president, would have been easily brushed aside. Personally, I wouldn't have cared about it at all. But that is very different to what he actually said. He said that he can use his position of power to sexually molest women. That can't be denied. You can't say he was just joking, he is clearly bragging about something he does, and the numerous reports that have emerged over the last few days confirm that behavior. That is not 'guy talk'. That is 'rape talk'.

 

I have a question for anyone who considers Trump's remarks to be 'no big deal'. Imagine you have a son. That son is the captain of his High School football team and extremely popular. One day he comes home and says to you 'Dad, it's great being captain. I grab girls by the xxxxxxxx and they let me do it because I'm so popular'. How would you deal with that situation?

 

 

Quote:Trump said he can use his power as a celebrity to sexually molest women, "grab them by the hooha," then several women come forward to confirm this, and he says they are lying.  

 

So we have his statement that says he can do this, and their statement that says he does this, and there's no contradiction there. 

 

1.) I have said, and will continue to say that when he said on the tape had nothing to do with sexual assault.  He was talking about the action that he gets as a celeb/rich guy.  That's not a revelation, that's not even all that contraversial when you think about it.  If JFK worked at a hot dog stand I'm not sure Marilyn Monroe would have been all that interested to tell you the truth. 

 

2.) The NARRATIVE that emerges is the thing that gives me the most pause believing this whole thing.  Magically, a tape comes out on friday that leads to a question on sunday that leads to the fairies in the wind spiriting in 6 women to say oh well this happened or that happened who knows.  When Donald Trump was on top of the world with the Apprentice, nothing, when he was speaking at C-Pac, nothing, when he launched his campaign, nothing when he launched into Meghan Kelly nope, nothing, when the court documents about his ex-wife came out...  nope nothing.  When he was in the Twitter war with Megyn Kelly, nope not a thing.  But somehow magically when They looked into Anderson coopers deep blue eyes they magically remembered all these fanciful "innapropriate touches" that magically require no evidence, no torn clothing, no physical evidence of any kind.   And not in the form of a suit that would require reciporical discovery.  Give me a break. 

 

 

3.) In most cases were ALLEGING "well maybe he kissed me and I said no and then he stopped but it hurt my feelings..."  If two adults are together and one makes a romantic advance, male or female, and then other person pushes away or says "hey, i'm not interested" and the other person says, okay fine I misread the chemistry/vibe or whatever I don't look at that as a crime, I don't look at that as PREDATORY, that's the nature of romantic interaction.  I have never read a romance novel where the day before the first date the guy sends a form letter asking for the appropriate time for a first kiss.  That's not an indictment on the fundamental right every woman has to sovereignty over her body.  I believe in that and I would fight to defend it.  What i'm saying is let's use just a little bit of common sense. 

 

4.) The stories themselves are bogus.  We have one allegation that for 15 minutes in a crowded airplane one woman was ATTACKED which she didn't mind until he put his hand on her thigh?  15 minutes?  Not in a latrine, not in a private area, out in the open.  No flight attendant or passenger notices or says anything, you don't say anything to them and we are supposed to believe this?  Another woman says someone walked in on DT doing this or that.  We find that person and they call her a liar.  She says that Melania was upstairs, she calls her a liar.  But we are supposed to believe this 26 days before an election? 

 

 

They did the same thing to Herman.  For about two weeks you had 4 women claiming that he was satan on earth all of a sudden, a scourge to women across the world.  We should take him out back and hang him for crying out loud...  Then, he drops out of the race.  NOTHING!!!  no lawsuits, no prosecution, no nothing.  They did something similar to Clearance Thomas.  They wanted to spend an entire primary debate about Newt Gingrich asking for an OPEN MARRIAGE.  They interrogated McCain about his affairs. 

 

But when it comes to Democrats like Bill Clinton or Elliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, we get the narrative: "Well what you have to understand, is that from an evolutionary standpoint _____________ is a leader, who takes risks to achieve goals and go after what he wants.  ___________  Just has to manage that to accomplish the work of the people. 

 

 

5.) To all the people who are clamoring "If we had only nominated John Kasich."  These are the same people who were clamoring for "If we just nominate someone who's not a religious nut"  If you find a candidate who never touched any woman but their wife until the day they were married they will be labelled an old fuddy duddy good time rock and roll bible thumper who's anti sex that wants to take your birth control from you and overturn roe V. Wade so you can be forced to work in a baby factory for the rest of your life at a minimum wage below $15 an hour.   There will never be a time, when the Mainstream media declares a republican candidate fit to serve and worthy of the presidency AT THE TIME THEY ARE ACTUALLY RUNNING AGAINST A DEMOCRAT!  John McCain gets high praise from the media for opposing his party.  What a true war hero.  When he was on the ticket against Obama they accused him of the same things they accuse Trump of they just did it in a different way "Well McCain can't Control all the racist redneck reprobates that you see at Republican Rallies.  He can't stop people from calling Obama names etc. etc. etc."  Mitt Romney is being seen as a voice of reason, when his name was on the ticket they called him sexist for having a notebook of qualified women to higher...   THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

Quote:1.) I have said, and will continue to say that when he said on the tape had nothing to do with sexual assault.  He was talking about the action that he gets as a celeb/rich guy.  That's not a revelation, that's not even all that contraversial when you think about it.  If JFK worked at a hot dog stand I'm not sure Marilyn Monroe would have been all that interested to tell you the truth. 

 

2.) The NARRATIVE that emerges is the thing that gives me the most pause believing this whole thing.  Magically, a tape comes out on friday that leads to a question on sunday that leads to the fairies in the wind spiriting in 6 women to say oh well this happened or that happened who knows.  When Donald Trump was on top of the world with the Apprentice, nothing, when he was speaking at C-Pac, nothing, when he launched his campaign, nothing when he launched into Meghan Kelly nope, nothing, when the court documents about his ex-wife came out...  nope nothing.  When he was in the Twitter war with Megyn Kelly, nope not a thing.  But somehow magically when They looked into Anderson coopers deep blue eyes they magically remembered all these fanciful "innapropriate touches" that magically require no evidence, no torn clothing, no physical evidence of any kind.   And not in the form of a suit that would require reciporical discovery.  Give me a break. 

 

 

3.) In most cases were ALLEGING "well maybe he kissed me and I said no and then he stopped but it hurt my feelings..."  If two adults are together and one makes a romantic advance, male or female, and then other person pushes away or says "hey, i'm not interested" and the other person says, okay fine I misread the chemistry/vibe or whatever I don't look at that as a crime, I don't look at that as PREDATORY, that's the nature of romantic interaction.  I have never read a romance novel where the day before the first date the guy sends a form letter asking for the appropriate time for a first kiss.  That's not an indictment on the fundamental right every woman has to sovereignty over her body.  I believe in that and I would fight to defend it.  What i'm saying is let's use just a little bit of common sense. 

 

4.) The stories themselves are bogus.  We have one allegation that for 15 minutes in a crowded airplane one woman was ATTACKED which she didn't mind until he put his hand on her thigh?  15 minutes?  Not in a latrine, not in a private area, out in the open.  No flight attendant or passenger notices or says anything, you don't say anything to them and we are supposed to believe this?  Another woman says someone walked in on DT doing this or that.  We find that person and they call her a liar.  She says that Melania was upstairs, she calls her a liar.  But we are supposed to believe this 26 days before an election? 

 

 

They did the same thing to Herman.  For about two weeks you had 4 women claiming that he was satan on earth all of a sudden, a scourge to women across the world.  We should take him out back and hang him for crying out loud...  Then, he drops out of the race.  NOTHING!!!  no lawsuits, no prosecution, no nothing.  They did something similar to Clearance Thomas.  They wanted to spend an entire primary debate about Newt Gingrich asking for an OPEN MARRIAGE.  They interrogated McCain about his affairs. 

 

But when it comes to Democrats like Bill Clinton or Elliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, we get the narrative: "Well what you have to understand, is that from an evolutionary standpoint _____________ is a leader, who takes risks to achieve goals and go after what he wants.  ___________  Just has to manage that to accomplish the work of the people. 

 

 

5.) To all the people who are clamoring "If we had only nominated John Kasich."  These are the same people who were clamoring for "If we just nominate someone who's not a religious nut"  If you find a candidate who never touched any woman but their wife until the day they were married they will be labelled an old fuddy duddy good time rock and roll bible thumper who's anti sex that wants to take your birth control from you and overturn roe V. Wade so you can be forced to work in a baby factory for the rest of your life at a minimum wage below $15 an hour.   There will never be a time, when the Mainstream media declares a republican candidate fit to serve and worthy of the presidency AT THE TIME THEY ARE ACTUALLY RUNNING AGAINST A DEMOCRAT!  John McCain gets high praise from the media for opposing his party.  What a true war hero.  When he was on the ticket against Obama they accused him of the same things they accuse Trump of they just did it in a different way "Well McCain can't Control all the racist redneck reprobates that you see at Republican Rallies.  He can't stop people from calling Obama names etc. etc. etc."  Mitt Romney is being seen as a voice of reason, when his name was on the ticket they called him sexist for having a notebook of qualified women to higher...   THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

 

I disagree with everything you said.  Which isn't easy in such a long post.

 

But then, I think we should have nominated John Kasich.

This is the same exact drivel that the dems drummed up against Hermin Cain when he ran.. It's a last resort..

Quote:I disagree with everything you said.  Which isn't easy in such a long post.

 

But then, I think we should have nominated John Kasich.

 

Which proves my point.  Kasich was clean, because he never posed a threat to the left.  If people think that there was a majority constituency out there that wanted to send 200k troops to Syria to oust Assad, or wanted to approve the TPP and have immigration reform then God bless.  It's just not true. 

 

For all the talk about independents etc. trump was leading by double digits among independents and gaining in minorities and suburban women before the first debate and the media melt down. 

 

If all it takes is some woman to bake a story about an airplane ride to destroy a republican candidate then what's the point?  We'll spend all our time effort and energy killing ourselves just to find ourselves 3 weeks before an election asking about a make out session 4 decades ago like groundhog day.  At some point, the American people are going to have to reject these kinds of smears or what's the point?

This is hilarious. Trump brought this whole political season into the reality show realm with his tweets, debate behavior, childish nicknames, Breitbart parroting, etc, and now he's whining when he's getting pummeled in his own game. Maybe FBT's sig is wrong, after all.

Quote:Which proves my point.  Kasich was clean, because he never posed a threat to the left.  If people think that there was a majority constituency out there that wanted to send 200k troops to Syria to oust Assad, or wanted to approve the TPP and have immigration reform then God bless.  It's just not true. 

 

For all the talk about independents etc. trump was leading by double digits among independents and gaining in minorities and suburban women before the first debate and the media melt down. 

 

If all it takes is some woman to bake a story about an airplane ride to destroy a republican candidate then what's the point?  We'll spend all our time effort and energy killing ourselves just to find ourselves 3 weeks before an election asking about a make out session 4 decades ago like groundhog day.  At some point, the American people are going to have to reject these kinds of smears or what's the point?

 

You're going under the assumption that this is a smear campaign, probably organized by "the ruling elite".  That's just too damn simple.  You do realize that there are people who said the Left fixed the election by making sure your champion was the Republican nominee, right?  He was - by far - the most unelectable.

 

I'd bet the allegations are true, mainly because of who Donald has displayed himself to be over the past 20 years of public life.  What the women are alleging is completely in keeping with the profile of a sexual predator, and Donald even painted himself into a corner with a classic line that might have worked in the 1980s, but has long been exposed:

 

"Do you think I would have come on to THAT?"  Paraphrasing, but basically the classic rapist excuse that if one was going to rape, he'd at least go after someone more attractive.  It's about as trite as "Of course I tried to make it with her, look at how she's dressed.  She was asking for it."  My guess is that he'll use that one in the coming weeks before the election.

 

Getting away from Donald for a moment, do you really think Kasich would have nominated a liberal justice to the Supreme Court?  I don't.  With a possible sweep of ALL branches of government for at least 2 years, do you think Kasich would have given any quarter to the Left?  I don't.  Do I believe Kasich would have beaten Hillary like a rug, based on his record, ethics, and experience in running the 5th most populous state?  Why yes, yes I do.

 

The Republicans will hold the House, be in a virtual tie in the Senate, and lose the Presidency and a deciding Supreme Court majority after the election.  It's the best case scenario after nominating Sir Orange Combover Grabhands.

 

One more thing:  Trump was leading among white men, but that was about it.  He wasn't ahead in any legitimate poll nationally, and had a hard row to hoe through the swing states.  Don't pretend these women are somehow responsible for derailing a sure thing.

WingerDinger, JJ, etc... How about you answer the question? How would you deal with the situation if your son said the same thing?

Quote:WingerDinger, JJ, etc... How about you answer the question? How would you deal with the situation if your son said the same thing?

If they let him do it, then they let him do it. Big damn deal.. Different story if they didn't let him do it and he did it anyway.

Quote:You're going under the assumption that this is a smear campaign, probably organized by "the ruling elite".  That's just too damn simple.  You do realize that there are people who said the Left fixed the election by making sure your champion was the Republican nominee, right?  He was - by far - the most unelectable.

 

Just because it's simple, doesn't mean its not true.  The NYT specifically has been caught on at least two prior occasions fabricating stories about Trump, one of which was done by the same person that broke the initial accusations By Leeds.  If you can't admit the timming seems a little fishy then you're just not being objective. 


 

I'd bet the allegations are true, mainly because of who Donald has displayed himself to be over the past 20 years of public life.  What the women are alleging is completely in keeping with the profile of a sexual predator, and Donald even painted himself into a corner with a classic line that might have worked in the 1980s, but has long been exposed:

 

 

"Do you think I would have come on to THAT?"  Paraphrasing, but basically the classic rapist excuse that if one was going to rape, he'd at least go after someone more attractive.  It's about as trite as "Of course I tried to make it with her, look at how she's dressed.  She was asking for it."  My guess is that he'll use that one in the coming weeks before the election.

 

 

If that were his defense then you might have a point.  His point is that the woman in question claims that this happened around other people, who all deny it.  In the case of the airplane ride, 15 minutes?  Really?  in a public place?  We have another woman who's cousin has come out saying that she was speaking highly of Trump up until he didn't accept an invitation to her restaurant in April and Trump has e-mail proof of the invitation.  This 10 years after a HARROWING EPISODE with a sexual predator?  There's major holes in general there. 


 

 

Getting away from Donald for a moment, do you really think Kasich would have nominated a liberal justice to the Supreme Court?  I don't.  With a possible sweep of ALL branches of government for at least 2 years, do you think Kasich would have given any quarter to the Left?  I don't.  Do I believe Kasich would have beaten Hillary like a rug, based on his record, ethics, and experience in running the 5th most populous state?  Why yes, yes I do.

 

You're just wrong.  As I have said before, there is no constituency in this country for sending 200k troops to Syria for regime change.  There is no constituency in this country in open support for TPP.  There just isn't.  Trump's positions are in line with a worldwide backlash against globablization and more centralized government.  Kasich couldn't tap into that given his positions.  Not to mention the fact that he worked at Lehman brothers... 


 

The Republicans will hold the House, be in a virtual tie in the Senate, and lose the Presidency and a deciding Supreme Court majority after the election.  It's the best case scenario after nominating Sir Orange Combover Grabhands.

 

One more thing:  Trump was leading among white men, but that was about it.  He wasn't ahead in any legitimate poll nationally, and had a hard row to hoe through the swing states.  Don't pretend these women are somehow responsible for derailing a sure thing.

 

 

The day of the first election he was favored 54.8% by nate Silver and the polling was about split.  He was ahead in FL, NC, OH, NV AZ trending in CO within 5 in PA and had a clear path to 270 in the absence of PA.  He has also been enjoying a lead of plus double digits among independents and was polling at levels higher than any Republican in the last 30 years among Black voters. 

 

The first debate was bad, the tape was horrible, and these allegations will probably prove to be a mortal wound. 

Quote:WingerDinger, JJ, etc... How about you answer the question? How would you deal with the situation if your son said the same thing?

 

Son's say bad things...  People say bad things...  If you want to sit there and lie to me and say that there isn't a 2 minute gap of your life or browsing history that would look bad in the public arena then I will sit here and lecture you about lying! 

 

Moreover, how would you deal with your son embarrassing an entire nation shoving a cigar where it doesn't belong and forcing every 12 year old to learn the difference between oral sex and intercourse?

Quote:If they let him do it, then they let him do it. Big damn deal.. Different story if they didn't let him do it and he did it anyway.

 

Because obviously being the star QB wouldn't make it any easier with the ladies...

Just seen at Trump Rally....Women GOP ,Grab Our [BLEEP] , support Trump.


Great stuff. Loyalty. Forgiveness. Pants...err...hats off to ya girls.