OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[RedBulls23]

That said, I don't think she will change anything if elected. I believe we will have the same issues 4 years from now if she is elected.

We need a president who has a vision of the world/country 10 years from now and plan for it. You do not want a president looking backwards.

I think more the problem is that the politicians on both sides rather fight than work together to get that change.

The only way to make great positive change is to acknowledge the problems and constructively work together to fix them. When ever there is a good idea among the Dems or the Repubs, you just see bickering going back and forth. On top of that you have organizations like the NRA and such paying politicians off (they call it a donation, but we know what it is) to pass or not pass laws.

In my honest opinion, Bernie was the right guy, but he was far out there in the socialist aspect that he scared everyone. Not everything he said was realistically possible, but I think he would have been a better choice than both Trump and Hillary.

[burlydee]

The idea that the most powerful nation in the world, with some of the world's richest people, is getting routinely beat at the negotiating table by the likes of Mexico and South Korea is laughable on its face. You may not like the results, but don't labor under the false assumption that the deals are not designed to benefit American interest. They just don't cater to YOUR interests. The interests of American capitol and American labor have been at odds for 50 years. Its sad to me that people believe a child of American capitol (Trump) is going to be the savior of American labor. Trump is running the ultimate con, the people he most rips off, are the people who cheer for him the loudest.

No, this is laughable.. what is debatable is whether the trade off is worth it. Since the South Korean Agreement of 2010 we have an 80% deficit. The TPP, the same thing will happen if it goes as is. Look at NAFTA.

And for the record, as Coldfish already said, this is about the only thing Trump is right on. Yes, the most powerful nation in the World has been getting routinely beat at the negotiating table by other countries. Look at the deal we just handed Iran. FFS. You can sit there and say... "I live in the most powerful country in the World and we are in great hands with our politicians and statesmen". If they made the deal... it must be a good one for us" ... Or you can question their ability and say "we got F'd and we could do much better". The reality is that the latter would be the much more objective and truthful statement.

The American elite is getting rich off these deals. They are winning. The trade deals hurt many in the middle class, but that is a side-effect, the ultimate design of the trade deals is to enrich the top 1% of American capitol. And they have largely succeeded.

The Iran deal sits very much separately from this. I would at first, question your facts. The only alternative to deal with Iran is a military conflict with Iran or letting them acquire nuclear weapons. Those are the 3 options on the table. You reach an agreement or you fight or you let them have weapons of mass destruction. The Iran deal brings stability to the region.

[burlydee]

hate to indiscriminately crop such a great discussion, but IMHO this is where the problem lies.

I don't think we'll ever get close to full employment - due to automation.

And if we do we've either hit a home run on population control, or our planet is screwed.

...sorry my comment is not up to par with the quality you guys are providing... look forward to learning more.

I don't know if you caught by rock -> hammer -> nail gun analogy but I'll go a little more into it.

Again, I wish people would take "automation" off a pedestal. A robot is just a tool, like a hammer, that makes people more productive. A factory full of robots still needs people to repair them, program them, etc. Its just that your man hours needed per part produced goes down. . . . just like when you went from hammers to nail guns.

Regardless, that's a side rant. More importantly, you might be right. It took us hundreds of thousands of years to go from a rock to a steel hammer. When the rate of innovation is low like that, you get the full process I described. New technology -> Labor dislocation -> more production -> labor moves to new demand -> new steady state at higher standard of living.

Right now, technology is moving so fast that we aren't ever getting to a steady state. From what I am seeing, the rate of improvement is actually accelerating. As such, we will never get to full employment because we will never get to a steady state condition where all new technologies have proliferated through the system.

People are going to bash me to death here, but I don't see free market capitalism working in the long term. Centrally planned socialism and communism don't work either. We almost are going to need a new type of economic system for a world where our tools do 90% of the work and only a small percentage of the population has to work in order to provide for everyone.

Bravo! I can't believe how many times I've had this conversation online and nobody but myself comes to this conclusion. Seems inevitable to me.

It seems like you're both essentially describing socialism. You're talking about the state providing services (education, food, energy) to people who haven't "earned" it or can't "pay" for it because they are in need don't work. The reason they don't work, doesn't actually matter - the provision of services for simply being a citizen of the state is socialism. The purest form. The idea is fairly popular and is known as a Universal Basic Income. This is how 538.com describes it -

The idea is as simple as it is radical: Rather than concern itself with managing myriad social welfare and unemployment insurance programs, the government would instead regularly cut a no-strings-attached check to each citizen. No conditions. No questions. Everyone, rich or poor, employed or out of work would get the same amount of money. This arrangement would provide a path toward a new way of living: If people no longer had to worry about making ends meet, they could pursue the lives they want to live.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

The NY Times has a more germane outlook-

We should be extremely concerned about our children’s and grandchildren’s future given that McKinsey Global Institute research shows that machines and computers could replace people for 45 percent of all tasks, that a 2013 Oxford University study concluded that 47 percent of jobs in the United States are at risk of being automated, and that driverless trucks could eliminate what is the No. 1 job in 29 states. Experts warn of a tsunami of job losses.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/10/04/easing-the-pain-of-automation/a-universal-basic-income-would-insure-against-job-loss

This may where we have to go, but understand, there are a lot of social forces (mostly on the right) that stand in the way from something like this every happening.

[League Circles]

The last "jobs" will be artist and prostitute. Book it. IMO we need to be way less concerned with just "jobs" and instead focus on standard of living. Politicians talk about jobs like they're inherently desirable. Who the hell wants a job? I know I don't. I want what is commonly associated with having a job. And in theory, we can have that without having tons of "jobs", mostly through automation and self sufficiency (example most people growing some of their own food).

[DanTown8587]

So since 1980, the manufacturing labor force is down 1/3 in terms of number of workers yet exports have gone from 9.5% of GDP to around 13%. Tell me again how US manufacturing is doing so terribly.

You're right, the United States used to have a role for unskilled workers but due to both lower cost of that worker in foreign markets AND better capital investment, those workers will never find a job again.

Globalization didn't kill their jobs, technology did. Proof of that is the US manufacturing data.

Two things:

GDP is an absolute piss poor way to measure, well, anything. It's the economic equivalent of PER IMO.

It measures output. I'm not even measuring dollars or anything; manufacturing is clearly a large part of the economy. To compare two different economies (i.e 1960s vs 2016), you need to normalize them and comparing them as % of GDP does that.

The second thing is a question - you refer to manufacturing data but then "exports". When you refer to "exports", are you only referring to manufactured exports?

"Exports" may very well include things like entertainment (TV and movies where we do extremely well worldwide), as well as food, which often doesn't involve increased jobs for American citizens (because so many foreign migrant workers in agriculture).

Could this be a source of disconnect?

No. I'm talking solely about manufactured goods.

[DanTown8587]

You are either not reading what I am writing or you are intentionally straw manning me. Like you said, just don't have a discussion with me. Its easier for us both.

Here is what you said that I orignally quoted

If you look around, median household income has stagnated for decades after almost continuously going up for over a century. That's in spite of the fact that productivity has skyrocketed over that period. Globalization is the primary culprit for that. It affects everyone from inner city african americans to midwestern whites or southern textile workers.

I cannot tell you how much I disagree with globalization as the reason for stagnating median income.

You followed that with

You are talking about well over half of the working population being screwed over by our trade treaties.

And no, I'm not Donald Trump. I'll give specifics. Our trade treaties allow any country with a VAT to give an export credit and charge VAT on all imports. That's pretty much every country in the world except for us and it puts our workers at a 10-20% disadvantage globally. That's **** asinine. Whomever agreed to that should be skinned alive. Congress even tried to fix this but was shot down by the WTO.

I cannot tell you how much I disagree that our trade treaties are "screwing us over".

Do I think our trade treaties have hurt some of the work force? Sure, there is no perfect agreement for trade. You do have to give up something to get something.

Do I think that the COUNTRY is worse because we use trade treaties? No. This is a laughable position that you've taken that literally no one in the economics field agrees with you.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

I'm not sure what your plan is to "fix" the problem of trade so I won't speak for you but I think you highly overrate "globalization" as a problem on the US economy. I think you highly underestimate how much capital investment has impacted manufacturing as an example instead of globalization. Globalization is an easy thing to attack for politicians (i.e you'd have jobs if not for China/Mexico stealing them) but I do not believe that to be the case. If a job is being done in those areas, the wages are so drastically different than American wages that if that job was ever forced to be done in the US, it would be automated. I think we've only touched the surface of job displacement due to technology; a vastly larger threat to future jobs than globalization is.

I can also buy an argument that automation is going to be a problem for how we act because a ton of jobs (transport, minimum wage, etc) with high participation rates can be automated and we simply do not have the demand in other areas to put those workers. IMO, it will take a New Deal 2.0 with infrastructure development to solve the problem of full automation. But if manufacturing is any example, automation will make us vastly more efficient but less people have jobs. That's a direct fight between what's ideal for business and what's ideal for a country/voters .

With regards to trades and treaties, I can buy an argument that trade helps the companies who utilize it more than the people who buy those goods but I still think the US is better off with trade than they are not trading. And if you're going to trade, agreements are better than not having agreements on trade.

I guess I'm more interested in what you think the solution is than what you think the problem is.

[Mech Engineer]

That said, I don't think she will change anything if elected. I believe we will have the same issues 4 years from now if she is elected.

We need a president who has a vision of the world/country 10 years from now and plan for it. You do not want a president looking backwards.

I think more the problem is that the politicians on both sides rather fight than work together to get that change.

The only way to make great positive change is to acknowledge the problems and constructively work together to fix them. When ever there is a good idea among the Dems or the Repubs, you just see bickering going back and forth. On top of that you have organizations like the NRA and such paying politicians off (they call it a donation, but we know what it is) to pass or not pass laws.

In my honest opinion, Bernie was the right guy, but he was far out there in the socialist aspect that he scared everyone. Not everything he said was realistically possible, but I think he would have been a better choice than both Trump and Hillary.

That's very true whether it is gun rights or healthcare. Look at Obamacare....everybody knows it needs tweaks but it is a good beginning. But, it is just pure nonsense which comes out of the republicans.

The same with guns. It is just crazy that grown educated adults with families talk the way like some of these politicians do. They are living in a bubble or they just don't care or they are corrupt. Some of these people want to live as if they are in the 1700s and do not want to evolve. It is now such a big divide that even common-sense is gone.

[coldfish]

You are either not reading what I am writing or you are intentionally straw manning me. Like you said, just don't have a discussion with me. Its easier for us both.

Here is what you said that I orignally quoted

If you look around, median household income has stagnated for decades after almost continuously going up for over a century. That's in spite of the fact that productivity has skyrocketed over that period. Globalization is the primary culprit for that. It affects everyone from inner city african americans to midwestern whites or southern textile workers.

I cannot tell you how much I disagree with globalization as the reason for stagnating median income.

You followed that with

You are talking about well over half of the working population being screwed over by our trade treaties.

And no, I'm not Donald Trump. I'll give specifics. Our trade treaties allow any country with a VAT to give an export credit and charge VAT on all imports. That's pretty much every country in the world except for us and it puts our workers at a 10-20% disadvantage globally. That's **** asinine. Whomever agreed to that should be skinned alive. Congress even tried to fix this but was shot down by the WTO.

I cannot tell you how much I disagree that our trade treaties are "screwing us over".

Do I think our trade treaties have hurt some of the work force? Sure, there is no perfect agreement for trade. You do have to give up something to get something.

Do I think that the COUNTRY is worse because we use trade treaties? No. This is a laughable position that you've taken that literally no one in the economics field agrees with you.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m

I'm not sure what your plan is to "fix" the problem of trade so I won't speak for you but I think you highly overrate "globalization" as a problem on the US economy. I think you highly underestimate how much capital investment has impacted manufacturing as an example instead of globalization. Globalization is an easy thing to attack for politicians (i.e you'd have jobs if not for China/Mexico stealing them) but I do not believe that to be the case. If a job is being done in those areas, the wages are so drastically different than American wages that if that job was ever forced to be done in the US, it would be automated. I think we've only touched the surface of job displacement due to technology; a vastly larger threat to future jobs than globalization is.

I can also buy an argument that automation is going to be a problem for how we act because a ton of jobs (transport, minimum wage, etc) with high participation rates can be automated and we simply do not have the demand in other areas to put those workers. IMO, it will take a New Deal 2.0 with infrastructure development to solve the problem of full automation. But if manufacturing is any example, automation will make us vastly more efficient but less people have jobs. That's a direct fight between what's ideal for business and what's ideal for a country/voters .

With regards to trades and treaties, I can buy an argument that trade helps the companies who utilize it more than the people who buy those goods but I still think the US is better off with trade than they are not trading. And if you're going to trade, agreements are better than not having agreements on trade.

I guess I'm more interested in what you think the solution is than what you think the problem is.

Why does globalization screw over the working middle class?

The skill levels there are not unique. As such, they are susceptible to market pressures. By being willing to buy from the rest of the world, we have created an issue where there is a significant supply of labor which depresses its price. Everyone in this thread is talking about that, including yourself.

At the same time, globalization has allowed high skilled workers and investors (read corporations) access to global markets. This has allowed them to increase their income and profit. Hence, globalization drives income inequality.

What to do about fixing trade?

Allow some type of VAT patch where the US can tack on an equivalent tax to the exporting/importing country. I would also have no issue if some portion of our income tax/social security tax was replace with a national sales tax. Would this bring back all jobs? Of course not. However, only a small percentage change in our import/export balance would have a significant impact on our labor situation.

I would love to get rid of content legislation or at a minimum, punish the countries that employ it.

......

The automation discussion in this thread is driving me nuts. I'll use another analogy. Farming.

A long time ago, 90%+ of all people were farmers in the US. Improvements in technology drastically changed that to the point where only 1% is now farming and we produce more than enough food for everyone. End result is that food prices came down and labor was freed up to do other things. Standard of living went way up.

The same thing is happening with manufacturing with two huge caveats:
- We no longer manufacture everything we need.
- Prices are not coming down outside of select electronics sectors

Automation is a huge factor. If we can't come up with new demand to replace the old demand, people will be out of work. With that said, there are other issues here that are policy related which can be fixed and if they were, american standard of living would improve.

......

As a side note, I work in heavy manufacturing. One of the parts of my job is putting in ABB (read, not american) six axis robots to replace humans so I can make parts that will be shipped from Brazil to Saudi Arabia. I also deal with customers and have been involved with Fortune 10 companies making global purchasing decisions where hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts are moved around the world for small percentage price differences. I know you won't accept my anecdotal stories but when I hear economists trying to tell me how the world works I reflexively roll my eyes.

[fleet]

This should help with suburban women

BREAKING POLITICS OCT 7 2016, 4:08 PM ET
Trump on Hot Mic: 'When You're a Star ... You Can Do Anything' to Women
by JANE C. TIMM
SHARE

A decade before Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for president, his candid views on women were caught on tape.

"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet," Trump said in 2005 during a conversation with Billy Bush caught on audio during the taping of an interview for Access Hollywood. "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab 'em by the pussy."

Ten years later, Trump as a candidate and now as the Republican nominee has come under fire for insulting and directing crude language toward women. He's rejected such criticism repeatedly, insisting "nobody has more respect for women than me."

In the 2005 recording obtained by NBC News from Access Hollywood, Trump, then newly married to Melania Trump, spots a young woman through the bus window.

"Woah, woah," he said to Bush about the woman's appearance. "I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her."

Earlier in the conversation, Trump recalls talking about trying to woo a married woman.

"I moved on her actually, she was down in Palm Beach and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try to **** her, she was married … and I moved on her very heavily," Trump is heard saying.

"I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture and I told her 'I'll show you where you can get some nice furniture,'" Trump is heard saying. "I moved on her like a bitch, and I could not get there, and she was married. And all the sudden I see her and she's got the big phony tits, she's totally changed her look."

[holv03]

Not just his blatant misogyny, but the guy is a blatant racist! How can anyone that is, or knows any one who is a minority vote for Trump? It just shocks me on a daily basis that a guy who is openly, over and over, making racist comments - disparaging anyone in sight - and people just say "Yeah well Hillary lies."

I've never been more fearful for the state of the world than the thought of Trump sitting at that desk. If the choices are a shady liar, a white supremacist, and an utter buffoon, I am voting for the political spinster every time. Trump in the Oval Office would be the most hated leader in the world by everyone except Russia. Come on.

As a minority ... I don't see Trump as racist at all. If he's racist...then I'm racist. He puts America first. I'm still trying to figure out why so many black people hate him. Mexicans I can understand bc of the whole border situation.

He said Arab Americans were cheering the 9/11 attacks...

TRUMP: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “As I said, the police have said it didn’t happen.”

I'm sorry to say this but that is a fact. The day that 9-11 happen the Arab population was cheering as the World Trade Center came down. Trump isn't lying about that because even my uncle who lives in Jersey City NJ and my cousin who lives in Hoboken NJ said the same thing when it happen. There was people cheering but the media will never report that.

[AKfanatic]

As a minority ... I don't see Trump as racist at all. If he's racist...then I'm racist. He puts America first. I'm still trying to figure out why so many black people hate him. Mexicans I can understand bc of the whole border situation.

He said Arab Americans were cheering the 9/11 attacks...

TRUMP: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “As I said, the police have said it didn’t happen.”

I'm sorry to say this but that is a fact. The day that 9-11 happen the Arab population was cheering as the World Trade Center came down. Trump isn't lying about that because even my uncle who lives in Jersey City NJ and my cousin who lives in Hoboken NJ said the same thing when it happen. There was people cheering but the media will never report that.

And yet with all the uncles and cousins in Jersey, all the citizen video and news footage of that day (it was 9 f'n 11), no footage has popped up of 10's, 100's, let alone 1,000's, of Muslims cheering in Jersey.

Did such cheering occur abroad? Absolutely. Were there people of all races, religions, or ethnic backgrounds, within the US cheering? Privately, pretty likely.

This Trump tactic at ratcheting up the hate against "them" appeals to the absolute worst of humans...there's a word for such rhetoric. Deplorable.

[ImSlower]

I fully expect Trump's absurdly misogynistic remarks that are all over CNN today to be "just another one of those quotes" moments for him. He's totally unassailable. Those that like him for speaking his mind simply don't care about statements like this.

For Christ's sake, a man supported by tens of millions of voters publicly jokes about sexually assaulting random women. "I don't even wait. When you're a star, they let you."

This kind of quote would spark debate if it were said by a professional athlete - one side would say it's locker-room gutter talk, and the other side would say it's unacceptable speech. Except this is a Presidential Candidate!! Argh. I want to move to New Zealand.

[AKfanatic]

This should help with suburban women

BREAKING POLITICS OCT 7 2016, 4:08 PM ET
Trump on Hot Mic: 'When You're a Star ... You Can Do Anything' to Women
by JANE C. TIMM
SHARE

A decade before Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for president, his candid views on women were caught on tape.

"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet," Trump said in 2005 during a conversation with Billy Bush caught on audio during the taping of an interview for Access Hollywood. "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab 'em by the pussy."

Ten years later, Trump as a candidate and now as the Republican nominee has come under fire for insulting and directing crude language toward women. He's rejected such criticism repeatedly, insisting "nobody has more respect for women than me."

In the 2005 recording obtained by NBC News from Access Hollywood, Trump, then newly married to Melania Trump, spots a young woman through the bus window.

"Woah, woah," he said to Bush about the woman's appearance. "I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her."

Earlier in the conversation, Trump recalls talking about trying to woo a married woman.

"I moved on her actually, she was down in Palm Beach and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try to **** her, she was married … and I moved on her very heavily," Trump is heard saying.

"I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture and I told her 'I'll show you where you can get some nice furniture,'" Trump is heard saying. "I moved on her like a bitch, and I could not get there, and she was married. And all the sudden I see her and she's got the big phony tits, she's totally changed her look."

"We Men"

[SHO'NUFF]

I fully expect Trump's absurdly misogynistic remarks that are all over CNN today to be "just another one of those quotes" moments for him. He's totally unassailable. Those that like him for speaking his mind simply don't care about statements like this.

For Christ's sake, a man supported by tens of millions of voters publicly jokes about sexually assaulting random women. "I don't even wait. When you're a star, they let you."

This kind of quote would spark debate if it were said by a professional athlete - one side would say it's locker-room gutter talk, and the other side would say it's unacceptable speech. Except this is a Presidential Candidate!! Argh. I want to move to New Zealand.

Though it was wrong to say what he said (off the record) ... It was said by a famous businessman in 2005. The difference between Trump and previous presidential candidates is that Trump has had a camera on him since his 20s. You'll find stuff on him no matter what. You'd find plenty of dirt on previous presidents had they been famous before becoming President. Obama admitted to doing cocaine back in the day. Things happen in people's private lives they aren't proud of....some things can't remain private because of who you are.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had similar accusations about how he treated women when he was running for Governor of California....Again, he's had a camera on him since his 20s...stuff will surly get out especially if you never thought of becoming a Governor let alone a president.

It was wrong for Trump to say what he said. He's human. He's apologized....nothing more you can ask him to do as it was said 11 years ago as a famous businessman.

[AKfanatic]

I fully expect Trump's absurdly misogynistic remarks that are all over CNN today to be "just another one of those quotes" moments for him. He's totally unassailable. Those that like him for speaking his mind simply don't care about statements like this.

For Christ's sake, a man supported by tens of millions of voters publicly jokes about sexually assaulting random women. "I don't even wait. When you're a star, they let you."

This kind of quote would spark debate if it were said by a professional athlete - one side would say it's locker-room gutter talk, and the other side would say it's unacceptable speech. Except this is a Presidential Candidate!! Argh. I want to move to New Zealand.

Though it was wrong to say what he said (off the record) ... It was said by a famous businessman in 2005. The difference between Trump and previous presidential candidates is that Trump has had a camera on him since his 20s. You'll find stuff on him no matter what. You'd find plenty of dirt on previous presidents had they been famous before becoming President. Obama admitted to doing cocaine back in the day. Things happen in people's private lives they aren't proud of....some things can't remain private because of who you are.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had similar accusations about how he treated women when he was running for Governor of California....Again, he's had a camera on him since his 20s...stuff will surly get out especially if you never thought of becoming a Governor let alone a president.

It was wrong for Trump to say what he said. He's human. He's apologized....nothing more you can ask him to do as it was said 11 years ago as a famous businessman.

Apologized...

Heh

Trump did his General Disarray impression and stated clearly, as he has also on the birther issue, "Clinton's did it!!"

This isn't some one off, locker room, we men, talk. Trump has shown who he is by attacking women numerous time. He did it in front of supporters, he's called in to cable news shows to attack women. Donald Trump is and always has been a giant pos, be that from his sexist garbage or his hateful and racist crap.

Supporters can keep making excuses or living in denial, but that doesn't change the mountains of evidence against the orange dump that they want to vote for.

[cocktailswith_2short]

A man being a man is really what you guys are concerned with ?

The Podesta Leaks confirmed there is a real NWO and that the partys are singular there is no difference. The levels of corruption here make Nixon look like an alter boy. Nevermind Bill Clinton himself did worse than this as the president in the white house.

[ImSlower]

Sweet. Once Trump is president, can I meet your sister? I promise that even though I'm not a star, she will like it when I push her against the wall, kiss her, and fondle her genitalia. This is what Trump is bragging about, and has been accused of multiple times. Because deep down, that's the way women like to be treated? It'd just be me being a man, and all.

I'm not defending Bill Clinton. The dude got an intern to give him oral sex and probably more, while he was president. I'm not defending HIllary for being an unlikable politico type. I do think it's pretty shocking how many Trump supporters just keep finding new ways of deflecting his bigotry and misogyny.

To clarify, when I say "Get a grip, man." I do not mean that you are allowed to grip genitalia without consent.

[TheSuzerain]

Looks like this is over.

The rats that endorsed him are now scampering from the Trumptanic.

[r1terrell23]

I fully expect Trump's absurdly misogynistic remarks that are all over CNN today to be "just another one of those quotes" moments for him. He's totally unassailable. Those that like him for speaking his mind simply don't care about statements like this.

For Christ's sake, a man supported by tens of millions of voters publicly jokes about sexually assaulting random women. "I don't even wait. When you're a star, they let you."

This kind of quote would spark debate if it were said by a professional athlete - one side would say it's locker-room gutter talk, and the other side would say it's unacceptable speech. Except this is a Presidential Candidate!! Argh. I want to move to New Zealand.

Though it was wrong to say what he said (off the record) ... It was said by a famous businessman in 2005. The difference between Trump and previous presidential candidates is that Trump has had a camera on him since his 20s. You'll find stuff on him no matter what. You'd find plenty of dirt on previous presidents had they been famous before becoming President. Obama admitted to doing cocaine back in the day. Things happen in people's private lives they aren't proud of....some things can't remain private because of who you are.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had similar accusations about how he treated women when he was running for Governor of California....Again, he's had a camera on him since his 20s...stuff will surly get out especially if you never thought of becoming a Governor let alone a president.

It was wrong for Trump to say what he said. He's human. He's apologized....nothing more you can ask him to do as it was said 11 years ago as a famous businessman.

Trump said in the 80's he would run for president. So he should have known better. Only an idiot would say the things he does in front of a camera famous or not. Why would a businessman make those types of comments in public and call into cable shows to say more dumb crap? If this were an isolated incident that would be different. But it's not and there is a long history of blatant sexist behavior and speech out of him. He is a man so he can do as he pleases as long as it is legal, but this type of blatant ignorance should not be acceptable for an aspiring president or businessman.

[DuckIII]

A man being a man is really what you guys are concerned with ?

It's sad that you think those statements represent acceptable male behavior or, worse, normal male behavior. It's neither.