I'll be the first to say it.

the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.

on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

just as a follow up, mrs. eaglex is watching the happy lesbian on a nightly basis.

I gave up cable news years ago, but it is interesting to watch the dynamic.

#triggered

He hasn’t changed me. Because I don’t let politicians who I’ll likely never meet in my lifetime change me. That’s silly.

The only truths you know or think you know about any President are the direct results of media stories which are rife with bias based on which “anchor” is presenting it to you.

I don’t mean any offense by this, but to allow a president to change you as a human or push you to abandon your political leanings means you really didn’t have any in the first place. It indicates a weak capacity to maintain your self and your principles. To give up on principles whether they be conservative or liberal solely to oppose those same principles or standards held by an individual you don’t actually know is the ultimate in mental weakness, IMO. You can agree with someone and not like them as a person. But to entirely alter your political stance because you don’t like someone or the language they use/used in the past is comical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.
the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.
on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

The former trade agreements may have been, "ass rammings," as you describe, but a big part of the problem is that we were always negotiating from a position of self-imposed weakness. The bribe that we offered our allies at Bretton Woods was that if you just align with us against the communists and fight the Cold War the way we tell you, we will give you one-way access into our markets and our navy will protect your trade routes so you don't have to embark on an expensive rebuild of your navies. So our trade policy wasn't about trade, it was a result of our national defense policy. The problem is that nobody figured out what to do if we won, so we've been following this outdated paradigm for 30 years. Republican neocons like it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it, and democrats liked it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it. But it was not in the best interests of our economy. We negotiated things like NAFTA from this standpoint.

Enter Donald Trump, who has shattered that old paradigm--NATO allies have to pick up more of the clack, renegotiate trade deals, tariffs, and all that. I'm not a fan of tariffs. My approach would be to do the one thing that everybody but us does--a consumption tax, which can be levied on all imports without the necessity of a tariff. That, plus the fact that it can be recouped on all exports, gives it subtle, but powerful, trade protection impact. But, of course, trade protection for the US is contrary to Bretton Woods.

Trump is thoroughly crude, bombastic, and unlikeable. But he's also the first republican to stand up to the democrats in decades. As I've said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the milquetoast wusses who have cowered for the past couple of decades--Boehner, Ryan (although I give him a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job), McConnell, and even GWB--have been pretty worthless as enemies of my enemy. He wasn't my favorite republican candidate--out of a field of roughly 14, he was roughly 14th in my mind--and I did not vote for hm. But I will probably vote for him 2020, at least if the democrat ticket comes from the current group of contenders.

Not because I want to, but because I have to.

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.

the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.

on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

Why would mens locker room talk, that has nothing to do with political policy, flip your wife to the Dems?

(03-17-2019 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.
the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.
on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

The former trade agreements may have been, "ass rammings," as you describe, but a big part of the problem is that we were always negotiating from a position of self-imposed weakness. The bribe that we offered our allies at Bretton Woods was that if you just align with us against the communists and fight the Cold War the way we tell you, we will give you one-way access into our markets and our navy will protect your trade routes so you don't have to embark on an expensive rebuild of your navies. So our trade policy wasn't about trade, it was a result of our national defense policy. The problem is that nobody figured out what to do if we won, so we've been following this outdated paradigm for 30 years. Republican neocons like it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it, and democrats liked it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it. But it was not in the best interests of our economy. We negotiated things like NAFTA from this standpoint.

Enter Donald Trump, who has shattered that old paradigm--NATO allies have to pick up more of the clack, renegotiate trade deals, tariffs, and all that. I'm not a fan of tariffs. My approach would be to do the one thing that everybody but us does--a consumption tax, which can be levied on all imports without the necessity of a tariff. That, plus the fact that it can be recouped on all exports, gives it subtle, but powerful, trade protection impact. But, of course, trade protection for the US is contrary to Bretton Woods.

Trump is thoroughly crude, bombastic, and unlikeable. But he's also the first republican to stand up to the democrats in decades. As I've said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the milquetoast wusses who have cowered for the past couple of decades--Boehner, Ryan (although I give him a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job), McConnell, and even GWB--have been pretty worthless as enemies of my enemy. He wasn't my favorite republican candidate--out of a field of roughly 14, he was roughly 14th in my mind--and I did not vote for hm. But I will probably vote for him 2020, at least if the democrat ticket comes from the current group of contenders.

Not because I want to, but because I have to.

There were 17. He was my 17th and didn't change me. He didn't change my views either, although he refocused them. I've been saying we needed to do something about China for a long time. I knew the rest of the trade deals were not fair trade. I'd already realized Reagan's immigration amnesty was a huge mistake and that we needed to get serious about controlling illegal immigration. He has opened my eyes to just how bad things have become for the HS educated blue collar worker. I knew it was a problem, having lived in the midwest, but with the decline in life expectancies coupled with the rise of DJT, you can't ignore it (unless you are an arrogant ignorant democrat).

(03-17-2019 08:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.

the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.

on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

Why would mens locker room talk, that has nothing to do with political policy, flip your wife to the Dems?

If DJT's locker room TALK as a private citizen changed her political leanings so completely then how does she square Bill Clinton's ACTIONS while IN OFFICE? #hypocrit #neverwasaconservative

Trump has radically changed the whole country in several respects, and made most people firmly choose sides and exposed a ton of hypocrisy and bias while dramatically redrawing many political lines. The media is no longer pretending to be non partisan and is just openly operating as the public relations of the Democrat party and the opposition to the president. Not just the MSM tv stuff, but all of print and most internet based media are openly campaigning as the opposition to the president.

The media, Hollywood and network Tv are so openly biased and anti conservative now I don't see how we can ever go back to how things were.

The genie is fully out of the bottle.

I didn’t vote for Trump based on his lack of morals. I think the person who represents us globally should at least have some sort of moral compass, which I’m not 100% sure he does. I’m also fairly libertarian and voted for Johnson the past 2 elections.

That being said, his policies and ways he’s dealt with the whack job progressive left have warmed me up to him. If the libertarians run another dud in 2020 I’ll probably vote for Trump. If Amash runs as a libertarian I’ll probably vote for him.

(03-17-2019 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.
the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.
on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

The former trade agreements may have been, "ass rammings," as you describe, but a big part of the problem is that we were always negotiating from a position of self-imposed weakness. The bribe that we offered our allies at Bretton Woods was that if you just align with us against the communists and fight the Cold War the way we tell you, we will give you one-way access into our markets and our navy will protect your trade routes so you don't have to embark on an expensive rebuild of your navies. So our trade policy wasn't about trade, it was a result of our national defense policy. The problem is that nobody figured out what to do if we won, so we've been following this outdated paradigm for 30 years. Republican neocons like it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it, and democrats liked it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it. But it was not in the best interests of our economy. We negotiated things like NAFTA from this standpoint.
Enter Donald Trump, who has shattered that old paradigm--NATO allies have to pick up more of the clack, renegotiate trade deals, tariffs, and all that. I'm not a fan of tariffs. My approach would be to do the one thing that everybody but us does--a consumption tax, which can be levied on all imports without the necessity of a tariff. That, plus the fact that it can be recouped on all exports, gives it subtle, but powerful, trade protection impact. But, of course, trade protection for the US is contrary to Bretton Woods.
Trump is thoroughly crude, bombastic, and unlikeable. But he's also the first republican to stand up to the democrats in decades. As I've said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the milquetoast wusses who have cowered for the past couple of decades--Boehner, Ryan (although I give him a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job), McConnell, and even GWB--have been pretty worthless as enemies of my enemy. He wasn't my favorite republican candidate--out of a field of roughly 14, he was roughly 14th in my mind--and I did not vote for hm. But I will probably vote for him 2020, at least if the democrat ticket comes from the current group of contenders.
Not because I want to, but because I have to.

There were 17. He was my 17th and didn't change me. He didn't change my views either, although he refocused them. I've been saying we needed to do something about China for a long time. I knew the rest of the trade deals were not fair trade. I'd already realized Reagan's immigration amnesty was a huge mistake and that we needed to get serious about controlling illegal immigration. He has opened my eyes to just how bad things have become for the HS educated blue collar worker. I knew it was a problem, having lived in the midwest, but with the decline in life expectancies coupled with the rise of DJT, you can't ignore it (unless you are an arrogant ignorant democrat).

I don't think he changed me. Then again, I don't think any president has ever changed my mind about much of anything. I'm not wired that way. My principles don't change based on win team is in power. But I do like the way he stands up to democrats instead of cowering.

(03-17-2019 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.
the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.
on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

The former trade agreements may have been, "ass rammings," as you describe, but a big part of the problem is that we were always negotiating from a position of self-imposed weakness. The bribe that we offered our allies at Bretton Woods was that if you just align with us against the communists and fight the Cold War the way we tell you, we will give you one-way access into our markets and our navy will protect your trade routes so you don't have to embark on an expensive rebuild of your navies. So our trade policy wasn't about trade, it was a result of our national defense policy. The problem is that nobody figured out what to do if we won, so we've been following this outdated paradigm for 30 years. Republican neocons like it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it, and democrats liked it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it. But it was not in the best interests of our economy. We negotiated things like NAFTA from this standpoint.
Enter Donald Trump, who has shattered that old paradigm--NATO allies have to pick up more of the clack, renegotiate trade deals, tariffs, and all that. I'm not a fan of tariffs. My approach would be to do the one thing that everybody but us does--a consumption tax, which can be levied on all imports without the necessity of a tariff. That, plus the fact that it can be recouped on all exports, gives it subtle, but powerful, trade protection impact. But, of course, trade protection for the US is contrary to Bretton Woods.
Trump is thoroughly crude, bombastic, and unlikeable. But he's also the first republican to stand up to the democrats in decades. As I've said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the milquetoast wusses who have cowered for the past couple of decades--Boehner, Ryan (although I give him a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job), McConnell, and even GWB--have been pretty worthless as enemies of my enemy. He wasn't my favorite republican candidate--out of a field of roughly 14, he was roughly 14th in my mind--and I did not vote for hm. But I will probably vote for him 2020, at least if the democrat ticket comes from the current group of contenders.
Not because I want to, but because I have to.

There were 17. He was my 17th and didn't change me. He didn't change my views either, although he refocused them. I've been saying we needed to do something about China for a long time. I knew the rest of the trade deals were not fair trade. I'd already realized Reagan's immigration amnesty was a huge mistake and that we needed to get serious about controlling illegal immigration. He has opened my eyes to just how bad things have become for the HS educated blue collar worker. I knew it was a problem, having lived in the midwest, but with the decline in life expectancies coupled with the rise of DJT, you can't ignore it (unless you are an arrogant ignorant democrat).

I don't think he changed me. Then again, I don't think any president has ever changed my mind about much of anything. I'm not wired that way. My principles don't change based on win team is in power. But I do like the way he stands up to democrats instead of cowering.

+ 1,000!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(03-17-2019 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.
the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.
on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

The former trade agreements may have been, "ass rammings," as you describe, but a big part of the problem is that we were always negotiating from a position of self-imposed weakness. The bribe that we offered our allies at Bretton Woods was that if you just align with us against the communists and fight the Cold War the way we tell you, we will give you one-way access into our markets and our navy will protect your trade routes so you don't have to embark on an expensive rebuild of your navies. So our trade policy wasn't about trade, it was a result of our national defense policy. The problem is that nobody figured out what to do if we won, so we've been following this outdated paradigm for 30 years. Republican neocons like it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it, and democrats liked it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it. But it was not in the best interests of our economy. We negotiated things like NAFTA from this standpoint.

Enter Donald Trump, who has shattered that old paradigm--NATO allies have to pick up more of the clack, renegotiate trade deals, tariffs, and all that. I'm not a fan of tariffs. My approach would be to do the one thing that everybody but us does--a consumption tax, which can be levied on all imports without the necessity of a tariff. That, plus the fact that it can be recouped on all exports, gives it subtle, but powerful, trade protection impact. But, of course, trade protection for the US is contrary to Bretton Woods.

Trump is thoroughly crude, bombastic, and unlikeable. But he's also the first republican to stand up to the democrats in decades. As I've said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the milquetoast wusses who have cowered for the past couple of decades--Boehner, Ryan (although I give him a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job), McConnell, and even GWB--have been pretty worthless as enemies of my enemy. He wasn't my favorite republican candidate--out of a field of roughly 14, he was roughly 14th in my mind--and I did not vote for hm. But I will probably vote for him 2020, at least if the democrat ticket comes from the current group of contenders.

Not because I want to, but because I have to.

I wish that you would learn to write in bullet points.

I've moderated on trade, censorship, and the breaking up of tech giants.

I've backed away from muh principled conservatism, and now find it cringeworthy. Principled losers and controlled opposition are what they are. I can barely even listen to ben shapiro anymore, and his constant shilling for amazon, where he would gladly sell the entire country and every job in it down the drain if muh free markets could deliver his widgets for a fraction of a penny less than before.

(03-17-2019 10:16 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.
the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.
on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

The former trade agreements may have been, "ass rammings," as you describe, but a big part of the problem is that we were always negotiating from a position of self-imposed weakness. The bribe that we offered our allies at Bretton Woods was that if you just align with us against the communists and fight the Cold War the way we tell you, we will give you one-way access into our markets and our navy will protect your trade routes so you don't have to embark on an expensive rebuild of your navies. So our trade policy wasn't about trade, it was a result of our national defense policy. The problem is that nobody figured out what to do if we won, so we've been following this outdated paradigm for 30 years. Republican neocons like it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it, and democrats liked it because it gave us control of the world, or at least a large part of it. But it was not in the best interests of our economy. We negotiated things like NAFTA from this standpoint.
Enter Donald Trump, who has shattered that old paradigm--NATO allies have to pick up more of the clack, renegotiate trade deals, tariffs, and all that. I'm not a fan of tariffs. My approach would be to do the one thing that everybody but us does--a consumption tax, which can be levied on all imports without the necessity of a tariff. That, plus the fact that it can be recouped on all exports, gives it subtle, but powerful, trade protection impact. But, of course, trade protection for the US is contrary to Bretton Woods.
Trump is thoroughly crude, bombastic, and unlikeable. But he's also the first republican to stand up to the democrats in decades. As I've said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the milquetoast wusses who have cowered for the past couple of decades--Boehner, Ryan (although I give him a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job), McConnell, and even GWB--have been pretty worthless as enemies of my enemy. He wasn't my favorite republican candidate--out of a field of roughly 14, he was roughly 14th in my mind--and I did not vote for hm. But I will probably vote for him 2020, at least if the democrat ticket comes from the current group of contenders.
Not because I want to, but because I have to.

I wish that you would learn to write in bullet points.

Sometimes bullet points are good. Sometimes not.

DJT woke me to the SWAMP, I hadn't realized it before, but there have been THREE outsiders elected as POTUS in my lifetime, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald J Trump. The SWAMP destroyed Nixon mainly for actions predecessors and successors have been guilty of. The SWAMP tried to destroy Reagan, but his masterful communication skills and charismatic personality made it impossible. DJT, poses a different problem to the SWAMP, while not particularly popular and definitely NOT charismatic he is combative and his approach has proven effective against those who would take him down.

The SWAMP wants more control, the dems and republicans just want power. The dems control MSM and use it to maintain power, the republicans are afraid to fight back so they give in on most important policies to stay in power and avoid becoming targets of the SWAMP.

Trump hasn’t changed me, but the reactions of Democrats to his winning the election sure have shoved me more in his camp.

I’ve been generally pleased with his policies and choices for judges, but do wish sometimes he’d keep his mouth shut.

I will say that my wife who was more middle of the road than me has been so turned off by the Dems for the Kavanaugh stuff, Green New Deal, etc. that I’ve heard her say that for the 1st time in her life she’d go in the voting booth and vote straight ticket Republican.

Trump certainly has his warts, but right now, the Democrat party is downright scary............like Venezuela scary......

(03-17-2019 09:22 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.

the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.

on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

Why would mens locker room talk, that has nothing to do with political policy, flip your wife to the Dems?

If DJT's locker room TALK as a private citizen changed her political leanings so completely then how does she square Bill Clinton's ACTIONS while IN OFFICE? #hypocrit #neverwasaconservative

I don't remember Monica saying Bill just grabbed her. If she did, please refresh my memory. Trump sounds like the Mexican rapist he hates so much.

(03-17-2019 05:40 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:22 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.

the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.

on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

Why would mens locker room talk, that has nothing to do with political policy, flip your wife to the Dems?

If DJT's locker room TALK as a private citizen changed her political leanings so completely then how does she square Bill Clinton's ACTIONS while IN OFFICE? #hypocrit #neverwasaconservative

I don't remember Monica saying Bill just grabbed her. If she did, please refresh my memory. Trump sounds like the Mexican rapist he hates so much.

Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Leslie Millwee accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993.

Bill CLinton's relationship with Monica, who was at the time a White House intern, is considered sexual misconduct because of the vast power imbalance between a president and an intern.

BTW Trump TALKED about sexual misconduct.
Clinton DID sexual misconduct.

(03-17-2019 06:12 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 05:40 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 09:22 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 08:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 12:53 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I'll be the first to say it.

the DJT presidency has changed my (formerly, as I thought) philosophy on a few things; trade is the primary example. free trade is fair trade, I always thought. but our former trade negotiations, NAFTA, for example, were conglomerations of ass ramming from all of our trading partners.

on a personal note, he also made mrs. eaglex a democrat. she was a reliable republican until the ***** grabbing video. that crossed a line for her, and, while she is not a liberal, she is adamantly anti-trump.

Why would mens locker room talk, that has nothing to do with political policy, flip your wife to the Dems?

If DJT's locker room TALK as a private citizen changed her political leanings so completely then how does she square Bill Clinton's ACTIONS while IN OFFICE? #hypocrit #neverwasaconservative

I don't remember Monica saying Bill just grabbed her. If she did, please refresh my memory. Trump sounds like the Mexican rapist he hates so much.

Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Leslie Millwee accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993.

Bill CLinton's relationship with Monica, who was at the time a White House intern, is considered sexual misconduct because of the vast power imbalance between a president and an intern.

BTW Trump TALKED about sexual misconduct.
Clinton DID sexual misconduct.

So you went back farther than the whitehouse. I wonder if Trump, Clinton, and Kraft went to the same massage parlor's. They seemed to roll in the same circles. The rub and tug gang.