Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Donald's Accusers Are Liars
Well , she should know the man , shouldn't she ?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Talbot - //I'm waiting patiently for Dolly Kyle to be given the same airtime to balance things up.. //
It wouldn't balance things up.
Trump is a candidate - President Clinton is not.
If there is someone who wants to come forward and accuse Hilary Clinton of molesting them, then they should be given airtime - that would balance things up.
It wouldn't balance things up.
Trump is a candidate - President Clinton is not.
If there is someone who wants to come forward and accuse Hilary Clinton of molesting them, then they should be given airtime - that would balance things up.
For the benefit of those who didn't get the joke about Barack Obama... in a speech at the Republican conference Melania Trump gave a glowing endorsement of her husband and the journey the had together. Trouble was it turned out to be heavily plagiarised from a speech Michelle Obama had given eight years earlier. Eventually the Trump campaign acknowledged this.
As for Naomi laughing at the irony of my post in another thread... would she care to read further down in the same thread to see the point I was making? If not, I'll make it again for her benefit: I don't have a problem with people digging into Clinton's past. The Trump campaign, however, has a history of digging into her past and claiming that stuff she said ten, 20, even 30 years ago is relevant while denying that the same is true for remarks in Trump's past. The double standards therefore apply to *them*, not me.
I don't have any intention of stopping people talking about Clinton's past, nor do I deny that it's relevant and worth asking questions about.
As for Naomi laughing at the irony of my post in another thread... would she care to read further down in the same thread to see the point I was making? If not, I'll make it again for her benefit: I don't have a problem with people digging into Clinton's past. The Trump campaign, however, has a history of digging into her past and claiming that stuff she said ten, 20, even 30 years ago is relevant while denying that the same is true for remarks in Trump's past. The double standards therefore apply to *them*, not me.
I don't have any intention of stopping people talking about Clinton's past, nor do I deny that it's relevant and worth asking questions about.
Well, she is hardly going to say very much about her husband is she !
As Ummm has said, he can't deny that he didn't say the words, nor does he attempt to.
But I for one are not prepared to believe that it was just "boy talk".....the man is an ignorant boor, and what he said is true to form. It fits in very nicely with all the other nasty, ignorant utterances that he has made this year.
And, if all the Polls are to be believed it has now come back to bite him in the ***.
As Ummm has said, he can't deny that he didn't say the words, nor does he attempt to.
But I for one are not prepared to believe that it was just "boy talk".....the man is an ignorant boor, and what he said is true to form. It fits in very nicely with all the other nasty, ignorant utterances that he has made this year.
And, if all the Polls are to be believed it has now come back to bite him in the ***.
For the moment, at least, I am fairly convinced that I have said nothing about Trump that is inaccurate. If they are true I have said so; if there is doubt I have acknowledged that such doubt exists; if there *are*, after all, anything that is known to be a lie about him, I will acknowledge that too and apologise.
In the meantime, I will continue to criticise Trump as much as I like without reference to your own opinion on the subject. I don't like Clinton much -- I think she'll likely go down as an ineffective president -- but I believe Trump to be dangerous in a way that is basically off the scale, and so utterly unfit to hold the office that Clinton's own flaws pale into insignificance next to his.
In the meantime, I will continue to criticise Trump as much as I like without reference to your own opinion on the subject. I don't like Clinton much -- I think she'll likely go down as an ineffective president -- but I believe Trump to be dangerous in a way that is basically off the scale, and so utterly unfit to hold the office that Clinton's own flaws pale into insignificance next to his.
Former presidents were never referred to as President once out of office, a precedent set by Washington who reverted to General, however it does seem to have crept in over the last couple of decades and there are various arguments as to why it shouldn't be used but once the media gets hold of anything it tends to stick. There can only be one president at any one time therefore calling anyone else President so and so must be incorrect, ex-president or former president would be correct and in fact the US has the Former Presidents Act which governs how much they are paid once they have left office and what security they and their families will receive.
an etiquette expert writes:
All U.S. presidents retain their title for life, so all former presidents are referred to as Mr. President or President [last name].
http://
It's quite true, they still talk of President Carter and have to distinguish between two Presidents Bush, or maybe it's two President Bushes, I'd have to ask an etiquette expert.
All U.S. presidents retain their title for life, so all former presidents are referred to as Mr. President or President [last name].
http://
It's quite true, they still talk of President Carter and have to distinguish between two Presidents Bush, or maybe it's two President Bushes, I'd have to ask an etiquette expert.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.