Donald Trump #fundie

Donald Trump #fundie dailymail.co.uk

'In a couple of years, I'll be dating you': What a 46-year-old Donald Trump told two 14-year-old choirgirls as they performed for him outside the Plaza

Donald Trump told a group of 14-year-old girls he would be 'dating' them in 'a couple of years' in 1992, the latest in a stream of decades-old comments to have emerged as he battles for his spot in the presidential race.

Then 46, the businessman watched the choir girls perform at The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, New York, before reportedly making the questionable comment.

It was reported in a Chicago Tribune newspaper article at the time under the headline: 'Such a comedian'.

'Donald Trump turned up Monday for a carol sing by a youth choir outside Manhattan's Plaza Hotel.

'He asked two of the girls how old they were. After they replied they were 14, Trump said: 'Wow. Just think - in a couple of years I'll be dating you,' the report, from a December 1992 wire brief said.

It was published by The Los Angeles Times on Friday morning, hours after footage in which he agreed jokingly that he was a 'sexual predator' emerged.

In the 2006 video, he shrugged and laughed as the label was given to him by radio host Robin Quivers. Trump's 24-year-old daughter, who would have been 10 in 1992, was present.

On Thursday, other footage in which he boasted he would be dating a '10-year-old girl in 10 years' surfaced.

In the 1992 Entertainment Tonight tape, Trump, who was 46 at the time, allowed the girl on to the escalator at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York.

As she rode up it with a group of others, he was caught on microphone boasting: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?'.

The video, which was released by CBS News on Wednesday, is the latest in which the Republican presidential candidate has made questionable comments towards women.

At the time Trump had been divorced from his first wife, Ivanka, for a year and was dating his second wife, Marla Maples.

The footage showed Trump asking the girl: 'Are you going up the escalator?' while both are out of view.

'Yeah,' she replies, before stepping on to it.

Still out of frame, he then boasted: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it.'

The unknown girl was 10 at the time, CBS, which owns Entertainment Tonight, claimed, and was in a group of other children.

132 comments

old comment by Shephard Solus

@Pharaoh Bastethotep
Because he and his bootlickers were initially very big on flat out denying that he ever said or did the things he's said and done. This recent trend of excusing him for the shit he's pulled in the past is a result of being presented with a wealth of video evidence that made the "nuh uh" defense untenable for all but the most pathetic of Trumpite cultists (the ones who, like Ham & Comfort before them, will deny the facts, demand proof of them and then purposefully ignore that proof when it's presented and ask for it all over again tomorrow). So now it's fun to watch ever more examples of all these things he supposedly didn't do pour in on an almost daily basis and his faithful scramble to find excuses for him.

Basically it's the paedophile priest fiasco all over again. "That never happened! That never happened! That... okay, it happened once but so what? One isolated incident... okay so it happened twice, but... okay, I can see how that looks bad, but... OKAY, FINE! IT HAPPENED BUT THAT WAS ALL IN THE PAST! WHY ARE YOU SO FOCUSED ON THE PAST!?"

old comment by

So he's basically saying he'll wait for one girl until she's 20. Which is probably a joke anyway since I doubt he'll ever actually see her again.

Then he says he'll wait a "couple of years" (which by the way doesn't literally mean 2 years, it means more than one but indefinitely small in number; "a few roses"; "a couple of roses") for two girls who are now 14. Worst case scenario that's 16, which is above the age of consent in most places, but he's probably talking 18 which is fine everywhere apart from the Prudistans of the world. And again, sounds like a joke anyway.

But he's the predator... yeah right. 18-20 isn't predatory. Don't care how gross you think it is for an old man, they should be mature enough to give meaningful consent.

old comment by Saika

Completely shows where his head is at whenever he interacts with a female of any sort (firmly up his ass).
Is she hot enough for me to do her? / I want to do her. / Where do I want to do her? / How do I want to do her? / Why am I not currently doing her? / How long until I can do her?
It's never:
Oh, here is the reporter who has come to talk to me. / This is a fan. / This is a random fellow passenger whom I'll probably never see again. / This is a child.
These thoughts are reserved for men. (And probably even then framed less respectfully.)
Nope. You can almost hear the click click clicking, see the little clock pieces in his head calculate a female human's fuckability. He says "I'll be dating you." I. Will. Not "we could date". I. Will. If I choose you, I will have you. You have no say in the matter. Why would you? Your autonomy is virtually indistinguishable from that of a table or a handful of cutlery. In a couple of years I will deem you fuckable. And I'm Donald Trump - The Donald Trump. I get what I want. I'm a celebrity, so I always get what I want.

old comment by creativerealms

@ #1985580

Being a sexual predator isn't the same as being a peadophile. Trump was probably joking but he might not have been. He believes that his money and power makes him irresistible to woman and if a woman rejects him she is to blame.

Joking or not yes he is a predator, he does not even deny it, he justifies it. He believes his wealth and power makes it okay. Thing is in the Ninties Trump even said that his behavior would cause scandals far worse then Bill Clinton's. Those comments were probably jokes too.

The real problem some of us have with this is how fundamental Christians defend his behavior. Fundamental Christianity claims to be all about respecting women, it claims to be against lust and sexual immorality of any kind. It's this hyprocracy that is the problem. That they are bending over backwards to defend trumps behavior.

You are attacking SJWs and what not when the so called moral majority who should be against stuff like this isn't.

old comment by

@creativerealms

"The really problem some of us have with this is how fundamental Christians defend his behavior. Fundamental Christianity claims to be all about respecting women, it claims to be against lust and sexual immorality of any kind. It's this hyprocracy that is the problem. That they are bending over backwards to defend trumps behavior."

Only because the alternative is Hillary and because the criticism against him isn't accurate to begin with.

You see those comments as sexual assault, others however (correctly in my view) see it as just an old rich philanderer chasing status+money obsessed loose women.

And even if he was a rapist, I think the best course of action would be to just vote for him and then impeach him right after in order to have a better election. A lot of Republicans hate him so it shouldn't be too hard. But Hillary is such a crook she has to be denied the presidency. All her policies are wrong and will hurt America and hurt American allies and the free world in general. Just the refugees alone that she wants to bring will increase the number of rapes far more than Trump could ever rape in a life time (and again unproven allegations that have 0 credibility).

old comment by

@creativerealms

"He believes that his money and power makes him irresistible to woman and if a woman rejects him she is to blame."

He can believe whatever the fuck he wants, actions matter. (And money does make you irresistible to at least a small but not trivial subset of women. Otherwise prostitution and trophy wives wouldn't exist.)

So far no proof that any interactions with women were non-consent.

For an evil sexist, he sure made a lot of women rich too LOL. How many women have you made rich?

Allegations made decades after the fact, all at the same time 1 month before an election doesn't count.

Otherwise I can also claim that Hillary raped me.

Listen and believe LOL - SJW logic

old comment by nazani14

When someone repeatedly makes remarks like this, I think it's likely that he has initiated sexual contact with underage girls. I would suspect that even if there weren't a rape case involving a 13-year-old waiting in the wings. I'd suspect that even if there weren't those creepy photos of him with Ivanka.

@Pharaoh Bastethotep Like millions of women, I was approached by a guy who would have abused me if he'd had the chance. This is exactly the type of way predators look at girls, and exactly the type of remarks they make. It's a scary and disgusting experience. His behavior is a big goddamn red flag, and I hope our investigators press on and find the victims and help them get justice. There's too much smoke for there not to be any fire.

old comment by Mister Spak

@1985664

" Just the refugees alone that she wants to bring will increase the number of rapes far more than Trump could ever rape in a life time"

Except none of those refugees are running for president and none of the politically correct crowd that spent $70 million saying it about Bill Clinton is making excuses for them.

" (and again unproven allegations that have 0 credibility). "

As opposed to the unproven allegations against Hillary that have 0 credibility. ie. 8 investigations have found she was not involved.

@1985667

"Otherwise I can also claim that Hillary raped me."

That has as much credibility as anything else you've said, so go for it.

old comment by creativerealms

You assume that those refugees will be rapists. That makes you no better then someone who thinks that cops kill black people. Sure there might be a rapist in a group of refugees and well that is why past and present behavior should be closely checked. Same thing with a cop, there may be one or two abusing their power but we shouldn't blame all cops for it

Honestly I have researched about refugees and I know the type of background checks they go though, we won't have a ton of rapists sent over here any more then we will have a bunch of terrorists. Maybe one or two will slip though the cracks but I have enough faith in police and government agencies that they will be caught before they commit crimes.

A few ten thousand refugees is worth the risk of peaceful relations.

old comment by creativerealms

#1985664

It's based on what Trump himself has said. It is accurate unless you think Trump is lying.

Oh I'm well aware they think will never vote for Hillary and I wouldn't expect them to. However it does show the dishonesty of the so called moral right. If anything I was just justifying why this topic was here.

The religious right would never support a Democrat.

#1985667

Trump isn't an evil sexist. Is he sexist? Yes evil? No. Now making woman rich means he's not sexist? What? That's silly, it's more, the behavior and attitude.

I never said he was a rapist or anything like that.

I'm pretty sure I said that it's stupid that people are using these private conversations and jokes against Trump.

old comment by

@Pharaoh Bastethotep

He's attacking another man's masculinity (mainly his confidence and boldness), hence by extension his own masculinity. Hence why he's a mangina. And probably a virgin.

Claiming that it's a word only chauvinists use is like claiming that only SJWs use the word racist.

Here's the comment I was originally responding to:

""He says "I'll be dating you." I. Will. Not "we could date". I. Will. If I choose you, I will have you. You have no say in the matter.""

This is typical SJW language policing. Okay first of all you should not be saying either "I will date you" or "we could date" or even "would you like to go on a date?" to someone who's 10-14 and actually mean it both as a serious proposal and proposal for the present time. Trump was neither serious nor actually trying to date a 10 year old, he was talking about someone who would be 20. So let's make that clear first. 20 years old is more than enough to give meaningful consent. You're not even a teen-ager at 20 anymore.

That said, this guy honestly believes combinations of words alone rob women of their agency... somehow. As if a woman (and remember we're talking about someone who would be 20 at the time) could not just reply back to Trump "No you won't, Donald". No you see, in the name of equality and feminism we have to treat women like special little fragile snowflakes that can't handle words like a man, but they're equal to men... LOL

Seriously, the schizophrenia of third wave feminism needs to be exposed. They say men and women are equal, but at the same time they think women can't handle words like men can and need to be constantly sheltered from wrongspeak and mean words.

Every single thing that Trump says about one woman, whether it's Rosie O'Donnell or whoever, is taken as an attack against ALL WOMEN and Hillary goes along with it. She's not an SJW, (he's not even a genuine leftist by the way, she's just out for herself and the people who donate to her campaign and her foundation) but she knows how to pander to that crowd of easily offended morons. Notice however that nobody calls him "misandrist" if he attacks Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders or someone else who's male. Why is that? Equality my ass.

@nazani14

There's literally nothing creepy about the Trump and Ivanka photo, unless you have a "creepy" mind. You can find similar photos in almost any family album.

As for the "smoke", these women were silent for years maybe decades but we're supposed to believe them when they conveniently come out one month before the election. They didn't do it 1 or 5 or 10 years ago, they didn't do it the moment he announced to be running, they didn't do it when he was leading or when he won the Republican nomination.

Yeah right. I don't believe them one bit.

@creativerealms

"It's based on what Trump himself has said. It is accurate unless you think Trump is lying. "

Or unless I believe he's being hyperbolic, but even going literally by what he said in 2005, "they let you do it" because you're a "star".

Sounds like a perfect description of celeb chasing loose women.

"Oh I'm well aware they think will never vote for Hillary and I wouldn't expect them to. However it does show the dishonesty of the so called moral right. If anything I was just justifying why this topic was here."

The moral right has criticized him... for philandering and adultery... the sex assault charge has no merit. You can criticize someone and still vote for him. They did nothing wrong.

If grant you, if you find me one religious conservative actually saying "Trump did nothing wrong whatsoever" then yeah they're hypocrites. But you won't find many. They acknowledge Trump's "sins" and will continue to support him because of the worse alternative.

Maybe if this was Trump vs. Trump clone with better family values you'd have a point. But it's not even close.

old comment by

@creativerealms

"A few ten thousand refugees is worth the risk of peaceful relations."

Peaceful relations with who? Syria? Bro, Obama has already antagonized the Syrian president and is funding "moderate forces" (i.e. extremists that Obama doesn't realize are extreme) against the Syrian government. You can't possibly believe what you're saying.

You know what creates peaceful relations? Not allowing people who hate your culture in your country. That's a start.

Nationalism works as long as you don't take it to the extreme and as long as you have friendly relationships with your neighbors. If multiculturalism actually worked in practice we wouldn't even need borders.

As I already also pointed out, vetting refugees is virtually impossible because there is no database to check. And if you think Assad will give you the information (which he doesn't have anyway) after you've antagonized him, you're even more absurd.

Seriously, what are you going to do? Call Assad and ask him "uh hey, yeah I know we hate you and all but can you please tell us is Ahmed is a terrorist?"

Bro you're not going to get that information from him. At best you'll probably get false information if he's really pissed which is even WORSE than no information.

old comment by

@creativerealms

I still don't get why you think mixing some very different and arguably mutually hostile cultures within the same borders actually works?

You know how I have very good relations with my neighbors? I don't invite them as permanent residents in my own home (either for free or as tenants). They don't invite me as a permanent resident in their home. It might actually be even economically beneficial, but it creates other problems because we don't share anything else in common.

As soon as I do that if they even agree to it there will be conflict over trivial bullshit like "did you take my keys" and "omg you left a mess in the shower" and "why you keep the lights on after dark, I'm paying part of the bills too" etc. etc. Might even lead to violence.

What works is: each family with their own home.

Even apartment flats have clearly defined property lines. You can look at borders that way too.

You know there's a also a reason why "sleeping on the couch" is also kinda frowned on after a while.

old comment by creativerealms

When have I ever said I was against borders or what to mix people together? I actual!y believe in immigration reform, it detailed background checks, in tests and classes needed for immigration. I believe illegal Immigration should be cracked down on and sent back to their country or origin and more benefits for legal immigration so more people will want to cross borders legally and not sneaking in. I'm sure I have said that time and time and time again.

As for the refugees, honestly I don't think they should be permanent, they should be temporarily (so) relocated until the conflicts in their homes settle down and given the option to immigrate permanently after passing tests and of citizenship. Again there should be background checks for everyone who wishes it. I do not believe that the average person in those countries should be punished because their leaders are corrupt and the sides rising up are just as bad. They are caught in the middle of a conflict and want to get out. Why should they be forced to stay just because a couple terrorists and criminals are trying to sneak in? I have enough faith in our police and agencies that those people will be caught before they cause too much harm.

Really I don't know where you get these ideas about me? I'm not anti-border I'm pro border.

old comment by

@creativerealms

I think it might actually be the opposite.

Assad might be a scoundrel, but he's actually a pretty stable individual compared to many of the people he governs. The kind of Syria the rebel forces want to create will actually be worse than Assad's regime. At least Assad wasn't a jihadist and didn't try to exterminate Christians.

So no it's not about the leader, the culture as a whole is toxic as well and I don't believe there is any way to vet them.

Nor do I think there is any way to send them back once the conflict dies down. And no way to ensure their loyalty or even their gratitude if they become citizens.

It is easier (and actually cheaper) to just create safe-zones in Syria or put the refugees into neighboring countries. At least the cultures will be far more compatible. If they refuse that's fine, western countries need a good excuse to cut foreign aid too.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Someone's trying too hard at trolling.

It won't succeed in making Donald Fart get to the White House - or bend Reality to how you think it should be - therefore in Soviet America, FSTDT 'Bias' trolls you. >:D

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=122069&Page=2#1985058

@Lucilius

"Evidently the wingnuts are so desperate for attention they've taken to trolling humorous sites such as this. What a sad sack of pathetic losers, screaming "Bawwww, libruls' fault!" to excuse their own incompetence and general odiousness."

Well, this inferior subhuman is triggered by FSTDT's 'Bias', otherwise he wouldn't be here.

Incompetent subhuman God-Emperor, incompetent subhuman supporters.

old comment by

@Anon-e-moose

I got you guys to admit your biases.

Anyway your downfall is coming very soon and it can only accelerate every time you admit your biases because then there's no doubt. You've been losing for years because you're more concerned about making fun of people you disagree with politically and being PC than actually exposing "fundies". You've lost your way and turned what could have been a humor site into a political propaganda site.

https://www.quantcast.com/fstdt.net#/trafficCard (Woah, talk about incompetence.)

Remember, you had basically one main demographic to cater to as a site in order to really grow and maintain yourselves (atheists) and you're losing even that. Because just like your moronic friends over at Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus, "Reason Rally" etc. you insist on pushing a left-wing ideology under the pretext of criticizing fundamentalist religious views. (And actually you're not even doing that very well by defending THE most insane, most totalitarian of the religions: Islam. And labeling critics of Islam to be "fundies".) Problem is many people aren't buying it anymore: Thunderf00t isn't buying it, Pat Condell isn't buying it, Sargon of Akkad isn't buying it, Stefan Molyneux isn't buying it (and lucky for him he never did in the first place) and so many more.

Enjoy

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

So you've finally figured it out: FSTDT is 'Biased'. Whoop-de-fucking-do. Newsflash: we don't fucking care if it is.

The fact it's still PC & anti-Wiggy triggers you - despite all your 'tilting at windmills' to no avail - so a case of job done!

Are Breitbart & Free Republic neutral, and have a draconian attitude to anything remotely right-wing? Because every second you're not making those sites left-wing, you want FSTDT to be biased: and not the way you want it to be.

And for a site that started in 2002, we're doing just fine in 2016: and beyond. As opposed to, say... 'Where Liberty Dwells'*. Remember, you had basically one main demographic to cater to as a site in order to really grow and maintain yourselves (rightists) and you lost even that*. Because just like your moronic friends over at Breibart, Free Republic etc. you insist on pushing a right-wing ideology under the pretext of criticising fundamentally different views to yours. (And actually you're not even doing that very well by defending THE most insane, most totalitarian of the political leanings: right-wing terrorism. And labelling critics of Trump to be "righties".)

Problem is many people aren't buying it anymore. Otherwise, the world would be exactly as you would wish it to be. So why isn't it?

FSTDT got to admit your bias.

Anyway your downfall is coming very soon and it can only accelerate every time you admit your bias because then there's no doubt. You've been losing for years because you're more concerned about trying & failing at making fun of people you disagree with politically and being bigoted than actually exposing your own hypocrisy. You've lost your way and haven't turned what has been a humour site into a political propaganda site.

But with your bias, you've turned it into something that'll help in the destruction of your God-Emperor's electoral chances, and therefore of any possible hope of you rightists having any kind of political influence whatsoever, and for generations to come.

So I'm afraid your whole intent in being here has blown up in your own face. LOL! >:D

*- That rightist forum didn't last long. Especially when that linked member outed himself as gay. Coincidence? You decide...!

Strange that FSTDT is still going. Left-wing bias is good. Left-wing bias works.

Our 'downfall'? Not so much. But not as much as yours after 8th November...! >:D

@Lucilius

...and now he loses all over again. And all because he can't read the FAQ.

old comment by

Damn it, forgot to enter my name again. This is Spacewyrm.

Nameless fool wrote:

"That said, this guy honestly believes combinations of words alone rob women of their agency... somehow."

Who has said that here nameless fool? Trump's many remarks are indicative of a pretty shitty attitude regarding women. So I hate him. Also, why the fuck are you defending Trump's comments? I mean, sure, if you really believe Clinton (not Hillary) is worse I get voting for Trump despite this kind of talk (although it does seem stupid to me). But do you really think its okay to say something like that about a little girl!? If the thing that comes to mind when you see a little girl is "yeah, someday I can fuck her" you've got some serious fucking problems.

Oh BTW, only sexist idiots use the term "mangina". If you want to look less stupid, try calling people pussies or fags. They mean pretty much the same thing, but are words that normal people actually understand. I can't help you with the sexism though.

old comment by

@1985799

Mangina basically means a man who doesn't act like one and goes out of his way to attack other men for perceived "sexism". (Also likely a virgin.)

"If the thing that comes to mind when you see a little girl is "yeah, someday I can fuck her" you've got some serious fucking problems."

Granted it's weird, Trump wasn't being serious to begin with and anyone with a half-brain could tell he wasn't serious.

Or do you actually believe people plan dates 10 years in advance? So stupid. 20 is legal anyway even if it's a weird way of saying it.

Furthermore, the reporting itself is rather dubious to quote

"The footage showed Trump asking the girl: 'Are you going up the escalator?' while both are out of view.

'Yeah,' she replies, before stepping on to it.

Still out of frame, he then boasted: 'I'm going to be dating her in 10 years, can you believe it.' "

Yes, I'm sure they were "out of view" and the camera was just floating by itself... nobody else around... Really?

old comment by DarkPhoenix

"But Hillary is such a crook she has to be denied the presidency. All her policies are wrong and will hurt America and hurt American allies and the free world in general."

Tell me this, then; if Hilary's policies (which are pretty standard Democrat policies for the most part) are so terrible for America, how come the worst damage to your country's economy has occurred under Republicans, especially when they implement St. Ronnie's trickle down economics? And I've got news for you; quite a few of her policies are things the rest of the free world are ALREADY DOING. I don't see most of the free world being destroyed at the moment.

On the other hand, Trump has an unhealthy obsession with Vlad Putin and has said on numerous occasions that NATO should be a protection racket and that fighting against Russia is pointless. If anything is likely to destroy the free world, it's letting Russia take back the Warsaw Pact nations by force... putting us right back where we were in the 60's. But then again, you maniacs WANT to go back to the 60's, right?

old comment by Pharaoh Bastethotep

"Mangina basically means a man who doesn't act like one and goes out of his way to attack other men for perceived "sexism". (Also likely a virgin.)"
1. And again, you demonstrate the accusation to be true.
2. Saika is female.

If a 14-year old girl has already gone through puberty, it might be possible to estimate her attractiveness as an adult - although the conclusion and the way he expressed it were extremely inappropriate (if you see a hot girl young enough to be your daughter, you are happy for the men of her generation, goddamnit). A ten year old? If you find her attractive at that age, you are a paedophile, and no, waiting till she is of legal age does not change that you were attracted to her when she was still a child.

old comment by Passerby

@#1985802

Mangina basically means a man who doesn't act like one...

And what does a man act like but himself? If you're just wearing "manliness" as a mask then you're anything but. If that mask slips whenever you're not getting what you expect it to then you're immature. If your life and your personality are geared towards a façade you have no right whatsoever telling others how to live because frankly you're a pale imitation of life if not already dead inside and going through the motions to keep from a panic attack or mid-life crisis. Bitching at us to fall in line with the parody you believe in is just a cheap attempt to keep it from falling apart and leaving you with the realization you've spent your entire life in pursuit of unfulfilling goals that meant nothing to you because you feared judgement and used them as a placebo for purpose. And when you destroy or suppress the self for the sake of a mask that leaves you wanting and constantly paranoid the image will falter what do you care for others?

Or you know, you're trolling. Not really any better than the mask if what's under it is a spiteful little shit who can't fill the void without taking a bite off somebody else but at least they're honest with themselves that they're horrible creatures who are willing to hurt others for their own sense of fulfillment while others make excuses for what they do to stave off their insecurity.

old comment by

@Pharaoh Bastethotep

Again making baseless assumptions about Trump by a joke he said. He didn't say he was attracted to the 10 year old, you made that up.

Look bro if you don't like the joke that's fine, it's definitely not the kind I would ever make myself, but don't make shit up just because you disagree with him politically.

Also a real predator wouldn't act in the way Trump does. If you're honestly going to claim that this was a credible attempt to groom her into an inappropriate relationship (which would in fact be a crime in most cases even if the relationship never happened), you need way more than that. Otherwise, you're just desperate to discredit someone you don't like politically.

"although the conclusion and the way he expressed it were extremely inappropriate (if you see a hot girl young enough to be your daughter, you are happy for the men of her generation, goddamnit)"

You mean the conclusion that he'd like to date someone who is 20?

You know it takes two to tango, so if you're upset over 70 year olds fucking 20s, then I take it you're also going to criticize the status+money obsessed 20 year olds for accepting? Or would that be "slut shaming" and therefore wrongthink?

old comment by Mister Spak

@Hasan Prishtina

"@ Mister Spak

It tells us about the choice available in the Republican primaries in a system where a few voters in a few states have influence way beyond their numbers. "

That's not what happened.
Over the past 35 years the Republic party has created a mass of 30 million morons who will believe any stupid shit they're told as long as it's from approved right wing shitters. In the past the Party has used it to attack everyone else like Obama was poofed out of nothingness by Satan to be president, and Hillary murdered Vince Foster, Or Bill Clinton isn't fit to be president because he's a draft dodger but George Bush the draft dodger is the greatest president ever.

Then Trump takes control of these 30 million morons and turns the monster against its creator. The Party knew Trump was a disaster for them, and made some coordinated efforts to derail him, but the 30 million morons, by the parties own primary rules, voted Trump into place.

This election is not so different than 2000 and 2004, except the Republic candidate was a well behaved puppet, not a bellowing buffoon.

old comment by Mister Spak

@1985780

"@Anon-e-moose

I got you guys to admit your biases.

Anyway your downfall is coming very soon and it can only accelerate"

As soon as the Second Coming, right? Any day now right?

"(And actually you're not even doing that very well by defending THE most insane, most totalitarian of the religions: Islam."

Missed the many submission of muslim fundies here, eh?

"And labeling critics of Islam to be "fundies""

Missed the submissions of muslim fundies criticizing Christian fundies here, eh?

Here's a clue, lets see if you can process the concept. Christian fundies wet their pants in hysterical hatred of muslims. Muslim fundies wet their pants in hysterical hatred of infidels. They're all fundies.

old comment by

@Mister Spak

Yes, those 30 million "idiots" who would like to have a government that at least pretends to care about American interests and will respect their individual rights.

Compare what the left and even some establishment Republicans are proposing:

- open borders (not in American interests)
- refugees (not in American interests actually poses a very serious security risk that lefties and RINOs constantly downplay or ignore)
- tolerance of illegal immigration (not in American interests, non-citizens have absolutely no right to set foot on a country's soil without the consent of the people)
- higher taxes and more regulations (not in American interests unless you're a lazy person or don't have a legitimate source of income, then of course you're going to support a big welfare state)
- lawlessness disguised as a fight for racial equality and justice (not in American interests, unless you're a violent thug who thinks resisting arrest is the appropriate response to police confrontations)
- trade deals that ensure jobs will be shipped to third world dictatorships where big companies can take advantage of borderline human trafficking so they can cut salary costs

old comment by

@Mister Spak

"Missed the many submission of muslim fundies here, eh?"

No I didn't, but I also didn't miss the submissions of atheists and Christians making valid criticism against Islam because FSTDT doesn't like the criticism.

The left only allows criticism of Islam within certain VERY NARROW parameters (if at all) which means you have to agree with some of the following:

1. it's EQUALLY as bad as Christianity, no more no less
2. the problem is "extremism", but there's nothing wrong with the religion itself which is peaceful and tolerant
3. you must never ever discuss Islamic immigration

I reject all 3 of the parameters set up.

This is really no different than saying you can criticize Putin in Russia, but only as long as you don't complain too loudly. And actually that's Putin's strategy in Russia. Controlled opposition to give the illusion of choice.

old comment by

@1985899

"@Mister Spak

Yes, those 30 million "idiots" who would like to have a government that at least pretends to care about American interests"

No, those 30 million "geniuses" who think cutting taxes for zillionaires will create jobs(like the job creation that happened in 2008-2009), and Obama has never released his birth certificate because he was poofed out of nothing by Satan, and Hillary ordered the embassy be allowed to burn after she was cleared by 8 investigations (so we must have #9), and last but not leas, Bill Clintons affairs make him totally unsuitable to be the leader of This Great Country but Trumps pussy grabbing makes him totally suitable to run This Great Country because that's what he'll do to Putin.

And while you're distracted by this Trump will cut taxes for zillionaires because that is how the middle class gets more money.

old comment by Mister Spak

@1985902

"@Mister Spak

"Missed the many submission of muslim fundies here, eh?"

No I didn't, but I also didn't miss the submissions of atheists and Christians making valid criticism against Islam because FSTDT doesn't like the criticism."

Like a true fundie, you recognize the extremism of other fundies but your own extremism is self evident common sense. That's why we mock you.

"The left only allows criticism of Islam within certain VERY NARROW parameters (if at all) which means you have to agree with some of the following:

1. it's EQUALLY as bad as Christianity, no more no less"

Christians would like to be as bad as islam, but they are restrained by liberal influence. Their crying and whining over this is documented at FSTDT. Didn't see those submission, eh?

"2. the problem is "extremism", but there's nothing wrong with the religion itself which is peaceful and tolerant "

Of course. The F in FSTDT stands for 'FUNDIES' who are extreme by definition. They are mocked here(you might notice the mocking coming your way recently).

"3. you must never ever discuss Islamic immigration"

You haven't noticed the muslim fundies submitted here, eh?

"I reject all 3 of the parameters set up"

You kicked that strawmans ass so hard he can't believe it.

old comment by Mister Spak

@1985913

"@1985909 Trump will cut taxes for EVERYONE you moron"

Zillionaires have their taxes reduced by 110s of k while the middle class has taxes reduced by $3 you moron. That's how the 30 million morons work, they're too moronic to realize this.

"and Hillary still failed in Benghazi whether it was intentional or not and she was extremely negligent if not malicious"

Moron demands investigation #9.

"and trying to hide something with the e-mails."

Where are Bushs 22 million emails? 30 million morons say "what"?

" Yet she's going to escape justice because she's too powerful to be touched even by the FBI."

Like Bush and his 22 million emails

" But she's a woman of the people, yeah right..."

But not the moron people like Bush.

"Wikileaks also exposed how two-faced she is. She says one thing in private, another in public. "

Because Trump never did anything like that, no, sir. And Bush never complained about the constitution being "just a goddamned piece of paper".

old comment by

@Mister Spak

"Christians would like to be as bad as islam, but they are restrained by liberal influence."

Keep telling yourself those convenient lies that all religions are equal when they're obviously NOT.

Islam isn't restrained by "liberal influence".

There's no liberal influence in Egypt. Not a lot anyway. Where are the many Coptic Christians forming global terror cells and blowing innocent people up? They don't exist. Where are the global Hindu terrorists? They don't exist, yet Britain and the US has many of them as immigrants. Where are the global Buddhist cells?

There are some terrorists of other religions, but nowhere on the scale of Islamic terrorism.

This is a stupid claim. Even in more illiberal parts of the world Christians still don't act as badly as Muslims do, yet Muslims aren't restrained enough from committing some of the most violent terrorist attacks when they're on the soils of more liberal countries like France or Germany. Most of the attacks come from Islam, even though it's less than 10% of the population.

"Of course. The F in FSTDT stands for 'FUNDIES' who are extreme by definition. They are mocked here(you might notice the mocking coming your way recently)."

The problem is fundamentalist Christianity is more tame than fundamentalist Islam. Pointing to exceptions doesn't change the pattern of widespread tyranny in Islamic countries. The religion itself has values that are antithetical to a free republic. Christianity does not. Otherwise the west wouldn't be what it is.

If you were to choose where you are born, would you honestly choose an Islamic country over a Christian one?

"You haven't noticed the muslim fundies submitted here, eh? "

What does this have to do with immigration?

old comment by Mister Spak

@1985923

"@Mister Spak

"Christians would like to be as bad as islam, but they are restrained by liberal influence."

Keep telling yourself those convenient lies that all religions are equal when they're obviously NOT."

Keep telling yourself those convenient lies about the muslim posts submitted here.

"Islam isn't restrained by "liberal influence"."

No shit Sherlock. Where did I say that?

"There's no liberal influence in Egypt. Not a lot anyway."

Again no shit Sherlock. Whare did I say it did?
"Where are the many Coptic Christians forming global terror cells and blowing innocent people up? They don't exist."

If you were Sherlock you might notice they are outnumbered 10 to 1.
"Where are the global Hindu terrorists? They don't exist, yet Britain and the US has many of them as immigrants."
If you were Sherlock you might have noticed polytheists tend to lack the intolerance of monotheists. Also the Hindu submissions at FSTDT
"Where are the global Buddhist cells?"

Right next to the liberal western cells.

"There are some terrorists of other religions, but nowhere on the scale of Islamic terrorism."

Like when Dumbya sent his toy soldiers to kill a million muslims in Iraq. Not being Sherlock you probably missed that.

"This is a stupid claim. "

image
"Even in more illiberal parts of the world Christians still don't act as badly as Muslims do, yet Muslims aren't restrained enough from committing some of the most violent terrorist attacks when they're on the soils of more liberal countries like France or Germany. Most of the attacks come from Islam, even though it's less than 10% of the population."

Better go back and reread the post you're commenting on.

"Of course. The F in FSTDT stands for 'FUNDIES' who are extreme by definition. They are mocked here(you might notice the mocking coming your way recently)."

"The problem is fundamentalist Christianity is more tame than fundamentalist Islam. Pointing to exceptions doesn't change the pattern of widespread tyranny in Islamic countries. The religion itself has values that are antithetical to a free republic. Christianity does not. Otherwise the west wouldn't be what it is."

Better go back and reread the post you're commenting on.

"If you were to choose where you are born, would you honestly choose an Islamic country over a Christian one?"
Depends on the century.
But you don't know about anything past last week .

"You haven't noticed the muslim fundies submitted here, eh? "

What does this have to do with immigration?

So no, you haven't.

old comment by

@Mister Spak

"If you were Sherlock you might notice they are outnumbered 10 to 1. "

Oh someone failed at basic math.

If this were true and religions were equal, you would still see Coptic Christian terrorists in Egypt, just on 10:1 ratio. They don't exist.

So are Muslims in France, also outnumbered 10:1, yet terrorism still comes out of the Muslim communities. They're a minority and yet they've committed some of the worst attacks in recent history of France. While Christian "terrorists" only commit a few acts of petty vandalism against French Muslims. Which side is more violent?

And unlike Coptic Christians in Egypt, Muslims in France aren't actually oppressed so they don't have that excuse.

When Muslims are the majority, there is terrorism against the non-Muslim minorities.
When Muslims are the minority, there is terrorism against the non-Muslim majority.

I think we're starting to see a pattern here that this is a particularly violent religion with bad moral values. Nevermind that Muslim majority countries struggle with human rights and democracy, including the more moderate Turkey.

old comment by creativerealms

Wow talk about missing the point. Mr Span was claiming it was a liberal bias holding Christians back, and Muslims in the middle east don't have that restraint.

Now religions are not all the same but Islam and Christianity have the same roots and both are very violent if followed to their core beliefs. It is a combination of liberal influences and wanting to look morally superior to Islam that does hold more violent believers of Christianity back.

Islam is worse, is more violent and is more of a threat in it's current incarnation. But Islam could become truly peaceful, it could go down the road of Christianity as unlikely as it seems now.

Case and point. The Ahmadiyya.

old comment by Mister Spak

@creativerealms

"Wow talk about missing the point. "

It's the 30 milliom moron effect.

" But Islam could become truly peaceful, it could go down the road of Christianity as unlikely as it seems now."

Not really, if that happened you would have muslim fundie infidel killer wannabes restrained by the cultural muslim liberals.

"Case and point. The Ahmadiyya."

I have seen a few violent extremist signs with them. They just don't have the numbers or power anywhere to be the killers instead of the killees. Just like the Copts.

#1985936

"@creativerealms

"both are very violent if followed to their core beliefs"

And that is simply not true for the major denominations. I can't speak for an obscure sect with 10 followers in the middle of nowhere, but Orthodox, Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism etc. do have clear prohibitions against murder."

So does islam. But you're no Sherlock.

"They also don't have a clear political system, there is no "Christian Sharia"."

image

@1985937

"Ahmadiyaa are a minority. . . . They can't influence anything."

Sorta like the Copts in Egypt?

old comment by Mister Spak

@1985945

"@Mister Spak

""Ahmadiyaa are a minority. . . . They can't influence anything."

Sorta like the Copts in Egypt?"

They can't influence much either. Certainly not in the short term unless you're suggesting violence. I hope you aren't."

Holy @#$%^&! You not only miss my point, you miss your own as well.
See that Creativerealm? It's the 30 million moron effect in action.

"In any case, waiting for a hypothetical reform of Islam that may or may not come is stupid. We have to protect our cultures and freedoms first. "

That's why we have FSTDT. We're protecting the West against fundies in our own little way.

"So does islam. But you're no Sherlock."

"Sunni Islam alone is 80% of Islam and all its 4 schools of jurisprudence preach theocracy and dhimmitude (a form of subjugation) for non-Muslims.

You lose."

When muslims make excuses for terrorists they say{koran quote} if you murder one person it's like you have killed all mankind, so those terrorists weren't muslims{/koran quote}. Sorta like when the christians scream {biblequote}thou shalt not kill babies{/biblequote} as they're shooting up a health clinic. Then the other Christians say 'he wasn't really a Christian but the killing is the clinics fault anyway'.

You lose your losing.

old comment by

@Mister Spak

"if you murder one person it's like you have killed all mankind"

Ah you've truly bought into Muslim apologist propaganda.

You should have read the fine print.

"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land."

Other translations use "corruption in the land". Now mischief in the land is pretty fucking vague, but there are some instances not considered murder:

1. execution of apostates
2. execution of non-Muslims who refuse to accept the dhimma and jizya tax.

So unbelievers don't really have a meaningful choice. It's be subjugated as a dhimmi or be killed.

Ignoring this bad side of Islam isn't going to win the war on terror. Trump got it right "Islam hates us", Hillary got it WRONG. Someone that ignorant about Islam shouldn't be president.

old comment by

11 murders, an additional 17 failed murder attempts, 3 kidnappings, 153 assaults, 100 acid attacks counted separately from those assaults, 41 bombings, 173 cases of arson, untold thousands of death threats.

But like every other act of terrorism they don't count unless it's muslims, huh?

Like the thousands killed IRA bombings, who have had more military grade hardware seized from them than any ISIS affiliate. Like hundreds of thousands in Africa. Like Oslo, Norway. Or Dylan Roof and others trying to start a race war. Or hundreds of other "lone" incidents.

The same crime. The same methods. The same justification. Totally different response. Genocide for one and whoop-de-doo for the rest.

Take your minimization of death, and rape, and exploitation, and torture, and prejudice, and your positively infuriating misrepresentations of our positions which can only be intentional with so much clarification both lying around and directed right at you and fuck off somewhere else. That is why we're not interested in talking to you anymore. Because you don't care what anyone actually says you just want to talk at us for your stupid imitation of Social Justice crusade fought from the side of consummate hypocrites who talk out both sides of their face.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

"Which is worse?"

Watching the 'blame game' among the right-wing after that night of 8th November - on the morning of the 9th November, as I live in the UK - when I get up, or staying up to watch the right-wing's meltdown live.

I could ask for a day or so off from my job. As I've worked so many, I've built up at least two weeks of them, just for such an occasion.

Choices, choices...! >:D

I reckon that a fair few of Donald Fart's supporters are on the welfare teat. Just as Wiggy is on the big business donation teat. Otherwise, why isn't he self-funding his campaign? Mitt '47%' Romney funded his to the tune of $800 million, as he could afford it.

...oh wait. Yes, that's right: Wiggy has that $900 million tax loss. So I guess he could always claim welfare, as he's paid his taxes. Oh wait, II...! >:D

Donald Fart said he wouldn't take money from big business not so long ago...!

old comment by Spacewyrm

I tried to post a response earlier but it apparantly got eaten. I'm going to try again with less quotation, on the assumption that I got blocked by a spam filter (I seem to recall someone else recently having similar problems)

nameless fool wrote:
"Mangina basically means a man who doesn't act like one and goes out of his way to attack other men for perceived "sexism". (Also likely a virgin.) "

A man who doesn't act like a man. So I was right that its basically the same thing as calling someone a fag, but stupider.

As for the rest, you have to be pretty dumb if you REALLY think that people upset by Trump's comments
think he's actually making plans for the future with that particular girl. If Trump wants to bang a hot 20-year-old, then whatever. But saying something like that about a 10-year-old girl isn't a weird way of saying anything, it's just gross. Also, calling something a joke doesn't make it better. There are some jokes that only rotten people make. I guess this is one of them.

Also, how the fuck did this become a debate about how bad Islam is vs. Christianity? I'm not too interested in jumping into it, but I do find it funny that nearly everything the fool writes has him either attacking a straw man or moving the goal posts. It's pretty sad.

old comment by Pharaoh Bastethotep

>Spacewyrm:
It also originates in the neomisogynistic internet subculture, but he is not sexist, which, like racism, was made up by SJWs. Or something.
(At this opportunity: Please respond to these two responses (http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=122128&Page=3#1985829 and the one below it) by Passerby and me this time, Troll)

The Islam stuff started when he accused that sane criticism of Islam is just controlled opposition.

PS: There seems to be some problem when linking to comments with the url= tag. Also, would it be possible that, after editing a comment, one is sent back to the page with the comment instead of the first page? It is extremely annoying.

old comment by

"Mangina basically means a man who doesn't act like one"

What makes a man, is it the power in his hands?
Is it his quest for glory?
Give it all you got, to fight to the top,
So we can know your story.

Now you're a man!
A man, man, man,
Now you're a man!
A manny, manny man,
A man, man, man,
You are now a man.
You're a man!
Now you're a man!

Live it, live it!
What makes a man, is it the woman in his arms,
Just 'cause she has big titties?
Or is it the way he fights everyday?
No, it's prob'ly the titties.

Now you're a man!
A man, man, man,
Now you're a man man!
Man man man man man!
Now you're a man!
M-A-N man man, man man man!
Now you're a man.

Donald Trump #fundie dailymail.co.uk

132 comments

Confused?