# Kristin Gillibrand



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This woman has accomplished convincing me the whole thing against Trump is a lie. He called her a political lightweight that would do anything for contributions. She says that's sexist. I didn't see Trump mention anything about female, sexism, or anything remotely related. Pocahantas (Elisabeth Warren) came to her defense calling it sexist. If these people are genuinely stupid enough to think that's sexism they certainly don't belong in government deciding our future. They are fools and that is not dependent on their gender. 
I'm writing these people off as dishonest radicals. It also makes me think that those attacking Moore are dishonest radicals. Today Gillibrand destroyed for me any credibility any of these women have. I would say they are bought and paid for by the likes of George Soros or some other low life.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Bruce, YOU needed convincing that this whole,thing against poor President Trump was a made up Liberal Lie??? HH! LOL. I've never laughed so hard for weeks! As if you ever considered there could even be a grain of truth in any of his dozens of accusations of sexual impropriety, dishinesty, scheming, lying, stealing, etc. , other than the 
God stuff of the 10commandments , The only one of the 5 most important ones (IMO)missing is thou shalt not kill, (at least so far) but as Chuck says,,there is no,PROOF! LOL.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As if you ever considered there could even be a grain of truth in any of his dozens of accusations of sexual impropriety,


Less and less every day. Gillibrand knocked that consideration way down. There was no sexist indicative words in Trumps comments. She threw her credibility and the credibility of this whole scheme under the bus for anyone with an open mind. Just to many coincidence, followed by this huge stretch of the imagination. I would guess this crap will go so far that none of them will be believed except by the radical neurotic leftists.

If one had not known who Trump was talking about you would not have known if the comment was towards a woman or a man.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The stuff that trump tweeted wasn't sexual at all.

It is like calling racist when people don't agree with someone of a different color.

Here is the tweet:



> Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office "begging" for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!


I don't see anything sexist in it.

The media and others went and made this whole thing into a sexist argument.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't know.....sex is the first thing I thought of when I heard that tweet. (and would do anything for them.) Anything means anything. Of course I think Trump is a sexual predator. Nice to see another predator....... Moore lose yesterday.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Yep the voters spoke on this issue. I hope Jones (or any elected official no matter what party) will work with everyone to do the country good. Not just vote on party lines!

To me the do anything comment didn't go right to sexual thoughts. For me it meant help Trump get what he wanted... ie: permits, tax lowered, help his businesses, etc. Stuff of that nature. But I guess with what is happening all throughout the news, our country, etc. I can see thinking that way. But it is like after the Ferguson stuff... everything was "race"... now everything is "Sex". It is the current hot button.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> (and would do anything for them.) Anything means anything.


 So a man couldn't do anything for a contribution? I'm confused. Ken you are sexist. oke: :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are confused most of the time aren't you? You should move a little towards the left. Not all the way. Just a little at a time. oke: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> You are confused most of the time aren't you? You should move a little towards the left. Not all the way. Just a little at a time. oke: :rollin:


 :rollin: Ken you seeing anything sexual in that comment Trump made worries me. It reminds me of the joke about the psychiatrist doing a Rorschach test. He pulls out one ink blot that clearly looks like a butterfly and the guy says it's a naked woman. The shrink pulls out another ink blot that is non descript and the guy says it looks like a naked man. The shrink pulls out the third ink blotch that looks like two frogs and the guy says it looks like a naked man and woman. The psychiatrist says we need go no further it's clear you are sexually obsessed. The guys says I'm not obsessed your the guy drawing all the dirty pictures. :-D


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Touche' :thumb:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

OK where is the line between sexual harassment and a pass ? As 100 women (or 100 men) and you will get 100 different answers. There is no clear line. Did Trump at minimum make a pass at these women? Very possibly. Did he cros the line with any of them ? Again possibly. Where these women offended enough at the time to report it ? Apparently not. So why are they reporting it now, years after the fact ?


----------

