| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Apprentice contestant claims Trump kissed and groped her | |
| 2016-10-15 | |
[Guardian] A former contestant on the Apprentice, Summer Zervos, on Friday accused Donald Trump of groping or aggressively kissing her on two separate occasions in 2007, when she met the businessman in private for what she thought were going to be discussions about job opportunities.
| |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
#40 He didn't. How the hell do you know? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2016-10-15 21:31 |
| #39 "I don’t do it for the money. I’ve got enough, much more than I’ll ever need. I do it to do it." Donald Trump-Art of the Deal-1987 (Link) |
| Posted by: Dino Gravising9931 2016-10-15 21:06 |
| #38 Of course the floodgates just opened for freeloaders of all kinds. It's free for all now. You met Trump 20 years ago? Here's your 15 minutes of fame now. Just say he touched you. It's just the way it is. When Anderson Cooper insisted on his question, I just thought: Donnie, you MUST know what that means. Come clear now. He didn't. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 18:08 |
| #37 “I am completely shocked and bewildered by my cousin, Summer Zervos, and her press conference today. Ever since she was on The Apprentice she has had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump,” John Barry, Zervos’ first cousin, said in the statement. He went on to say, “That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no. I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/15/trump-sexual-assault-accuser-sent-glowing-email-to-his-assistant-in-april/#ixzz4NC3uN4tY |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2016-10-15 17:59 |
| #36 That Trump should be pushing is articles like this (h/t instapundit) HILLARY GOT PAID $675,000 FOR THESE THREE SPEECHES or Hillary Clinton's Home in Chappaqua, New York |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-15 17:59 |
| #35 Supposedly this gal's cousin says she made it up to one reporter, but hasn't made a statement yet. |
| Posted by: gorb 2016-10-15 17:48 |
| #34 I think we all agree on Saudi Arabia, |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 17:13 |
| #33 Bush fought the wrong people after 911. He should have gone after the Soddies and the Paks. ... I think he knew it then. I disagree on two particulars. (i) I don't think of George II as evil - just a well meaning idiot (like another George II). (ii) Pakis are just the muscle. Saudis are brains & paymasters. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-15 17:09 |
| #32 You mods are terrific! |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 16:04 |
| #31 @Shipman Thanks, and sorry for the delay, we went hiking in the mountains today. I run a business that trades with the U.S., also have lived in the U.S. for a while and I'm deeply involved in Transatlantic politics (Atlantikbrücke etc.). Venezuela is a very interesting thing to watch, if you want to learn how fast socialists can ruin a prospering country. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 15:51 |
| #30 The problem is that the Bushes and the Clintons are all in bed with the Soddies. Trump is not. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-10-15 15:14 |
| #29 grom, Bush fought the wrong people after 911. He should have gone after the Soddies and the Paks. We know that now. I think he knew it then. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-10-15 15:13 |
| #28 Do you not want to take the field, if at least to increase your price? "And where are you going?" To pick a fight. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-10-15 14:31 |
| #27 Demented? No, I believe dementia assumes some level of pre-existing functional normality. I'm unsure as to whether this can be proven. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-10-15 13:57 |
| #26 Abu, let us remember something. Bush invaded Iraq & Afghanistan after Muslims killed several thousand people in NY. Clintons bombed sh*t out of Serbia (and restarted the war with Russia) because they were bored. And that was twenty years ago - before Hillary became demented. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-15 13:51 |
| #25 Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich...none of them would have been any better in office than Hillary...might have been even worse. Remember, George W Bush left us with the mortgage meltdown which he had to have seen coming but did nothing about it. Bush left the border with Mexico wide open and endorsed the transfer of our jobs and industry to China. Bush got us involved in enormously expensive and futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These days there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Republican party is extinct. At least Trump put up a fight. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-10-15 13:43 |
| #24 Guys, this isn't over yet. Vote Trump and the down ticket. |
| Posted by: KBK 2016-10-15 12:45 |
| #23 Prepare yourselves for a President Kaine. It will not be pretty. |
| Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 2016-10-15 12:15 |
| #22 That is it JohnQC. Vote Hillary! because female has always been the keystone of the campaign. Hell, could have ran Romney and they would have come up with anti-woman stuff. Oh wait, they did. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-10-15 12:07 |
| #21 Both my wife and I got groped by Donald Trump. We're not whining about. However, if there is any possibility of getting some boodle, we might whine? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-10-15 11:22 |
| #20 Wonderful gloom and despair. Only problem is, Trump doesn't needs ads and the rest of this shit --- because, for the first time since Reagan, a republican candidate runs on issues. If, more than half American voters are not sick and tired of all this sh*t, then to hell with you! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-15 10:47 |
| #19 Ah yes, destroy the opposition will to resist. The Left treats politics as just another war. Most others treat it as sideshow or at most an irritation of their attention. Remember, nothing matters to them but power. Everything else is expendable. As long as you treat it as anything else but war, they'll win. And they relish in so many who demand perfection ("Caesar's wife must be above suspicion") which they play so effective against the rubes. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-10-15 09:36 |
| #18 Soon, the press will be blaming scary clowns on Trump. And the lemmings will believe it. |
| Posted by: jvalentour 2016-10-15 08:45 |
| #17 I'm not so sure it is over. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-10-15 08:21 |
| #16 That said, what is to be done about it? Posted by JohnQC Not certain John. The only other contemporary model is the financial implosion of the Former Soviet Union (FSU). The so-called 'Trump Revolution' appears to have been put down. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-10-15 08:01 |
| #15 There is a cancer in this country and it is not the fault of Donald Trump. Trump merely pulled back the shroud on something very pernicious and ugly. The cancer is the left/Progressives and their agenda for the fundamental transformation of the country. They have infiltrated and corrupted every institution in the country. That said, what is to be done about it? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-10-15 07:54 |
| #14 EC excellent insight into U.S. politics, can you say how you came by this? Venezuelan politics is my hobby, perhaps the U S is yours? :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2016-10-15 07:48 |
| #13 EC: Your comment, "But every time the media was about to get down to business with Hillary's failures, the Donald stepped in with some stupid speech or action." is a sure indication that you do not comprehend just how viciously the dominant left-wing American media works. |
| Posted by: Shick de Medici6262 2016-10-15 07:13 |
| #12 EC. Our people are becoming a corrupt people. If Hildebeast becomes president and successfully with stands all challenges to the results, this nation continues its fall from Grace and the Deplorables will be the target of the rath of Hildebeast. Islamic Jihad will reign supreme against the Deplorables. This is going to be bloody. |
| Posted by: Pearl Flomons5711 2016-10-15 03:45 |
| #11 I must also say that Democrats are good at ads. They really employ professionals. The few ads from Trump I have seen were gloomy, not uplifting. And that "apology video" from Trump Tower? Who for crying out loud was in charge of that? ISIS does better hostage movies. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 03:22 |
| #10 It might have been a bit different with Trump rallies, but of course GET TO KNOW your fans, place volunteers who help with registering etc. Two types of voters are needed to win elections. Rallies energize the party faithful, increasing the participation rate. Non-political / independent voters are persuadable, but don't really follow the news that closely. Them, you need to reach through ads. You can't necessarily sway them to vote for you, but you can hope to persuade them not to vote against you. Stateside, they're at least 20% of actual voters. Election victory depends on winning at least half of them. That's what ads are for - to tell them what's in it for them if the candidate these ads promote wins the election. GOP candidates are always at a disadvantage because the media runs editorials disguised as news stories that attack the GOP. And then there are the Democrats' ads. A GOP presidential candidate who doesn't run ads will lose and lose badly. It's not even so much to have a positive effect for the GOP candidate as to counteract the barrage of negative news coverage by the left-wing media as well as Democratic ads. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2016-10-15 03:16 |
| #9 OTOH there is no need to despair. This great country will survive 4 years of Hillary (she'll never get a second term). Keep the House, focus on the Senate races, direct all your money there. With a Republican Congress Hillary's hands will be mostly tied. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 03:12 |
| #8 And yes it seems that Trump was never able to pony up a billion. He may not have had all that money he claims to have, at least not in cash. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 03:09 |
| #7 "Non-committed voters aren't going to show up at his rallies - they don't go to political rallies, period." It might have been a bit different with Trump rallies, but of course GET TO KNOW your fans, place volunteers who help with registering etc. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 03:05 |
| #6 Around this time in 2012, Romney was running a point behind in the polls. He lost by 4. The Donald is running 6 points behind. Without ads to take his message directly to voters, he is finished. Non-committed voters aren't going to show up at his rallies - they don't go to political rallies, period. Romney's campaign (including PAC's) spent $1b to lose by 4 points against the left's Reagan. Trump is about to lose by 10 points against the left's least charismatic crook in a good long while. And the difference is surely that Trump will spend $300m in the campaign vs Clinton's $1b. This is a rerun of McCain's 2008 campaign, but worse - McCain was only outspent 2 to 1. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2016-10-15 02:53 |
| #5 I must ask however, if none of the republican candidates could come even remotely close to defeating Trump in the primary They came very close, but they were hamstrung by a message that works better at election time than in the GOP primary, where immigration restriction and import restrictions were key issues of 2016. Trump had the smallest margin of victory (1441 delegates, 44.9% of the popular vote) for a GOP nominee going back a good long while. Both McCain (1575, 46.7%) and Romney (1575, 52.1%) had it wrapped up around the same time Trump did (May), with their opponents bowing out by March and April, respectively. The problem wasn't Clinton's machine or even Trump's own foibles - it's that Trump is not making a serious run for office. A serious run would require massive ad expenditures to sway voters who are non-political and don't make a special effort to look at candidates issue-by-issue. He hasn't raised the money and he sure as heck isn't spending his own. While Clinton was saturating Olympic coverage with ads, Trump wasn't even a blip on the radar. Clinton ads are a fixture on network TV, whereas Trump is non-existent. From what I see, Trump's tweets are being drowned out by network TV editorializing against him and saturation anti-Trump ads. And he is spending a lot of time giving speeches to his supporters - which is good for GOTV - to the faithful. But where's the outreach to uncommitted voters who make their decisions based on what they see in the media, whether through ads or network news? What do they know of Trump other than scandal coverage and Hillary's ads, if Trump doesn't run ads selling them on why they should vote for him or against Hillary? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2016-10-15 02:38 |
| #4 First: It's a lot easier to beat 16 competitors. Trump had the best strategy for that (not that I liked it much). I thought Marco Rubio would have been a strong contender. But Kasich, a sound if boring Republican, would have beaten Hillary, too. Ted Cruz maybe not. Jeb! never really showed up despite all that money thrown at him. Actually I thought Hillary would be hard to beat a year ago. But Bernie Sanders showed how vulnerable she was. Trump antagonized too many minorities. He could have made a strong case against illegal immigration but he forgot to bring the LEGAL immigrants along for the ride. And let's face it: Trump was always about Trump. The "only I, and I alone can fix it" was over the top. America doesn't work that way. And how was he going to fix it? Without Congress? No way. Also, his promises were also vague. Very vague. Make America great again? Great slogan, but not much beef. He needed to develop a few convincing ideas, engage Republican senators and representatives, present them to the people in a way everyone could understand and appreciate. Second Amendment? He could not make the case how Hillary would abolish it. He needed to remind the people how Hillary would do it: Appoint Supreme Court judges who would then reverse DC v Heller. The liberal Supreme Court would shred Judge Scalia's landmark ruling, that the right to keep and bear arms didn't just apply to the militias, but to the people. The Court would simply say, that Scalia was wrong, we revert that, the Second only applies to state militias. Since these do no longer exist, the Second no longer applies to anyone. Here goes your right, without Congress being able to do anything about it. EXPLAIN this, in clear and simple words. America, this is how Hillary will abolish the Second without even doing anything herself. And the First will follow, once a liberal Supreme Court gets into the "hate speech" thing. Again, explain what could happen. Trump always shot with pellets, never with a bullet. And last: Hillary is an (elderly) woman. Treat her with all the respect you treat an elderly woman with (it doesn't matter whether she deserves it). Make your point, be polite, turn her weapons against her. Always let other women go for the attack. Don't call her Crooked Hillary, don't threaten to throw her into jail. This just rallies women against you, the male bully, the chauvinist pig. No, politely ask at the debate: Mrs Clinton, you kept info on your server that is so highly classified that I can't even mention the content. Would you be so kind to explain to the American people why you think you didn't break the law while people who did a lot less harm are sitting in jail now? Clinton Foundation: Look for the most egregious cases of corruption and hammer then home. Again, bullets, not shrapnel. Always stay on the message. And her health? God, no ad attack. No, do a friendly announcement like that: "I'm dismayed to learn that Mrs Clinton isn't feeling well. I understand that the fight against Bernie Sanders has been brutal. Please take all the rest you need and get well again. I will refrain from any political attack in that time." It's easy. Know your enemy. And of course, pick up everything Bernie Sanders said and try to win over his supporters. You have a common enemy: The banksters. Just skip the socialist crap. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 02:32 |
| #3 when she met the businessman in private Apparently one can't walk away with round heels. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-10-15 02:13 |
| #2 As usual, you make some valid points EC. I must ask however, if none of the republican candidates could come even remotely close to defeating Trump in the primary, how could they possibly hope to conquer the Clinton machine ? Whichever way the race goes, I am certain the outcome will be debated for many years. We do 'live in interesting times.' I hope we survive them. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-10-15 01:06 |
| #1 Besoeker, sorry I disagree. Almost every other Republican would have beaten Hillary, and even Donald had the chance to do so. We shouldn't blame it all on the media. The media actually was beginning to lick blood with all those mails, foundation corruption and health issues. But every time the media was about to get down to business with Hillary's failures, the Donald stepped in with some stupid speech or action. And the campaign didn't stop him. They must have know that Hillary would play the sex card. Because the Hillary campaign vetted Trump much better than the Republicans. Trump was about to take the lead before the first debate, then he walked right into the Machado trap. Had he prepared for it (and that something like this would come up was a no brainer), he could easily have saved his campaign. He could just have said: Sorry Alicia, lo siento mucho, I know I have been a jerk sometimes, that actually came with the media career, and if you inspect my past you'll find a lot more examples of me being a jerk. That was then. IÄm glad that despite my words you turned out to be a fabulous businesswoman. I do no longer do all those crap. I have a wonderful family, an adorable wife, and all my passion is for America. Can I go back to explaining now what I will do if you elect me President? That's all. And further attempts would be fruitless, because as we have seen, all the jerk stuff he did happened at least a decade ago. He doesn't do this now, obviously. Instead he doubled and tripled down with stupid Twitter rants and interviews. He lingered in his "safe" space at Fox News (Hannity) and got fooled by his successful rallies. He saw thousands of cheering supporters and thought that these would turn into millions of voters just like that. He completely forgot to get out the vote, to make all those traditional non-voters vote. The non-voters were his chance to win in a landslide. The blue collar men, the hardworking women. He blew it. Bigly. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2016-10-15 00:52 |