Donald Trump Made An Appearance In A Playboy Softcore Porn Back In The Year 2000

[sinkspur]

There are MANY Catholics supporting him, even right on this very forum.  Don't hang it all on the group you hate.  Protestants too.  Hindus, don't know.  Muslims, probably not but for other reasons.  There are plenty of evangelicals not supporting Trump.  It's offense to us when you make comments like that.  It's also biased.

https://www.catholics4trump.com/

I don't hate evangelicals.  Just trying to be factual.

[AllThatJazzZ]

One has to wonder why the man wouldn't shut up about the Machado woman's past when his own wife has the history she does.

He's either incredibly stupid or he's deluded into believing his wife is immune to such critique.  Either way, he's an hypocritical idiot.

One doesn't need to wonder. This is who Donald Trump is. He is a man-child who, when he gets fixated on something, can't let it go. It's not that he won't; he just can't. It's in his DNA to obsess about such things.

I've tried to figure out from the beginning why he behaves the way he does. Does he think that being a billionaire entitles him to blurt out things that most civilized adults know are low-classed? Is he so accustomed to handing down edicts within his business empire that he has lost any perspective of how to play well with others outside of that structure? Is he missing the gene that allows him to listen to his handlers who desperately want him to conduct himself in a presidential manner? What is it about his personality that causes him to continually pick scabs? And finally this $64,000 question: Why did so many people fail to see this in him or saw it and didn't even care? As so many of us said after Obama's reelection, it's not Barack Obama that's the problem. It's the people who reelected him. The same principle is at work here.

For the foreseeable future, we're doomed.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is depressing but don't blame conservatives ... well, okay blame the element of conservatives who managed to get this clown nominated.

But what you don't understand is that this is ALL on Donald.

First he was a sexist, racist jerk to a Very young Miss Universe winner.  But that might be forgotten if he had dealt with it like a grownup.

Hillary was able to slip it into the debate after the Mod mentioned things Trump had called Hillary.
She made a nice shot under his ribs to what would be his heart if he had one.

He went into blabber mode but he couldn't stand the rage it created in him.  He thought about it all night and got up at 3 AM to tweet about it.  His tweets were defense of his remarks because 'she deserved them.'

Sickening as this whole fiasco is, it is all on Trump .  Nobody else.

He could have defused the situation completely with a gentle, rueful smile after which he would claim youth and over-enthusiastic role in the pageant.  He could have said that his remarks were unkind and he deeply regretted them.  And then he could have refused to discuss it again.

But ... but ... that's not the Donald, is it?

And it's not conservatives either.

Just because he's done idiotic things doesn't mean conservatives must respond in kind.  That so...Trump-like.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Just because he's done idiotic things doesn't mean conservatives must respond in kind.  That so...Trump-like.

You're using Trump as an epitaph?  Alright!

[Emjay]

Just because he's done idiotic things doesn't mean conservatives must respond in kind.  That so...Trump-like.

How was I responding in kind?  I was simply stating a few facts about Donald.  All true, by the way.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

How was I responding in kind?  I was simply stating a few facts about Donald.  All true, by the way.

Sorry.  I was not referring to you.  I was referring to those who seem to delight in digging up things like this weird Trump porn story.

[chae]

@AllThatJazzZ

I think the reason he does it is because he can.  He's got money and power and he surrounds himself with yes-men.  For instance, Vince McMahon, the owner of the WWE at one point in time thought it was a good idea to make Trish Stratus get in the middle of the ring, strip to her bra and panties, crawl around and bark like a dog.  No one said to him "Hey, Vince, this is not a good thing" mainly because he's the one who signs the paychecks. He's infamous for wanting to do a storyline where he was revealed to be the father of his real life granddaughter who wasn't even a year old. 
And I think I've just discovered why Trump and Vince McMahon get along so well...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sorry.  I was not referring to you.  I was referring to those who seem to delight in digging up things like this weird Trump porn story.

If Trump wins he will be the first President in history to have appeared in a porno film.


Let that sink in for a while. It's not exactly a non-story.

[Wingnut]

If Trump wins he will be the first President in history to have appeared in a porno film.


Let that sink in for a while. It's not exactly a non-story.

There will be a lot of 1st with Trumps if he eeks out a win.

If you locked him in a padded cell and gave him three anvils in 10 minutes he'll lose one, break one and get the other one pregnant.

[ABX]

So prophetic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

With Trump we cross the Rubicon. NOthing will be off-limits.

[Silver Pines]

Sorry.  I was not referring to you.  I was referring to those who seem to delight in digging up things like this weird Trump porn story.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Don't you think voters have a right to know that a prospective president appeared in a porn video?

There's something wrong with that old degenerate.

"After I met Ivanka and praised her to her father, he said, "Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father . . . "

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909

[libertybele]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Don't you think voters have a right to know that a prospective president appeared in a porn video?

There's something wrong with that old degenerate.

"After I met Ivanka and praised her to her father, he said, "Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father . . . "

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909

Trump is a narcissistic demagogue and a psychopathic, sociopath.  Hillary is a compulsive criminal and a narcissistic demagogue.

Not a whole lot of difference here folks.

[Silver Pines]

Trump is a narcissistic demagogue and a psychopathic, sociopath.  Hillary is a compulsive criminal and a narcissistic demagogue.

Not a whole lot of difference here folks.

@libertybele

Yes, that's accurate.  This is an election between two crap sandwiches, and I'm going to decline lunch.

[AllThatJazzZ]

@libertybele

Yes, that's accurate.  This is an election between two crap sandwiches, and I'm going to decline lunch.

I'm with you, @CatherineofAragon . This is the time to call a fast.

@libertybele

[Suppressed]

There will be a lot of 1st with Trumps if he eeks out a win.

Well, the word is "ekes" out a win, but I think your version is a better descriptor!

[Frank Cannon]

Well, the word is "ekes" out a win, but I think your version is a better descriptor!

Actually the word is "Eaques".

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Don't you think voters have a right to know that a prospective president appeared in a porn video?

There's something wrong with that old degenerate.

I think the point that Donald Trump is not a paragon of virtue has been made here repeatedly.  And when you say "appeared in a porn video", it is deliberately misleading given that the phrase usually means "acted" in a porn video.  I haven't seen the video, but here's a description of his "role":

"Before you go “eewwwww” at the notion of Trump and porn in the same sentence, know the cork he popped came out of an actual champagne bottle holding bubbly he poured over a Playboy logo during a benign segment of a 2000 video of a national Playboy Playmate tour that featured a stop in New York."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-appears-unearthed-2000-playboy-porn-video-article-1.2813554

So yes, he technically appeared on the same videotape as what is described as a "soft-core" porn movie, but he didn't actually appear in any porn.  Anyway, I suppose the point is moot.  For some folks, this election apparently has come down to a "can you top this" contest of finding anything negative to post about Trump.  I'm sure it's all very amusing, and I hope you guys are laughing just as hard after Hillary gets sworn in and things get serious.

[aligncare]

 

[Smokin Joe]

@Wingnut

See what happens when a woman runs out of Midol?

i have been a witness to that situation before... 

[Smokin Joe]

I really don't care if Trump made a cameo appearance in a nude video. The thing that really bothers me is that he is the one making such a self-righteous accusation that isn't even true. Then he tells everyone to go look for videos when he is the only one who has a video. If he isn't throwing the election on purpose, then he might be the dumbest candidate ever to run for office.

Maybe he thinks that will make people think he is more 'studly', especially if they believe he is one of the 'performers' and not just in a cameo.

Maybe that is a 'plus' with his base.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, it seems to be what a lot of folks here want to read.

Honestly, what is rapidly become the most depressing thing about this election is not that Trump got the GOP nomination, but watching how the side I though was the more intellectually honest and principled has devolved into people thinking a story like this is worthwhile.  I don't know what happened.  Maybe the understandable dislike of Trump has triggered an emotional need to trash anything related to him, but it adds absolutely nothing to any substantive discussion.  It's like the cool kids all sitting around thinking up clever ways to mock the kid they don't like.  It's become "hey look at what I found out about Trump!  Isn't this awesome?"

I'm not a fan of Trump either, but this is just garbage.  And I think that if the conservative movement is destroyed, it won't be Trump that does it.  It will be conservatives themselves.

Nah, it won't be Conservatives who destroyed it.

It will be the people who backed personality over principle and decried their Conservatism in the process.

Unfortunately, "conservative" is pretty well shot as meaning much of anything, because so many were allowed to run around calling themselves "conservative" when they were just another leftist Republican.

It would be like Coca Cola allowing every cola out there to call itself "Coke".

[Smokin Joe]

There are MANY Catholics supporting him, even right on this very forum.  Don't hang it all on the group you hate.  Protestants too.  Hindus, don't know.  Muslims, probably not but for other reasons.  There are plenty of evangelicals not supporting Trump.  It's offense to us when you make comments like that.  It's also biased.

https://www.catholics4trump.com/

I think the impression that evangelicals were supporting Trump came from Cruz's terrible performance in southern primaries, although I think that was partly from the National Enquirer mistress article, the stuff about Cruz being "God's anointed", and a flurry of articles and internet comments about Dominionism and tying Cruz to that all played badly with the 'bible belt'. Trump got the support by default that might have gone to Cruz without the media blitz. The impression (or the spin, really) was that 'evangelicals supported Trump'.
Of course, by the time that was all sorted out and debunked, the ballots were cast.

That was a recurring tactical pattern during the campaign.

[Silver Pines]

I think the point that Donald Trump is not a paragon of virtue has been made here repeatedly.

That's a deliberate attempt at mischaracterization I see quite often.  We're not saying that Trump is less than a paragon of virtue; we're observing the fact that he is an amoral sleaze who is unfit for office. 

And when you say "appeared in a porn video", it is deliberately misleading given that the phrase usually means "acted" in a porn video.  I haven't seen the video, but here's a description of his "role":

I don't care who misinterprets clear, simple language; that's their problem.  If I'd meant "acted" I would have used the term.  Simply appearing in a porn video is sufficient to disqualify the man to lead this country.

"Before you go “eewwwww” at the notion of Trump and porn in the same sentence, know the cork he popped came out of an actual champagne bottle holding bubbly he poured over a Playboy logo during a benign segment of a 2000 video of a national Playboy Playmate tour that featured a stop in New York."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-appears-unearthed-2000-playboy-porn-video-article-1.2813554

So yes, he technically appeared on the same videotape as what is described as a "soft-core" porn movie, but he didn't actually appear in any porn.  Anyway, I suppose the point is moot.  For some folks, this election apparently has come down to a "can you top this" contest of finding anything negative to post about Trump.  I'm sure it's all very amusing, and I hope you guys are laughing just as hard after Hillary gets sworn in and things get serious.

You really have to be kidding me.  You talk as though it were necessary to dig long and hard to find things in Trump's background, when the truth is that he's so degenerate that you have to dig to find something decent about him.  Have you forgotten that he's the first candidate to brag about the size of his genitals in a nationally televised debate?  I remember when Republicans were all outraged at having their kids witness Bill Clinton's behavior.  But now all of a sudden we're willing to dismiss Trump's sleaze because he has the magic "R" after his name.  Well, you can go right on down that path if you want, but I won't.

I'll be in mourning for my country no matter which of those progressives wins.

@Maj. Bill Martin

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think the impression that evangelicals were supporting Trump came from Cruz's terrible performance in southern primaries, although I think that was partly from the National Enquirer mistress article, the stuff about Cruz being "God's anointed", and a flurry of articles and internet comments about Dominionism and tying Cruz to that all played badly with the 'bible belt'. Trump got the support by default that might have gone to Cruz without the media blitz. The impression (or the spin, really) was that 'evangelicals supported Trump'.
Of course, by the time that was all sorted out and debunked, the ballots were cast.

I'm not sure I understand.  Based on the first and last two sentences, I thought you were implying that Trump did not actually get the evangelical vote.  That was an illusion, and the truth was that was Cruz' vote all along.  But then there's the bolded sentence of "Trump got the support by default that might have gone to Cruz", so I'm not quite sure what you meant there.

I really have no idea either way.  Just curious.