Paris was probably pretty good at 12 years of age. Just imagine being a 12-year-old boy in class with Paris at the same age. He would probably be having wild fantasies about Paris instead of doing his arithmetic.

mothra wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 2:33am:


I'm a father, but not a "parent". My children are not with me.

I think my daughters are beautiful. One is trying to be a model. Another is studying to be a lawyer but could have a good run as a model. Saying that someone looks sexy when they are 12 years old is not creepy when said retrospectively. If someone looked at a photo of my 18-year-old and told me that she looked sexy at 12 years of age, at best, I would only be offended if it was said in a lustful fashion.

Paris was probably pretty good at 12 years of age. Just imagine being a 12-year-old boy in class with Paris at the same age. He would probably be having wild fantasies about Paris instead of doing his arithmetic.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 2:24am:


Paris may well have been smokin' hot at age 12 but Trump was a grown man. His admission on the Howard Stern show was on YouTube for several years but was recently deleted but not before some people made copies. Take a look for yourself.

He also promised daughter Ivanka he would not date girls younger than herself 

In the last week it has become clear that Trump enjoyed Paris Hilton's sex tape, thought Paris was sexy at age 12, and had a cameo in a soft-core porn movie.

You just want to see something salacious and prurient. I can see why you support The Creep.!


Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the words I just used, as I doubt you are smart enough to know what they mean.

Mortdooley wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:55am:


I want to see a reliable source.

You've no idea.

12 year old girls are not sexy.  Except to paedophiles.

12 year old boys are not consumed with what is sexy. They are just starting to notice girls.

Donald Trump is a creep.

Mortdooley wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:55am:


I want to see a reliable source.

you ever believed that Hillary Clinton’s immigration stance was driven by anything other than cynical opportunism, you may want to reconsider. Already, Clinton has adopted a Merkel-like position on immigration. During the Democratic primaries, eager to avoid the ghosts of some unsavory comments she made in 2014, Clinton espoused a doctrine of open borders. “I would not deport children,” she said in March. “I do not want to deport family members either.” In other words: If you come here with your family, you will be allowed to stay. And if you’re already here illegally, Clinton believes in creating a path to citizenship for you, with or without Congress’s consent. None of these views place her outside the Democratic mainstream, at least as it stands at the moment. But of late her immigration stance has become incoherent. She still wants immigration reform, but now it seems like a path to citizenship is all such reform entails, at least on the first go-round. In a recent interview with Ezra Klein of Vox, Clinton said she opposes a plan that would also deal with reforms to the process by which high-skilled immigrants are granted visas: Comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship would deal with a lot of these concerns, not just the 11 million people here: how we would regularize them, what kind of steps they’d have to go through. Because I believe they do have to meet certain standards if they’re going to be on a path to citizenship. But I don’t want to mix that with other kinds of changes in visas and other concerns that particularly high-value technical companies have. In fact, I think keeping the pressure on them helps us resolve the bigger problem, and then we can look to see what else, if anything, can and should be done [emphasis added]. Put another way, Hillary Clinton not only believes that visa reform for high-skilled workers shouldn’t be part of immigration reform, but also that visa reform might not be a good idea at all. Clinton has taken the exact inverse position of the subset of economists who argue that an influx of high-skilled immigration, facilitated by visa reform, is an unequivocal economic good, and that the economic effects of low-skilled immigration are less positive. For some reason, she views the issues of visa reform and a path to citizenship as mutually exclusive, rather than symbiotic. Accordingly, she would focus on a path to citizenship while consciously rejecting efforts to reform the visa system. Why is that? Because holding the sword of Damocles over the heads of the companies that rely on high-skilled immigrants is a more expedient way for her to push through her policy agenda (“the bigger problem”). It seems likely that Clinton believes she can leverage the promise of future visa reform to secure the support of tech companies for her path-to-citizenship efforts in the present. Hillary looks at the immigration issue as a surefire way to boost Latino turnout in battleground states. There’s another reason, too. It’s fairly obvious from the interview that Clinton conceives of immigration more as a political problem than as a moral one. This is not to say that she is wholly cynical and sees no moral problems with the immigration status quo; it’s just that she looks at the issue, first and foremost, as a surefire way to boost Latino turnout in battleground states such as Florida — states that might otherwise break for Trump. This shouldn’t be so surprising. In American politics, protectionism is the order of the day; thanks to Trump and Bernie Sanders, there are now whole swaths of voters on the left and the right with a visceral distrust of free trade. Clinton, faced with Sanders’s unexpectedly stiff challenge, tacked to the left on trade, coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. ............

Mortdooley wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:55am:


I want to see a reliable source.

............Clinton has said that one of her immediate priorities, if elected, would be to extend President Obama's executive actions on immigration, giving a broad group of undocumented immigrants the opportunity to apply to law enforcement for a reprieve from deportation.

The courts, however, have stymied Obama's most recent effort to give temporary relief to several million undocumented immigrants. Whether Clinton would be able to do any more depends on whether the courts agree that the president has the authority to do more..........

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:36pm:


The bloated orange douche bag has been accused of raping a child.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 11:02pm:

take a moment to consider what that says about Trump's supporters, that a serial tax-dodger's child rape allegations are not an issue ...

[size=11][font=Georgia][i]Serial tax dodger???......if one does not pay any tax in any given year due to using legal deductions prescribed by the tax law, that tax filer is not dodging tax, he/she is legally avoiding paying a tax legally.

AiA wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 12:47am:



No one said Trump didn't pay taxes, they claimed he didn't pay federal income taxes. They just want  everyone to believe he didn't pay any type of taxes. If you had ever filled out your own long form tax return you might understand what is deductible. I am sure Trump has paid millions every year in property taxes and as a resident of  New York his state income taxes also cost millions every year.

Rush Limbaugh moved his whole operation to Florida from New York because of it!