• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

"I'm also very much a germaphobe..."

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
14,406
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
non-practicing agnostic
Doesn't about half the population think peeing on your feet and other body parts in the shower kills germs?

Jess saying...
 
So perception of germaphobes isn't necessarily that golden showers are a bad thing...
 
And he reportedly watched them pee, not participated.

Watched who pee? Is this from the rumor that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed that the Obamas had slept in? People DO realize that something like that would only be cheered by Trumpers, and the moral outrage of any “Clinton voters” would only be seen as more reason to revile THEM, right?
 
And he reportedly watched them pee, not participated.

Watched who pee? Is this from the rumor that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed that the Obamas had slept in? People DO realize that something like that would only be cheered by Trumpers, and the moral outrage of any “Clinton voters” would only be seen as more reason to revile THEM, right?

Of course there is no proof any of this took place.
 
Watched who pee? Is this from the rumor that Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed that the Obamas had slept in? People DO realize that something like that would only be cheered by Trumpers, and the moral outrage of any “Clinton voters” would only be seen as more reason to revile THEM, right?

Of course there is no proof any of this took place.

Dude, urine a fun thread.
 
I'm pretty sure urine is sterile, so a germaphobe wouldn't be outraged upon that issue alone.
Also, if someone IS into pee, they're going to justify it anyway they have to, logic or facts notwithstanding.

And Trump has just flat out denied so much shit that we know to be true, why would anyone be surprised if he denied that much piss?
 
I'm pretty sure urine is sterile, so a germaphobe wouldn't be outraged upon that issue alone.
Also, if someone IS into pee, they're going to justify it anyway they have to, logic or facts notwithstanding.

And Trump has just flat out denied so much shit that we know to be true, why would anyone be surprised if he denied that much piss?

The idea that Trump insisted on staying in the same hotel room President & Mrs. Obama once occupied is fully & easily believable because it fits with his ego. He certainly thinks he is entitled to as good or better than any president, king or other VIP in the world, and I think he would take perverse pleasure in staying in the same room.

As to the idea that he hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed, I will need some very strong evidence. The man is consistently icked out at the very idea of women having normal bodily functions. Remember his comments about Megyn Kelly - "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." And how about his comments about Senator Clinton - "I know where she went -- it's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it," Trump said, screwing up his face, as the crowd laughed and cheered. "No, it's too disgusting. Don't say it, it's disgusting."

So either he is so irrationally grossed out by normal bodily functions that there is no way he would have watched anyone peeing, or he has so fetishized the act of urination that he is icked out at the thought of any woman he hasn't sexualized doing it. The first argues against the 'golden showers' rumour. The second possibility argues for it.
 
I'm pretty sure urine is sterile, so a germaphobe wouldn't be outraged upon that issue alone.
Also, if someone IS into pee, they're going to justify it anyway they have to, logic or facts notwithstanding.

And Trump has just flat out denied so much shit that we know to be true, why would anyone be surprised if he denied that much piss?

The idea that Trump insisted on staying in the same hotel room President & Mrs. Obama once occupied is fully & easily believable because it fits with his ego. He certainly thinks he is entitled to as good or better than any president, king or other VIP in the world, and I think he would take perverse pleasure in staying in the same room.

As to the idea that he hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed, I will need some very strong evidence. The man is consistently icked out at the very idea of women having normal bodily functions. Remember his comments about Megyn Kelly - "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." And how about his comments about Senator Clinton - "I know where she went -- it's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it," Trump said, screwing up his face, as the crowd laughed and cheered. "No, it's too disgusting. Don't say it, it's disgusting."

Nobody will provide any evidence of either especially the Criminal Intelligence Agency or the Washington Post. There's the old saying, "All you have to do is accuse; you don't have to prove a thing."

- - - Updated - - -

Of course there is no proof any of this took place.

Dude, urine a fun thread.

As the English say, "Are you taking the piss?"
 
Nobody will provide any evidence of either especially the Criminal Intelligence Agency or the Washington Post. There's the old saying, "All you have to do is accuse; you don't have to prove a thing."

Exactly why Comey had TWO press conferences about non-factual accusations against Hillary Clinton while he simultaneously kept his mouth shut about the FBI investigation into Trump's dealings with Russia - including this rumour.
 
Nobody will provide any evidence of either especially the Criminal Intelligence Agency or the Washington Post. There's the old saying, "All you have to do is accuse; you don't have to prove a thing."

Exactly why Comey had TWO press conferences about non-factual accusations against Hillary Clinton while he simultaneously kept his mouth shut about the FBI investigation into Trump's dealings with Russia - including this rumour.

There were lots of wild stories so we can't take the media seriously at all. The media doesn't use the word censorship it will say editing. :)

The Agencies and the Media have all comprised the principles of objectivity by investigating to fit a conclusion instead of investigating to come to a conclusion.

Next is Trump's past relationship with Trump. Will it be a romantic tale? Will someone still go on about Clinton's emails in a couple of years? Who knows.
 
Exactly why Comey had TWO press conferences about non-factual accusations against Hillary Clinton while he simultaneously kept his mouth shut about the FBI investigation into Trump's dealings with Russia - including this rumour.
we can't take the media seriously at all.

Right, only the fat Orange Oracle can be taken seriously. :rolleyes:
 
Right, only the fat Orange Oracle can be taken seriously. :rolleyes:

Maybe he can't be taken seriously but the media failed to be objective in its reporting. For the CIA it seems to be business as usual.

How exactly saying it's unsubstantiated non-objective?

Before the famous Blue Dress, the story was being reported while Bill Clinton was still denying it. After the blue dress, it was physically confirmed.

Likewise, when criminal suspects are arrested, the media talks about the story of alleged crime. They usually call them suspects (instead of guilty) which is also objective because it is factual that they are suspects who have been charged based on probable cause.

So, again, please explain how it is non-objective to report that there's an allegation that is unsubstantiated.

I will add that Trump's best friend owns the National Enquirer. During the whole campaign, about 1/3 of issues had a main (negative) story about Hillary Clinton. NO article had a negative story about Donald Trump. Now, THAT is bias.
 
Maybe he can't be taken seriously but the media failed to be objective in its reporting. For the CIA it seems to be business as usual.

How exactly saying it's unsubstantiated non-objective?

Before the famous Blue Dress, the story was being reported while Bill Clinton was still denying it. After the blue dress, it was physically confirmed.

Likewise, when criminal suspects are arrested, the media talks about the story of alleged crime. They usually call them suspects (instead of guilty) which is also objective because it is factual that they are suspects who have been charged based on probable cause.

So, again, please explain how it is non-objective to report that there's an allegation that is unsubstantiated.

I will add that Trump's best friend owns the National Enquirer. During the whole campaign, about 1/3 of issues had a main (negative) story about Hillary Clinton. NO article had a negative story about Donald Trump. Now, THAT is bias.

I have mentioned previously on some threads, negative reports were made about both the main parties.

However recently this went a bit 'overboard.' However in many cases at least the press was saying the allegations were unsupported.

For Bill Clinton, the scandal was like waster off a duck's back.
 
Back
Top Bottom