"I, for one, will be grabbing the first pussy that takes my fancy the next time I'm in the US, now that it has been endorsed to some extent. I mean, it can't have been all men who voted for Trump."

I think the context was that being famous (and being a billionaire probably does not hurt) changed the dynamic. Then apparently some will let you do it if that's your thing, not sure though how you tell which ones. I'm pretty certain that it would be easy to find that some would not let you do it though so maybe not the wisest course of action.

R0bert

RObert:

And if some let you do it just because you are famous and have lots of money what does that say about them?

And what does that say about rich and famous men who want to do it for that reason?

From my own values system, it's not saying anything admirable about either. No big surprises in it though. Enough tales from the entertainment industry to know about both sides of that equation.

R0bert

Dear Shadow Minister,

If the political persuasion of sources do not matter
to you then why do you consistently brush aside any
that don't agree with your viewpoint as being "Left
wing whinge?" Your actions do not support your claims
when caught out Sir. This time you picked on a
conservative link with the same inference yet again.

Anyway, I shall take you at your word and try to give you
the link that wasn't working the last time. Mr Trump's
behaviour does not have to be fabricated. It is on public
record for all to see and as I mentioned earlier all you
have to do is Google it. There are many websites to choose
from. I'm sure that you could find at least one that suits you.
As for the question of former President Obama's place of
birth? It was Mr Trump who questioned it only to renege on
it when proven wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-real-donald-trump-a-bully-fraud-incompetent-who-has-wrecked-countless-lives-a7384421.html

Foxy,

Given that in the past your predilection has been quoting polemicist blogs that are well left of center with some left wing journals such as the Guardian and the Independent.

That the National review is regarded as a conservative journal is a huge departure for you and caught me off guard. However, what is notable is that the author of the article to which you linked previously wrote an article comparing Trump's rhetoric against the main stream media to imposing Sharia law. (OTT)

While I am not a Trump fan and find his business practices bordering on the illegal, I find the anti Trump movement hysterically over the top and lacking in reason and rational. For example, how would you justify women at the Sydney rally dressing up as vaginas? Considering that much of the protest is about Trump's tasteless comments, I found it a serious own goal.

Similarly the vast noise created without a single presidential action to criticise has spent itself on trivia, and in the event of actual wrong doing by Trump will be dismissed as the same petulant hysteria seen so far.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Taken from the Los Angeles Times:

"We have a man who has major conflicts of interest, refuses
to release his tax returns, spews lies and hateful rhetoric,
disdains the press, declares NATO to be obsolete, encourages
nuclear weapons, promoted an agenda that will make the rich
richer and the poor poorer, may destroy the rights of
women and minorities, could bring our nation into a conflict
with major world powers (most frightening of all), destroy
all efforts to protect our environment from the ravages of
climate change. The world is not celebrating today.
Neither am I."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-trump-inaugural-address-20170120-story.html

Your defence of this man is pathetic!