# Your GOP President hopeful



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

[h=1]Trump to Breastfeeding Mom: 'You're Disgusting'[/h]

*yahoo.com*/parenting/trump-to-breastfeeding-mom-youre-disgusting-125350815777.html
Rachel Bertsche Writer July 29, 2015    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_According to a recent report, when a lawyer needed a break to pump breast milk, Donald Trump called her “disgusting.” _(_Photo:_ _AP Photo/Nati Harnik)_

 Presidential candidate Donald Trump called a lawyer and  breastfeeding mother “disgusting” after she requested a break from a  deposition in order to pump, according to a _New York Times_ report on Tuesday. 
 According to the paper, lawyer Elizabeth Beck was  questioning Trump in 2011 about a failed Florida real estate project.  Beck, with her husband, represented clients who claimed to lose  thousands of dollars in the deal. At one point, Beck, who had a  3-month-old daughter, requested a medical break which was contested by  Trump and his lawyers, who wanted to continue, the _Times _says.  That’s when Beck took out her breast pump to show that her request was  urgent — she needed to pump for her infant. “You’re disgusting,” Trump  told Beck before leaving the room. 
  The quote is not disputed by Trump’s camp. 

In an interview with CNN  on Wednesday morning, Beck says she had pre-negotiated breaks during  the deposition in order for her to pump. “[Trump] got up, his face got  red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, ‘You’re disgusting,  you’re disgusting,’ and he ran out of there,” Beck said. She called his  behavior “an absolute meltdown.” 

 Alan Garten, a lawyer for Trump who was present at the deposition, told the _Times _  that Trump’s statement “was in no way a statement about her decision to  breastfeed or pump. It was solely the fact that she was appearing to do  it in the middle of a deposition,” and Garten said Beck was using the  pump break as an excuse to get extra time to come up with questions for  Trump.  
_*
STORY: *_

 In a series of tweets on Wednesday morning, Trump addressed the incident, claiming that Beck “wanted to breast pump in front of me” at the deposition. He also wrote  that “Lawyer Elizabeth Beck did a terrible job against me, she lost (I  even got legal fees). I loved beating her, she was easy.” 
 Beck told CNN that she was not interested in pumping in front of anyone, but was simply asking for a break and a private space. 
 Trump hasn’t spoken publicly much about his views on  breastfeeding, working mothers, or working families in general. He did,  however, congratulate himself in Iowa in April after he withheld from  screaming at a crying baby. During  a speech, he called out an infant  who was crying, as well as the little one’s parents. “And did you notice  that baby was crying through half of the speech and I didn’t get  angry?,” he said, according to Raw Story.  “Not once. Did you notice that? That baby was driving me crazy. I  didn’t get angry once because I didn’t want to insult the parents for  not taking the kid out of the room!”
 Later, he pointed out, “I have great restraint.” 

Shilpa Phadke, Senior Director, Women’s Initiative, for the Center for American Progress tells Yahoo Parenting that Trump’s breastfeeding quote represents just “another example of how out of touch he is.” 

 Phadke adds that the words don’t bode well for the  candidate’s presidential run. “What women in America want out of their  next presidential candidate is someone who is in touch with the  realities of working families,” she says. “They are looking for  solutions to everyday problems. We’ve seen in the last few elections how  important the women’s vote is, and it will be very interesting to see  how women react to Trump’s words.”

  Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director of CEO and MomsRising,  says all parents are paying close attention to how presidential  candidates can represent working families. “Our members feel that many  presidential candidates are out of touch and don’t have a clue what is  going on with working families in America,” she tells Yahoo Parenting.  “It’s out of touch for anyone, particularly a candidate for president,  to call breastfeeding disgusting. It’s universally recommended by  pediatricians that all children are breastfed because it has the best  longterm health outcomes for women and children, which not only helps  families thrives but saves important health care costs later.”

Though women are an increasing percentage of the labor  force, moms continue to face discrimination, Rowe-Finkbeiner points out.  “While women makes 78 cents to a man’s dollar, moms are making 69 cents  to a dad’s dollar,” she says. “We have significant wage, hiring and  other discrimination against moms in America right now and comments like  those Donald Trump made about breastfeeding reinforce that  discrimination.”

 It’s a problem that families want addressed in government,  she says. “In America right now, for the first time in history, women  are 50 percent of the paid labor force, and 40 percent of all primary  breadwinners are moms, but our public policies are stuck in the stone  ages,” she says. “We have started seeing these issues gain significant  momentum but we still need to push them past the finish line. Moms are  looking to candidates to see what they can do to show they understand  these issues and pass policies to allow families to thrive.”
 When it comes to the upcoming election, Rowe-Finkbeiner says  parents are paying closer attention than ever — and Trump would do well  to at least try to understand the realities of American families,  something his most recent quote indicates needs real work. “Moms and  dads across America are fired up,” she says. “They are paying attention  to where candidates stand on economic security issues like access to  afford childcare, and they are paying attention earlier than they have  in prior campaigns.”


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

To suggest that people actually want this man to be the President of the United States is an indictment of our electorate if there ever was one.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 29, 2015)

And ?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

Falcon said:


> And ?



What would make you happy?  A "and they all lived happily ever after?"


----------



## Underock1 (Jul 29, 2015)

Its frightening to think that the American public, enthralled by reality shows, and celebrities, could just possibly elect this clown.
The world must be Lol. Its an embarrassment to have him run. Its just remotely possible that George W may not end up as the worst US president ever.


----------



## imp (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> To suggest that people actually want this man to be the President of the United States is an indictment of our electorate if there ever was one.



Think they're really that pissed?    imp


----------



## imp (Jul 29, 2015)

What a fray! Remember when it was widely rumored that H. Ross Perot took a huge under the table sum to run, in order to ensure enough to re-elect Clinton, was it not?   imp


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

imp said:


> What a fray! Remember when it was widely rumored that H. Ross Perot took a huge under the table sum to run, in order to ensure enough to re-elect Clinton, was it not?   imp



Yeah like that arrogant egotistical little poop needed money.  Bill Clinton could be elected again were it possible.


----------



## imp (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Yeah like that arrogant egotistical little poop needed money.  Bill Clinton could be elected again were it possible.



See the parallels existing between Perot and Trump? Both rich, arrogant, "I'll turn the world around" shooters-off at the mouth.   imp


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

imp said:


> See the parallels existing between Perot and Trump? Both rich, arrogant, "I'll turn the world around" shooters-off at the mouth.   imp



Parallels exist but do not constitute a conspiracy.  Both Trump and Perot before him were honestly trying to get elected.


----------



## Josiah (Jul 29, 2015)

imp said:


> What a fray! Remember when it was widely rumored that H. Ross Perot took a huge under the table sum to run, in order to ensure enough to re-elect Clinton, was it not?   imp



Imp, I follow this sort of stuff pretty carefully and I don't remember hearing anyone suggest that Perot took a bribe to ensure Clinton's election...plus it was 1992 and Clinton wasn't running to get re-elected.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

Josiah said:


> Imp, I follow this sort of stuff pretty carefully and I don't remember hearing anyone suggest that Perot took a bribe to ensure Clinton's election...plus it was 1992 and Clinton wasn't running to get re-elected.



Hey!  Right you are.


----------



## imp (Jul 29, 2015)

Perot ran in BOTH Clinton elections, 1992 and 1996.    imp


----------



## Josiah (Jul 29, 2015)

Getting back to the OP, I think Donald Trump is he is a near perfect distillation of almost everything bad in the world. It isn't often that we are presented with a foil like this. We should treasure him.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 29, 2015)

Yes... and PRAY he runs as an independent


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> To suggest that people actually want this man to be the President of the United States is an indictment of our electorate if there ever was one.


We elected Obama didn't we?  two times.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> We elected Obama didn't we?  two times.



Yes we did, what happened to us since we made sound decisions like that?


----------



## Davey Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

[h=2]As of January 8, 2015, the U.S. is $18.1 trillion in debt.[/h]The most of ANY President.
An increase of 70%.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

None of that has to do with his predecessor and his wars, and his tax cuts during wars, and what it took to keep us from sinking as a result, eh?  WAKE UP!!!!!!


----------



## BobF (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> None of that has to do with his predecessor and his wars, and his tax cuts during wars, and what it took to keep us from sinking as a result, eh?  WAKE UP!!!!!!



Where in the world do you come up with such nonsense anyways.   All of Clinton's debt and Bush's debt came up to about 7.5 trillion before Pelosi and Reid took over in the last two years of Bush, and drove the debt up to about 10 trillion and then Obama took our debt up to 18.5 trillion today.

So since Obama came in he has driven our debt up by at least 8 trillion and likely more as he does not want to stop wasteful spending.   Another year plus till Obama is gone so we can expect at least 20 trillion before he is gone.   I hope our next President, Democrat or Republican will be smart enough to end such wild debt and start working for some balanced budgets with the elected Congress of the future days.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> None of that has to do with his predecessor and his wars, and his tax cuts during wars, and what it took to keep us from sinking as a result



I don't know that much about this Jim, but I do know that the debt which Obama is being criticized for has partially resulted from the past administration, along with other factors.  A page with some facts and figures for those interested.  http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/National-Debt-Under-Obama.htm


However, it's a little misleading to hold Obama (or any other President) accountable for the deficit incurred during his first year of office. That's because the budget for that fiscal year was already set by the prior Administration.


President Bush's last budget (FY 2009) created a deficit of $1.16 trillion, even without the spending on the Economic Stimulus Act. Most of this addition to the debt occurred after the new President took office, and so should not be attributed to Obama.




FY 2009 - Although this was actually President Bush's last budget, it was implemented during Obama's first year. Congress agreed to add the first year's worth of spending from the Economic Stimulus Act to this. That $253 billion accrues to Obama.
FY 2010 - Obama's first budget created a $1.293 trillion deficit.
FY 2011 - It contributed $1.299 trillion to the debt.
FY 2012 - The deficit was the largest in history, at $1.327 trillion.
FY 2013 - This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $901 billion, was less than $1 trillion.
FY 2014 - The deficit projection in the budget was $744 billion.
Current Budget - The deficit is projected to be $564 billion.
When the deficits from all these budgets are added together, President Obama increased the debt by $5.073 trillion. 


*3. How Obama's Policies Increased the Debt*

However, there were some other events that Obama faced, just like every President, over which he had no control. There was less Federal income, thanks to decreased tax receipts during the recession and to the Bush tax cuts. 

 At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other mandatory spending continued to increase. The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The third, and smallest, method is how much debt was added thanks to Obama's specific policies. The largest contribution was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. These added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.

The next largest was the ARRA, which added $787 billion between 2009-2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects. Both were attempts to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis

In addition, Obama increased military spending to around $800 billion a year, on average. In fact, his security budget request of $895 billion in FY 2011 set a new record. Even though troops were withdrawn from Iraq in 2012, and Osama bin Laden was eliminated in 2011, Obama requested $851 billion for security spending in his FY 2013 budget -- more than in his first year in office. Although Obama abandoned the phrase "War on Terror," he spent $602 billion -- almost as much as the $850 billion Bush spent in eight years.

What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? It didn't add anything to the debt in Obama's first term. That's because most of its costs occurred starting in 2014, after the health insurance exchanges were set up and coverage was extended for more low-income people. In fact, tax increases will offset costs to the tune of $104 billion between 2010-2019. For more, see Obamacare Costs.

Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. When these are subtracted from these costs, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009-2017.

 (Source: WSJ, Ezra Klein, Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits, January 31, 2014)_ Article updated January 7, 2015_


----------



## tnthomas (Jul 29, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> To suggest that people actually want this man to be the President of the United States is an indictment of our electorate if there ever was one.



Well, it's not as far fetched as one would think<gasp>.    Consider this: in 2003 the good people of the state of California recalled the governor-a level headed, competent veteran public servant named Gray Davis. In his place, Arnold Schwarzenegger was installed as governor("da govenator").




What a fiscal disaster*** that was.


Credibility only counts with people sufficiently endowed intellectually to understand that word's meaning.....



*
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 29, 2015)

Yes, and in Minnesota the voters elected Jesse Ventura, a wrestler and they elected Michelle Bachmann.


----------



## BobF (Jul 30, 2015)

With all that magic math and excuses, I think the government should be paying us instead of taxing.  All that magic nonsense should be paid back to us that watch the 'non debt' to grow so fast.   But that is OK, we now have excuses for not maintaining the debt over these years.   

Getting our debt down is part of the current governments job, no matter who they are.   Not knowing that responsibility does nothing to improve our current government at all.   Under Clinton we had a small but steady drop in our debts.  Under Bush we had a rise in the debt but when Bush was presented with two very unaware folks about debt and responsibility it went up about 3 trillion debt and after that it became up to 18.5 trillion now and more to come.   

This lesson in magic assigning the blame does nothing to change this problem of debt.   It is there, no matter how you count it and should be recognized by the current governments and attempts to end this grand total and bring down to much lower debts.   This all began to go out of control back in the 1970's and still needs stopped, no matter who is President.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 30, 2015)

It's ALL Regan's fault..


----------



## BobF (Jul 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> It's ALL Regan's fault..



Check the records of Reagan's time.   He had Democrat controlled Congress for all his years with only one Congressional session being of mixed Congress.   Democrats held the House of Representatives and Republican's held the Senate.   Then fully back to the Democrats for the rest of Regan's term.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 30, 2015)

So....   It's NOT Reagan's fault..... because he had a Democratic controlled congress..  


*BUT* it*  IS *Obama's fault even though he has had a Republican controlled House of Representatives since 2010?????  AND a Senate minority who VOWED on day one of his presidency to filibuster and block everything Obama did?        Care to explain??


----------



## BobF (Jul 30, 2015)

Reagon was a conservative and would likely have held his debts closer.   But his spending minded Congress just would not hold back for common sense.

Obama was, and is, for spending and no worry about the debt.   He had full Senate support for all but this last two years and his money spending leader of the Senate, Reid, would neither read nor vote on the conservative House offerings.   Obama's first two years was complete far left control of the Congress and that is when this high cost medical system was prepared and pushed onto the world.    It is said not all of the medical system is yet going and when it does the costs will definitely go up some more.   So we have not seen the end of the Obama spending for another 10 years or so.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 30, 2015)

Reagan  is the correct spelling.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Regon was a conservative and would likely have held his debts closer.   But his spending minded Congress just would not hold back for common sense.
> 
> Obama was, and is, for spending and no worry about the debt.   He had full Senate support for all but this last two years and his money spending leader of the Senate, Reid, would neither read nor vote on the conservative House offerings.   Obama's first two years was complete far left control of the Congress and that is when this high cost medical system was prepared and pushed onto the world.    It is said not all of the medical system is yet going and when it does the costs will definitely go up some more.   So we have not seen the end of the Obama spending for another 10 years or so.



Seriously?  Me thinks your bias is showing..


----------



## BobF (Jul 30, 2015)

Not my opinion at all.   Just use the forum and look up the specs as I did.   It is all in print about who and when.   Democrats have been working the big debt thing for many years now.   Like starting in the 1970's.   

Go have a look yourself.   Or are you afraid of the facts that don't jive with the political party nonsense.   And that means any political party we have around now.

What bias are you referring to?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Not my opinion at all.   Just use the forum and look up the specs as I did.   It is all in print about who and when.   Democrats have been working the big debt thing for many years now.   Like starting in the 1970's.
> 
> Go have a look yourself.   Or are you afraid of the facts that don't jive with the political party nonsense.   And that means any political party we have around now.
> 
> What bias are you referring to?



Bob, I hope it doesn't happen but IF the republicans end up with TOTAL control (Congress, Executive, and Judicial) I want to see how you enjoy what  happens to YOU personally.  Repubs have the Congress and Supreme Court, all they lack is the Executive branch.  You will find, my friend, you have opened your sleeping bag and invited a rattlesnake in.


----------



## BobF (Jul 30, 2015)

I don't think the Republicans have the Supreme Court.    It may look so but in recent years they have gone with the Democrat requests.

It would be nice if they could at least keep the Senate and then they could do as Reid did for so many years.   Just ignore the House and nothing gets done.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 30, 2015)

Just remember what I said, Bob.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 30, 2015)

For sure BOB...  you like your SS check...???    Your Medicare?    Let the GOP gain control of both Houses and the WH.. and watch what happens..  Good luck to you...


----------



## BobF (Jul 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> For sure BOB...  you like your SS check...???    Your Medicare?    Let the GOP gain control of both Houses and the WH.. and watch what happens..  Good luck to you...



The Republicans have done nothing to either of those programs so far.   And the SS one was to be a personal choice, not a mandatory one.

For me, the Obama care is higher than before his plan so nothing new there but more charges.   I am not sure we have the money to take care of what we have now.    Worse was my previous medical program was from my employer.   He did not like the sound of Obama care so he stopped tending to our welfare.    Instead he promises certain money toward a health care program and beyond that we pay for the rest.   We select the insurance companies we wish to work with and after the promised funds are gone, we pay the rest.   Which right now is not too much out of my pocket.   But our coverage under Obama care is not the same as with my former employer.   Right now it is livable but with the comments Obama has made about more to be enacted in a couple years after he is gone.   Not sure what that might be or the expenses.   Maybe by then the next government, Republican or Democrat, will take over and try to make sense of this mess that Obama has created.   It will need completed and fixed or replaced.   Half done won't do.

Are you on Obama care yet?    If not, the rates are expected to keep going up as reality falls into place for the medical areas and the insurance companies.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> I don't think the Republicans have the Supreme Court.    It may look so but in recent years they have gone with the Democrat requests.
> 
> It would be nice if they could at least keep the Senate and then they could do as Reid did for so many years.   Just ignore the House and nothing gets done.


Wouldn't it be wonderful if the courts were apolitical? They are supposed to save the politicians from themselves and the people from the politicians.


----------



## Josiah (Aug 3, 2015)

I found this very amusing.


----------



## BobF (Aug 3, 2015)

It is way too early to even pretend to be the winning candidate.    Some mind clearing, or clouding, meetings are soon to start.   From these there will be a thinning of the proposed candidates for Republican party.   Maybe by spring the remaining few will be available and the appointment by the Republican party as to who will be our real candidate will take place.

Then we will be able to determine if we have a good choice on not.

Will Hillary still be standing, or will someone be able to replace her as Obama did on her last effort?


----------



## mitchezz (Aug 3, 2015)

America learn from Australia. It's oh so funny when an OTT RWNJ runs for office..............until they win.


----------



## drifter (Aug 3, 2015)

It may be too early for some to discuss who will be the nominees for the presidential run but nevertheless speculation on politics is as much  sport as Horse Racing or a round of golf. I think Donald Trump is good for  the Republican Party in the same way Tiger Woods 
was good for golf when he turned pro. I like what Mark Cuban said of Trump, he said I like Donald Trump, I don't care what he says or what he stands for, he says what's on his mind and that's a rarity in politics in either party. I agree with him. Politics is too much choreographed. Who knows, Trump may even be another Ronald Reagan without the cowboy gear. At our age we ought to look at politics as a game where either side could win. After all, it is our children who will run the country. Cheers, sports fans.


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 3, 2015)

We really do need Trump and the plague, famine, more wars, fires...


----------



## Davey Jones (Aug 3, 2015)

Stick with the real winner


----------



## AZ Jim (Aug 3, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> Stick with the real winner
> View attachment 20065



Oh yeah like we did with "read my lips no new taxes", and "the decider".  We really need another bush.


----------

