From "CNN’s Jake Tapper Dedicates Segment to Trump’s Penis" (Breitbart).
Oh, look! It's Roseanne. 1998. Dragging out the penile details:
Is the woman lying? To ask the question is to express a desire for corroborating evidence. If the offense is sexual, I'm afraid the evidence might trigger your ickiness reaction. Too bad! How would you like it if you stopped by to see the governor and he whipped it out, erect, and said "kiss it"? You're only hearing about it, not suffering through it.
From "Clinton scandal: Privates on parade as sex harassment case turns ugly" (November 7, 1997):
[Paula Jones's] lawyers have... named... women believed to be former girlfriends of the President, including Gennifer Flowers. She is the woman named during the 1992 election campaign as his long-time mistress, who has steadfastly refused to speak against him.Did we ever find out if Bill Clinton is really bent like that? The Onion had the story in 2005: "Bill Clinton Finally Just Shows America His Penis." Funny, right? It was 2005, and #MeToo hadn't clicked in yet. But time's up now. And it's not funny anymore.
The strategy is two-fold: to show "a pattern of behaviour" in Mr Clinton's past and to demonstrate the veracity of an affidavit Ms Jones reportedly swore when she first brought her case three years ago that could prove her case. In the affidavit, Ms Jones apparently describes "distinguishing characteristics" of Mr Clinton's "genital area".
Last month, it seemed the puzzle of the distinguishing characteristics had been solved, when newspapers quoted "sources" as saying she referred to a curvature of the President's erect penis - a phenomenon said to be caused by Peyronie's disease. The theory was backed up by more "informed sources" saying that Mr Clinton had been tested for this condition during his annual medical examination the previous week.
ADDED: You may have reached the end of this post with the question what is "distinctive" about Trump's genitalia. And good for you if you didn't. What a fine person you are! If you did, you don't have to by Stormy's book to get the answer. The NY Post has it. Should I just send you there, or should I quote "He knows he has an unusual penis... It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool…like the mushroom character in Mario Kart"?
पोस्ट्स
९३ टिप्पण्या:
Clinton's was left leaning, while Trump's is right leaning?
"Denounce your husband."
The classic cry of the Marxist.
And, I'm not defending Bill Clinton, who probably deserved to stand trial for his depredations.
How did you arrive at this juncture?
The proof is in the outcome, and we now know the outcome of Marxist feminism... the demand for the abolition of the assumption of innocence, gender and ethnic blood guilt and the demand for family members to denounce one another.
I'm not saying you're entirely a Marxist. I'm saying you've deluded yourself into thinking that there is some sort of feminism that isn't Marxist. You became a Marxist feminism under the delusion that the Marxism could somehow be washed out.
What's "Marxist" about taking sexual abuse seriously?
I don't know why you want to impugn capitalism like that.
I hope the D-hack press ask Trump to show us his penis. Proof! That would be the crowning glory of the royal asses who worked so hard to make sure Trump was Hillary's opponent.
'His penis is distinctive in a certain way,' she writes.
Let's all give him credit right now for not tweeting out, "Yes, it's YUGE!"
Hillary couldn’t pick Bill’s dick out of a lineup
twitter, yesterday. Why is Mario Cart trending? EEEKKKKK!!!!
There's a gif of a little baby running, and then he looks horrified and runs the other direction. Several people posted that gif on twitter in response to "Why is Mario Cart trending on twitter?"
We gave Mario Cart to one of my nephews this summer. Some stuff I don't wanna know!!!
SEx with an intern WHILE in the oval office is practical, forgivable, understandable.
Because D.
Sex with Stormy the porn star how many years ago? why - we must see his penis and impeach him.
Bill Clinton sex with many consensual sex partners + Bill Clinton rape sex with women who were not Paula Jones + Bill Clinton exposing himself to potential sex/rape partners who were not Paula Jones + gossip from women who had consensual sex with Bill Clinton + police reports filed by women Bill Clinton raped = This is not how we know Bill Clinton exposed himself to Paula Jones.
They could appoint a Special Master.
But that's just me baiting the Clinton cartel.
-XC
Bill liked the ladies. Some of them came willingly, others needed a little force.
Well, in vascular surgery there is the "Throckmorton sign" in which the penis points to the abnormal side.
Maybe just take an x-ray, Not erect though. Bill's Chordee probably wouldn't show unless he had a hardon.
Cory Booker now wants Stormy to run as his VP so they can do yard signs saying “Elect Booker and the Hooker”
Clinton paid Jones $850,000 from money donated by Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood scum.
What's "Marxist" about taking sexual abuse seriously?
Diversionary tactic. We have a criminal code to deal with that.
You deliberately evaded how Marxist feminism has led to:
1. The demand to end the assumption of innocence
2. The assertion of class based gender and ethnic guilt
3. The demand to prove ideological purity by denouncing family members.
If it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck.
You also assume the traditional Marxist stance for these attacks on due process:
"We live in a state of emergency so dire that something must be done."
I'm not saying you're entirely a Marxist. I'm saying you've deluded yourself into thinking that there is some sort of feminism that isn't Marxist.
You, and many others on this site, have so diluted the definition of Marxism, and socialism, that it is now meaningless and laughable.
The working definition of Marxism and socialism among the majority of the commenters on this site is "anything I don't like".
FEMA supposed test new text system for federal alert sent to phones, Americans are going to receive dic pic of President's mushroom penis along with a warning about nuclear missles on they way from Russia.
2. The assertion of class based gender and ethnic guilt
Show me where Marx ever discussed "gender and ethnic guilt". I guess one out of three characteristics (class) makes a duck. And point one and three have nothing to do with Marx either. Denouncing family members is a tool used by both the left and the right.
Disturbing, isn't it Freder?
Althouse always insists on great care and precision in language.
And she's uttered the classic cry of the Marxist who's outraged at non-compliance with ideological purity... "Denounce!"
Too much Clinton in your blog today...
Althouse always insists on great care and precision in language.
That is laughable. She only insists on great care and precision in language when it suits her. Other times not so much. (e.g., she gets all bent out of shape if you call a vagina a vulva but differentiating between NPR and NPR member stations and affiliates, not so much.)
The working definition of Marxism and socialism among the majority of the commenters on this site is "anything I don't like".
I see the expert on all topics, especially military, is going to teach us what Marxism means.
A better term might be "Gramscism", but Gramsci was a Marxist,
The repository of consciousness is culture. This includes both big-C Culture, culture in an aesthetic sense, and small-c culture, culture in an anthropological sense: the norms and mores and discourses that make up our everyday lives. Culture, in this sense, is what allows us to navigate our world, guiding our ideas of right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, just and unjust, possible and impossible. You may be able to seize a factory or storm a palace, but unless this material power is backed up by a culture that reinforces the notion that what you are doing is good and beautiful and just and possible, then any gains on the economic, military and political fronts are likely to be short-lived.
The power of cultural hegemony lies in its invisibility.
That is what is going on in our schools. I agree with ST, although not as stridently, that feminism is a consequence of Marxist women working on cultural hegemony and convincing women that marriage and motherhood is slavery.
she gets all bent out of shape if you call a vagina a vulva
Do you know the difference?
The Clinton thing wasn't consensual.
The Trump thing was.
Unless I've got wrong info?
So, why do we care what trump did with whom before he was elected?
Do you know the difference?
I just stick with "pussy" which is less precise but basically covers the entire region.
I never realized that Roseanne was Fat Björk.
If Clinton was tested for this condition during his annual medical examination, that may be evidence right there.
Show me where Marx ever discussed "gender and ethnic guilt".
Of course he had, he was in comedy.
The Trump thing was.
The "Trump thing" with Stormy Daniels was indeed consensual, but there are credible claims of sexual assault by Trump from other women. Plus we have the whole "grab them by the pussy" claim (of course Althouse, being a stickler for precision in this instance, rightly points out that Trump didn't say he actually grabbed anyone by the pussy, just that he could if he wanted).
So, why do we care what trump did with whom before he was elected?
Because the payoff to silence her may be an illegal campaign contribution.
of course Althouse, being a stickler for precision in this instance, rightly points out that Trump didn't say he actually grabbed anyone by the pussy, just that he could if he wanted).
What Trump actually said was that the women would let him grab them if he wanted to.
Of course he had, he was in comedy.
I am both a Marxist and a Lennonist
No, it's not the same. Paula had details on time, date, location, the people that took her to Clinton and names of people to whom she told her story contemporaneously, not three decades later.
What Trump actually said was that the women would let him grab them if he wanted to.
What he actually said was: "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Which if you think that is something a 59 year old man should utter, I feel sorry that you are so immature.
"Because the payoff to silence her may be an illegal campaign contribution."
Meh. Who cares. According to the details, he spent his own money. And she basically signed an NDA.
Paula Jones and Bill Clinton and Stormy Daniels and Trump are not comparable.
Maybe closer would be Gennifer Flowers and Bill Clinton
Pussy, vagina, cunt and vulva have different performances and internal equations. There's usually a right word but it's not a medical choice.
Vagina has both a colloquial meaning and an anatomical meaning. Peasants are almost always referring to the colloquial definition.
Vagina is taken as corresponding to dick, which of course it has to, as sheath to a sword.
The Trump statement on the tape supplied by a member of the Bush family (will we ever get to the end of them?) was boasting of a possible action, well known among movie and TV people. It's not evidence just like the Ford woman's accusation is not evidence.
With Bill Clinton, there is evidence. DNA evidence.
I didn't read the article, so someone tell me, what does Trump's penis look like? Or, didn't they tell you?
Marxism has mutated over time. Its original proponents would wonder about its economic-class basis today, given the history of the last hundred years.
There are still actual old-fashioned Marxists around, but some are now quite alienated from the modern left. Others have changed with the times, especially in doing precisely what Ayn Rand predicted ( "In Return of the Primitive", 1971), in adopting a less falsifiable frame for their socio-economic program. If increasing misery and falling living standards are not evident, according to Marxist models, and the condition of the working class is therefore an unconvincing justification for their program, then something else is required.
The religion required a different God. Environmentalism is one, that justifies the loss of liberty and prosperity for the sake of a diffuse and immeasurable benefit, which cannot be refuted by anything as simple as a trend of median disposable income. Better yet are the various "cultural" Marxist trends, on racial, ethnic and sexual grounds, that justify themselves on the basis of, essentially, sentiment.
Ok, Mary Beth wins the thread!
Environmentalism is one, that justifies the loss of liberty and prosperity for the sake of a diffuse and immeasurable benefit, which cannot be refuted by anything as simple as a trend of median disposable income.
It you think that environmentalism has resulted in "diffuse and immeasurable benefit", then you need to get in your time machine and visit Cleveland circa 1968. Hell, the lead reduction in the environment over the last forty years has had lasting and measurable benefit.
And you are proving my point. Environmentalism (which you don't like) must be Marxist. Which of course is ridiculous if you have ever visited an Eastern European country and saw what a mess the communists made of their environment.
I prefer to mix my Marx and Lennon with a little Firesign Theatre.
How does her book not run afoul of revenge porn statutes?
Which if you think that is something a 59 year old man should utter, I feel sorry that you are so immature.
You've never been in a locker room have you?
Environmentalism (which you don't like) must be Marxist. Which of course is ridiculous if you have ever visited an Eastern European country and saw what a mess the communists made of their environment.
The environmental movement, and the CND and peace movements were infiltrated and co-opted by the Soviets. Their dupes are still running the movements.
I didn't read the article, so someone tell me, what does Trump's penis look like? Or, didn't they tell you?
Watch CNN. It is 20% of their programming recently--Stormy related.
The environmental movement, and the CND and peace movements were infiltrated and co-opted by the Soviets. Their dupes are still running the movements.
This is just bullshit (at least with respect to the environmental movement).
You've never been in a locker room have you?
If you are in high school, maybe you can get away with it. But a 59 year old man? Grow the fuck up!
What does it mean when a porn star says you’re is “smaller than average,” but “not freakishly small”? What’s her yardstick?
Seems kind of unfair.
This is just bullshit (at least with respect to the environmental movement).
Now you're just lying. It's a proven fact--from every angle--Soviet documents, testimony from former heads of environmental groups, money flows, whistleblowers. . .
"You also assume the traditional Marxist stance for these attacks on due process: "We live in a state of emergency so dire that something must be done.""
So... George W. Bush was a Marxist after 9/11?
"If Clinton was tested for this condition during his annual medical examination, that may be evidence right there.:
According to my urologist, there is no real diagnostic test for Peyronies Disease. It's fairly obvious by examination.
It's a calcium buildup in an area of the penis that has been repeatedly bent. The calcium is how the body reacts to that repeated "injury". Apparently, a third of men with PD get better, a third get worse and a third just live with it.
What does it mean when a porn star says you’re is “smaller than average,” but “not freakishly small”? What’s her yardstick?
The 10 and 12-inch dicks she's used to being pounded with.
"Which if you think that is something a 59 year old man should utter, I feel sorry that you are so immature."
Ageism.
The denial of sexual feeling in older people is so casually cruel.
And there's nothing bad about talking and joking about sex, especially when you think you're alone with friends. Sexual bragging... not even naming a person... what is the big deal? The only thing big is the feeling of wanting to take down Trump.
"The 10 and 12-inch dicks she's used to being pounded with."
Right. I'll guess that “smaller than average,” but “not freakishly small” is, in real American human terms, average.
Freder Frederson: Show me where Marx ever discussed "gender and ethnic guilt".
Ok.
On the Jewish Question, Karl Marx.
That is assuming you can find the real thing to read.
The real thing was at www.marxists.org for at least five years, and then it was replaced by an absurd translation that almost completely removed all the more problematic statements.
Anyway in the real text, Marx claimed that Jews were genetically evil and that as long as there was a single Jew alive in the world, true socialism was not possible. Now of course as anyone that has ever read something that Marx wrote knows he did not say it that clearly and concisely. With Marx it is often a struggle to understand because it's just clumsy clause heaped upon clumsy clause heaped awkward clause.
He is not a good writer. Or maybe it's just that if you try to literally translate German into English it sounds bad. But I don't believe that. It's more than the translation problem.
But he made his virulent hatred for Jews very clear and went on at great length.
He asserted that there were multiple ethnic groups that needed to be exterminated, but he only specifically mentioned the Jews. I assume this was because in the circles he travelled saying that Jews were evil and needed to be all killed was an unexceptionable statement.
Now you might object that saying someone is genetically evil is not the same as saying they have "ethnic guilt." I think it's close enough especially when you realize that no one was writing the phrase "ethnic guilt" back in Marx's day.
There were plenty of other 'interesting' statements in "On the Jewish Question" that had nothing to do with Jews, assuming you can find the real thing.
For example there were paragraphs exploring how you tell truth from falsehood. For Marx it's defined collectively. Real socialists all agree. They all think exactly the same thing. That's how you know what the truth is!
Marx also said what to do with people that don't agree with socialists. You kill them!
Now if Marx actually wrote what he meant as clearly as I'm stating it I think he would have been laughed at even back then. But these meanings are buried under so many words.
I do think there are plenty of people in academia that are capable of reading Marx and understanding what he is saying. And it's a sad commentary on humanity that so much of academia was attracted to what Marx was saying.
But that's the human condition. We have this capacity for evil and even an attraction to it.
"Smaller than average with a huge mushroom head."
Now you don't have to look it up.
My experience, from phys ed showers, is that all men look alike except for cut or uncut.
I have no problem with Stormy Daniels being a porn star. But she sleeps with a married man, then accepts a huge amount of money not to talk about it, then not only talks about it but gives interviews about it and writes a book about it and tries to humiliate that man. She seems like a pretty bad person, and probably a lot worse than Trump. It's sad that she is making money and getting so much attention for being an utter jerk.
I don't see why size would matter once it's over four inches, the length of a vagina. Then you're into cervix jostling in any case.
Circumference might matter, you'd think, if anything. I don't know that that's sensed beyond the point of entry.
"Because the payoff to silence her may be an illegal campaign contribution."
If the payoff was a campaign contribution leftists wouldn't be limited to saying it "may be" a campaign contribution.
But she sleeps with a married man, then accepts a huge amount of money not to talk about it, then not only talks about it but gives interviews about it and writes a book about it and tries to humiliate that man.
Remember this the next time someone on the left whines about slut shaming. They're cheering it on because it never occurs to them anything is wrong when targeted at their enemies. They've revealed (again) they have no principles at all.
Ann Althouse said...
"What’s her yardstick?"
Two-and-a-half feet in her vagina, on occasion.
I am Laslo.
It's looking like the Althouse's accesory to career rape charges may be downgraded to accessory to attempted career rape. Even Miss Lindsey and that cuck piece of garbage Flake aren't buying that lying twat's smear if she won't show up.
Hopefully Stormy, that used up old whore, dies of a drug overdose and her pimp lawyer gets the same brain cancer that finally got rid of McCain. Along with the rest of the mainstream media whores.
I read a transcript from an interview with some former Playboy Bunny during the campaign (she dated him between divorces) and she said that Trump was above average equipment-wise and a pretty good lover--she was surprised. Surprised because she had been with some Hollywood executives before Trump and they were lousy lovers. She thought it came with being rich.
Marxism disenfranchises people through redistributive change and denies individual dignity through diversity or color judgments.
Capitalism respects individual dignity through retained earnings and vote.
Half-way between are public (e.g. welfare,entitlements) and private (e.g. charity, insurance) smoothing functions.
Hopefully Stormy, that used up old whore, dies of a drug overdose and her pimp lawyer gets the same brain cancer that finally got rid of McCain. Along with the rest of the mainstream media whores.
Remind me to be extra polite to you, PMJ,
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
You've never been in a locker room have you?
If you are in high school, maybe you can get away with it. But a 59 year old man? Grow the fuck up!
So, you've never been in a locker room, have you.
Marxism is ordered and safe with recurring catastrophic anthropogenic economic misalignment. Capitalism in a functional market is dynamic and optimizing with high-order differentiability.
@Ritmo
I am grateful that I don't spend my time the way you do, and doubly grateful that my thoughts are not poisoned by the venom the you seem to drink by the gallon.
You're the one who's suffering from this.
Thank God, it's not me.
Indeed, a lot of the environmentalists of the 70's were financed in part, and others were "agents of influence" of the Soviets. This is still ongoing. Putin and various Arabs have quite openly supported various US and European environmental organizations, to suppress fracking, pipelines, nuclear power.
The Soviets were themselves old-fashioned Marxists (and completely amoral power-seeking cynics), and they had no problem at all with hypocrisy. Much like the US political environment today in fact.
The utility of environmentalism has to be understood in the context of the development of Marxist thought as a Marxist revolution became a practical objective.
Classic Marxism assumed there would be a stage of "dictatorship of the proletariat", details poorly defined, before the emergence of an anarchist paradise, also poorly defined. Lenin created the idea of a dictatorial committee of a "vanguard party", as the embodiment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and also to shove the balky proletariat along to paradise (already becoming a problem, as we see). And the vanguard it turned out was itself not as proletarian at it should theoretically have been.
Gramsci came up with the idea that even a revolutionary vanguard wasn't going to make believers out of the proletariat, the key was to replace the hegemony, principally cultural, at the commanding heights, to force the Marxist idea on the masses, and moreover to shut up its critics. And that hegemony, given its role, was no longer going to be proletarian, of necessity.
And etc. and etc.
The result was, between one thing and another, that Marxism became a matter of means and not ends. The welfare of the proletariat became secondary to the power of the revolutionary vanguard, and later to the hegemonic caste.
And the purpose of Marxism had to change, as above, because the facts of human welfare were not working out. And the proletarians were more balky than ever.
So for the sake of power, other beneficiaries had to be found.
"Carbon" is a nearly ideal justification for a power-seeking caste.
Environmentalism in practice is a power-grab by an administrative caste, its allies and dependents. As a bureaucratic process it lives on detail and process, its power lies in the difficulty of the negatively affected to kick back at endless complication and obscurity. The rhetorical case is also easy to make, justifying the entire thing with a few indisputable cases, as a theocrat could justify his power with a few cases of self-destructive sybarites.
But people do fight back, and many cases have failed, and all must be "proven", one way or another. Each argument is highly specific, each is by its nature uncertain and complex. This justifies a large bureaucracy (a huge plus for the caste), but it can still be fought.
But carbon, oh carbon, this is a beautiful thing. As any human activity has some effect on "carbon", then a single overarching justification, that must be defeated in toto, justifies a complete, all-inclusive totalitarianism, all sacrifices imposed on the proletariat, all measures and resources the caste can think of.
The party, now no longer proletarian, now no longer a specific party, but its ideological descendant as a caste, has a way to clamor for total control.
You, and many others on this site, have so diluted the definition of Marxism, and socialism, that it is now meaningless and laughable.
The working definition of Marxism and socialism among the majority of the commenters on this site is "anything I don't like".
Then, explain it so all the sexist,racist Nazis here can understand.
Am I the only guy who has heard women talking about sex/men when they thought no man was around? In my experience women are just as 'bad" about locker room type talk as men are.
Am I the only guy who has heard women talking about sex/men when they thought no man was around?
The ICU nurses didn't care if I was around. They gossiped about who gave the best muff diving.
Thats where I heard the joke about the difference between the uvula and the vulva. The uvula is Ah. The vulva is Ahhhhh !
Freder would not get that joke.
Cultural Marxism is a different path to justify power.
As above, the point of Marxism has, long ago, drifted from the liberty and welfare of the common man, the workers, the proletariat, to that, first, of the power of the party and its leaders, and later to that of the caste that defines the hegemony.
But they need to have a purpose. Even Kings had to justify their rule. Tradition, or support by the aristocracy, or Divine Right - something, no matter how hypocritical or cynical.
Environmentalism is one, see above. There is lots of scope there. But it is a hard sell, beyond a certain point.
So other things had to be found. Cultural Marxism is the other thing, speaking broadly. This justifies the tyrannical rule of the master-caste, in dictating to the proletariat, for the sake of the, well, feelings of various groups of the oppressed. Metrics of welfare and anything "scientific" need not figure.
Where once the proletariat was oppressed, and had to be saved, now the proletariat must be made to suffer and sacrifice, and be made to shut up, for the purported benefit of anyone other than the bulk of the working class.
Ideological mutation is an interesting process.
The Alpha dog doesn't care whether or not the bitch likes it.
Ann Althouse said...
"You also assume the traditional Marxist stance for these attacks on due process: "We live in a state of emergency so dire that something must be done.""
So... George W. Bush was a Marxist after 9/11?
W was on the same side as his dad and Obama and Clinton.
He just had different people to lie to.
Love that amazing interview, beautiful Roseanne, but you saved the best for last:
A huge mushroom shape as the head?
Oh yeah . . , oh yeah . . . YES!!
Re Marxism: Orwell understood its purpose with crystalline clarity and described it with wonderful concision that was typical of his thought processes:
Power for its own sake. A book stomping down on a face forever.
buwaya said...
Cultural Marxism is a different path to justify power.
Not really a path to justify.
More a tool to obtain.
The people who push Marxism end up with lots of money when they when. They don't really believe in redistribution.
Marxism has never made it past the dictatorship of the proletariat.
They get to the dictatorship and we never really get to the Utopia part.
Unexpectedly.
"Not really a path to justify.
More a tool to obtain. "
Well, of course. But there were always, and still are true believers.
Even pre-Marx. Those who died on the barricades of the Paris Commune were not cynical.
And a great number of those in US universities today have also convinced themselves, more or less sincerely. And such people need a justification.
There would be no cause without true believers, no matter the cynicism of those actually in charge.
@Laslo
is that both a right and left foot in her vagina?
Have we ever had any confirmation that Trump ever had sex with Daniels?
Everyone is assuming he did but I wonder. Trump is known to be fastidious and the idea of him being horny enough to boff a skank like Daniels has never made sense to me.
I can see a scenario where Cohen paid her off by mistake, thinking Trump rogered her. Then, when he says "you did what?" it was too late. Cohen could hardly ask for the money back.
John Henry
Buwaya,
The Paris Commune was 1871 (72?) Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1849 or so.
He wrote Capital in the 1860s, iirc.
Marx is an interesting writer. I've never understood why he has a reputation as difficult to read. Batshit crazy and more often wrong or just plain ignorant but interesting.
His journalism about the US War Between the States should be better known.
John Henry
(eaglebeak)
Marx had a hard time understanding America...
As for Stormy, she's just trying to please the crowd that's paying her freight these days
Back in the old days, she gave an interview to something called In Touch in which she said that sex with Trump was okay, etc.--I guess she was still looking to get something from him then.
She had some whole weird circumstantial story about why they didn't use a condom, which sounded nuts to me. I still think it's quite likely he didn't, ahem, nail her.
This is a guy who didn't want to honeymoon in the Caribbean with Melania because it wouldn't be "clean," insisted they stay at Mar-a-Lago instead.
Here's the old interview:
https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/stormy-daniels-full-interview-151788
I seem to remember that the mushroom head thing can be caused by prolonged use (over months) of a penis pump device.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा