Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators!

The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators! (Page 13)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You don't get it. It has never been about about how terrible a human Trump is. It's about about how terrible a human beings the Clintons are. And don't give me the "Bill is not running" BS, because you get both. "We are the President!" Look for the ads detailing how Hillary led the campaign to silence anyone who dared to accuse her ticket to power.

The Hillary Tapes - Washington Free Beacon
Arkansas rape victim comes forward after 40 years to call Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ | Daily Mail Online


So, what this boils down to is that you are investing in conspiracy theories and fluff because you've invested this much emotional energy into seeing that Trump will get elected, and need to rationalize this for yourself, even if this means turning a complete blind eye to the teachings of your faith.

The mainstream media has always loved sex headlines, and would love juicy profit-generating sex stories about Bill Clinton if there was a legitimate source (forgetting the fact that he isn't running for office).

I really think you need to take a step back from this Chongo. Don't you think, as a Christian, Trump's abuses (sexual, greed, abuse of his power, etc.) should at least be acknowledged, just from a moral and human perspective (which I would hope you'd value over political horserace stuff)? What, exactly, do you stand for as a Christian?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 01:51 PM
 
Here is a good response, Chongo, from Pence. Do you agree?

https://twitter.com/ElizLanders/stat...98300138594304
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 02:05 PM
 
Low energy.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 03:03 PM
 
At this point, Trump could take a dump on the Vatican floor and still be elected, as long as he promises to nominate judges that cowtow to the religious right.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
At this point, Trump could take a dump on the Vatican floor and still be elected, as long as he promises to nominate judges that cowtow to the religious right.
Yuuuup. Ends justify the means.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 04:01 PM
 
He's the singular path to a conservative court. I'm not really sure what else they're supposed to do.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
At this point, Trump could take a dump on the Vatican floor and still be elected, as long as he promises to nominate judges that cowtow to the religious right.
If this guy still manages to get elected I think it's pretty safe to say that the American electorate had lost its collective mind.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 04:30 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
If this guy still manages to get elected I think it's pretty safe to say that the American electorate had lost its collective mind.

OAW
The primaries weren't enough for this?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
At this point, Trump could take a dump on the Vatican floor and still be elected, as long as he promises to nominate judges that cowtow to the religious right.
Too late, Obama has already done that.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yuuuup. Ends justify the means.
That's the Alinsky/Chicago way. You should appreciate it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, what this boils down to is that you are investing in conspiracy theories and fluff because you've invested this much emotional energy into seeing that Trump will get elected, and need to rationalize this for yourself, even if this means turning a complete blind eye to the teachings of your faith.

The mainstream media has always loved sex headlines, and would love juicy profit-generating sex stories about Bill Clinton if there was a legitimate source (forgetting the fact that he isn't running for office).

I really think you need to take a step back from this Chongo. Don't you think, as a Christian, Trump's abuses (sexual, greed, abuse of his power, etc.) should at least be acknowledged, just from a moral and human perspective (which I would hope you'd value over political horse race stuff)? What, exactly, do you stand for as a Christian?
People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
Yes, Trump has made crude remarks about women, and men.
If you want to talk about greed and abuse of power, talk to the Haitians picketing outside the Clinton Foundation.

BTW, how do you know Trump hasn't had a "Come to Jesus" moment?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Too late, Obama has already done that.
Its probably a pretty big floor. Yuge even.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
Yes, Trump has made crude remarks about women, and men.
If you want to talk about greed and abuse of power, talk to the Haitians picketing outside the Clinton Foundation.

BTW, how do you know Trump hasn't had a "Come to Jesus" moment?
The thing is, when you just deflect like this it really seems like you are blowing off the charges against trump as a non-concern or a non-issue. Rapey stuff should be a concern to all christians and anybody with a moral foundation. You've made it clear that you think Hillary is morally corrupt, but you haven't made it clear what you stand for and when basic morals trump (pardon the pun) political campaigns. Additionally, I think the only person here that would consider you objective is BadKosh, because you don't speak out about the moral corruption in your party, yet you seem to expect us to account for the moral corruption in ours.

And Trump is guilty of far more than just crude remarks.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2016, 11:31 PM
 
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 12:20 AM
 
Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority.
His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole
to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress.
Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
Dilbert's Scott Adams Outlines 14 Reasons Why 'The Trump Tapes' Don't Matter

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 12:34 AM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Dilbert's Scott Adams Outlines 14 Reasons Why 'The Trump Tapes' Don't Matter
Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority.
His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole
to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress.
Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
-t
I am hearing that this wasn't a "hot mic" recording. The questions have been edited out.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I'm more noticing outrage from male, Republican career politicians.

"Shitting their pants" would be the naughty way to put it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post

If his crude remarks about sexual assault are just naughty words then clearly, despite being an atheist, I have a greater sense of morality than you.

Just because Hillary Clinton is bad does not make this morally acceptable. Are you a Christian?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 04:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He's the singular path to a conservative court. I'm not really sure what else they're supposed to do.
Cut their losses, confirm Garland (I don't think he was withdrawn?) and regroup for 2020. If nothing else, this should have taught GOP primary voters that picking a political unknown is a bad idea, because there is baggage like this that they don't know about.

("They" meaning GOP movers and shakers in this context. What a regular religious right voter ought to do, I don't know. Pray for guidance?)
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 05:26 AM
 
It isn't "sexual assault" if they're into it, and despite him acting like a crude jock, the chicks he was talking about would apparently be into it. Unlike Trump, who seems to only talk shit, the potential First Gentleman does shit; has sex with women who are young enough to be his daughter in the Oval office, has been accused of rape on more than half a dozen different occasions, etc.. Then there was Weinergate II, where Huma's hubby was caught trolling for adolescent strange, and directly told a 15 y/o girl, "I would bust that tight pussy so hard and so often that you would leak and limp for a week"...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Cut their losses, confirm Garland (I don't think he was withdrawn?) and regroup for 2020. If nothing else, this should have taught GOP primary voters that picking a political unknown is a bad idea, because there is baggage like this that they don't know about.

("They" meaning GOP movers and shakers in this context. What a regular religious right voter ought to do, I don't know. Pray for guidance?)
I'm talking about voters.

The point I'm making is there's a fine line between "the ends justify the means" and "backed into a corner".

It's a fine enough line I'm going to be skeptical of claims a Christian vote for Trump is unilaterally the former.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It isn't "sexual assault" if they're into it, and despite him acting like a crude jock, the chicks he was talking about would apparently be into it. Unlike Trump, who seems to only talk shit, the potential First Gentleman does shit; has sex with women who are young enough to be his daughter in the Oval office, has been accused of rape on more than half a dozen different occasions, etc.. Then there was Weinergate II, where Huma's hubby was caught trolling for adolescent strange, and directly told a 15 y/o girl, "I would bust that tight pussy so hard and so often that you would leak and limp for a week"...

Upon reading this I now realize that this conversation will be pointless.

There is already one story out there about Trump kissing a woman without their permission, and I'm sure many more will follow, but these will all be stories without concrete evidence because it is rare that sexual assaults are videoed. The same is true of these alleged accusations of Bill Clinton (who, I will repeat, is not running for office). I would think that if solid evidence existed it would had surfaced while Clinton was in office, because there were plenty of Republicans anxious to take him down during the Lewinsky scandal. However, like I said, there could be other allegations out there on similar footing to allegations against Trump.

And where this becomes a waste of time is that you, Chongo and BadKosh (particularly the latter two) will probably insist that the Clinton allegations are all real while denying the Trump allegations.

My points though are this:

1) Bill Clinton is not running for office, so there isn't an equivalency

2) It is possible for Trump and Bill Clinton to be sexual assaulters. Chongo and co. still need to acknowledge the wrongness of Trump's comments (which reference doing this), because by blowing this off like has already been done, it infers that this is acceptable. I stand by what I said before that Chongo is no Christian if politics are more important than basic morals. In fact, I'd go so far as to call him a vile human being himself, but I'm giving him a little space to clarify just what he feels about this tape.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Upon reading this I now realize that this conversation will be pointless.
Quite


And where this becomes a waste of time is that you, Chongo and BadKosh (particularly the latter two) will probably insist that the Clinton allegations are all real while denying the Trump allegations.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. They think abortion is murder. Kissing someone who doesn't want to be kissed is not on the radar when there is institutionalized murder. Until Trump starts dropping bodies, you'll make no headway.


Plus... impeachment->Pence. Still might not have to "buy the cow" with Trump.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I stand by what I said before that Chongo is no Christian if politics are more important than basic morals. In fact, I'd go so far as to call him a vile human being himself, but I'm giving him a little space to clarify just what he feels about this tape.
So, Chongo's basic morality remains unproven until he dances like a monkey before a hostile audience?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. They think abortion is murder. Kissing someone who doesn't want to be kissed is not on the radar when there is institutionalized murder. Until Trump starts dropping bodies, you'll make no headway.
This is a more constructive way of putting things than I was able to manage.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, Chongo's basic morality remains unproven until he dances like a monkey before a hostile audience?
Yes. He has been challenging HRC supporters with his link dumps and memes on stated moral grounds, why is it not fair game to challenge his moral justifications?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is a more constructive way of putting things than I was able to manage.
Heh, how appropriate for the trump thread. It's only the most confrontational version of a dialog that gets traction
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes. He has been challenging HRC supporters with his link dumps and memes on stated moral grounds, why is it not fair game to challenge his moral justifications?
I don't take issue with the fairness of offering challenge, I take issue with the fairness of the challenge offered.

The challenge offered is since Trump does not adhere to the moral standards upheld by the devout pro-lifer, the only way a devout pro-lifer can adhere to their own principles is with a de facto contribution to a Clinton victory.

This kind of hopelessly deterministic morality only exists in the context of taking shots at the religious. It's a (somewhat insulting) straw man generally based in contempt for the priorities of the people in question.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Heh, how appropriate for the trump thread. It's only the most confrontational version of a dialog that gets traction
On top of that, I seem inclined to give besson a hard time.

But it's because I'm sweet on him.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It isn't "sexual assault" if they're into it, and despite him acting like a crude jock, the chicks he was talking about would apparently be into it. Unlike Trump, who seems to only talk shit, the potential First Gentleman does shit;
You sure about that?

A woman at the centre of sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump has spoken for the first time in detail about her personal experience with the billionaire tycoon who this week became the Republican nominee for president.

Jill Harth, a makeup artist, has stayed quiet for almost 20 years about the way Trump pursued her, and – according to a lawsuit she instigated – cornered her and groped her in his daughter’s bedroom.


After Trump mounted his campaign for the White House, details emerged of the 1997 complaint, in which Harth accused him of “attempted ‘rape’”.

She said she was quickly inundated with interview requests from major US television networks, but resolved not to speak about the events – until Trump publicly said in May that her claims were “meritless” and his daughter Ivanka gave an interview in which she said her father was “not a groper”.

Harth, who feels she has been publicly branded a liar and believes her business has suffered because of her association with the allegations, decided to speak out about her experience with Trump because she wants an apology.
Jill Harth speaks out about alleged groping by Donald Trump

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If his crude remarks about sexual assault are just naughty words then clearly, despite being an atheist, I have a greater sense of morality than you.

Just because Hillary Clinton is bad does not make this morally acceptable. Are you a Christian?
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes. He has been challenging HRC supporters with his link dumps and memes on stated moral grounds, why is it not fair game to challenge his moral justifications?
This last Sunday's Homily by the Very Rev. John Lankeit, Rector of Ss Simon and Jude Catherdral here in Phoenix.



Here is a snippet of his Homily:
“Let’s consider the intersection of the practice of our Catholic faith and the exercise of our civic duty, especially when it comes to voting. Let’s first acknowledge that there has never been a political party in the United States that is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching on every issue.”

However, that doesn’t mean that we are free to vote for either major party, because one party can be much further from Catholic principles on the most important issues than the other party, he explained. As a result of that, we are often faced with the task of discerning which party and which policies are most in line with Catholic teaching, and which ones aren’t.

“So many issues are subject to the prudential judgment of Catholic voters. What does that mean? It means that Catholics can legitimately disagree, for example, on the best way to address issues such as racial injustice, education, the economy, immigration and healthcare and still remain in good standing in the Church.

“There are other issues, however, which touch on matters of intrinsic evil—actions that can never, at any time, under any circumstances be committed, promoted or even enabled by a faithful Catholic. But setting aside issues of intrinsic evil for now, let’s consider some of the more common issues for which Catholics can legitimately exercise prudential judgment.”

One such issue is Affirmative Action. This is a program that aims to eliminate perceived disadvantages that minorities can face when competing for jobs or admission to college. In our country, one party sees Affirmative Action as a means to bring justice and balance to our multi-racial society while the other party believes that it can result in denying jobs or seats in classrooms to qualified students just to fill a quota. One party sees affirmative action as a matter of justice while the other party sees it as injustice.

“But, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a black person if that black person created a hardship for them getting the education they desired. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate?” Rev. Lankeit asked.

He turned to yet another issue that falls under the category of prudential judgment, which is immigration.

“One of the major political parties seeks to allow immigration with very little restriction. The other party is concerned that unrestricted immigration leads to, among other things, non-citizens taking jobs that could be worked by citizens. One party favors open borders—the other favors ‘law and order’,” Rev. Lankeit said.

“Now, suppose a candidate for president promoted a policy that would make it legal for someone to kill a Hispanic person if the presence of that Hispanic person made it more difficult to pursue one’s career of choice. How many of you would be comfortable voting for that candidate?”

He continued: “Thank God we don’t have a candidate from either party who says that they condone such policies. Nobody in their right mind would say such a thing—that we could kill blacks or Hispanics—or anyone else—just for the sake of protecting personal economic or educational interests.

“Nobody would say it, but, as you’ll see in a moment… There is a candidate, in this 2016 race for president, who along with that candidate’s political party does, in fact, sanction the killing of blacks and Hispanics in the situations previously described…under one…particular…condition: That the black person or the Hispanic person is still in his or her mother’s womb.

“Now, this candidate and party certainly won’t say it that way, not publicly anyway. Instead, they use words like ‘choice’ or ‘reproductive rights’ or ‘women’s health’ or other sanitized statements in order to cover up what abortion is and what abortion does.

“So let’s stop beating around the bush with regard to the current presidential race:

• Do you know which candidate and party in this election promotes abortion and even promises to expand its availability here at home as well as abroad?

• Do you know that this candidate and party intend to make you and me pay for other people’s abortions with our tax dollars—something that has always been illegal?

• Are you aware that this candidate and party, which until recently, said that abortion should be ‘safe, legal and rare’ no longer even bothers to say that it should be rare—but rather, that it must be available any time, any place, even up to the last moment that the fully formed, full-term baby remains in the womb?

Should any of his listeners not know which candidate he was referring to, “then you should not even consider voting until you do know!” he said. “Ignorance in this area is unacceptable, because ignorance in this area costs millions of babies their lives and jeopardizes the souls of many Catholics voters.”

However, if you DO know which candidate and which party aims to promote and expand abortion, and you still intend to enable them to continue their war on the unborn by voting for them, “then it is my duty as a priest to tell you that your soul will be in grave danger, especially if you present yourself for Holy Communion after casting such a vote with the full knowledge of what you’re doing.”

He then went on to give a startling statistic: “In the time since this homily started, at least 30 children have been deliberately executed in the womb in the United States—and that’s just the ones that are reported.”
I have stated on more than one occasion, my opposition has more to do with what the Clintons promote, being morally AND politically corrupt just adds to it.

BTW Trump is morally bankrupt as well. The differnce between the Clintons and Trump is Trump has not spent his lifetime hiding it.

Clinton: appoint more Ginsburgs to the courts. Trump: appoint more Alitos

Clinton: continue funding AND increase funding to Planned Parenthood. Trump: cut off funding as long as they continue to preform abortions.

Clinton: kill the Hyde amendment. Trump Make the Hyde amendment permanent.

Clinton is on the wrong side of all the non negotiables, Trump's position are on the right side of the non negotiables.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't take issue with the fairness of offering challenge, I take issue with the fairness of the challenge offered.

The challenge offered is since Trump does not adhere to the moral standards upheld by the devout pro-lifer, the only way a devout pro-lifer can adhere to their own principles is with a de facto contribution to a Clinton victory.

This kind of hopelessly deterministic morality only exists in the context of taking shots at the religious. It's a (somewhat insulting) straw man generally based in contempt for the priorities of the people in question.
I think you are missing the point. As I understand it, what seems to be getting under Besson's skin (understandably to my mind) is not that Chongo et al aren't supporting Clinton (or a de facto Clinton victory), it's that they constantly throw stones at what they perceive as Clinton's moral failures while ignoring Trump's- flatly pretending they don't exist.

Were their argument simply "the single most important issue to me is the supreme court, and I have a belief that Trump is more likely to appoint judges that agree with me" and left it there would be nothing to argue about.

However, Chongo mostly posts about almost everything else. I'm pretty sure Besson understands the true nature of Chongo's support for Trump (although, to my knowledge, he still claims he doesn't support Trump.), but it's the lack of consistency that gets to him.

And I can understand why, I just don't see any point in pursuing it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Clinton is on the wrong side of all the non negotiables, Trump's position are on the right side of the non negotiables.
Trump claims to be on the right side of these issues. At least that is what he has been claiming for the past year or so, when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

Trump also advocates torture and murdering the families of terrorists, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

The sad reality is that so many with your position are willing to put the future of our country in the hands of a horrible, horrible man without morals, without leadership ability, without experience, without the respect of the rest of the world, without self awareness, and without decency, on the shaky hope that a liar will do what he says, and that even if he does, the court- no matter who he stacks it with- will overturn Roe v. Wade.

They will not.

You are risking everything for zero chance of achieving your goals.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Trump claims to be on the right side of these issues. At least that is what he has been claiming for the past year or so, when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

Trump also advocates torture and murdering the families of terrorists, but let's just ignore that, shall we?

The sad reality is that so many with your position are willing to put the future of our country in the hands of a horrible, horrible man without morals, without leadership ability, without experience, without the respect of the rest of the world, without self awareness, and without decency, on the shaky hope that a liar will do what he says, and that even if he does, the court- no matter who he stacks it with- will overturn Roe v. Wade.

They will not.

You are risking everything for zero chance of achieving your goals.
Hillary is a truthful person? I'd rather take a chance on Trump not coming through on what he's said he will do, than Hillary coming through on what she says she will do.

You do realize once this blows over, the focus will be back on Hillary and the wikileaks dump that audio recording release was designed to shift the focus from.

Hillary Clinton's Wall St speeches published by Wikileaks - BBC News
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 02:55 PM
 
Interesting article.
America, You Have No Right to Judge Donald Trump
The wizards of smarts in the political arena are telling us Donald Trump's campaign is over because of recently leaked tapes of a private conversation from 2005 that was disparaging to women. The comments are so offensive, they say, he’s not fit for office.

From the moment the tapes were made public, the drumbeat to Trump's personal walk of shame began. Politicians who formerly endorsed him fled in terror, not wanting the soiled stain of sexual stigma attached to them. NeverTrumpers descended in holier-than-thou glee as they declared how noble and right they've always been not to support such a despicable man. And the left has been howling like puritanical wolves, condemning him for his immorality and sexist treatment of women.

I find this reaction to Trump's private conversation rather ironic. It's ironic coming from a secular culture that long ago declared objective morality dead. It's ironic coming from politicos and media bottom-feeders who defended the abusive and disgusting behavior of Bill Clinton, not when he was a private citizen but when he was a sitting president.


It's ironic coming from a Republican political elite that has told its religious base that social and moral issues don't matter in politics. "It's all about the economy, stupid. Leave your morals in the church but don't voice them in the public square."

The creep of moral relativism in America has been steady for many decades, increasing in speed to the point that the "slouching toward Gomorrah" has become a sprint. The notion that there is objective truth or absolute morality has been universally panned to the point that everything is tolerated except standards of right and wrong. "Everyone decides for himself what is right, especially when it comes to sex" is the mantra of today's culture.

For years, Christians in particular have been attacked and silenced as they've tried to challenge the immorality that is pervasive in today's society. When they tell people casual sex is wrong, they get the inevitable, "You have no right to tell me what I can or can't do." If they oppose sexual immorality in any form, including adultery, they’re maligned as sanctimonious puritans by lovers of libertinism.

How ironic, then, that a culture which rejects moral standards has suddenly become so pure and pristine, sitting in judgment of someone they deem too immoral to become president because of something he said in private. As a logical person, I have to ask these paragons of newly found virtue where this standard by which they've judged Trump is found.

If morality is relative to each individual—a purely subjective experience—by what standard are they judging Trump? Obviously, in such a secular climate, there can’t even be a “standard.”

Why should anyone listen to people who out of one side of their mouths declare the death of objective moral standards yet out of the other condemn someone for violating objective moral standards?

Those who are complaining about Trump today have no basis for their moral outrage. That's because their secular amoral worldview rejects any basis for that moral judgment. Any argument they make against the "immorality" of Trump is stolen, or at least borrowed for expediency, from a religious worldview they have soundly rejected.

The fact of the matter is that Judeo-Christian ethics have been driven from our culture and declared a dinosaur from an ancient past. Right and wrong, virtue, morality, goodness—these have been rejected in pop culture, our education system, the media, and politics. We have been told repeatedly that character doesn't matter because everyone's values are different. All that matters is an ideological agenda and the power that goes with it.


It was this mentality that fueled the defense of Bill Clinton in 1998 when the world discovered the truth about his illicit affair with a subordinate, Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, who had been accused repeatedly of abusing even raping women—all defended by his wife, Hillary—lied about sexual relations with a young woman who worked for him in the White House.

When his despicable behavior was exposed to the point that he couldn't deny it any longer, Clinton spoke to the American people. In August 1998, he gave the following address about his lies, his disgusting sexual behavior, and his mistreatment of a woman who worked as a subordinate.

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.
Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. . . . .I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most--my wife and our daughter--and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.

Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours.

Now, pay close to what he says next because it directly applies to what is happening with Trump, so much so that he should mimic the former president by using these very words in his own defense:

Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.

Now is the time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.

We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

So willing were the media and Democratic politicians to get past the sexual impropriety of the president that they did just what he said. For months and years following, Clinton defenders repeated with defiant fury, "This is a private matter and has nothing to do with the issues at hand. The American people don’t care about Clinton, Lewinsky, a soiled dress, and a cigar."

The vile and lewd sexual exploits of the president and his mistreatment of a young woman who was in a powerless position didn't matter. Not one iota.


Coupled with this defense of Clinton was the overall messaging that the moral absolutism of Christianity and any religious types who dared judge another person's actions or character needed to exit the public stage. The only thing that was important was the progressive cultural and political agenda of the Democratic Party.

I would posit that this has not changed. All the same people in the media and political class today who are condemning Trump don't give a wit about what he said on that tape. It's all smoke and mirrors with them. Given the rampant immorality in D.C. and throughout the political media, they're hardly shocked by the businessman's comments.

They don't believe in absolute morality anyway. And even if they do have some semblance of conscience, they don't think it matters what happens in private. All that matters is pushing their liberal agenda. If it takes being hypocritical about Trump, then so be it.

Their moral outrage is as fake as Hillary Clinton's smile during a debate. The real outrage they feel is over any threat to their ideology and their quest for power.

Yet the sanctimonious fools on the right have little-to-no sense to see this or how they're playing into the hands of the left. Republicans have become mere pawns in the Democratic Party's game of political power.

This started years ago when the Republican Party suddenly became enlightened and decided that social and moral issues don't matter. "It's the economy, stupid! Don't talk about the evils of abortion. Don't talk about the Ten Commandments or prayer in schools. Don't talk about the immorality of same-sex marriage or transgendering or even homosexuality. Don't talk about Bill Clinton's sexual abuse or anything that touches on issues of character.”

Their message to the salt-of the-earth types and "hobbits" who believe in right and wrong, principles, and the Bible has been “For God’s sake, just shut up!”

For years, the religious right was attacked and maligned from within the Republican Party. They were accused of being backward, stupid, moralistic boobs. Political elites were ashamed to share the same space with them on the public stage. They just wanted them to go away.


Well, they didn't go away, but they did listen. If morality doesn't matter in politics, then just elect someone who will at least stop the leftist juggernaut (or slow it down) even though he's immoral, unprincipled, egotistical, and not really much of a conservative. And if he damages the GOP political elite in the process and takes a bit of the shine off of their arrogant crowns, so much the better. Voila, Donald Trump.

So now we have a tape that show's Trump is an immoral, nasty guy, speaking as many guys do in their "man-space" (frats, military bases, golf courses, locker rooms). Is it defensible? No. Is it gross? Yes. Is it immoral? Indeed. But for a society that has declared absolute morality dead, what credible response does it have to Trump or anyone else?

It doesn’t have one. All it has is mock outrage that signifies nothing.

Can Democrats (and Republicans) who defended Bill Clinton criticize Trump with any moral authority? No. They have no moral authority. They abandoned it for political gain, and that’s all they’re concerned about today—power, not virtue.

As for all the Republicans—particularly those of the establishment, the political elites—what can they say except that they are reaping what they have sown?

They shunned the religious right and said morality doesn't have a place in politics. All that matters is economics and the sustainability of the Grand Ole Party.

They—the GOP political elites now chiding Trump voters about virtue—made a deal with the Devil long ago to secure political influence and power. By abandoning the moral foundations that would have prevented the rise of Trump, they have no basis on which to even whisper about the immorality of Trump.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think you are missing the point. As I understand it, what seems to be getting under Besson's skin (understandably to my mind) is not that Chongo et al aren't supporting Clinton (or a de facto Clinton victory), it's that they constantly throw stones at what they perceive as Clinton's moral failures while ignoring Trump's- flatly pretending they don't exist.

Were their argument simply "the single most important issue to me is the supreme court, and I have a belief that Trump is more likely to appoint judges that agree with me" and left it there would be nothing to argue about.

However, Chongo mostly posts about almost everything else. I'm pretty sure Besson understands the true nature of Chongo's support for Trump (although, to my knowledge, he still claims he doesn't support Trump.), but it's the lack of consistency that gets to him.

And I can understand why, I just don't see any point in pursuing it.
Perhaps Chongo overstates the case at times, but Clinton's moral failings aren't being met with much beyond a resounding "meh".
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
... but it's the lack of consistency that gets to him.
I have always found Chongo to be perfectly consistent: when it comes to abortion he is steadfast, thoughtful, and insightful. And when it comes to any other topic he will parrot literally anything he hears which might damage pro-abortion politicians. His course has been unwavering in this since the first day I saw his username.

And I can understand why, I just don't see any point in pursuing it.
Of course there's no point in pursuing it. Imagine if you believed some part of the law of the land were pure evil, like if slavery were still legal. Wouldn't you take every opportunity to argue that point, AND to snipe at politicians on the wrong side of that issue using any cheap scandal possible? I would. I respect Chongo for his convictions, even though I don't agree with him. But I don't read most of the "tactical" posts all the way through; it's pretty clear by appearance which kind is which.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You guys should find this article interesting.

The uncomfortable truth about Christian support for Trump
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/t...port-for-trump
I read your link with great interest; just wanted to let you know that just because no one seems to have a good answer to it doesn't mean it went unnoticed.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Perhaps Chongo overstates the case at times, but Clinton's moral failings aren't being met with much beyond a resounding "meh".
Wow, really?. A meh? She is the second most disliked presidential candidate of all time, and is probably the most investigated candidate ever. Literally millions of tax-payers $ have been spent obsessing over Clinton's 'moral failings.'

What a bizarre thing to say.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 04:18 PM
 
I'm talking about around here. In this forum.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

1) Bill Clinton is not running for office, so there isn't an equivalency
You've not been paying attention. She's already been selling them as a presidential team, despite all the rape allegations. At the very least it shows these women have terrible taste in partners and low self-esteem, they should have dumped Bubba and Carlos years, if not decades, ago. It was about their husbands' political power and what it could do to benefit them, nothing else.

2) It is possible for Trump and Bill Clinton to be sexual assaulters. Chongo and co. still need to acknowledge the wrongness of Trump's comments (which reference doing this), because by blowing this off like has already been done, it infers that this is acceptable. I stand by what I said before that Chongo is no Christian if politics are more important than basic morals. In fact, I'd go so far as to call him a vile human being himself, but I'm giving him a little space to clarify just what he feels about this tape.
Everyone in the Trump camp has acknowledged it, including Trump himself. He's even apologized twice in less than 2 days, for words that were spoken over 10 years ago on a shock jock program. It's the Left that won't accept it and move on, despite having real sexual predators in their midst, one of which is likely to be back in the White House again. Where are Bill's admissions? Where is his act of contrition? (Or yours for backing him, despite knowing better?) Is it the Left's platform to believe rape and sexual assault victims, or does that not count if they're one of your own political elite?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post

Everyone in the Trump camp has acknowledged it, including Trump himself. He's even apologized twice in less than 2 days, for words that were spoken over 10 years ago on a shock jock program. It's the Left that won't accept it and move on, despite having real sexual predators in their midst, one of which is likely to be back in the White House again. Where are Bill's admissions? Where is his act of contrition? (Or yours for backing him, despite knowing better?) Is it the Left's platform to believe rape and sexual assault victims, or does that not count if they're one of your own political elite?
Trump apologised for getting caught.

Since you can't see the difference between Bill and Don, Bill has been accused in the media but no complaint or charges have been filed with the authorities. If he is guilty he should be tried. As it stands, he's not even accused except by the supporters of the GOP and they have spent 30 years accusing him and Hillary of being responsible for every single thing they don't like. Its called crying wolf and the fact its biting them on the ass is fully deserved. They've only given the Clintons greater immunity to the things they actually have done wrong. Whether that includes deleting critical emails or committing rape is not for you nor I nor the media to decide.
Trump on the other hand has not been accused of simply saying offensive and disrespectful things, but caught saying them. His own words in his own voice, betraying very clearly his own true and despicable character. I hear an apprentice producer has said there is far worse to come too. I don't doubt it.
Most of us already knew Trump was a dreadful human being, but now even stalwart conservatives are becoming convinced that he is not fit to lead a country. It should be surprising that you aren't changing your tune too, but given your feelings about feminism and social justice, it isn't.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 08:19 PM
 
ICYMI: Trump holds Presser with Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, and Juanita Broderick.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2016, 10:48 PM
 
Still in primary mode.
Pandering to your base isn't going to win over the independent voters.

And hovering over a woman's shoulder the entire time they are speaking when the popular discussion going into the debate is over his sexual predation is terrible optics. The Paula Jones bit didn't even register because it came too late and in-between two bigger news worthy events.

Nothing that happened tonight is going to bring back the GOP congressional state level support that is needed if you want to bring out votes in swing states.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2016, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm talking about around here. In this forum.
Also pretty unfair. I don't remember a lot of support on this board from anybody for Hillary during the primaries. There was almost universal agreement among regressives such as myself that she is a flawed candidate. I think most the majority of people on this forum are supporting her with a lot of regret and disappointment.

That being said, perhaps most regressives, while they don't like her, don't think she is anywhere near the level or horrible many on this board claim her to be- i.e., I certainly don't believe she is a murderer. I think her ethical lapses are probably on par with most career politicians. I mean for [email protected]£ks sake, she has been invested more closely than any other politician in recent memory- by the opposition that hates her with an fascinating passion, has has come out of it basically clean. Do you really believe most career politicians could stand up to that kind of scrutiny?

But beyond that, I'm thinking there are a LOT of people 'supporting' Hillary that have moved beyond that ethics stuff because there is no point in fighting the battle. We will never convince 40%+ of the population that she is not evil incarnate. Not with evidence, not with facts, not with reason, so why bother? Trump is easily as ethically compromised, and his ethics are not, but a long shot, the worst part about him. Nor his morals.

I'm flabbergasted that it may be this tape (with an entertainment reporter, by the way, not a 'shock jock' as some on this board are attempting to spin it) is the thing that looks like will be his undoing. Of course he said those things. What he said on the tape is entirely within his character and past statements. The only difference between this tape and other recordings is that this time he used the word 'pussy' and he didn't know he was being taped.

There is so much about Trump that is dangerous beyond his morals and his ethics. If he attempts to follow through with half of what he is proposing it will be a disaster for the country- he doesn't even need to accomplish most of it for it to have massive negative effects- the attempt will be bad enough.

So perhaps we regressives have already had the Hillary ethical debate in the primaries and we lost. We've moved on.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2016, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think her ethical lapses are probably on par with most career politicians.
That's kinda meh, no?

Have not the gloves gone back on for Hillary as a reaction to Trump?

I'll fully admit I've run into my own Hillary bashing fatigue, but good lord... she deserves to get bashed day and night. Whatever existential fear Trump causes doesn't let her off the hook.

As was the thesis of this thread (which was pretty roundly challenged IIRC), Hillary is petty, vindictive, entitled, and only cares about power for power's sake. Sound like anyone else we know in the election?

The only "advantages" she has in the morality department is she knows how to confine her vendettas to the back channel, and she's used the party as a springboard for long enough she's held somewhat accountable to them.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2016, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Trump apologised for getting caught.
That's not how he said it at all, just your own heavily biased opinion.

Since you can't see the difference between Bill and Don, Bill has been accused in the media but no complaint or charges have been filed with the authorities. If he is guilty he should be tried. As it stands, he's not even accused except by the supporters of the GOP and they have spent 30 years accusing him and Hillary of being responsible for every single thing they don't like. Its called crying wolf and the fact its biting them on the ass is fully deserved. They've only given the Clintons greater immunity to the things they actually have done wrong. Whether that includes deleting critical emails or committing rape is not for you nor I nor the media to decide.
It's impossible to charge the Clintons, they're too politically powerful. The last several months have verified this, time and time again. Most of these allegations are from events years, if not decades, ago, evidence from them would be impossible to obtain now, and he and Hillary both have done everything in their power to suppress it, and intimidate/threaten any potential prosecutors. Of course the irony here is Hillary herself saying on numerous occasions that rape victims need to heard and believed... but that only applies if the rapist isn't her husband, obviously.

Trump on the other hand has not been accused of simply saying offensive and disrespectful things, but caught saying them. His own words in his own voice, betraying very clearly his own true and despicable character. I hear an apprentice producer has said there is far worse to come too. I don't doubt it.
Most of us already knew Trump was a dreadful human being, but now even stalwart conservatives are becoming convinced that he is not fit to lead a country. It should be surprising that you aren't changing your tune too, but given your feelings about feminism and social justice, it isn't.
Over a decade ago he was recorded talking like a "bro" with a shock jock. That just means he's a guy who was caught up in the moment and the environment and was trying to look like a player in front of other guys. Shit happens. Absolutely it's a bad look, but it's not evidence that he's ever done those acts, unlike what's been reported about Bill and Weiner. The "stalwart" conservatives are all part of the same corrupt establishment as the Clintons, their toast is all buttered on the same side. They're all the same ones who lied and cheated Sanders out of the nomination, by any means at their disposal. Of course they would, electing anyone who isn't part of the establishment means they'll lose $billions$.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2016, 12:26 PM
 
IIUC, the grabby grabby was said to Access Hollywood people.

The "shock jock" incident is him going along with his daughter being labeled a "piece of ass".

It should be noted, for what I understand to be the generally accepted definition of "piece of ass", his daughter qualifies.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2016, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's not how he said it at all, just your own heavily biased opinion.
But yours isn't biased at all of course.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's impossible to charge the Clintons, they're too politically powerful. The last several months have verified this, time and time again. Most of these allegations are from events years, if not decades, ago, evidence from them would be impossible to obtain now, and he and Hillary both have done everything in their power to suppress it, and intimidate/threaten any potential prosecutors. Of course the irony here is Hillary herself saying on numerous occasions that rape victims need to heard and believed... but that only applies if the rapist isn't her husband, obviously. :roll eyes:
Conspiracy theories always make everyone look smart.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Over a decade ago he was recorded talking like a "bro" with a shock jock. That just means he's a guy who was caught up in the moment and the environment and was trying to look like a player in front of other guys. Shit happens. Absolutely it's a bad look, but it's not evidence that he's ever done those acts, unlike what's been reported about Bill and Weiner. The "stalwart" conservatives are all part of the same corrupt establishment as the Clintons, their toast is all buttered on the same side. They're all the same ones who lied and cheated Sanders out of the nomination, by any means at their disposal. Of course they would, electing anyone who isn't part of the establishment means they'll lose $billions$.

I have heard people talking about Trump being accused of raping a 13 year old. I'm not sure where they got that from but thats every bit as reported now as what Clinton allegedly did. Anything Weiner did or didn't do has even less bearing on Hillary than what Bill did or didn't do. And you can claim it shows her poor judgement but Trump repeatedly objectifies and denigrates women in public. Even during presidential races, what kind of judgement is that?

Anyone with a clue can tell that Donald is not stepping out of his comfort zone by a micrometer in order to "fit in with the boys". Trump is very obviously well inside his comfort zone when he talks that way. People are starting to realise this at long last, but like I say its no surprise at all that you are among the Dunning-Kruger hardcore who are standing by him and trying to excuse and dismiss anything and everything he says and does.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,