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.
Bill Cosby was as if not more famous than Trump for decades and we never heard about it. Jimmy Saville was incredibly famous in the U.K., again for decades, and we never heard he was habitually raping disabled children.
Famous and powerful people get away with this kind of nonsense all the damn time.
I'm not 100% sure if the assault allegations against Trump are true, but to pretend they are beyond reason is nonsense.
Didn't Johnny Rotten imply there was stuff going on long before he died?
I also understand there are earlier accusations towards Cosby which didn't get traction.
Bill Cosby was as if not more famous than Trump for decades and we never heard about it.
Bullshit. Allegations against Cosby have been flying around for >20 years, even back to his Cosby Show days.
"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
Didn't Johnny Rotten imply there was stuff going on long before he died?
I also understand there are earlier accusations towards Cosby which didn't get traction.
That doesn't fit with paco's narrative so he's ignoring them. Yes, he's been accused of rape numerous times, even back in the 80s and 90s, but he was "America's dad" so people waved them off as a baseless, while he paid the women off to keep their mouths shut.
"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
Because it isn't? While I'm sure current-wave feminists will tell you that women can't be "nasty", that's just not true. While they want their cake (equality), and eat it too (chivalry), it's truly an "either/or" situation.
"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
Didn't Johnny Rotten imply there was stuff going on long before he died?
I also understand there are earlier accusations towards Cosby which didn't get traction.
Perhaps there were accusations- nonetheless both men were given award after award and celebrated by society. Jimmy Saville was even given a knighthood.
Keep in mind that Cosby has been (credibly) accused of drugging and raping women. Saville raped or sexually assaulted countless children. Trump 'only' has been accused of inappropriate touching.
What my 'narrative' is is that powerful and entitled men have been getting away with liberties with vulnerable women for thousands of years. I will say again that I'm not convinced that the accusations against Trump are true- it's conceivable that some of all are manufactured for political reasons or fame/fortune seeking. However it is also perfectly believable that a wealthy, famous, powerful man took advantage of women and they chose not to accuse him publicly.
Did I say it was okay for a candidate to act that way? Have you purposely turned off your ability for reason, or was it never activated in the first place? They're last minute, throw-them-at-the-wall-to-see-if-they'll-stick allegations. With someone as famous and wealthy as Trump, do you honestly think, if this was habitual behavior, we'd just now start hearing about it?
What we know for a fact is that he liked to run his mouth and share jocular banter with "the guys", you've done it yourself (and if you claim you haven't you're lying), conflating that to being a rapist is what's absurd.
And you're the reason why people are voting for Trump.
Perhaps there were accusations- nonetheless both men were given award after award and celebrated by society. Jimmy Saville was even given a knighthood.
Keep in mind that Cosby has been (credibly) accused of drugging and raping women. Saville raped or sexually assaulted countless children. Trump 'only' has been accused of inappropriate touching.
What my 'narrative' is is that powerful and entitled men have been getting away with liberties with vulnerable women for thousands of years. I will say again that I'm not convinced that the accusations against Trump are true- it's conceivable that some of all are manufactured for political reasons or fame/fortune seeking. However it is also perfectly believable that a wealthy, famous, powerful man took advantage of women and they chose not to accuse him publicly.
Do you genuinely not see this is a possibility?
Lets not disregard his general attitude to women: Ranking them out of ten, wanting to **** his own daughter so much he can't help but almost say it on TV multiple times, the trophy wives, his love of beauty pageants, and if not actually grabbing them by the genitals or fondling them against their will, then at least thinking its somehow an impressive boast to tell someone thats what you do.
Believing someone so entitled and self-centred and with an attitude like that to be somewhere on a scale between criminal sex pest and a child rapist is no stretch at all.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
On a different tangent, I'm apparently Worlds Biggest Asshole™ for thinking "nasty woman" isn't an affront to the nation.
It depends on whether you think it was a dog whistle or not.
Is there any other instances of a candidate being as insulting during the debate in the TV era? Let along interjecting it during one of their responses.
That said, affront to the nation is a bit strong. I consider it the nail in the female vote coffin.
Nasty isn't the worst word, sure. Again it's not so much about the word itself, and more the usage. "Current wave feminists" are embracing the term to turn it on its head. Nasty women vote.
Would Trump have said the same thing about Romney? Bernie? Is it very presidential to do so? How presidential is it to insult everyone then when criticized claim everything is rigged against you? 3rd grade playground tactics.
It's a particularly telling insult because it's dismissive. It's belittling and implies the person isn't worthy of being listened to. Which is Trump's modus operandi.
But it really boils down to the ol' "man is assertive = strong" but "woman is assertive = bitch" parallel we see so often.
And you're the reason why people are voting for Trump.
Ignorant comment from starman #21451. I guess that means you're the reason our justice system is collapsing? Is it enough to file a report, to contact the cops? Sure, they should go to the police, perhaps take out a warrant, and work with a DA. Is social media a court of law? Is "social justice" actual justice?F*ck no. Such advocates are just a hate mob, assigning guilt without proof, or even a proper investigation.
"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
Lets not disregard his general attitude to women: Ranking them out of ten, wanting to **** his own daughter so much he can't help but almost say it on TV multiple times, the trophy wives, his love of beauty pageants, and if not actually grabbing them by the genitals or fondling them against their will, then at least thinking its somehow an impressive boast to tell someone thats what you do.
Believing someone so entitled and self-centred and with an attitude like that to be somewhere on a scale between criminal sex pest and a child rapist is no stretch at all.
I found the perfect game for you:
Ranking them out of ten: Something society has done for a century. Remember Bo Derek? She built an empire around it.
Wanting to **** his own daughter: He said he'd date her if she wasn't his daughter. Why exaggerate this so much? I just makes you look dishonest.
The trophy wives: That's actually borderline misogyny from you, assuming these ladies have no worth except for their looks.
His love of beauty pageants: Miss USA makes money for him. Also, do I detect a hint of jealousy there? None of those women are entering these, or being kept in them, against their will.
The rest is you trying to justify calling Trump a rapist without evidence, other than some last minute accusations by people directly connected to the DNC and HRC, most having sit on these supposedly damning allegations for decades. Hell, some of Bubba's accusers have been yelling since he was governor of Arkansas, while Hillary demonized them publicly (but now states that we should believe all rape victims). This generated so much irony, it pegged the meter with enough anti-SJW force to kill every 3W feminist within 5 miles.
"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
Ignorant comment from starman #21451. I guess that means you're the reason our justice system is collapsing? Is it enough to file a report, to contact the cops? Sure, they should go to the police, perhaps take out a warrant, and work with a DA. Is social media a court of law? Is "social justice" actual justice?F*ck no. Such advocates are just a hate mob, assigning guilt without proof, or even a proper investigation.
You do realize that you overblew this whole point, right?
And you're the reason why people are voting for Trump.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Ignorant comment from starman #21451. I guess that means you're the reason our justice system is collapsing? Is it enough to file a report, to contact the cops? Sure, they should go to the police, perhaps take out a warrant, and work with a DA. Is social media a court of law? Is "social justice" actual justice?F*ck no. Such advocates are just a hate mob, assigning guilt without proof, or even a proper investigation.
Reposting for those with short memories, and those who vote for Bubba, twice.
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.
You do realize that you overblew this whole point, right?
Always looking for a fight.
^^Said the guy who threw the first punch. Pitiful.
"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
Ranking them out of ten: Something society has done for a century.
Oh well that makes it fine then.
Firstly, gang bangers carry guns so they can shoot people. Does that make everyone who carries a gun a gang banger? No. Its just one basic, circumstantial piece of the puzzle.
Raping women has been a perfectly acceptable part of human culture for longer than we've been Homo Sapiens but the circumstances under which it is acceptable have changed over time. There are rules and examples in the bible about it. Its not acceptable at all any more. Neither is objectifying women even if one of them made a few bucks out of it. You wouldn't think this was something a person without kids would have to explain to someone with a daughter.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Wanting to **** his own daughter: He said he'd date her if she wasn't his daughter. Why exaggerate this so much? I just makes you look dishonest.
Which means he'd **** her if she wasn't his daughter which implies the only reason he isn't is because he's not allowed because she's his daughter. Its ****ing creepy any way you try to spin it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The trophy wives: That's actually borderline misogyny from you, assuming these ladies have no worth except for their looks.
Except I'm not saying they have no worth besides their looks, I'm saying thats what he thinks. Because thats the impression you give when you keep replacing them with younger models while also making comments about dating 20 year olds when you're 70.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
His love of beauty pageants: Miss USA makes money for him.
Sure, thats the only reason. I guess the teenage beauty queens who say he busted in on them in the changing rooms all the time are DNC shills as well?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The rest is you trying to justify calling Trump a rapist without evidence,
This isn't a court of law, this is my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a rapist. I'd probably be more surprised if he's not. I'll never know for certain of course,
but nothing in life is certain.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
other than some last minute accusations by people directly connected to the DNC and HRC, most having sit on these supposedly damning allegations for decades.
The ex-porn star is related how to the DNC? And all the other ten?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Hell, some of Bubba's accusers have been yelling since he was governor of Arkansas
I wouldn't rule him out either tbh. but he's not running, he's not bragging about any aspect of it and none of that would be Hillary's fault.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I can't tell if you're ignorant or just really, really dumb.
I'm going by what he said, not what you think he meant (or your fantasies), sport. Going by that alone, you have no right to call anyone else "dumb", Mr White Knight.
"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
Firstly, gang bangers carry guns so they can shoot people. Does that make everyone who carries a gun a gang banger? No. Its just one basic, circumstantial piece of the puzzle.
Raping women has been a perfectly acceptable part of human culture for longer than we've been Homo Sapiens but the circumstances under which it is acceptable have changed over time. There are rules and examples in the bible about it. Its not acceptable at all any more. Neither is objectifying women even if one of them made a few bucks out of it. You wouldn't think this was something a person without kids would have to explain to someone with a daughter.
There was no rape, none even implied, that's all in your head. The 1-10 "ranking" system was used by women and men, for both sexes, for 100 years. Women even made careers from it, publicizing their "10-ness", much to their financial success. Using it to fuel your insecure outrage is absurd and shows you're being oversensitive over a trivial matter. Again...
Which means he'd **** her if she wasn't his daughter which implies the only reason he isn't is because he's not allowed because she's his daughter. Its ****ing creepy any way you try to spin it.
While she is physically attractive, it's not in him to do anything, even if she's willing. IOW, he wouldn't have sex with her... because she's his daughter. Your own projections regarding what you think he implied are on you, no one else.
Except I'm not saying they have no worth besides their looks, I'm saying thats what he thinks.
You can't read his mind, you don't know what he's thinking. Quit BSing as if you can.
Because thats the impression you give when you keep replacing them with younger models while also making comments about dating 20 year olds when you're 70.
He didn't date 20 y/o women at 70, that's just more of your BS. BTAIM however, Older men want younger women, it's a hardwired biological imperative centered around producing more offspring (it's also why men are more likely to "cheat" in a relationship.) Younger women want older men with great resources, because they can provide more material security for them and their offspring (also called hypergamy, and why women will leave a poorer man for a wealthier one, most other things being equal). You're trying to act like this isn't part of evolution when that's exactly the way humans are, for a reason.
Sure, thats the only reason. I guess the teenage beauty queens who say he busted in on them in the changing rooms all the time are DNC shills as well?
How are you even conflating the two? Those incidents with him walking in on pageant competitors was talked about when they happened, not some new wrinkle weeks before an election.
This isn't a court of law, this is my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a rapist. I'd probably be more surprised if he's not. I'll never know for certain of course,
but nothing in life is certain.
You've said he IS one, as well as other things, without any evidence except your own suspicions. Going by your own standard of evidence, you should be more horrified by the Clintons, but you aren't, because this is nothing but more fuel for you ideological bias, not real concern.
The ex-porn star is related how to the DNC? And all the other ten?
There's a justice system for that, they refused to use it, all of them. Hell, not even one talked with a DA or filed charges (unlike with Cosby and Bubba, who have left a trail of them in their wake over the decades).
I wouldn't rule him out either tbh. but he's not running, he's not bragging about any aspect of it and none of that would be Hillary's fault.
I already explained how it's her fault, with her blatant attacks on Bill's victims and her hypocrisy, don't pretend I haven't.
"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
That's the point - I didn't throw ANY punch. I just made an observation.
I said:
An observation. If YOU saw it as a "punch", that's your problem, tough guy.
You think that's when "this" started? How precious. You've been throwing wild haymakers at me for ages. Don't cry to me over a bloody nose.
"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
There was no rape, none even implied, that's all in your head.
No that was just an extension used as an example of acceptable behaviour in regard to the treatment of women by men. This is a poor attempt at deflection
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The 1-10 "ranking" system was used by women and men, for both sexes, for 100 years. Women even made careers from it, publicizing their "10-ness", much to their financial success. Using it to fuel your insecure outrage is absurd and shows you're being oversensitive over a trivial matter. Again...
I already explained this in my last post. Copy and paste and try again if you like.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
While she is physically attractive, it's not in him to do anything, even if she's willing. IOW, he wouldn't have sex with her... because she's his daughter. Your own projections regarding what you think he implied are on you, no one else.
"Its not in him to do anything" He wouldn't be the first. Now who's projecting?
The fact he says repeatedly in public, on TV, during a presidential campaign that he would like to "date" her tells us that he spends far too much time thinking about "dating" her that he can't stop himself going on about it under the least appropriate conditions imaginable.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You can't read his mind, you don't know what he's thinking. Quit BSing as if you can.
Or maybe I can. He might as well be licking his lips as he says it FFS.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
He didn't date 20 y/o women at 70, that's just more of your BS. BTAIM however, Older men want younger women, it's a hardwired biological imperative centered around producing more offspring (it's also why men are more likely to "cheat" in a relationship.) Younger women want older men with great resources, because they can provide more material security for them and their offspring (also called hypergamy, and why women will leave a poorer man for a wealthier one, most other things being equal). You're trying to act like this isn't part of evolution when that's exactly the way humans are, for a reason.
He is reported to have remarked of a 10 year old that he might date her in 10 years time. Not my BS.
Justify it all you want, but at least some of us don't look at 10 year olds and think "Yeah she looks like she'll be really ****able in a few years time." I call it being a well adjusted adult male. Its possible we're a tiny minority though. Most 20 year old girls look like children to me and I'm half Trumps age. I will agree with you that he's unevolved though. Why would you want an unevolved POTUS?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
How are you even conflating the two? Those incidents with him walking in on pageant competitors was talked about when they happened, not some new wrinkle weeks before an election.
His conversations with Howard Stern were even more public at the time, but its a lot more ok for rich asshole businessmen to be assholes than it is for Presidents. Especially from the party of Christian family values. Say that without laughing if you can.
In light of recent revelations, people are looking at his past behaviour in a new light. They did the same thing with Jimmy Saville and I'm sure Bill Cosby too.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You've said he IS one, as well as other things, without any evidence except your own suspicions. Going by your own standard of evidence, you should be more horrified by the Clintons, but you aren't, because this is nothing but more fuel for you ideological bias, not real concern.
Except you're doing the exact opposite to what I'm doing with a few crucial differences:
First Bill doesn't go around bragging on tape about sexually assaulting women and how cool it is. He behaves appropriately when people are watching, so its no stretch to assume he doesn't also behave appropriately when people aren't, until we have good reason to think otherwise. Thats a courtesy we extend to literally almost everyone we meet or hear about. Trump on the other hand behaves inappropriately in public, leaving us to wonder how bad the behaviour he deems inappropriate for public consumption might be;
Second, you claim that Trump's accusers are all in league with the Dems. I haven't heard the specifics of any, let alone all 11 so far, probably not including the underage beauty queens. Clinton's accusers are literally standing beside Trump and being ferried between press conferences by him but them we are supposed to believe? There is even a complaint filed against Trump in court. Is there one against Bill?
Which of us then is making the greater leap in the name of our idealogical bias? Its not me.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I already explained how it's her fault, with her blatant attacks on Bill's victims and her hypocrisy, don't pretend I haven't.
Right, its Hillary's fault that her husband is a rapist because she defended him. I hear she also crashed the Titanic into that iceberg on purpose, and who else could possibly have wiped out the dinosaurs?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
No that was just an extension used as an example of acceptable behaviour in regard to the treatment of women by men. This is a poor attempt at deflection
Yes, you just made a poor attempt at deflection, that is correct.
I already explained this in my last post. Copy and paste and try again if you like.
You did nothing of the kind.
"Its not in him to do anything" He wouldn't be the first. Now who's projecting?
When you have real evidence that he did, LMK.
The fact he says repeatedly in public, on TV, during a presidential campaign that he would like to "date" her tells us that he spends far too much time thinking about "dating" her that he can't stop himself going on about it under the least appropriate conditions imaginable.
When this becomes more than just your own projections, LMK.
Or maybe I can. He might as well be licking his lips as he says it FFS.
Sure thing, Ms. Cleo. Tell me, how is Elvis, and have you spoken to him lately?
He is reported to have remarked of a 10 year old that he might date her in 10 years time. Not my BS.
Justify it all you want, but at least some of us don't look at 10 year olds and think "Yeah she looks like she'll be really ****able in a few years time." I call it being a well adjusted adult male. Its possible we're a tiny minority though. Most 20 year old girls look like children to me and I'm half Trumps age. I will agree with you that he's unevolved though. Why would you want an unevolved POTUS?
Again, he said a silly thing, but they're words. I know you like to think banter is the same as assault, but it really isn't.
His conversations with Howard Stern were even more public at the time, but its a lot more ok for rich asshole businessmen to be assholes than it is for Presidents. Especially from the party of Christian family values. Say that without laughing if you can.
The Clintons project themselves to be all about "Christian family values", they regularly go to 10k member churches and claim they pray night and day. While Bubba is deflecting rape allegations and Hillary attacks the women who speak out about Bill's advances.
In light of recent revelations, people are looking at his past behaviour in a new light. They did the same thing with Jimmy Saville and I'm sure Bill Cosby too.
and the Clintons' behavior towards Bill's victims, but you don't care about those, just what Trump's banter.
Except you're doing the exact opposite to what I'm doing with a few crucial differences:
First Bill doesn't go around bragging on tape about sexually assaulting women and how cool it is. He behaves appropriately when people are watching, so its no stretch to assume he doesn't also behave appropriately when people aren't, until we have good reason to think otherwise. Thats a courtesy we extend to literally almost everyone we meet or hear about. Trump on the other hand behaves inappropriately in public, leaving us to wonder how bad the behaviour he deems inappropriate for public consumption might be;
"They let you do it, they let you do anything". He clearly says they let him do it. That strongly implies consent, not assault. I know you want to conflate anything involving touching a woman as some type of crime, but it isn't. As much as it horrifies you that any woman would want to be touched by Trump, money and power are still the strongest aphrodisiacs in the world.
Second, you claim that Trump's accusers are all in league with the Dems. I haven't heard the specifics of any, let alone all 11 so far, probably not including the underage beauty queens. Clinton's accusers are literally standing beside Trump and being ferried between press conferences by him but them we are supposed to believe? There is even a complaint filed against Trump in court. Is there one against Bill?
Yet again, where were any of these allegations after they happened? Any at all? Unlike the two raping Bills, who've had accusers since the 80s, Trump's all magically popped up in less than 2 weeks. While I'm sure that looks perfectly legit to you, most other people aren't going to see it that way, because they aren't ideologically in bed with the Clintons. Eww...
Which of us then is making the greater leap in the name of our idealogical bias? Its not me.
I'm not sure I can do this much longer, the amount of cognitive dissonance you're radiating is almost at toxic levels.
Right, its Hillary's fault that her husband is a rapist because she defended him. I hear she also crashed the Titanic into that iceberg on purpose, and who else could possibly have wiped out the dinosaurs?
She's a shitbag because she tears down all the women who have accused Bubba of rape and sexual assault, while at the same time attempting to champion women who claim they've been raped.She's simultaneously victim-blaming and chastising victim-blamers. Yet people like you aren't bothered by this, all because she pays lip service to your pet agendas. Ugh.
"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
Examples too complicated a concept for you now. Got it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You did nothing of the kind.
Something we used to do without people complaining is now considered bad. Like slavery. Oops, thats an example. For the record I'm not accusing Trump or you or Bill Cosby of owning any slaves, just in case you try to misdirect again by addressing that non-point instead of one I'm actually making.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
When you have real evidence that he did, LMK.
Projecting added to the list of things you're allowed to do but no-one else is. Got it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
When this becomes more than just your own projections, LMK.
No doubt if he loses the court case it will be due to Hillary rigging the jury or threatening to murder the judge.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Sure thing, Ms. Cleo. Tell me, how is Elvis, and have you spoken to him lately?
Yeah, he doesn't have nice things to say about you.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Again, he said a silly thing, but they're words. I know you like to think banter is the same as assault, but it really isn't.
Short of me witnessing a crime in person, everything is just words. Including Hillary's emails. Oops! Walked into that one.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The Clintons project themselves to be all about "Christian family values", they regularly go to 10k member churches and claim they pray night and day. While Bubba is deflecting rape allegations and Hillary attacks the women who speak out about Bill's advances.
Well deflecting rape allegations has pretty strong ties to a lot of churches these days but I rarely hear Hillary talking about Church or religion. You and I both know its a point the GOP nominees always consider to be in their favour and its a token gesture or get-out clause when Democrats do it so they can't be faulted for being atheists like most smart and highly educated people are.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and the Clintons' behavior towards Bill's victims, but you don't care about those, just what Trump's banter.
One side has damning self testimony, allegations and a court case pending. The other has allegations sponsored by Trump. If I'm being ridiculous taking a side, you're being more ridiculous. Thats just simple maths.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
"They let you do it, they let you do anything". He clearly says they let him do it. That strongly implies consent, not assault.
So when those drugged up girls who are trafficked from Eastern Europe and chained to beds in 'brothels' manned by armed gangsters let you do anything, that strongly implies consent?
Genuinely despicable. You are a ****ing terrible human being.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I know you want to conflate anything involving touching a woman as some type of crime, but it isn't. As much as it horrifies you that any woman would want to be touched by Trump, money and power are still the strongest aphrodisiacs in the world.
Money and power are also strong leverage against a woman's right to not consent.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yet again, where were any of these allegations after they happened? Any at all? Unlike the two raping Bills, who've had accusers since the 80s, Trump's all magically popped up in less than 2 weeks. While I'm sure that looks perfectly legit to you, most other people aren't going to see it that way, because they aren't ideologically in bed with the Clintons. Eww...
So Cosby's accusers came out in droves once one started a lawsuit but now thats just been happening all along. Clinton's accusers surface not only during election season but in direct response to Trump being accused (primarily by himself), wheeled out and paraded around at the debates by Trump himself and those have been around since the 80s too? Its a good job that every single conservative journalist from 1980 to ~1995 or so was such a pussy they let Hillary bully and threaten them out of doing their jobs. How was it she dropped the ball with Lewinsky? Was it because the word of one intern and a jazz stain was suddenly too much having threatened and murdered so many thousands of other people for the previous 15 years? Or maybe it was because someone is making up bits of your story? Now which of those sounds more plausible?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I'm not sure I can do this much longer, the amount of cognitive dissonance you're radiating is almost at toxic levels.
You're not even doing it in the first place. Almost every single argument your using disproves your points better than it disproves mine. Look, here comes another one:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
She's a shitbag because she tears down all the women who have accused Bubba of rape and sexual assault,
Like you're doing with Trump's accusers. What does that make you?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
[I]while at the same time attempting to champion women
Not much danger of you doing that.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yet people like you aren't bothered by this, all because she pays lip service to your pet agendas. Ugh.
Or maybe its because she isn't a racist reality TV buffoon who doesn't even have any policies beyond wasting a ton of money he won't get back from Mexico to build a giant wall that won't keep out the Mexicans.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Examples too complicated a concept for you now. Got it.
Let's look at the latest smears of excrement you've written, shall we?
Something we used to do without people complaining is now considered bad. Like slavery. Oops, thats an example. For the record I'm not accusing Trump or you or Bill Cosby of owning any slaves, just in case you try to misdirect again by addressing that non-point instead of one I'm actually making.
Comparing the 1-10 rating system to slavery? Stupid false equivalence, but let's get to your own misdirections.
Projecting added to the list of things you're allowed to do but no-one else is. Got it.
How was that projection? It wasn't.
No doubt if he loses the court case it will be due to Hillary rigging the jury or threatening to murder the judge.
What court case? Now you aren't making any sense at all. Have you lost your sanity along with your temper and reason?
Yeah, he doesn't have nice things to say about you.
He wouldn't even speak to you, he hated annoying, self-righteous Brits.
Short of me witnessing a crime in person, everything is just words. Including Hillary's emails. Oops! Walked into that one.
No, they're 1s and 0s and they detail her lies and crimes in her own words (and those of her staff). They're detailed evidence (complete with meta tags) not just jocular nonsense. You're going down quickly here.
Well deflecting rape allegations has pretty strong ties to a lot of churches these days but I rarely hear Hillary talking about Church or religion. You and I both know its a point the GOP nominees always consider to be in their favour and its a token gesture or get-out clause when Democrats do it so they can't be faulted for being atheists like most smart and highly educated people are.
Did Hillary ever find her hot sauce?
One side has damning self testimony, allegations and a court case pending. The other has allegations sponsored by Trump. If I'm being ridiculous taking a side, you're being more ridiculous. Thats just simple maths.
Yeah, the side with "self testimony, allegations and a court case pending" is the Clintons'. Need I remind you that Bill was disbarred and tried before congress for his behavior? This didn't start with Trump. WTF?? At this point I'm pretty sure you can't even add or subtract simple numbers.
So when those drugged up girls who are trafficked from Eastern Europe and chained to beds in 'brothels' manned by armed gangsters let you do anything, that strongly implies consent?
Aww, now you're just mad. And you're deflecting again, plus spouting some major false equivalence comparing media socialites who enjoy the company of rich men to, what was that? "Drugged up girls who are trafficked from Eastern Europe and chained to beds in 'brothels' manned by armed gangsters"?OMFG! That's the best line from you so far!! You're confusing him with Bubba, he's the one who went golfing and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein. Thanks for reminding me about that.
Money and power are also strong leverage against a woman's right to not consent.
That makes no sense. If a woman wants to have sex with a rich guy, then it IS consent. No SJW bullshit can get around that, it's an actual part of out evolution (as I've already explained). It's all part of hypergamy, a known and successful female trait. I guess you don't like it, it only favors guys with resources, but life's not usually fair.
So Cosby's accusers came out in droves once one started a lawsuit but now thats just been happening all along. Clinton's accusers surface not only during election season but in direct response to Trump being accused (primarily by himself), wheeled out and paraded around at the debates by Trump himself and those have been around since the 80s too?
Some were in the 70s too. Lookup Juanita Broaddrick, Bubba raped her in 1978. She pressed charges but the case was turned down by the DA due to Clinton's connections. Also see:
Eileen Wellstone
Carolyn Moffet
Elizabeth Ward
Paula Corbin
Sandra Allen James
Christy Zercher
and Kathleen Willey
There were also 2 unnamed girls while he was in college, but they both dropped the charges due to fear over being exposed as rape victims, which was a pretty damning thing to happen to a woman at the time. It's been Hillary's job to cover for her serial rapist husband ever since they tied the knot, which she's done time and again by destroying women's lives.
Its a good job that every single conservative journalist from 1980 to ~1995 or so was such a pussy they let Hillary bully and threaten them out of doing their jobs. How was it she dropped the ball with Lewinsky? Was it because the word of one intern and a jazz stain was suddenly too much having threatened and murdered so many thousands of other people for the previous 15 years?
Monica was smart and kept the evidence, handing the dress over to her attorneys, and she was given armed security. Otherwise Hillary probably would have had her killed.
Or maybe it was because someone is making up bits of your story? Now which of those sounds more plausible?
Nope. See the above.
You're not even doing it in the first place. Almost every single argument your using disproves your points better than it disproves mine. Look, here comes another one:
Only in your own fevered brain.
Like you're doing with Trump's accusers. What does that make you?
Bill's victims didn't appear out of thin air, they've been trying to get traction for years, unlike Trump's... umm... "ladies".
Not much danger of you doing that.
I champion people, a person's gender doesn't play a role in our decision to help them.
Or maybe its because she isn't a racist reality TV buffoon who doesn't even have any policies beyond wasting a ton of money he won't get back from Mexico to build a giant wall that won't keep out the Mexicans.
You have your own walls in Europe being built to keep out migrants, as we speak. Hypocrite much?
Oh, and this part:
You are a ****ing terrible human being.
If simply debating on a forum makes you this salty, then it's time for you to reevaluate the amount of time you spend here. You went full paco, never go full paco.
"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
I get lots, and from far more genuine sources, no thanks.
"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
Wanting to **** his own daughter: He said he'd date her if she wasn't his daughter. Why exaggerate this so much? I just makes you look dishonest.
That is still a strange qualifier to add to any conversation about one's own offspring.
His history of sexualizing his daughters even before they were born is simply not normal.
THAT, is how most parents see their kids.
Hell I have friends with younger sisters whom I have known since they were 6 and are now in their mid 20s that I still see as kids not because they are not adults today but because of when and how my perception of who they were was formed and etched in my mind.
Trump's sexual preoccupation of his daughters, pre-pubescent girls, and even a 14 year old Paris Hilton speaks to some serious mental deficiencies.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
Comparing the 1-10 rating system to slavery? Stupid false equivalence, but let's get to your own misdirections.
Except I'm not really comparing them. I'm just saying they are both examples of changing social attitudes towards given behaviour. Some things become less socially acceptable over time, like rape and slavery. And ranking women trust fund teenaged sociopathic swim team member of the future. Some things become more acceptable, like respecting women (instead of ranking or raping them) and homosexuality.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
How was that projection? It wasn't.
"Its not in him to do anything"
Projection.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
What court case? Now you aren't making any sense at all. Have you lost your sanity along with your temper and reason?
The complaint filed against Trump for raping a 13 year old girl.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, they're 1s and 0s and they detail her lies and crimes in her own words (and those of her staff). They're detailed evidence (complete with meta tags) not just jocular nonsense. You're going down quickly here.
Digital video is also 1s and 0s. Still losing to your own silly argument.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yeah, the side with "self testimony, allegations and a court case pending" is the Clintons'. Need I remind you that Bill was disbarred and tried before congress for his behavior? This didn't start with Trump. WTF?? At this point I'm pretty sure you can't even add or subtract simple numbers.
Bill admitted to an affair. Not to a rape. Where is the self testimony in that? Conservatives are still prudes (except when it comes to Trump's behaviour and wife), back then they were outraged he got blown in the Oval Office. Sex scandals are called scandals for a reason. If it had been illegal, they would have jailed him. If he was too powerful and murderous, they wouldn't have got him disbarred or impeached and Lewinsky would be long dead without anyone ever hearing her name.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Aww, now you're just mad. And you're deflecting again, plus spouting some major false equivalence comparing media socialites who enjoy the company of rich men to, what was that? "Drugged up girls who are trafficked from Eastern Europe and chained to beds in 'brothels' manned by armed gangsters"?OMFG! That's the best line from you so far!! You're confusing him with Bubba, he's the one who went golfing and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein. Thanks for reminding me about that.
Funny, Epstein is named in the complaint against Trump I mentioned. Clinton not so much.
I feel like your grasp of plain English is failing badly. When you deflect, its because you answer a point thats different to the one I made. False equivalence is comparing two things that should be beyond compare because they are sufficiently different. Your accusation of false equivalence is actually deflection because I didn't compare the two things. You said that if a girl lets you do it, thats consent. Most modern courts would not agree with you and nor do I. I gave the most extreme reason as to why that is the case, but it is the case. You're a dinosaur just like Trump.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That makes no sense. If a woman wants to have sex with a rich guy, then it IS consent. No SJW bullshit can get around that, it's an actual part of out evolution (as I've already explained). It's all part of hypergamy, a known and successful female trait. I guess you don't like it, it only favors guys with resources, but life's not usually fair.
Primitive tribal behaviour doesn't fly in 21st century civilised society. If a woman doesn't feel like she has a choice, you are on rocky ground when it comes to consent. If you have power to make or break her career, you can get into real trouble real easy if you don't watch your step.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Some were in the 70s too. Lookup Juanita Broaddrick, Bubba raped her in 1978. She pressed charges but the case was turned down by the DA due to Clinton's connections. Also see:
Eileen Wellstone
Carolyn Moffet
Elizabeth Ward
Paula Corbin
Sandra Allen James
Christy Zercher
and Kathleen Willey
So the official public record on all these cases says "We asked Hillary and she said no and she'd kill us."?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There were also 2 unnamed girls while he was in college, but they both dropped the charges due to fear over being exposed as rape victims, which was a pretty damning thing to happen to a woman at the time.
So this you can grasp but issues with consent and coercion are too tricky?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's been Hillary's job to cover for her serial rapist husband ever since they tied the knot, which she's done time and again by destroying women's lives.
This is your opinion since the only proof you have comes from dodgy right wing pages. Like the ones I assert have spent 25 years programming your susceptible mind to hate her beyond rationality. Thats my opinion. I don't expect you to agree with it for a second. And putting that opinion aside, your thoughts about Hillary are still more unfounded than mine about Trump so I don't understand why you have a problem at all.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Monica was smart and kept the evidence, handing the dress over to her attorneys, and she was given armed security. Otherwise Hillary probably would have had her killed.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Nope. See the above.
See what above? I'm talking about the parts where Hillary has everyone killed, not Monica and the fellatio.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Only in your own fevered brain.
You're still making the same mistakes.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Bill's victims didn't appear out of thin air, they've been trying to get traction for years, unlike Trump's... umm... "ladies".
And yet no-one was talking about them even a couple of months ago,
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You have your own walls in Europe being built to keep out migrants, as we speak. Hypocrite much?
And I'm not cool with that either. But I'm not trying to defend anyone who is.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Oh, and this part:
If simply debating on a forum makes you this salty, then it's time for you to reevaluate the amount of time you spend here. You went full paco, never go full paco.
Think what you like but its not said even remotely in anger. Its a cold and calculated statement.
You spend at least as much time here as I do and you're defending a guy you claim you aren't even voting for. Maybe you identify with him? That would just add more credence to my calculated statement.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
"Oh no, he debates in the debate forum, he must be angry."
Quit projecting your anger onto others, kthx.
"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
Except I'm not really comparing them. I'm just saying they are both examples of changing social attitudes towards given behaviour. Some things become less socially acceptable over time, like rape and slavery. And ranking women trust fund teenaged sociopathic swim team member of the future. Some things become more acceptable, like respecting women (instead of ranking or raping them) and homosexuality.
and the false equivalence continues. FFS...
Projection.
Your own fabrication. I didn't say that, so you can drop the quotes. You're so caught up in incest WRT Trump, it makes me think it's YOU who has the issue.
Digital video is also 1s and 0s. Still losing to your own silly argument.
Nope, you're being retarded.
Bill admitted to an affair. Not to a rape. Where is the self testimony in that? Conservatives are still prudes (except when it comes to Trump's behaviour and wife), back then they were outraged he got blown in the Oval Office. Sex scandals are called scandals for a reason. If it had been illegal, they would have jailed him. If he was too powerful and murderous, they wouldn't have got him disbarred or impeached and Lewinsky would be long dead without anyone ever hearing her name.
Keep ignoring Bill's rape history and victims, Mr part-time feminist.
Funny, Epstein is named in the complaint against Trump I mentioned. Clinton not so much.
You'll wave it off due to being a part-time feminist, though.
I feel like your grasp of plain English is failing badly. When you deflect, its because you answer a point thats different to the one I made. False equivalence is comparing two things that should be beyond compare because they are sufficiently different. Your accusation of false equivalence is actually deflection because I didn't compare the two things. You said that if a girl lets you do it, thats consent. Most modern courts would not agree with you and nor do I. I gave the most extreme reason as to why that is the case, but it is the case. You're a dinosaur just like Trump.
It's worse for you, because you can barely communicate with the language at all, despite being English. Actually most courts would agree with me, because allowing someone do something is the very nature of consent. Geez. I'm 90% sure you're just trolling now.
Primitive tribal behaviour doesn't fly in 21st century civilised society. If a woman doesn't feel like she has a choice, you are on rocky ground when it comes to consent. If you have power to make or break her career, you can get into real trouble real easy if you don't watch your step.
and Ms Cleo's back to mind-reading and guessing games again.
So the official public record on all these cases says "We asked Hillary and she said no and she'd kill us."?
Read them yourself, PT Feminist, Mr not-when-it's-one-of-our-people-being-accused guy.
So this you can grasp but issues with consent and coercion are too tricky?
You think everything is coercion and non-consensual, it's a miracle you've ever had sex (that's an assumption on my part, you may not). Do you ask for consent at every stage, asking if it's "okay" to kiss, then again at 2nd and 3rd base. I can only imagine there's paperwork required for coitus.
This is your opinion since the only proof you have comes from dodgy right wing pages. Like the ones I assert have spent 25 years programming your susceptible mind to hate her beyond rationality. Thats my opinion. I don't expect you to agree with it for a second. And putting that opinion aside, your thoughts about Hillary are still more unfounded than mine about Trump so I don't understand why you have a problem at all.
and then you attack the source. You only think Hillary's are unfounded, because you admittedly refuse to look at any source outside your echo chamber.
See what above? I'm talking about the parts where Hillary has everyone killed, not Monica and the fellatio.
You asked why she didn't have Monica killed, Monica was too prepared. She'd found out what the Clintons are like after being so close to Bubba for so long (really close, under the desk).
You're still making the same mistakes.
How would you know? You've not even made a point, only an ever-increasing number of logical fallacies.
And yet no-one was talking about them even a couple of months ago,
That must mean they didn't happen, after all, the media is so determined to pin shit on the Clintons right now. Oh wait...
And I'm not cool with that either. But I'm not trying to defend anyone who is.
I've never defended the Wall, I think it's a complete waste of money and time.
Think what you like but its not said even remotely in anger. Its a cold and calculated statement.
"Calculated"? You don't even know what that means. No, it's spite. You've become what you call me, but you've become too obtuse to understand.
You spend at least as much time here as I do and you're defending a guy you claim you aren't even voting for. Maybe you identify with him? That would just add more credence to my calculated statement.
You identify with the Clintons, then? That's some nasty shit, right there. I don't even like Trump, I'm not voting for him, but your compulsive need to lap up anything the media is flinging about Trump is amazing, and then you scarf it all down like a good puppy. What's been going on with Hillary and Bill has been years in the making, a part of the wages for their greed and lust for power. The only reason you won't believe any of it is because they're on your side and you're an ideologue.
However, you did raise a good point, I'm spending too much time with your trolling, your opinion doesn't even matter because you aren't American and can't vote. Oh well, enjoy your Brexit.
"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
"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
WTF does that have to do with anything? But since you asked, check out the ones where you're losing your shit over Star Trek fan films.
"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
Ranking women out of ten makes you look like a misogynist douchebag because its disrespectful, dehumanising objectification.
False equivalence or not, my point still stands. Its the first tick in the "Trump seems a bit rapey" box.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Your own fabrication. I didn't say that, so you can drop the quotes. You're so caught up in incest WRT Trump, it makes me think it's YOU who has the issue.
Except you did, so I won't.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
it's not in him to do anything
Oh dear, you went full Trump and denied something you absolutely did say. Never go full Trump.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Nope, you're being retarded.
I imagine your opinions have that effect on many of the people that come in contact with them.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Keep ignoring Bill's rape history and victims, Mr part-time feminist.
Its not relevant. Even if he is a rapist, Hillary being loyal to her husband is not a comparable sin. I get that you might think that, but its not. Thats a false equivalence.
You'll wave it off due to being a part-time feminist, though.
She was a sex slave so if she let him, thats consent right? Still statutory rape of course and if its true then she should file a complaint. I can't imagine it would be difficult to prove eh was there at the alleged time, his movements are fairly well tracked I bet. And if the convicted pedophile was there too then it should be a simple enough case to try.
No sign of Hillary pressuring her to remain silent on this occasion though? Even from this very fair and balanced looking media source that you have now cited at least a couple of days in a row. This kind of journalism is literally no different to Cartman on that episode of South Park, Dances with Smurfs. And you wonder why I can dismiss it so easily without even creasing my feminist card?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's worse for you, because you can barely communicate with the language at all, despite being English. Actually most courts would agree with me, because allowing someone do something is the very nature of consent. Geez. I'm 90% sure you're just trolling now.
You really are completely out of touch. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Read them yourself, PT Feminist, Mr not-when-it's-one-of-our-people-being-accused guy.
I prefer Mr. more-likely-to-give-it-time-of-day-when-the-accusations-are-made-to-a-reputable-news-outlet-that-might-actually-fact-check-or-better-yet-a-court-of-law-otherwise-you-might-as-well-be-citing-the-onion guy.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You think everything is coercion and non-consensual, it's a miracle you've ever had sex (that's an assumption on my part, you may not). Do you ask for consent at every stage, asking if it's "okay" to kiss, then again at 2nd and 3rd base. I can only imagine there's paperwork required for coitus.
I'm a realist, I don't need to ask because no woman would ever give me consent.
South Park covered the paperwork issue too funnily enough. It has gotten to the point of silliness with some people being convicted of sexual assault after a drunken hookup that the girl decided she regretted in the morning. I don't agree with that and I'm certain it will make your blood boil but as with most political correctness there are roots of validity buried deep. Consent probably warrants a thread of its own. It really isn't as simple as you'd like to think.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and then you attack the source. You only think Hillary's are unfounded, because you admittedly refuse to look at any source outside your echo chamber.
I will attack the source and why shouldn't I? You do it all the time with reputable news outlets that you dub as leftist mainstream media but those people fact check and though you will never admit it, they attack politicians on both sides. I won't claim they are impartial but the bias is actually way below the 100% on your Political Insider site which its obvious from the front page is nothing but a Clinton hatchet job. its the right that has an echo chamber, not Reuters and the BBC and CNN or MSNBC. Your guys wait for one moron to make something up and the rest pass it around like an Epstein sex slave and because they quote the little semi-anonymous guy they won't be the ones who get sued.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You asked why she didn't have Monica killed, Monica was too prepared. She'd found out what the Clintons are like after being so close to Bubba for so long (really close, under the desk).
I expect Bill has a 1-800-ASSASSINS tattoo down the shaft of his dick so he does't forget it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
How would you know? You've not even made a point, only an ever-increasing number of logical fallacies.
Its obvious to anyone reading. Your arguments to date apply more to refute your own positions than they do mine. You're just throwing up random terms like 'false equivalence' and 'logical fallacy' in some fit of desperation now.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That must mean they didn't happen, after all, the media is so determined to pin shit on the Clintons right now. Oh wait...
Again, making my point. So many lies over so much time, the truth gets washed away in the crowd. They only have themselves to blame so they could at least can the false outrage.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
"Calculated"? You don't even know what that means. No, it's spite. You've become what you call me, but you've become too obtuse to understand.
Its probably easier for you to think that. I considered that line for some time before I hit the post button. All pointless internet debating aside, the views you espouse make you look awful. Maybe you don't care, you almost certainly won't agree, but there it is. I don't care enough to be spiteful, you're just some guy who talks bollocks on the internet that I like to argue with when I'm bored. But you've become pretty awful. Try to lighten up a bit.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You identify with the Clintons, then? That's some nasty shit, right there. I don't even like Trump, I'm not voting for him, but your compulsive need to lap up anything the media is flinging about Trump is amazing, and then you scarf it all down like a good puppy. What's been going on with Hillary and Bill has been years in the making, a part of the wages for their greed and lust for power. The only reason you won't believe any of it is because they're on your side and you're an ideologue.
Just because I think you identify with Trump, doesn't mean I identify with anyone else involved. If I'm on their side its because I still think they are better than Trump. Who has also been a dreadful human being for several decades. We're each entitled to our opinions. You think I'm wrong about him, or at least flawed in how I drew my conclusions, I think you've been brainwashed against them by the dodgy websites you've been reading. Its high time we just agreed to disagree.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
However, you did raise a good point, I'm spending too much time with your trolling, your opinion doesn't even matter because you aren't American and can't vote. Oh well, enjoy your Brexit.
We've done our part to **** up the world this year. I just hope you lot aren't about to do yours. My preference is die of reasonably natural causes before WW3 breaks out.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Here's something to chew on. Obamacare rates are going us by an average of 22% Here in AZ they are going up 110% for some. Trump needs to run tons of ads focusing on this
In big news for democrats who weren't outraged over the lead-up to the Iraq war and republicans who don't consider him a turncoat after Obama, Colin Powell, email server advisor has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
In big news for democrats who weren't outraged over the lead-up to the Iraq war and republicans who don't consider him a turncoat after Obama, Colin Powell, email server advisor has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Allegations against Cosby have been flying around for >20 years, even back to his Cosby Show days.
You've been throwing wild haymakers at me for ages. Don't cry to me over a bloody nose.
Tell me, how is Elvis, and have you spoken to him lately?
And you're deflecting again, plus spouting some major false equivalence comparing media socialites who enjoy the company of rich men to, what was that? "Drugged up girls who are trafficked from Eastern Europe and chained to beds in 'brothels' manned by armed gangsters"? OMFG! That's the best line from you so far!! You're confusing him with Bubba, he's the one who went golfing and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein. Thanks for reminding me about that. 
I'm 90% sure you're just trolling now.
Top