Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[logger]

I can't decide if I'm baffled or amused when people like logger, who incessantly bitch and moan about "liberals", point out a liberal position from a conservative candidate in an attempt to entice liberals to vote for said conservative.

You're probably baffled because you think he's conservative, I'm amused that you think he is.

My vote for him is because Hillary is worse and compared to her he isn't that bad from a conservative point of view.

 

[logger]

Why do you believe anything he says? You know he lies without compunction; you know he wants your vote; you know he's promising you things to get it. This behaviour is so typical of him that there is no earthly reason to think he means a word of it. There's no reason to think he won't simply deny saying any of it - that's something else typical of him.

No, actually that's what I think Hillary does.

He lies constantly and only feels passion for himself.

Nope, again that's what I think Hillary does, she has a cold dark heart.

Hillary Clinton is not and can never be a demagogue - which is what you want, and find in Trump.

Deplorable's, you don't think she's a demagogue?

Again, I believe that is Hillary, Trump is finally a breath of fresh air to republicans who have taken the abuses of dems for decades.

 

[Upchurch]

LOL. How pathetic.

I've seen you argue that common sense is a valid logical argument. Heck, I've seen you argue that cherry picking is a valid form of evidence.

Evasion (again) noted.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, actually that's what I think Hillary does.

Do you have any examples? Hillary has been elected before so there's a track record available.

Nope, again that's what I think Hillary does, she has a cold dark heart.

I'm not at all surprised you think that. I'd be surprised if you had a good reason to.

Deplorable's, you don't think she's a demagogue?

No. Demagogues rely on impassioned speeches to ensare their prey. The people they ensnare do things like chant "Kill the bitch!" at mass rallies.

Again, I believe that is Hillary, Trump is finally a breath of fresh air to republicans who have taken the abuses of dems for decades.

Abuse has become the standard Republican tone since Bill Clinton was elected. Remember how opposition to Bush's reckless (and mendacious) invasion of Iraq was met by accusations of treason? Remember all the abuse of the Clintons that you've internalised over decades?

The US Republican Party has dragged politics into the sewer that is its natural habitat, and wants to do the same to their country. That's demagoguery.

 

[CapelDodger]

And if you want to posit that this is political posturing that is fine, but man your argument requires a lot of very consistent lying.

To be fair, I think it's well-practiced self-deception.

 

[acbytesla]

You're probably baffled because you think he's conservative, I'm amused that you think he is.

My vote for him is because Hillary is worse and compared to her he isn't that bad from a conservative point of view.

Trump isn't a conservative, he isn't a liberal or a moderate. What he is is racist narcissistic demagogue and a moron. Trump knows nothing about policy or government and has done very little thinking on the matter. This is why he has no values. Trump doesn't believe in anything but his own superiority to everyone.

 

[Puppycow]

The Washington Post has this editorial based on their splendid reporting about Trump's "charity" foundation:

Even Trump’s charity is a scam

By Editorial Board September 14 at 5:49 PM

THE TRUMP campaign believes this editorial is not journalism. It is “badgering.” That is how campaign manager Kellyanne Conway described on Tuesday some simple questions The Post and others have asked Mr. Trump and his circle over the past several months about his supposed philanthropic activities. If anyone has an authenticity problem, it is Mr. Trump. The facts on the table suggest he is not a great philanthropist — he is a scam artist.

Mr. Trump has cultivated the persona of a generous man, repeatedly claiming on television he would donate to charity “out of my wallet” and accepting honors from groups he appeared to support. In fact, an exhaustive investigation by Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold shows that Mr. Trump retooled his foundation about a decade ago to act as an intermediary for other people’s charitable giving, a racket from which Mr. Trump gained in reputation and from which he may even have occasionally profited.

. . .

Since it's an editorial they don't have to mince words with neutral reporting language.

He is a scam artist. Plain and simple. His foundation is a scam. His "university" was a scam. His "institute", which got less coverage than Trump University, was perhaps an even more blatant scam. His televised fundraiser for veterans when he was boycotting the debates where he promised a million dollars for veterans would have been another false promise if the same reporter hadn't checked into whether he actually followed through with his promise and basically shamed him into actually writing that check. And after his campaign lied about it, saying he had already done it. Oh was he angry about that one! Saying he had "no obligation" to do what he had promised to do on national television!

When asked Tuesday whether he had given the money this week only because reporters had been asking about it, Trump responded: “You know, you’re a nasty guy. You’re really a nasty guy. I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do.”

Trump’s call on Monday night stood in contradiction to an account given Friday by campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. “The money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said then. “Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent.”

There's still almost two months to go on this thing, and that's an eternity in campaign politics. There will be lots of shiny objects between now and election day to distract us, but we can't let people forget this. The guy is a total fraud and a con man.


We'll hear more empty promises like this idea for paid maternity leave. These are just shiny objects to distract us. That will be forgotten before the day after election day if he is elected. That's just a ploy to make him look more moderate and maybe pick up a few more voters.

 

[Bob001]

....
What do you think Trump will do with his foundation should such a horrible event as his election take place? He can't divest himself of it easily, and yet it represents a clear conflict of interest with being the President of the United States, a conflict no President can afford.
...

Let's just note that his foundation is a relatively trivial matter. The big issues involve Trump's hundreds of private businesses and deals around the world.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let's just note that his foundation is a relatively trivial matter. The big issues involve Trump's hundreds of private businesses and deals around the world.

But he, and now Corey, assure us that it's not the same thing as a foundation. He can't just be expected to give up his company, but he promises he won't be involved in it at all. No, not at all. He'll just leave the running of the business to the current officers - all of whom happen to be named Trump. Pure coincidence. As it's a coincidence that his tax plan doesn't close the loopholes for writing off interest on huge corporate loans.

As it will be when his new best friend gives him, uh the independent Trump Corp..... permits to open casinos in Manila and his other new best friend gets behind the Trump Pyongyang Pagoda luxury hotel.

Trump Business, Trump Foundation and POTUS Trump will all be linked, but not really because it's in a blind trust, ya see,..... for certain Trump-revised definitions of "blind" and "trust". Trump's idea of a blind trust is "Don't look over there. Just trust me."

 

[Darat]

Are you asking me? I'm strongly pro-choice. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the pro-life crowd attributed temporary insanity to a woman in that circumstance, victimized by the evil, irresponsible man who impregnated her.

Well as everyone knows women can't really think for themselves....

 

[Travis]

Moving on to another topic, how about this Newsweek article?

Some key excerpts:







And that's just from the first section. The article goes on to detail numerous business dealings Trump's organization has overseas that would represent potential national security and foreign policy conflicts, and yet all anyone can talk about is the supposed Clinton Foundation "pay for play" "scandal" that, when you actually examine the facts, doesn't exist in the slightest. Tell me, all you Trump supporters on the forum here; how exactly do you excuse this clear evidence of the Trump Organization being a major foreign policy and national security issue should Trump become President (FSM, Cthulu, and zombie baby Jesus forbid)? What do you think Trump will do with his foundation should such a horrible event as his election take place? He can't divest himself of it easily, and yet it represents a clear conflict of interest with being the President of the United States, a conflict no President can afford. How do you think Trump will deal with this particular revelation, assuming the news media can stop kissing his ass and actually cover some legitimate news for once?

They don't care. I've noticed a great many so called "Trump supporters" are really more interested in attacking Hillary.

 

[Darat]

You are right, I don't think pro-life people really do care much about women. But, I also think that they sincerely believe that they do. I also believe that they sincerely believe that women are victims in an abortion and should not be punished even if abortions are made illegal.

The thing is that you can pretty reliably find a leak when a group tries to lie on a large scale. My state recently tried to say abortions had to be in hospitals to protect the women, but there was plenty of back room talking about this being a work around to make abortion less accessible. There was also a logical attack based on the fact that giving birth is a more dangerous event for the mother than having an abortion, and they were not requiring that births be performed in hospitals, but that would not have had as much impact without the leaks.

I really do think that most pro-lifers are not in favor of punishing women even if abortion is made illegal. And if that is logically inconsistent with being pro-life, they are fine with that. Logic be damned.

What was the situation before abortion was legalised in the USA were women prosecuted for murder or other crimes if they had an abortion?

 

[Puppycow]

What was the situation before abortion was legalised in the USA were women prosecuted for murder or other crimes if they had an abortion?

Not sure. A little googling found some articles, but no mention of women being prosecuted for abortions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health/roe-wade-abortion-timeline/

I was surprised by this fact:

1972: The Supreme Court legalizes the use of birth control pills for all women, regardless of marital status. Before the decision, only married women were able to receive the pill through a doctor's prescription.

Crazy, huh?

https://thinkprogress.org/what-amer...era-before-roe-v-wade-19687b9e9b16#.hozdhuo6b

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What was the situation before abortion was legalised in the USA were women prosecuted for murder or other crimes if they had an abortion?

You mean if they survived? It was mostly social stigmatism, Trump knows as little about the historical precedence as he knows about anything else:

When Abortion Was a Crime - Book Review

Punishment for violation of the law and sexual norms has been gendered. In abortion cases, the investigative procedures themselves constituted a form of punishment and control for women. Publicity and public exposure of women's transgressions further served as punishment. This form of punishment served, in Michel Foucault's words, as "a school." The shame of public exposure was for all of "the potentially guilty," not only the individual who had been caught. This eighteenth-century mode of punishment, thought to have been replaced by the surveillance of the prison, persisted in the state's response to women and their sexual crimes. Without analyzing gender, we cannot fully understand the systems of punishment.

It varied over time and place, but for the most part when I was younger and abortion was illegal, mostly it meant women had a hard time getting an abortion. I lived in LA and it was not uncommon for women to go to Mexico. One of my teen friends, a neighbor, was taken to Mexico by her parents for an abortion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not sure. A little googling found some articles, but no mention of women being prosecuted for abortions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/health/roe-wade-abortion-timeline/

I was surprised by this fact:

Crazy, huh?

https://thinkprogress.org/what-amer...era-before-roe-v-wade-19687b9e9b16#.hozdhuo6b

I have to wonder if '72 was maybe when the last state got with the times? I got birth control pills from Planned Parenthood in LA in the late 60s. I'm sure it was legal in CA at the time.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have to wonder if '72 was maybe when the last state got with the times? I got birth control pills from Planned Parenthood in LA in the late 60s. I'm sure it was legal in CA at the time.

I think it was a question of enforcement and knowing that the cops weren't going to pursue violations, but it was actually a Supreme Court decision that made contraception fully "legal", meaning including unmarried persons. Prior to that various statutes (nothing from the Supremes, but from states) legalized contraception for married couples. New York had such case law, but doctors just kinda forgot to ask if you were married or not. Or if they did ask, the patient simply responded that she was married. No one checked.

 

[NoahFence]

You're probably baffled because you think he's conservative, I'm amused that you think he is.

My vote for him is because Hillary is worse and compared to her he isn't that bad from a conservative point of view.

Trump paid 20K of other people's money to buy a 6 foot portrait of himself. You know who does that? Psychotic, dangerous madmen.

In the event this piece of **** wins, remember. YOU ASKED FOR IT.

 

[sunmaster14]

Trump paid 20K of other people's money to buy a 6 foot portrait of himself. You know who does that? Psychotic, dangerous madmen.

The 6 foot portrait was painted in 7 minutes by a speed painter. It clearly wasn't worth anywhere near $20,000, so the $20,000 was clearly a contribution for charity. Now, maybe he shouldn't have kept it, but it has de minimis value. It's kind of a joke.

In the event this piece of **** wins, remember. YOU ASKED FOR IT.

Do I smell panic and desperation in your words? Yes, I think I do.

 

[NoahFence]

The 6 foot portrait was painted in 7 minutes by a speed painter. It clearly wasn't worth anywhere near $20,000, so the $20,000 was clearly a contribution for charity. Now, maybe he shouldn't have kept it, but it has de minimis value. It's kind of a joke.

I'm shocked shocked! you'd say him spending other people's money from his charity on himself is a joke.

It's not a joke, and it's not the only instance of him doing so. He has a pattern of scamming people, of defrauding people, and I've got no clue how there are people who don't see it, and others, WORSE - don't care.

Do I smell panic and desperation in your words? Yes, I think I do.

Damn right you do. Anyone with 1/2 a brain should be in a state of panic right now. The only people who aren't should get the **** back in their basket and leave the election to the adults.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm shocked shocked! you'd say him spending other people's money from his charity on himself is a joke.

I meant the portrait was a joke. It's worth about $100. Or maybe negative.

It's not a joke, and it's not the only instance of him doing so. He has a pattern of scamming people, of defrauding people, and I've got no clue how there are people who don't see it, and others, WORSE - don't care.

Yes, he does have such a history. He's a ******** artist and a dishonest quack, for the most part. But, as far as I know, he hasn't committed any crimes like one of the other candidates in this election has, and, furthermore, he won't have a phalanx of powerful flacks to cover for him once he's in office. Hillary will be able to get away with virtually any abuse of power. Trump won't.