• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be perfectly fair, many might question the accuracy of a person's testimony during a divorce proceeding.

Sure, we can keep Ivana's testimony in mind, and we should do so, but we probably shouldn't declare that we know he's a rapist on these grounds.

Do you take the testimony of Bill's accusers at face value? If not, what is the difference?

(Again, I don't defend Trump, a man singularly unqualified to be the local animal carcass removal agent.)
She claimed she was raped. She only slightly modified that stance later to "not in the criminal sense," which seems clearly to have been an effort to get past the divorce (my benefit of the doubt is extended to her by not assuming she later minimized the event in order to get more money out of the divorce). Now, we have Trump's own words regarding how comfortable he is assaulting women who are not his wife; it's not hard to imagine that he would feel entitled to go a lot further with a woman he feels is already his.

If you think Trump has done something to earn the benefit of the doubt, offer it up. As far as I'm concerned, he's a rapist until proven otherwise. While that position would disqualify me from serving on his jury, I think that it is based on real evidence.

As far as bringing Bill Clinton into it, I won't even respond since Bill Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
 
If Trump had the slightest bit of humility, JoeBentley, our fears (I shared yours) could have come true. Fortunately, he has none and actually believes that he's a magnificent genius. He's the gift that keeps on giving...to his enemies.

And honestly for the longest time I thought that's were the GOP was going with this whole thing, make sure Donald has his cult of personality hard core supporters locked in and then tone him down to bring in the moderates. Speaking on a purely political level it would have been a pretty good tactic and might have worked... as you say had they been able to get a bridle on their runaway horse.

I'm all over the map politically and made peace with it some time ago but I'll be the first to admit that GOP plays the game a 1,000 times better than the Democrats could ever hope too. The proof is how successful politically they have been despite... while being absolutely wrong about everything and on the wrong side of every single social issue ever.

Even their most hated detractors have to admit they are damn good at the game. In a way the Dems have never even approached. They are good are getting over things they really shouldn't be able to.

The Democrats could never do that. If the Democrats were factually as wrong about 1/10th of the things the GOP is they would have been destroyed as a viable political force decades ago. It actually speak for poorly for the Democrats that their arch rivals are openly racist, sexist, homophobic, science denying loons and they still manage to beat them, tie them, or lose within the margin of error 99% of the time. Watching the Democrats try to fight the Republicans is like paying for front row seats to see an in-his-prime Mike Tyson fight a wheelchair bound blind deaf thalidomide baby and Tyson only winning via a 12th round split decision. Yeah he won and but I still kind of want my money back.

The Democrats are just too disorganized, too scared, too ineffectual. That's why they don't get crap done even when they are in power. What's the old joke "I'm not a member of an organized party, I'm a Democrat." You could argue for the nobility of rising above politics but functionally it leaves with a party of bad ideas and a party of no ideas, a party where the wrong thing gets done or nothing gets done, one party that we know is going to break in the worst possible direction the second we open the gate and another party that's going to skittishly take two steps out the gate and just sit down whimpering to the point that at time I'd rather just let the bad party out on the hopes that maybe they'll make it somewhere good by accident because at least with them you get motion.

I like both parties about the same. I'm just a lot more scared of one of them being in power.

That being said this is an absolutely fascinating election speaking on a purely political level. I am sorta interested in how political science is going to look back on it after time has passed and it can be reviewed with fresh eyes.
 
Last edited:
No. I get that from the Left there's a "There's no limit to his evil!" vibe off of Trump but the system isn't that broken.

On November 8 (well in January of next year but you know what I mean...) no matter what happens the loser will step down. They'll be some whining, maybe they'll be some accusations of fraud, maybe a couple of token lawsuits and recounts but... life will go on. The sun will still rise, the next season of Game of Thrones is still gonna come out, government death squads aren't going to round up the loser's supporters in the night, no one's gonna move to Canada, no one's guns or abortions are gonna get taken away and we will all keep chugging along just fine and we'll do this dance again in 4 years.
 
Last edited:
I think some of his supporters would actually have to pick up arms and threaten to do something. Most of his "2nd amendment" supporters are too lazy to actually do anything other than carry their AR-15s around.

Most isn't all.
I'm paranoid that this is becoming a watershed moment in US history, and that the election won't be the end. It started with Obama.

Actually may have started with Bush. There was no shortage of people with Bush Derrangement Syndrome.

We need better education before it's too late.
 
Most isn't all.
I'm paranoid that this is becoming a watershed moment in US history, and that the election won't be the end. It started with Obama.

Actually may have started with Bush. There was no shortage of people with Bush Derrangement Syndrome.

We need better education before it's too late.

Been around as long as the country has (and longer). The founding fathers called democracy "mobocracy". Getting up to 250 years later and the great experiment still shows and seems to be showing more mobocracy than ever. Heck, even the white supremacist have crawled back out from under their respective rocks and into the general public fora.
 
Yea, sorry, no. I'm with Winston Churchill on this. "Democracy is the worst for of government, except for all the others." I understand the frustration with the uneducated and the slow wheels of democracy. But it has shown that it is the only effective check on the oligarchy.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said "The democratisation of every step in the process doesn't help, either.". I'm sure Churchill wouldn't want the Supreme Court justices to be elected by popular vote, either. Science isn't a democracy, for example. This constant trend to democratise everything isn't necessarily a good thing because not all things are best determined by popular opinion.

ETA: And that's not to say that democracy isn't still our best option. Just not everywhere. Now you don't just vote for the representatives, but the senate, president and even who gets to be a candidate for president. The SCOTUS is the only barrier left.
 
Last edited:
How is it that you are certain Clinton sexually assaulted women? Is it because of the testimony of certain persons?

How is it that you are not sure Donald Trump sexually assaulted women? Don't you have (his) testimony to that effect?

Precisely what metric do you apply to conclude that Clinton assaulted women, but Trump didn't?

Much thanks.

I'm shocked that Sunmaster missed that post.
 
We don't need to do the whole "Doom and gloom dah country is ruined!!!" dance.

200 hundred years ago politicians openly shot each other in duels. 150 years ago the country split in two and fought a war of differing political ideals. We'll survive Captain Toupee and Mistress E-mail server sniping at each other over social media.

Andrew Jackson wouldn't have called Hillary the C-word or Trump an idiot. He would shot him and beat her to death with his cane if could spare a moment between all the genocide.
 
I'm all over the map politically and made peace with it some time ago but I'll be the first to admit that GOP plays the game a 1,000 times better than the Democrats could ever hope too. The proof is how successful politically they have been despite... while being absolutely wrong about everything and on the wrong side of every single social issue ever.
You say "the wrong side" because it's the side that has been consistently losing for my entire life. Have you any conception of how racist, sexist and homophobic society was fifty years ago?

The Democrats are just too disorganized, too scared, too ineffectual.
It's the resistance which has proved ineffectual. What the hell do you think Trump's supporters are railing against?

This didn't just come about with the passage of time. It took hard and sometimes bloody work by people you call ineffectual.
 
Listen, the fact that Hillary will win settles no arguments about whether she should win. Why not cut that **** out?

Again, I say this as one who will happily vote for Hillary. You can't win an argument by saying "Neener neener neener, she gonna win!" You make our side look like children.

Indeed. I'm voting for someone that I think is lukewater warm at best as Presidential material because her opponent is a poorly written comic book villain. Scratch that poorly written Scoobie Doo villain. Scratch that poorly written Scoobie Doo fan fiction villain.

So yeah I'm not about to eat any crow via her supporters gloating over the fact that I pretty much have to vote for her now via some B.S. political version of "Too Big to Fail."

Hillary Clinton should not be President. Donald Trump must not be President. Hillary is almost certainly not going to be a good President. Trump almost certainly wouldn't be able to function as President as all.

Let us be very, very clear here. Hillary Clinton is not going to win this election, Donald Trump is going to lose it.

And if Hillary swaggers into office with one shred of ego or attitude, I hope she gets (politically) slapped down hard. Listen Lady your opponent was the Joker mixed with Zap Brannigan and you barely beat him via an 11th hour Deus Ex Machina... don't go all Dewey Defeats Truman on us.
 
Last edited:
We don't need to do the whole "Doom and gloom dah country is ruined!!!" dance.
Speak for yourself. Trump won't get elected, but here in the UK we failed to dodge our particular bullet.

200 hundred years ago politicians openly shot each other in duels.
Not at all popular, contrary to legend. People have rather forgotten how nasty a business sepsis is.

150 years ago the country split in two and fought a war of differing political ideals.
You say "fought", but is it really over?
 
You say "the wrong side" because it's the side that has been consistently losing for my entire life. Have you any conception of how racist, sexist and homophobic society was fifty years ago?

That's my point. We can split hairs over the social progress all day but every time, every time, an attempt was made to codify any of that progress into law, you know the whole point of politics, the Right was on the wrong side.

At what point in the last 50 years was the Right on forefront of any positive change in racism, sexism, or homophobia?
 
That's my point. We can split hairs over the social progress all day but every time, every time, an attempt was made to codify any of that progress into law, you know the whole point of politics, the Right was on the wrong side.
Why do you describe them as successful then? They've been consistently on the losing side.

At what point in the last 50 years was the Right on forefront of any positive change in racism, sexism, or homophobia?
None. Why do you call people who drove things forward against their opposition "ineffectual"? Where do you imagine the effect came from? Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll?
 
Why do you describe them as successful then? They've been consistently on the losing side.

None. Why do you call people who drove things forward against their opposition "ineffectual"? Where do you imagine the effect came from? Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll?

You're really missing my point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom