• 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.
acbytesla said:
I don't think they have much organization in PA either. Any idea about ad buys in those states?
Click to expand...
He doesn't need adverts, he's getting all this free coverage, just as he has done since he announced he was running.

To paraphrase: he who lives by the media dies by the media
 
Darat said:
He doesn't need adverts, he's getting all this free coverage, just as he has done since he announced he was running.

To paraphrase: he who lives by the media dies by the media
Click to expand...

Well, the broadcast media is paying him back in spades. At this juncture "no such thing as bad publicity" doesn't hold true. They are beginning (at least the side the aspires to journalism) to make up, finally, for having created him. A whole lot of people are getting tired of the Daily Trump Tirade. It's not selling any new votes and people are tuning out.


The print media, particularly that headquartered around NYC, has done a very good job of going after really damaging material. No one on broadcast would touch it, though. A lot of the stuff that's been coming out was in news articles months ago. We've had many "revelations" on these forums that we've just referred back to a story from NY Magazine or the Washington Post or NYT that has simply passed by, unnoticed.

One's particularly egregious favorite will depend on one's particular tastes and biases, of course, but my own is from an article/expose in the NYT in April. How did no one pick up on this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html?_r=0

Yet no television network, broadcast or cable has done so, according to its author, even still.

Broadcast (in the person of CNN, leading the pack and Fox as the bottomfeeder) sold out. They may not have asked quite as obsequious questions as Fox & Friends but they certainly weren't loaded for bear. Trump was ratings. It was primary season and they were more interested in viewers than doing any real reporting.

The above Times article is referenced in this excellent round-table published yesterday by Politico. Five Trump biographers in a follow up to an earlier get-together. (rather a long read, but worth it)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350

Most of the people in the roundtable agree that the thing that they're most surprised has gotten no coverage is the abject racism. I'd noticed that, myself. It was only when Hillary herself went after the deplorables did it get any attention. But the wall, the muslim exclusion, the database... they all get covered on Trump's terms, not identifying or daring to call them racist.
 
Last edited:
The liberal left is mired in hypocrisy; on the one-hand, they've been saying that Trump is "all talk, no action," yet they keep bringing up these women he's sexually assaulted.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
.... If there is other evidence that Trump is a sexual predator, then that evidence has to be presented and stand on its own merits.
Click to expand...
No.

There is the concept of consilience of evidence. I have seen it most often in discussions of evolution. There, the concept is that evidence that comes from different fields of scientific endeavor and different research labs, institutions, etc. makes the case for evolution much stronger than just the individual facts.

The same concept applies to non-scientific claims. It is brusquely - probably too brusquely - stated as "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and goes quack, then it's probably a duck". The idea is that various lines of evidence which may not stand alone can, when combined, make a strong piece of evidence. I believe that is a valid line of thought.

Regarding Trumpian claims, this is our exact situation. He's a braggart. he's a lout, he's dishonest, he's a horn dog and he wear a ferret. The evidence behind each of those claims ranges from proven to obvious. The consilience of those claims are thus, without extremely powerful contravening evidence, justified.

PS: sunmaster14, your claim that you and marplots are alone in your use of logic is hereby refuted. Or, more correctly, again refuted.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I would say that staying with him and aiding his defense by invoking the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" enabled the pattern of behavior to continue without consequences for quite some time.
Click to expand...
We don't know that. In fact, I suspect Slick paid a very heavy price from his family. That there were no overt political consequences does NOT mean there were no consequences nor does it say anything at all about the internal dynamics of their marriage.

For example, I went though an amicable divorce; it was a surprise to many. But the external invisibility of internal dynamics did not mean there were none.


Fast Eddie B said:
I'll stipulate that marriages are complex and varied. But one thing that I think most have in common is vows. And the breaking of any vow says something about the perpetrator, as well as the party allowing it or excusing it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Fast Eddie B said:
Simply staying with a cheater enables said cheating to continue unabated.
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. We don't know that in general and we certainly don't know that in the Clinton case. Staying with a cheater might well be the wisest choice for many reasons. The kids for one. I suspect A LOT of parents hang in there for the kid's sake. In fact, that there is a bump in divorces around the 17 year mark (like mine at 18) gives credence to this.

Another may be that the one cheated upon believes the best way to heal and live a full life is to stay together through the tough times. There is no question that sometimes this is the right choice. It in no way enables the offending party to continue "unabated" (your word).

As you correctly stated marriages are complex things. Outsiders are wise to avoid judging in haste.

Fast Eddie B said:
To be consistent, Trump's philandering - without apparent consequences - is equally wrong and was "enabled" by countless others, his wives almost certainly inclusive.
Click to expand...
I'll simply highlight that word and close this post.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
PS: sunmaster14, your claim that you and marplots are alone in your use of logic is hereby refuted. Or, more correctly, again refuted.
Click to expand...

This is extremely distressing because those are the first two to come to mind when I see the phrase "Champions of Logic."
 
BobTheCoward said:
Here is the next bet I'm interested in.


On voting day. Does Trump beat his poll numbers or underperform?
Click to expand...

This does remind me of the Trump candidacy. He's an existential threat with nuclear weapons, is a very serious threat on foreign policy and an awful joke on domestic policy. And yet a pussy is central to bringing him down.

And you want to worry about his performance vs. polls. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, have you nothing else to think about? Maybe you could run a load of laundry or mow the lawn or something. Something useful.

The classic question to Ms. Lincoln about the play comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
At least in that video he implied he would wait until she was an adult before he'd try to move on her. But given the statements of some of his teen pageant contestants over the last few days...
Click to expand...

Most normal adults might pass a comment such as "She'll grow up to be a stunner" on a 10 year old but in Trump's world everything is orientated around Trump. In his mind I am sure that he thought he was paying her a compliment, what greater compliment could there be for a 10 year old than to know that when they grow up Trump will consider them attractive enough to "date"?
 
Darat said:
Most normal adults might pass a comment such as "She'll grow up to be a stunner" on a 10 year old but in Trump's world everything is orientated around Trump. In his mind I am sure that he thought he was paying her a compliment, what greater compliment could there be for a 10 year old than to know that when they grow up Trump will consider them attractive enough to "date"?
Click to expand...
I am positive that in Donald's mind the highest possible compliment that he can pay a female is saying that he would bang her.
 
Darat said:
Most normal adults might pass a comment such as "She'll grow up to be a stunner" on a 10 year old but in Trump's world everything is orientated around Trump. In his mind I am sure that he thought he was paying her a compliment, what greater compliment could there be for a 10 year old than to know that when they grow up Trump will consider them attractive enough to "date"?
Click to expand...

I remember growing up adult women would say I was "so handsome." Made me feel good. Then I learned they say that to everyone.

The only genuine compliment I got came from my fifth grade teacher. He said my dick was "perfect."
 
steve s said:
November 28th is the start of the Trump University trial. Looks like it's on his mind to the point of distraction.
Click to expand...
Here's a tough question: Would Trump require Secret Service protection if he is in a jail cell?
.
.
.
No, don't answer. I'm 'jes funnin' ya.
 
acbytesla said:
I think what is really amazing is the scorecard of major newspapers that have endorsed Donald Trump. It's a goose egg from coast to coast. Today the Salt Lake City Tribune and the Birmingham Herald (Alabama) both endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The magazine Foreign Policy which has NEVER ENDORSED a candidate endorsed Hillary Clinton. And the message is universal. We aren't necessarily crazy about Hillary, but she's highly qualified and Trump is grossly unfit.
Click to expand...

If the local news is correct, my hometown newspaper is the only one in all of California to endorse Trump. Santa Barbara is a laid back tourist trap with a fairly liberal populace. The newspaper, which used to be owned by the New York Times, was bought by a woman who became a multi-millionaire (billionaire?) though divorce and is a rabid - and I mean rabid - libertarian. I guess Johnson did cut the mustard, though.

It's a small to medium sized town/city with no political clout whatsoever so the endorsement doesn't mean diddly squat.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
CNN just tweeted this:

"Just in : Federal Judge in Fla extends voter registration deadline until Oct 18. Victory for Fla dem party."

Why is that just assumed to benefit Democrats?
Click to expand...
Because they were the ones who brought the suit.
Judge Mark E. Walker, of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, granted a preliminary injunction to the Florida Democratic Party and other groups who had argued that voter registration needed to be moved because of the effects of the storm, which raked along the Eastern Coastline for several days.
...
The judge noted that he had heard testimony from the Leon County Supervisor of Elections who said the magnitude of the storm imposed "tremendous strain" on elections offices. He also noted that the storm delayed naturalization ceremonies and that new citizens "through no fault of their own" would not have had the opportunity to vote in the election absent his order.
Click to expand...
 
pgwenthold said:
Yep. Instead of asking why the Dems support it, the bigger question is, why does the GOP oppose it?
Click to expand...
Why have they attempted to impose unjustified and unnecessary identification requirement and other measures?
I believe it's called "stealing the election"...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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