|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I feel bad for the conservatives in this thread. You can tell that their heart really isn't in actually defending Trump (he's not defensible) so they have to constantly contort arguments in a manner that seems somewhat painful in order for them not to sink into the ethereal miasma of their candidate.
|
they could've prevented the orange menace by not actually empowering that part of the voterbase over decades and coming up with some strategy that doesn't boil down to obstructing and demonising Obama.
|
On October 01 2016 04:46 Nyxisto wrote:
they could've prevented the orange menace by not actually empowering that part of the voterbase over decades and coming up with some strategy that doesn't boil down to obstructing and demonising Obama.
I’ve been saying for years that tapping the voter base that hates government and then running on that platform might have some flaws. Voting people into a system who don’t respect the system is a bad plan.
|
On October 01 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly. Thanks so much. My degree in history didn’t cover this and its important I have my facts straight. In the past women were treated like property or objects. Trump continues this in the modern era, which is why he is sexist.
What Kwark said was "appearance" - you should take your degree back if it didn't have a literacy requirement. You could have unpacked that yourself if it was so easy. The truth is almost everyone in history or alive today has lived like shit.
On October 01 2016 04:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books You understand that it was a week ago that GGTemplar was swearing over and over that he had never heard of monkey being used as a slur against black people and that he had no idea that blacks were ever viewed as subhuman, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't insist simultaneously that there is no context, that even if there is context then you had no way of knowing that context and also that you understand the nuances of the context so well you're exempted from any implications of it.
I am not GGTemplar so I can't get into defending arguments you're making for him in his absence.
|
There is a ridiculous series of occurances that could happen that would let Ryan be the president if the electoral college were tied - the house has to tie their votes (each state gets 1 vote, for a total of 50), and the senate has to tie their votes on who the VP should be (it falls to this VP otherwise) and then the speaker will serve as president.
Maybe Ryan is the one playing 20 dimensional chess
edit - Also, a more likely occurrence is faithless delegates for Trump. Does anyone really think there won't be a few electors that would balk at voting for him?
|
All European countries have functional center-right parties for conservatively minded people, I don't personally like them but they are respectable and play an important role in creating a stable political culture. The republicans could be like that, but instead they got taken over by talk radio and resentment based politics. They spent all their recent years gridlocking government and trying to make Obama's presidency fail, and that's the respectable wing of the party who have often been ousted by even more doctrinaire tea party sympathizers.
|
All they would have needed to do is to, at some point, start to compete with the Democrats for all the diverse votes that exist in the nation. Instead they decided to try to suppress the voice of everybody that doesn't agree with their wacky Evangelical brand of Conservatism that isn't actually genuine Conservatism.
Just look at the Tories or the CDU here in Germany. It is ridiculous how easy it is to collect large amounts of midde-class voters with some centre-right approach.
|
On October 01 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote:
I feel bad for the conservatives in this thread. You can tell that their heart really isn't in actually defending Trump (he's not defensible) so they have to constantly contort arguments in a manner that seems somewhat painful in order for them not to sink into the ethereal miasma of their candidate.
I follow many #NeverTrump conservatives on Twitter. They don't try to die on the hills Trump makes for them. They let Trump's idiocy lie where it is. The #NeverTrump guys have beliefs outside of the partisan universe and choose to keep them and their dignity.
The Trumpkins in this thread have decided to own everything he says with their constant spinning. They could simply say "what Trump said was wrong, but I am voting for him for other reasons". Instead you see endless spin cycles about how "no Trump is just an asshole or sociopath, not an ism, and I like his asshole or sociopath tendancies without the ism" and "you are the real -ismist because you called Trump that" or even "you can't prove Trump is an -ism just because he talks like it and quadruple downs on -ismy statements".
|
On October 01 2016 04:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly. Thanks so much. My degree in history didn’t cover this and its important I have my facts straight. In the past women were treated like property or objects. Trump continues this in the modern era, which is why he is sexist. What Kwark said was "appearance" - you should take your degree back if it didn't have a literacy requirement. You could have unpacked that yourself if it was so easy. The truth is almost everyone in history or alive today has lived like shit. Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:36 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books You understand that it was a week ago that GGTemplar was swearing over and over that he had never heard of monkey being used as a slur against black people and that he had no idea that blacks were ever viewed as subhuman, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't insist simultaneously that there is no context, that even if there is context then you had no way of knowing that context and also that you understand the nuances of the context so well you're exempted from any implications of it. I am not GGTemplar so I can't get into defending arguments you're making for him in his absence.
Oblade, your attempts to play dumb even things that are common knowledge would be irritating if you were not so ham fisted at it. Your endless efforts to dance around Trumps bigotry and sexism are almost endearing. But again, I stand by my statement that you would question if a man was being ironic if he held a sign that said “All coons must die” in front of a black church.
On a side note: It appears Trump admitted in a deposition that he planned to call all Mexicans racist before the rally to fire up the crowd. It’s on video and everything. Buzzfeed has it right now.
|
United States44134 Posts
On October 01 2016 04:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly. Thanks so much. My degree in history didn’t cover this and its important I have my facts straight. In the past women were treated like property or objects. Trump continues this in the modern era, which is why he is sexist. What Kwark said was "appearance" - you should take your degree back if it didn't have a literacy requirement. You could have unpacked that yourself if it was so easy. The truth is almost everyone in history or alive today has lived like shit. Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:36 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books You understand that it was a week ago that GGTemplar was swearing over and over that he had never heard of monkey being used as a slur against black people and that he had no idea that blacks were ever viewed as subhuman, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't insist simultaneously that there is no context, that even if there is context then you had no way of knowing that context and also that you understand the nuances of the context so well you're exempted from any implications of it. I am not GGTemplar so I can't get into defending arguments you're making for him in his absence.
Nope. GGTemplar goes with "I've never heard of this context before so in my mind there are no differences between anyone and if you say they are then you're the real racist so please ignore my hood and robes because I didn't know the context of those because I've literally never heard of it".
Meanwhile xDaunt goes "no, but you see, I'm actually so aware of racial issues that I'm post-racist and my honour is unimpeachable. Therefore you should ignore my hood and robes because clearly there can be no racist context to them because I would never do that because I know the history of them so well. Also you're the real racist for even thinking that I might be a racist".
Meanwhile bio is going with "I've heard of the context but I disagree with all of it because I think all people are the same and therefore how could you possibly infer anything from my hood and robes when I don't even see colour. But if you believe in context then you must be the real racist here now pass me that torch, I have a cross to set on fire".
You seem to be jumping in to round it all off with "so what's so bad about the hood and robes anyway".
While you get there by different routes you all look pretty much the same with your robes on.
|
On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly.
Chastity and loyalty were like pass-fail requirements in societies that ranked them. Marriageable girls are expected to be chaste, married girls are expected to be loyal. If you weren't, you were disowned or worse.
Like saying people today are ranked on being alive or dead. Well, yes, being alive is probably a good requirement for most criteria on anything. Good to see you made it past the first checkbox like several billion other people, now what?
|
Well at least we can all agree that if you're going to tweet at 3 a.m. about one of your detractors having a sex tape they better have a sex tape and not reality t.v. footage of them having sex that's less graphic than a Hallmark original movie.
Right?
|
Source
Here Is Donald Trump’s Newly Released Videotaped Deposition
BuzzFeed News filed court motions seeking the release of the videos. In it, Trump implied he planned to call Mexicans “rapists” when he announced his run for president.
A Washington, DC, judge on Friday released video depositions of Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Trump suggests in one exchange that his incendiary comments about Mexicans made during his campaign kickoff — he said people coming here from the country were “rapists” — were premeditated. Another answer shows Trump bragging about how he signs hundreds of real estate leases but relies on others to actually read and review the documents.
The depositions are related to Trump’s $200 million project to transform the Old Post Office building — a taxpayer-owned landmark just five blocks from White House — into a luxury hotel. Trump’s company won the right to develop the project by making numerous promises to the government that he failed to keep.
Last month, BuzzFeed News filed a court motion seeking the release of full transcripts of the depositions. In a second motion, BuzzFeed News sought the videos, part of a lawsuit by Trump against restauranteurs who abandoned agreements to operate in the Old Post Office after Trump’s comments about Mexicans.
VIDEOS AND TEXT BELOW
Honestly, that Buzzfeed is the one to break this makes me dizzy.
They have the videos and the deposition transcripts as non-embed on the site, so you have to visit, but it's all there.
|
On October 01 2016 04:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:49 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:31 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:23 Plansix wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books, which is why we can't help but laugh when a millennial white man tries to explain his personal view of just how bad human slavery two centuries ago was that he thinks we don't grasp. Women were inconsistently valued for their appearance in history as beauty was also a proxy for whoredom. There is so much to unpack here I don’t even know where to start. Damn. Just damn. Chastity, loyalty, hard work (generally or specifically in feminine/maternal work) have historically ranked above appearance in society's priorities for women. Makeup (also blondeness) and prostitution went hand-in-hand in Rome. History has not tended to value prostitutes highly. Thanks so much. My degree in history didn’t cover this and its important I have my facts straight. In the past women were treated like property or objects. Trump continues this in the modern era, which is why he is sexist. What Kwark said was "appearance" - you should take your degree back if it didn't have a literacy requirement. You could have unpacked that yourself if it was so easy. The truth is almost everyone in history or alive today has lived like shit. On October 01 2016 04:36 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2016 04:20 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 04:03 KwarK wrote:
Some of you right wingers seem to insist that you can say whatever you like and then whenever anyone points out the obvious historical context like "women weren't valued for their humanity or contributions to society but rather for their appearance" or "black people were described as subhuman apes to justify slavery" y'all go "oh, I never knew that, you see I'm actually new to earth and nobody filled me in on the backstory". Most of us pesky deplorables have read history books You understand that it was a week ago that GGTemplar was swearing over and over that he had never heard of monkey being used as a slur against black people and that he had no idea that blacks were ever viewed as subhuman, right? You can't have it both ways. You can't insist simultaneously that there is no context, that even if there is context then you had no way of knowing that context and also that you understand the nuances of the context so well you're exempted from any implications of it. I am not GGTemplar so I can't get into defending arguments you're making for him in his absence. Oblade, your attempts to play dumb even things that are common knowledge would be irritating if you were not so ham fisted at it. Your endless efforts to dance around Trumps bigotry and sexism are almost endearing. But again, I stand by my statement that you would question if a man was being ironic if he held a sign that said “All coons must die” in front of a black church.
Bless your heart. 
|
On October 01 2016 05:03 Lord Tolkien wrote:SourceShow nested quote +Here Is Donald Trump’s Newly Released Videotaped Deposition
BuzzFeed News filed court motions seeking the release of the videos. In it, Trump implied he planned to call Mexicans “rapists” when he announced his run for president.
A Washington, DC, judge on Friday released video depositions of Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Trump suggests in one exchange that his incendiary comments about Mexicans made during his campaign kickoff — he said people coming here from the country were “rapists” — were premeditated. Another answer shows Trump bragging about how he signs hundreds of real estate leases but relies on others to actually read and review the documents.
The depositions are related to Trump’s $200 million project to transform the Old Post Office building — a taxpayer-owned landmark just five blocks from White House — into a luxury hotel. Trump’s company won the right to develop the project by making numerous promises to the government that he failed to keep.
Last month, BuzzFeed News filed a court motion seeking the release of full transcripts of the depositions. In a second motion, BuzzFeed News sought the videos, part of a lawsuit by Trump against restauranteurs who abandoned agreements to operate in the Old Post Office after Trump’s comments about Mexicans.
VIDEOS AND TEXT BELOW
Honestly, that Buzzfeed is the one to break this makes me dizzy. They have the videos and the deposition texts as non-embed on the site, so you have to visit, but it's all there.
i just finished skimming the first transcript. nothing really exciting, except apparently trump tried to pad the lease with duplicates of pages to make it look more impressive.
|
In a small positive note for Trump, the debate commission confirmed there was something wrong with his microphone at the debate - at the very beginning of the debate the volume was too low for those inside of the hall itself.
|
On October 01 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote:
I feel bad for the conservatives in this thread. You can tell that their heart really isn't in actually defending Trump (he's not defensible) so they have to constantly contort arguments in a manner that seems somewhat painful in order for them not to sink into the ethereal miasma of their candidate.
Spare me the pity party. Even if Trump loses, the election will still be a net-positive for conservatives and the republican party. As I have been saying for some time now, the American right needs makeover. A Trump loss isn't going to stop the process that has begun.
|
On October 01 2016 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote:
I feel bad for the conservatives in this thread. You can tell that their heart really isn't in actually defending Trump (he's not defensible) so they have to constantly contort arguments in a manner that seems somewhat painful in order for them not to sink into the ethereal miasma of their candidate. Spare me the pity party. Even if Trump loses, the election will still be a net-positive for conservatives and the republican party. As I have been saying for some time now, the American right needs makeover. A Trump loss isn't going to stop the process that has begun.
?? Isn't Trump's victory like a complete disavowal of the Republican party?
|
On October 01 2016 05:03 Lord Tolkien wrote:SourceShow nested quote +Here Is Donald Trump’s Newly Released Videotaped Deposition
BuzzFeed News filed court motions seeking the release of the videos. In it, Trump implied he planned to call Mexicans “rapists” when he announced his run for president.
A Washington, DC, judge on Friday released video depositions of Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
Trump suggests in one exchange that his incendiary comments about Mexicans made during his campaign kickoff — he said people coming here from the country were “rapists” — were premeditated. Another answer shows Trump bragging about how he signs hundreds of real estate leases but relies on others to actually read and review the documents.
The depositions are related to Trump’s $200 million project to transform the Old Post Office building — a taxpayer-owned landmark just five blocks from White House — into a luxury hotel. Trump’s company won the right to develop the project by making numerous promises to the government that he failed to keep.
Last month, BuzzFeed News filed a court motion seeking the release of full transcripts of the depositions. In a second motion, BuzzFeed News sought the videos, part of a lawsuit by Trump against restauranteurs who abandoned agreements to operate in the Old Post Office after Trump’s comments about Mexicans.
VIDEOS AND TEXT BELOW
Honestly, that Buzzfeed is the one to break this makes me dizzy. They have the videos and the deposition transcripts as non-embed on the site, so you have to visit, but it's all there.
I'm not sure what the story is here, of course everything in his speeches is planned. Did anyone assume that calling Mexican immigrants rapists wasn't in the script?
|
On October 01 2016 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 04:44 Nevuk wrote:
I feel bad for the conservatives in this thread. You can tell that their heart really isn't in actually defending Trump (he's not defensible) so they have to constantly contort arguments in a manner that seems somewhat painful in order for them not to sink into the ethereal miasma of their candidate. Spare me the pity party. Even if Trump loses, the election will still be a net-positive for conservatives and the republican party. As I have been saying for some time now, the American right needs makeover. A Trump loss isn't going to stop the process that has begun.
Moving further away from minorities and women sure is the way forward for the American right...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
