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.
On October 09 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote: Wow, Scott Adams blog at this is a fucking textbook case of denial
I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming.
2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.
3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives.
4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.
5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.
6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)
8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.
9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.
10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.
11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior.
12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.
12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.
13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.
14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.
Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.
Pretty solid on nearly every point and even knows that the behavior itself is indefensible from moral standpoint.
Point 8 is solid? Really?
I decry your surprising lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles. You must harbor some evangelical right-winger tendencies.
LGBQT are actually huge drivers for raising awareness about domestic violence and the long-term damage of sexual assault. Consent is kind of a big deal to them what with valuing what people want to do with their own bodies so highly.
On October 09 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote: Wow, Scott Adams blog at this is a fucking textbook case of denial
I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming.
2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.
3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives.
4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.
5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.
6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)
8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.
9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.
10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.
11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior.
12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.
12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.
13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.
14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.
Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.
Pretty solid on nearly every point and even knows that the behavior itself is indefensible from moral standpoint.
Point 8 is solid? Really?
I decry your surprising lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles. You must harbor some evangelical right-winger tendencies.
Sexually assaulting women and cheating on wives absolutely cannot be equated to someone who is gay or polyamorous.
On October 09 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote: Wow, Scott Adams blog at this is a fucking textbook case of denial
I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming.
2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.
3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives.
4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.
5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.
6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)
8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.
9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.
10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.
11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior.
12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.
12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.
13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.
14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.
Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.
Pretty solid on nearly every point and even knows that the behavior itself is indefensible from moral standpoint.
Point 8 is solid? Really?
I decry your surprising lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles. You must harbor some evangelical right-winger tendencies.
On October 09 2016 05:50 Grumbels wrote: I wouldn't normally say this, but this is honestly political correctness gone mad. Trump says idiotic sexist things every day that ought to have disqualified him long ago, but because he broke some taboo 11 years ago there now is pressure on him to stand down. What utter moral hypocrisy. This by the same group of people that have a national platform of "traditional values" which is a mask for patriarchy, and are therefore fundamentally hostile towards women's rights.
But fine, if Trump steps down I'm happy.
There's nothing hypocritical about christian conservatives considering this outrageous even though you might perceive them as patriarchal and thus misogynist by default. This group might not generally think men and women are equal in all the ways me and you do, but if anything, they are more chivalrous, and being respectful towards women and upholding traditional family values matters a lot to them. Sure, you might correctly argue that some of this is faux outrage from people looking for a reason to distance themselves from Trump, but I have no doubt that for the Mitt Romneys out there, the notion that this type of behavior is disgraceful and unacceptable, is actually genuine and heartfelt - and even more so for the Mitt Romney's wives out there.
On October 09 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote: Wow, Scott Adams blog at this is a fucking textbook case of denial
I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming.
2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.
3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives.
4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.
5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.
6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)
8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.
9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.
10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.
11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior.
12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.
12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.
13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.
14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.
Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.
Pretty solid on nearly every point and even knows that the behavior itself is indefensible from moral standpoint.
"He never claimed moral authority" is the crux of his argument
Then both of you should recognize point 5 and then call point 7 a sad state of affairs on women voicing consent (or he's actually lying). More education, people!
On the other hand we have the model of sexual consent ... wait, she intimidated rape victims into not speaking out and actively aimed to discredit their stories.
If I were to put this in the framing of current hysteria, I'd have to say hillary voters think the victims of rape deserved it. Hillary voters literally condone covering up rape to preserve political ambitions. Note: I don't expect this kind of realization from her supporters. The hypocrisy ship has long since sailed, what hypocrisy, I don't see any such hypocrisy here.
On October 09 2016 04:51 biology]major wrote: He's done pretty well and gotten pretty far by drinking his own koolaid. His irrational self belief, narcissism, and koolaid drinking drives his success, I wonder where he would be if he was a rational realist.
He's done pretty well by drinking his own koolaid and inheriting a real estate empire. There are no shortage of delusional idiots out there with extreme views who aren't at all successful. I think pointing to his delusional arrogance and attributing his success to it, while ignoring the fact that he was born into an ultra-rich family, is a little silly. If he was a rational realist he'd still be a billionaire because he was born to be one, but he'd be behind the scenes making contributions to people who know how to play the game so they could do what he wanted for him.
On October 09 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote: Then both of you should recognize point 5 and then call point 7 a sad state of affairs on women voicing consent (or he's actually lying). More education, people!
On the other hand we have the model of sexual consent ... wait, she intimidated rape victims into not speaking out and actively aimed to discredit their stories.
If I were to put this in the framing of current hysteria, I'd have to say hillary voters think the victims of rape deserved it. Hillary voters literally condone covering up rape to preserve political ambitions. Note: I don't expect this kind of realization from her supporters. The hypocrisy ship has long since sailed, what hypocrisy, I don't see any such hypocrisy here.
yeah but that hasn't actually happened, that was just something people made up without ever providing any support for it
On October 09 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote: Then both of you should recognize point 5 and then call point 7 a sad state of affairs on women voicing consent (or he's actually lying). More education, people!
On the other hand we have the model of sexual consent ... wait, she intimidated rape victims into not speaking out and actively aimed to discredit their stories.
If I were to put this in the framing of current hysteria, I'd have to say hillary voters think the victims of rape deserved it. Hillary voters literally condone covering up rape to preserve political ambitions. Note: I don't expect this kind of realization from her supporters. The hypocrisy ship has long since sailed, what hypocrisy, I don't see any such hypocrisy here.
Yeah, all of that is really interesting. However, what you were saying before this obvious attempt to change the subject was that Scott Adams made sense in his comments. Please go back to that?
On October 09 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote: Then both of you should recognize point 5 and then call point 7 a sad state of affairs on women voicing consent (or he's actually lying). More education, people!
On the other hand we have the model of sexual consent ... wait, she intimidated rape victims into not speaking out and actively aimed to discredit their stories.
If I were to put this in the framing of current hysteria, I'd have to say hillary voters think the victims of rape deserved it. Hillary voters literally condone covering up rape to preserve political ambitions. Note: I don't expect this kind of realization from her supporters. The hypocrisy ship has long since sailed, what hypocrisy, I don't see any such hypocrisy here.
You realize point 7 is actually demonstrably false and multiple women have come forward against Trump over the years and after these comments, right? In more substantiated ways than someone guaranteeing the law is followed in a court case?
On October 09 2016 05:50 Grumbels wrote: I wouldn't normally say this, but this is honestly political correctness gone mad. Trump says idiotic sexist things every day that ought to have disqualified him long ago, but because he broke some taboo 11 years ago there now is pressure on him to stand down. What utter moral hypocrisy. This by the same group of people that have a national platform of "traditional values" which is a mask for patriarchy, and are therefore fundamentally hostile towards women's rights.
But fine, if Trump steps down I'm happy.
There's nothing hypocritical about christian conservatives considering this outrageous even though you might perceive them as patriarchal and thus misogynist by default. This group might not generally think men and women are equal in all the ways me and you do, but if anything, they are more chivalrous, and being respectful towards women and upholding traditional family values matters a lot to them. Sure, you might correctly argue that some of this is faux outrage from people looking for a reason to distance themselves from Trump, but I have no doubt that for the Mitt Romneys out there, the notion that this type of behavior is disgraceful and unacceptable, is actually genuine and heartfelt - and even more so for the Mitt Romney's wives out there.
Mitt Romney is a vile person who just has the sense to appear upright as he signs legislation that harms women. It was long known that Trump was a sexist cretin who behaves inappropriately towards women and associates with abusers, furthermore he has been accused of sexual assault himself. That is what makes his comments disturbing, not the actual content itself which is just standard locker room nonsense. But his sexism wasn't disqualifying for the GOP before and it is only now because they are performing an exercise in hypocrisy in order to create some distance between Trump and various senior GOP figures.
Generally, if you're caught on camera breaking some taboo this is often directly disqualifying. A police officer can have horrid performance ratings and a history of racial discrimination, none of that matters and he will be sheltered by the district until he is caught on camera using a racial expletive, after which he is immediately dropped. Similarly, the GOP has long played to a sexist base and has enabled Trump's rise despite being aware of his attitude towards women, which is well documented. But now there is a bit caught on camera from 11 years ago and this should be the pretext to finally get rid of him?
Anyway, I"m happy for his campaign to implode, I just don't think the GOP should get any sort of credit for the way they orchestrated it.
Suffice to say that I disagree with your characterization of people you disagree with politically. I'm fairly certain I'm way more in agreement with you than Mitt Romney with regards to women's rights, but I think he genuinely wants to make the world a better place - also for women - and his pov on abortion, while I think societally disastrous, I also think comes from a line of genuinely thinking that saving unborn lives matters more than women's ownership of their own bodies in this regard- and not because he doesn't care about women's ownership of their own bodies, but because he really thinks abortion is morally abhorrent.
Further, I really think part of Trump's success can be attributed to people on the right wing having been pushed, mocked and belittled by liberals as they have lost social issue battle after social issue battle, and now they thought they had a chance to give us a grand old middle finger face-fuck. I'd like us to be more respectable in the future (while still winning social issue battle after social issue battle) so we don't inspire the kind of vindictiveness that leads to a possible president Trump.
On October 09 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote: Wow, Scott Adams blog at this is a fucking textbook case of denial
I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming.
2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.
3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives.
4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.
5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.
6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)
8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.
9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.
10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.
11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior.
12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.
12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.
13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.
14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.
Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.
Pretty solid on nearly every point and even knows that the behavior itself is indefensible from moral standpoint.
Point 8 is solid? Really?
I decry your surprising lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles. You must harbor some evangelical right-winger tendencies.
Your misunderstanding of LGBTQ is disheartening.
I hope you someday realize you're on the wrong side of history and start questioning why you can't be more tolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles. Sickening, absolutely sickening!
On October 09 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote: Wow, Scott Adams blog at this is a fucking textbook case of denial
I’ll give you my thoughts, in no particular order.
1. If this were anyone else, the election would be over. But keep in mind that Trump doesn’t need to outrun the bear. He only needs to outrun his camping buddy. There is still plenty of time for him to dismantle Clinton. If you think things are interesting now, just wait. There is lots more entertainment coming.
2. This was not a Trump leak. No one would invite this sort of problem into a marriage.
3. I assume that publication of this recording was okayed by the Clinton campaign. And if not, the public will assume so anyway. That opens the door for Trump to attack in a proportionate way. No more mister-nice-guy. Gloves are off. Nothing is out of bounds. It is fair to assume that Bill and Hillary are about to experience the worst weeks of their lives.
4. If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.
5. I assume that 75% of male heads of state, including our own past presidents, are total dogs in their private lives. Like it or not, Trump is normal in that world.
6. As fictional mob boss Tony Soprano once said in an argument with his wife, “You knew what you were getting when you married me!” Likewise, Trump’s third wife, Melania, knew what she was getting. It would be naive to assume Trump violated their understanding.
7. Another rich, famous, tall, handsome married guy once told me that he can literally make-out and get handsy with any woman he wants, whether she is married or not, and she will be happy about it. I doubted his ridiculous claims until I witnessed it three separate times. So don’t assume the women were unwilling. (Has anyone come forward to complain about Trump?)
8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.
9. Most men don’t talk like Trump. Most women don’t either. But based on my experience, I’m guessing a solid 20% of both genders say and do shockingly offensive things in private. Keep in mind that Billy Bush wasn’t shocked by it.
10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.
11. I’m adding context to the discussion, not condoning it. Trump is on his own to explain his behavior.
12. Clinton supporters hated Trump before this latest outrage. Trump supporters already assumed he was like this. Independents probably assumed it too. Before you make assumptions about how this changes the election, see if anyone you know changes their vote because of it. All I have seen so far is people laughing about it.
12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.
13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.
14. Trump wasn’t running for Pope. He never claimed moral authority. His proposition has been that he’s an asshole (essentially), but we need an asshole to fight ISIS, ignore lobbyists, and beat up Congress. Does it change anything to have confirmation that he is exactly what you thought he was?
My thoughts above have more to do with reason than persuasion. And that means you can ignore all of it because reason is not part of decision-making when it comes to politics. On the persuasion level, all that matters is whether this new development changes what you already assumed about Trump.
Personally, it didn’t change what I assumed about Trump’s personal life. Your mileage may vary.
Pretty solid on nearly every point and even knows that the behavior itself is indefensible from moral standpoint.
"He never claimed moral authority" is the crux of his argument
Ahem. There's a couple dozen more but you get the idea, I won't waste time copy pasting all the links.
It's not the core of his argument, perhaps only to Point #12. Also, has Donald Trump been texting pictures of his junk to others and is that act morally equivalent to rich playboys kissing women? I get all the talk about consent and a future state of society where men and women have been instructed to fill out form A with their lips, but today finding a scandal of Trump behaving like Weiner with his weiner would be newsworthy ... whereas made inappropriate comments at work wouldn't be.
On October 09 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote: Then both of you should recognize point 5 and then call point 7 a sad state of affairs on women voicing consent (or he's actually lying). More education, people!
On the other hand we have the model of sexual consent ... wait, she intimidated rape victims into not speaking out and actively aimed to discredit their stories.
If I were to put this in the framing of current hysteria, I'd have to say hillary voters think the victims of rape deserved it. Hillary voters literally condone covering up rape to preserve political ambitions. Note: I don't expect this kind of realization from her supporters. The hypocrisy ship has long since sailed, what hypocrisy, I don't see any such hypocrisy here.
yeah but that hasn't actually happened, that was just something people made up without ever providing any support for it
I should drag you into my big imposing law firm and offer you free representation should ... I don't know ... someone leak your name and Bill Clinton's in a future scandal. We'll see how bull-headed you are then. Hillary apologists everywhere. The ridiculous part of you and others' ridiculous behavior is that you'll hear less and less good faith attempts to persuade you otherwise when you demonstrate you wouldn't even be persuaded had he raped someone in front of you in broad daylight if his wife claimed it didn't happen the next day.
On October 09 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote: Then both of you should recognize point 5 and then call point 7 a sad state of affairs on women voicing consent (or he's actually lying). More education, people!
On the other hand we have the model of sexual consent ... wait, she intimidated rape victims into not speaking out and actively aimed to discredit their stories.
If I were to put this in the framing of current hysteria, I'd have to say hillary voters think the victims of rape deserved it. Hillary voters literally condone covering up rape to preserve political ambitions. Note: I don't expect this kind of realization from her supporters. The hypocrisy ship has long since sailed, what hypocrisy, I don't see any such hypocrisy here.
Yeah, all of that is really interesting. However, what you were saying before this obvious attempt to change the subject was that Scott Adams made sense in his comments. Please go back to that?
See: He's not running for Pope, and his opponent is bad or worse on sexual ethics. I would say it's self-explanatory, but this election has done something to Democrat supporters, without the benefit of hindsight to see themselves doing it.
On October 09 2016 06:35 Grumbels wrote: not the actual content itself which is just standard locker room nonsense.
Generally, if you're caught on camera breaking some taboo this is often directly disqualifying.
But now there is a bit caught on camera from 11 years ago and this should be the pretext to finally get rid of him?
Holy check, just when you think everybody's on low-power analysis mode, someone accurately calls it standard locker room nonsense. And can see a focus on 11 years ago is a product of the PC movement to boot--while believing a broad condemnation of sexism and anti-women legislation is in order.
i'd say most people are respectable; there's always some assholes on every side who're hard ot stop from gloating. and the vindictiveness is also something there's just alwyas gonna be; i'm not sure it can readily be stopped; at least not when people consciously try to create vindictiveness to sell a product.
EPT
