|
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. |
On October 09 2016 08:17 Nevuk wrote:
And unlike Wikileaks. He might actually be right.
|
On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.
As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth. @Danglars: On October 09 2016 06:50 Danglars wrote:
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 don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women. Okay, we need some billionaire TeamLiquid posters to come forward about what kind of conversations occur in the locker rooms of the rich and famous. I'm with Grumbels as weird as that sounds. I'm not talking about penetrative sexual assault, because I think everybody generally assumes boasting about "assaulting women" would include that. But I suspect you generalize with purpose to smear by association.
1. Bragging about sexual assault doesn't become okay because it's a billionaire doing it, and even if every billionaire bragged about sexual assault in locker rooms that would still not make it okay. What a nonsensical defense.
2. Feel free to look up definitions of "sexual assault" -- it's not limited to rape by penetration. Nobody is "generaliz[ing] with purpose to smear by association". It's called calling it as it is.
|
On October 09 2016 08:19 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:16 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 08:12 TheDwf wrote:On October 09 2016 08:06 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:49 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2016 07:29 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.
As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth. @Danglars: On October 09 2016 06:50 Danglars wrote:
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 don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women in locker rooms. That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense. Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Objectifying women in private conversations is one thing (Trump did it before with the Apprentice stuff. and its still not a good thing). But this is Trump casually mentioning Sexual Assault. Thats a whole different ballpark and as seen by the reaction it draws. It utterly no acceptable, celebrity or not. I am not defending him, just explaining why. He is a person with already low bar of ethics while being tested with levels of temptation only a high profile celebrity can attain. On top of that, he has learned from experience that he can literally do anything and still attract women. He is saying they LIKE IT, not that he is forcing himself on people. It's a different ball game, easy to talk about being ethically consistent when you don't have the same level of temptation knocking on your door every moment. No, he's forcing himself on people. He bragged that he can leverage his money/influence to assault people. You know how the alt right keeps saying that Bill is a rapist and that he should hang? Trump is on record saying that he does that. Now, it's fine that you support someone who is a sexual assault enthusiast. You probably have a lot of pent-up sexual angst and dream of a world where you could commit acts of sexual assault without consequence. Coming from someone with a waiting list of people who want to sleep with me, you're dead wrong. The world you're imagining doesn't exist. Trump is no different from your run of the mill child molester who keeps his victims in line by threatening them. my sex life is fine, but I am not naive enough to think I face anywhere close to the same temptation as a celebrity. Either way, his comments are unacceptable, but are not a surprise to me. We have two shitty choices. He needs to not be a bitch and apologize straight up. Love how you keep talking about “temptation,” as if the problem was coming from the outside. Ethical standards are proven only when they overcome whatever tests them. That is why I keep using that word specifically because in this case we are talking about infidelity and lust. You realize that trump is rich enough that he can actually continue to buy new wives like he always has without resorting to raping people, right?
People don't rape just because they can't afford a wife, there is a certain attitude and hostility to women behind it according to research.
|
|
|
Norway28738 Posts
On October 09 2016 07:57 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Grumbels, imo when you describe someone as 'evil' you're describing their morality rather than their policies or political performance. Attempting to turn political alignment into moral alignment severely polarizes the discussion and makes it virtually impossible to find common ground. If I make a political suggestion and someone points out that that political suggestion would lead to group x being hurt by it, or that it's unfeasible for reason x, or that it'll hurt the economy in way x, it's possible that I will change my opinion if the argument is persuasive enough and if it's possible to amend my suggestion in a way where said problem stops being a problem. However if I'm described as evil for holding a particular point of view, I'm just not going to bother listening - probably not with responding seriously either. And when groups of people (and political alignment is certainly one way of distinguishing various groups of people) stop talking to each other, they tend to start viewing and characterizing the other group through exaggerated depictions devoid of nuancy, which again contributes to the start of the problem. Imo, the language you defend using makes you part of the downward spiral political discourse has been going through for the past decade or so- and stopping this trend takes conscious choice from both sides of the aisle. ...eh, they are dungeons and dragons terms, lawful and chaotic evil you are taking them more seriously than I intended by making post after post about how omg you used the word evil, you are polarizing the debate, you are what's wrong with the political culture
ya I know about the d&d alignments and it's fair enough if you didn't literally mean romney is evil because of his political preferences or choices, I might've gone a bit far with it and I don't really think you deserve to be called out more than most people (even if I also think you were harsher than necessary in your characterizations  ) - but I still think my overall point is solid: We as leftists need to abandon the holier than thou attitude if we truly desire an improved political climate and we share some responsibility in creating the anger and resentment a Trumpian character thrives upon.
|
Saw this a few days ago. Not going to paint all his supporters with the brush. But the individuals that did those things are certainly deplorable, despicable, and evil to the core.
|
On October 09 2016 08:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:19 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2016 08:16 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 08:12 TheDwf wrote:On October 09 2016 08:06 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:49 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2016 07:29 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: [quote] @Danglars: [quote] I don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women in locker rooms. That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense. Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Objectifying women in private conversations is one thing (Trump did it before with the Apprentice stuff. and its still not a good thing). But this is Trump casually mentioning Sexual Assault. Thats a whole different ballpark and as seen by the reaction it draws. It utterly no acceptable, celebrity or not. I am not defending him, just explaining why. He is a person with already low bar of ethics while being tested with levels of temptation only a high profile celebrity can attain. On top of that, he has learned from experience that he can literally do anything and still attract women. He is saying they LIKE IT, not that he is forcing himself on people. It's a different ball game, easy to talk about being ethically consistent when you don't have the same level of temptation knocking on your door every moment. No, he's forcing himself on people. He bragged that he can leverage his money/influence to assault people. You know how the alt right keeps saying that Bill is a rapist and that he should hang? Trump is on record saying that he does that. Now, it's fine that you support someone who is a sexual assault enthusiast. You probably have a lot of pent-up sexual angst and dream of a world where you could commit acts of sexual assault without consequence. Coming from someone with a waiting list of people who want to sleep with me, you're dead wrong. The world you're imagining doesn't exist. Trump is no different from your run of the mill child molester who keeps his victims in line by threatening them. my sex life is fine, but I am not naive enough to think I face anywhere close to the same temptation as a celebrity. Either way, his comments are unacceptable, but are not a surprise to me. We have two shitty choices. He needs to not be a bitch and apologize straight up. Love how you keep talking about “temptation,” as if the problem was coming from the outside. Ethical standards are proven only when they overcome whatever tests them. That is why I keep using that word specifically because in this case we are talking about infidelity and lust. You realize that trump is rich enough that he can actually continue to buy new wives like he always has without resorting to raping people, right? People don't rape just because they can't afford a wife, there is a certain attitude and hostility to women behind it according to research.
No shit, Sherlock. I'm pointing out that "temptation" is a pretty laughable scapegoat at this point. He could very easily and legally indulge literally every sexual fantasy he has in a consensual manner without spending more than his weekly allowance.
|
On October 09 2016 08:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:27 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2016 08:19 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2016 08:16 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 08:12 TheDwf wrote:On October 09 2016 08:06 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:49 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2016 07:29 biology]major wrote:On October 09 2016 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense.
Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Objectifying women in private conversations is one thing (Trump did it before with the Apprentice stuff. and its still not a good thing). But this is Trump casually mentioning Sexual Assault. Thats a whole different ballpark and as seen by the reaction it draws. It utterly no acceptable, celebrity or not. I am not defending him, just explaining why. He is a person with already low bar of ethics while being tested with levels of temptation only a high profile celebrity can attain. On top of that, he has learned from experience that he can literally do anything and still attract women. He is saying they LIKE IT, not that he is forcing himself on people. It's a different ball game, easy to talk about being ethically consistent when you don't have the same level of temptation knocking on your door every moment. No, he's forcing himself on people. He bragged that he can leverage his money/influence to assault people. You know how the alt right keeps saying that Bill is a rapist and that he should hang? Trump is on record saying that he does that. Now, it's fine that you support someone who is a sexual assault enthusiast. You probably have a lot of pent-up sexual angst and dream of a world where you could commit acts of sexual assault without consequence. Coming from someone with a waiting list of people who want to sleep with me, you're dead wrong. The world you're imagining doesn't exist. Trump is no different from your run of the mill child molester who keeps his victims in line by threatening them. my sex life is fine, but I am not naive enough to think I face anywhere close to the same temptation as a celebrity. Either way, his comments are unacceptable, but are not a surprise to me. We have two shitty choices. He needs to not be a bitch and apologize straight up. Love how you keep talking about “temptation,” as if the problem was coming from the outside. Ethical standards are proven only when they overcome whatever tests them. That is why I keep using that word specifically because in this case we are talking about infidelity and lust. You realize that trump is rich enough that he can actually continue to buy new wives like he always has without resorting to raping people, right? People don't rape just because they can't afford a wife, there is a certain attitude and hostility to women behind it according to research. No shit, Sherlock. I'm pointing out that "temptation" is a pretty laughable scapegoat at this point. He could very easily and legally indulge literally every sexual fantasy he has in a consensual manner without spending more than his weekly allowance.
I know that, I was just adding to your post since you didn't state it outright. Actually, wealth makes people more callous and less empathetic, it contributes to the mentality of entitlement predators like Trump can fall victim to.
|
Canada11404 Posts
On October 09 2016 08:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.
As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth. @Danglars: On October 09 2016 06:50 Danglars wrote:
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 don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women. Okay, we need some billionaire TeamLiquid posters to come forward about what kind of conversations occur in the locker rooms of the rich and famous. I'm with Grumbels as weird as that sounds. I'm not talking about penetrative sexual assault, because I think everybody generally assumes boasting about "assaulting women" would include that. But I suspect you generalize with purpose to smear by association. 1. Bragging about sexual assault doesn't become okay because it's a billionaire doing it, and even if every billionaire bragged about sexual assault in locker rooms that would still not make it okay. What a nonsensical defense. 2. Feel free to look up definitions of "sexual assault" -- it's not limited to rape by penetration. Nobody is "generaliz[ing] with purpose to smear by association". It's called calling it as it is.
He could have a bad case of affluenza; affluence has been known to impair moral judgement in a way that makes rich people less culpable.
|
On October 09 2016 08:50 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:25 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.
As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth. @Danglars: On October 09 2016 06:50 Danglars wrote:
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 don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women. Okay, we need some billionaire TeamLiquid posters to come forward about what kind of conversations occur in the locker rooms of the rich and famous. I'm with Grumbels as weird as that sounds. I'm not talking about penetrative sexual assault, because I think everybody generally assumes boasting about "assaulting women" would include that. But I suspect you generalize with purpose to smear by association. 1. Bragging about sexual assault doesn't become okay because it's a billionaire doing it, and even if every billionaire bragged about sexual assault in locker rooms that would still not make it okay. What a nonsensical defense. 2. Feel free to look up definitions of "sexual assault" -- it's not limited to rape by penetration. Nobody is "generaliz[ing] with purpose to smear by association". It's called calling it as it is. He could have a bad case of affluenza; affluence has been known to impair moral judgement in a way that makes rich people less culpable.
Sarcasm I hope. You can find deterministic reasons to absolve people of culpability over anything if you were so inclined, affluence is not special in that regard
|
On October 09 2016 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:
I discussed concurring with almost every point. So far I only heard one thing in response: some humorless blockhead that can't have fun with "polyamorous alpha male serial kisser." Talk about insensitive of other's lifestyles! (really, selective literalism and you're only allowed to make demeaning jokes about Trump. The rest aren't funny, guys!) Making a dismissive nonsensical joke and then complaining that others have no humor isn't discussing a point.
I also wasn't the one that picked the LGBT noninclusion as the most noteworthy for objection. I'd sooner expect discussion of cartoon villains throughout history.
|
|
|
On October 09 2016 08:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:50 Falling wrote:On October 09 2016 08:25 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.
As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth. @Danglars: On October 09 2016 06:50 Danglars wrote:
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 don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women. Okay, we need some billionaire TeamLiquid posters to come forward about what kind of conversations occur in the locker rooms of the rich and famous. I'm with Grumbels as weird as that sounds. I'm not talking about penetrative sexual assault, because I think everybody generally assumes boasting about "assaulting women" would include that. But I suspect you generalize with purpose to smear by association. 1. Bragging about sexual assault doesn't become okay because it's a billionaire doing it, and even if every billionaire bragged about sexual assault in locker rooms that would still not make it okay. What a nonsensical defense. 2. Feel free to look up definitions of "sexual assault" -- it's not limited to rape by penetration. Nobody is "generaliz[ing] with purpose to smear by association". It's called calling it as it is. He could have a bad case of affluenza; affluence has been known to impair moral judgement in a way that makes rich people less culpable. Sarcasm I hope. You can find deterministic reasons to absolve people of culpability over anything if you were so inclined, affluence is not special in that regard
I presume sarcasm, he's also referring to a notable case that occurred in the past few years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Couch#Trial_and_sentencing
tldr the kid kinda got off/reduced sentence on "affluenza" I haven't read enough to know more myself; so the tldr might not even be accurate.
|
On October 09 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:
That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense.
Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Ok, so suppose I accept the fact that Trump's utter lack of inhibition is a natural product of his upbringing and his experiences. Suppose I'm okay with his comments on a "moral" level (this is actually close to where I am, as I didn't react to his comment with the visceral outrage that many in this thread did). Am I supposed to believe that an utter lack of emotional inhibition is a quality that's supposed to be acceptable for the highest office in the nation? Especially when he has demonstrated that this lack of emotional inhibition extends not only to his sexual escapades, but to every aspect of how he's conducted his public life? He's shown an inability to handle himself in the face of detractors (literally losing sleep over accusations made against him), an inability to follow standard decorum expected of a world leader, and has emotionally manipulated by his opponents multiple times this election cycle. And this is supposed to be "okay"? Even if you don't find any of these individual actions reprehensible in and of themselves, doesn't this lack of self-control worry you even a little bit insofar as his ability to make rational decisions under pressure if we put him in the White House?
What do you want to lead this nation. an AI? GOD? I can tell you right now that there are nobody in the world that's squeaky clean. Especially nobody with money. You think the clintons and their foundation is that much better? They're only using a different brand of fertilizer to keep the stench down.
|
On October 09 2016 09:27 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:
That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense.
Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Ok, so suppose I accept the fact that Trump's utter lack of inhibition is a natural product of his upbringing and his experiences. Suppose I'm okay with his comments on a "moral" level (this is actually close to where I am, as I didn't react to his comment with the visceral outrage that many in this thread did). Am I supposed to believe that an utter lack of emotional inhibition is a quality that's supposed to be acceptable for the highest office in the nation? Especially when he has demonstrated that this lack of emotional inhibition extends not only to his sexual escapades, but to every aspect of how he's conducted his public life? He's shown an inability to handle himself in the face of detractors (literally losing sleep over accusations made against him), an inability to follow standard decorum expected of a world leader, and has emotionally manipulated by his opponents multiple times this election cycle. And this is supposed to be "okay"? Even if you don't find any of these individual actions reprehensible in and of themselves, doesn't this lack of self-control worry you even a little bit insofar as his ability to make rational decisions under pressure if we put him in the White House? What do you want to lead this nation. an AI? GOD? I can tell you right now that there are nobody in the world that's squeaky clean. Especially nobody with money. You think the clintons and their foundation is that much better? They're only using a different brand of fertilizer to keep the stench down.
Yes, by now it's common knowledge that the Clinton Foundation absolutely is *that much better* than Trump's.
|
United States43534 Posts
On October 09 2016 09:27 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:
That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense.
Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Ok, so suppose I accept the fact that Trump's utter lack of inhibition is a natural product of his upbringing and his experiences. Suppose I'm okay with his comments on a "moral" level (this is actually close to where I am, as I didn't react to his comment with the visceral outrage that many in this thread did). Am I supposed to believe that an utter lack of emotional inhibition is a quality that's supposed to be acceptable for the highest office in the nation? Especially when he has demonstrated that this lack of emotional inhibition extends not only to his sexual escapades, but to every aspect of how he's conducted his public life? He's shown an inability to handle himself in the face of detractors (literally losing sleep over accusations made against him), an inability to follow standard decorum expected of a world leader, and has emotionally manipulated by his opponents multiple times this election cycle. And this is supposed to be "okay"? Even if you don't find any of these individual actions reprehensible in and of themselves, doesn't this lack of self-control worry you even a little bit insofar as his ability to make rational decisions under pressure if we put him in the White House? What do you want to lead this nation. an AI? GOD? I can tell you right now that there are nobody in the world that's squeaky clean. Especially nobody with money. You think the clintons and their foundation is that much better? They're only using a different brand of fertilizer to keep the stench down.
Yes, they really are much better. Maybe not good but certainly much better. Trump's business record includes a litany of offenses against decency, common sense and human rights. From scams targeting veterans to defraud them of their education grants to deliberately denying housing to African Americans Trump really is the embodiment of everything wrong with American society. This election is such a non contest in terms of the competence, qualifications, morality and record that even the GOP are leaning towards Clinton.
|
On October 09 2016 09:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:
I discussed concurring with almost every point. So far I only heard one thing in response: some humorless blockhead that can't have fun with "polyamorous alpha male serial kisser." Talk about insensitive of other's lifestyles! (really, selective literalism and you're only allowed to make demeaning jokes about Trump. The rest aren't funny, guys!) Making a dismissive nonsensical joke and then complaining that others have no humor isn't discussing a point. I also wasn't the one that picked the LGBT noninclusion as the most noteworthy for objection. I'd sooner expect discussion of cartoon villains throughout history.
So it wasn't a joke, you actually misunderstand LGBT enough to think it could be extended as a concept to Trump's description of his behavior.
|
Canada11404 Posts
On October 09 2016 08:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 08:50 Falling wrote:On October 09 2016 08:25 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2016 07:45 Danglars wrote:On October 09 2016 07:02 kwizach wrote:Condoleezza Rice: Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.
As a Republican, I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run for the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth. @Danglars: On October 09 2016 06:50 Danglars wrote:
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 don't know what kind of comments you make in locker rooms, but I've never met anyone bragging about assaulting women. Okay, we need some billionaire TeamLiquid posters to come forward about what kind of conversations occur in the locker rooms of the rich and famous. I'm with Grumbels as weird as that sounds. I'm not talking about penetrative sexual assault, because I think everybody generally assumes boasting about "assaulting women" would include that. But I suspect you generalize with purpose to smear by association. 1. Bragging about sexual assault doesn't become okay because it's a billionaire doing it, and even if every billionaire bragged about sexual assault in locker rooms that would still not make it okay. What a nonsensical defense. 2. Feel free to look up definitions of "sexual assault" -- it's not limited to rape by penetration. Nobody is "generaliz[ing] with purpose to smear by association". It's called calling it as it is. He could have a bad case of affluenza; affluence has been known to impair moral judgement in a way that makes rich people less culpable. Sarcasm I hope. You can find deterministic reasons to absolve people of culpability over anything if you were so inclined, affluence is not special in that regard
Your hope is not misplaced.
|
On October 09 2016 09:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 09:27 Madkipz wrote:On October 09 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:
That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense.
Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Ok, so suppose I accept the fact that Trump's utter lack of inhibition is a natural product of his upbringing and his experiences. Suppose I'm okay with his comments on a "moral" level (this is actually close to where I am, as I didn't react to his comment with the visceral outrage that many in this thread did). Am I supposed to believe that an utter lack of emotional inhibition is a quality that's supposed to be acceptable for the highest office in the nation? Especially when he has demonstrated that this lack of emotional inhibition extends not only to his sexual escapades, but to every aspect of how he's conducted his public life? He's shown an inability to handle himself in the face of detractors (literally losing sleep over accusations made against him), an inability to follow standard decorum expected of a world leader, and has emotionally manipulated by his opponents multiple times this election cycle. And this is supposed to be "okay"? Even if you don't find any of these individual actions reprehensible in and of themselves, doesn't this lack of self-control worry you even a little bit insofar as his ability to make rational decisions under pressure if we put him in the White House? What do you want to lead this nation. an AI? GOD? I can tell you right now that there are nobody in the world that's squeaky clean. Especially nobody with money. You think the clintons and their foundation is that much better? They're only using a different brand of fertilizer to keep the stench down. Yes, by now it's common knowledge that the Clinton Foundation absolutely is *that much better* than Trump's.
I'm sure there are a bunch of Haitians that would agree.
|
On October 09 2016 10:08 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 09:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 09 2016 09:27 Madkipz wrote:On October 09 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 09 2016 07:20 biology]major wrote:
That's because you have probably never been around high profile celebrities who have women throwing themselves at them at the flick of a finger. Lets be real, Trump is no saint, and probably has lower ethical standards than the average american, leading him to easily succumb to temptation. His point is similar to what he said about shooting someone in the middle of the street, with his supporters still willing to support him. His attitudes are simply a result of his life experience, which makes complete sense.
Women and men both objectify the shit out of each other in private conversations. That's the result of having a monkey brain with a layer of rationality added on top. Ok, so suppose I accept the fact that Trump's utter lack of inhibition is a natural product of his upbringing and his experiences. Suppose I'm okay with his comments on a "moral" level (this is actually close to where I am, as I didn't react to his comment with the visceral outrage that many in this thread did). Am I supposed to believe that an utter lack of emotional inhibition is a quality that's supposed to be acceptable for the highest office in the nation? Especially when he has demonstrated that this lack of emotional inhibition extends not only to his sexual escapades, but to every aspect of how he's conducted his public life? He's shown an inability to handle himself in the face of detractors (literally losing sleep over accusations made against him), an inability to follow standard decorum expected of a world leader, and has emotionally manipulated by his opponents multiple times this election cycle. And this is supposed to be "okay"? Even if you don't find any of these individual actions reprehensible in and of themselves, doesn't this lack of self-control worry you even a little bit insofar as his ability to make rational decisions under pressure if we put him in the White House? What do you want to lead this nation. an AI? GOD? I can tell you right now that there are nobody in the world that's squeaky clean. Especially nobody with money. You think the clintons and their foundation is that much better? They're only using a different brand of fertilizer to keep the stench down. Yes, by now it's common knowledge that the Clinton Foundation absolutely is *that much better* than Trump's. I'm sure there are a bunch of Haitians that would agree.
The Haitans should meet everyone who went into the Trump universities, and others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
