|
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. |
Man thats just deplorable
Also shout out to trump for putting his rape accusations on the table by retweeting Juanita Broadman claiming she was raped by Bill Clinton, but said she wasn't under oath. Now Hillary can point out hes been accused of raping a 13 year old.
|
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.
there's plenty of people who're clean enough. especially in a place like norway, so I don't get why you're complaining. and the standard of the person you were responding to isn't that high.
|
On October 09 2016 09:27 Madkipz wrote: 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. Most of those people aren't literally losing sleep at night over people who think ill of them, then tweeting at 3AM about it.
I don't expect my president to not be a crook. God forbid enough presidents in history already were and the US is still here anyway. But that's not really the whole issue here. The issue is that Donald Trump has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated a lack of emotional inhibition that would clearly affect his ability to do the high-stress job of being the US president before he's even in office. The fact that the Clintons have "kept the stench down" better than Trump has is the entire point here. Demonstrating composure, even faux composure, in the face of stress and scrutiny is actually a rather important skill for the president to have.
Right-wing conspiracy theorists were raising questions of Clinton's health issues and how they might affect her ability to handle the stress of being the president. At this stage, Trump's emotional immaturity should raise just as many questions as far as fitness for the job goes as Clinton's deteriorating physical health.
We're at the point where both candidates are going to be shit from a policy perspective, and both are crooks. The only real metric left for deciding who's going to be better is "basic competency with the necessary skills to be president", even though that should already have been a given for anyone to win a primary for a major party anyway, and Trump's even failing that somehow.
|
So Yango, what people are good from a policy perspective?
|
I mean Hillary is a policy wonk, in a normal election that would be her strength.
|
On October 09 2016 10:45 zlefin wrote: So Yango, what people are good from a policy perspective?
At this point, I'm not really even sure myself.
|
|
On October 09 2016 10:47 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 10:45 zlefin wrote: So Yango, what people are good from a policy perspective?
At this point, I'm not really even sure myself. how about me? am I good from a policy perspective? what makes someone good/bad from a policy perspective?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 09 2016 10:47 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 10:45 zlefin wrote: So Yango, what people are good from a policy perspective?
At this point, I'm not really even sure myself. Hillary called in enough political favors to crowd out any effective chance of a viable establishment Democratic opponent in the primary well before voting even began. The Republican Party is just so internally terrible that they weren't able to make anything happen and they were stupid enough to push Jeb Bush of all people.
Basically, there was no chance of anyone good having a chance, and I could see by 2012 that 2016 was going to suck.
|
Dumpster fire level: MAXED OUT
|
|
|
wikileaks would be better if it didn't have such an agenda to it. (the non-truth parts of their agenda that is)
re: hillary pub/priv policy I don't know; my first guess would be the stance and wording you take for political advantage and safety vs your actual assessment of policy feasibility and soundness.
|
On October 09 2016 11:42 zlefin wrote: wikileaks would be better if it didn't have such an agenda to it. (the non-truth parts of their agenda that is) They are going to cherry pick and doctor documents until the end of time. That is the power of these sort of leaks, they are not original documents and cannot be corroborated. But people treat them like they are because of wikileaks previous dumps of "un-redacted" information. But no one holds wikileaks accountable.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The most good the hacktivists did was getting DWS out and showing the "plausible deniability" Hillary fans that there were teeth to the Sanders camp allegations of DNC bias. Beyond that they have mostly just stoked the fires of scandal politics.
|
|
Sanders supporters whine about the wall street money he would have needed Clinton to raise if he had gotten the nomination, because he would have 100% needed it to take on the RNC.
|
With all the absolutely insane statements Trump has made purposefully in this election, it's funny that it's some bullshit he said in private in a hot mic without his knowledge that seems to harm him the most. I'm a lot more concerned with the stuff he's said in public than some macho quip he made in a bus full of douchebags.
|
I bet they wish they were pro-choice now... so many conservatives want to abort Trump...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BxeNRmN.jpg)
|
On October 09 2016 12:00 Djzapz wrote: With all the absolutely insane statements Trump has made purposefully in this election, it's funny that it's some bullshit he said in private in a hot mic without his knowledge that seems to harm him the most. I'm a lot more concerned with the stuff he's said in public than some macho quip he made in a bus full of douchebags. I mean he described sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because hes rich and famous. Thats pretty awful. Then again hes also been accused of rape multiple times, including of a 13 year old, so its not like any one should be shocked that hes a rapey piece of shit. I'm still not sure why Trump and surrogates think going after Bill Clinton when Trump is as bad or worse, and Bill isn't running for president is a good move, but its sure not going to end well for them.
|
|
|
|