Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting, the voting in at least many, 15 places,’” Trump told Bongino. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” (i still dont know how to properly quote segments of a post).
Federalizing the elections would not be a bad idea i think. Asuming it is done properly with enough checks and balances. Ran by a truly independent federal body. But i doubt this is what the republicans really want. In the long run it would yield the democrats more then the republicans who generally benefit more from inherent biases within the system. Federalizing the elections would lower the impact of state biases to some extend.
I dont know if the republicans can realistically steal the elections. My first guess would be no but i also doubt how relevant it will be. The republicans prefer to win but they can probably afford a small loss , there will be democrats who will support the administration on most things.
On February 04 2026 19:06 pmh wrote: “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting, the voting in at least many, 15 places,’” Trump told Bongino. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” (i still dont know how to properly quote segments of a post).
Federalizing the elections would not be a bad idea i think. Asuming it is done properly with enough checks and balances. Ran by a truly independent federal body. But i doubt this is what the republicans really want. In the long run it would yield the democrats more then the republicans who generally benefit more from inherent biases within the system. Federalizing the elections would lower the impact of state biases to some extend.
I dont know if the republicans can realistically steal the elections. My first guess would be no but i also doubt how relevant it will be. The republicans prefer to win but they can probably afford a small loss , there will be democrats who will support the administration on most things. The elections are going to be a huge mess and chaos. And after this mess where everything is contested and when noone knows what and how things went down exactly , it will probably be more or less 50/50 and it will be forgotten quickly. Thats another possible angle for the republicans to not lose. Making it into a massive chaos where both sides will settle for a 50/50 ish outcome.
Its the same as with voter ID. The concept itself is fine and can be a positive if implemented correctly. Its just that no one trusts the Republicans to implement it properly or that they even plan to implement it properly.
There is only 1 reason Trump wants to take over voting, to influence the outcome.
I've ragged on Mamdani quite a bit and deservedly so. However, Mamdani has done some good things so far. Here is one of them. @22:20 restoring 10,000 delivery jobs and giving $5M stolen from delivery workers.
Wage theft, the practice of employers failing to pay workers the full wages to which they are legally entitled, is a widespread and deep-rooted problem that directly harms millions of U.S. workers each year
The total underpayment of wages to these workers amounts to over $8 billion annually.
Mamdani also explicitly backs the free market system during this speech. Good move by him.
I delivered Pizzas when I was 17 and 18. Any delivery workers in here? Delivery workers in 2026 in NYC have brutally difficult jobs. I learned a little scam from doing deliveries. + Show Spoiler +
I'd go to my local "Pizza Pizza" Store which had a 30 minutes or free delivery policy. I'd find out whatever drinks they'd run out of. Often it was chocolate milk. So I'd order 6 chocolate milks with my Pizza on the phone with the giant corpo call centre. Inevitably they'd have to call back 15 minutes later explaining how they did not have chocolate milk. Usually i negotiated 6 free soda pops due to their total failure of not having product they told me they had.
On February 03 2026 22:52 WombaT wrote: Shit like this is the reason folks like Mamdani can never succeed.
You’re in situ what a few months and you haven’t fixed huge systemic issues, ergo you suck. It’s ridiculous
The problem is that Mamdani promised the sun, the moon, and the stars during his election campaign. So he set expectations very high. Mamdani has already signalled capitulation by stating 18 homeless people were INVOLUNTARILY removed from the streets and placed in warming centres. His policy stance before being elected was impractical and deadly to homeless people. I am glad to see Mamdani is now adopting the Eric Adams approach to dealing with drugged out zombies. Mamdani is learning quickly.
16 people did die before Mamdani altered his position though. That is 8 times as many as have died during the Minneapolis debacle. Unlike Justin Trudeau... I count the dead bodies. Hey what can I say.. its the Actuary in me.
On February 04 2026 19:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote: 16 people did die before Mamdani altered his position though. That is 8 times as many as have died during the Minneapolis debacle. Unlike Justin Trudeau... I count the dead bodies. Hey what can I say.. its the Actuary in me.
I didn't know actuaries were in the business of comparing federally sponsored extrajudicial murders in the street to a city not having enough resources to prevent unhoused from dying in a winter storm
On February 04 2026 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 02:34 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 01:11 WombaT wrote: [quote] I mean does it? Does it really?
It’s worth also bearing in mind that this was in a less enlightened era as regards understanding and acceptance around the leveraging of power etc in the sexual domain and how that could be coercive and unethical.
So yeah people defended Clinton for getting a blowiob from the young intern, no big deal, here’s a high five but that was almost 30 years ago
You can’t moan about any decline of moral standards in the office and defend Donald Trump, ever. It’s preposterous. Fucking hell
Utter lunacy
I don’t recall defending Trump's character. But you do know that time runs one way right? And there were people back then who knew it was wrong, they just got sidelined. That’s part of my point. If you are going to make that argument then im going to point out that Trump and Clinton are similar ages and thus might be expected to have similar views of these things, so...his defenders sounded just like the most ardent Trumpist on these matters, but 30 years before. And Trump didn't even so that stuff while in office, but before!
On February 04 2026 01:55 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] No, man, it’s not Clinton, it’s you. Obama was morally as good as it gets as a us president, and Biden was just fine by historical standards.
You vote and support a man that is the most garbage human being ever to enter American politics, it just speaks volumes about you. There is no moral decline other than you own.
There's a fascinating omission from your list, but I think we both know why.
I didn't vote him. Try again.
Who says this all happened at once? Part of Bush's appeal was that he seemed a better man than Clinton. The chickens don't all fly back to the roost at once. Nobody here realizes or wants to acknowledge that with a few word tweaks you could transplant so, so many defenses of Clinton onto defenses of Trump.
Clinton was morally compromised and imo, that made him unfit to be a good president. That the point republicans forcefully made by then. And honestly, i think they did have a point. In Scandinavia, he certainly would have been removed from office.
Trump is literally 15 orders of magnitude worse than him, to the point he makes Clinton look like a saint. Anyone supporting a man that is such an absolute cunt is beyond morally bankrupt. That’s not a decline of American moral values. That’s on the republicans and on maga. Those people have no values, and no morals, period. If that’s the standard you set and expect for the leader of the nation, you are a terrible person.
The point is that no one cares anymore. Clinton's approval among Democrats didn't budge. Dems were loath to throw out the first dem to win re-election in decades. Make whatever *relative* judgement you want, the pattern is obvious and the slope was in fact slippery. His critics were more right than they knew, but yes, many of them eneded up adopting the arguments they laughed at.
On February 04 2026 03:32 WombaT wrote: Clinton being a pretty good President otherwise also gives him some leeway
Mirror image of what a MAGA person would say. It is literally the exact same argument.
Al Franken is an example of them Dems dealing severely (likely too severe) with an any impropriety.
Whereas Trump is an all timer and many of his staff or associates are similar. Even his advisors like Stone and Epsteins second best friend Bannon are ultra creeps in his orbit.
It’s like part of what made America great according to MAGA people is the ability for powerful men to abuse the power to sexual assault women and teens.
If you are actually JimmiC then I know we have talked about this before: Roy Moore, Ted Stevens, Al Franken, and Ted Kennedy (JFK too, but sticking with the Senate).
Partisans are only willing to throw people overboard when they are of no use or easily replaced. Hillary was ruthless to Bill's accusers but she was nominated for president beforw they were chucked overboard. That's why presidents get the treatment they do. But to circle back to the point i made to start all this, it is so, so easy to see the parallels and the evolution of the arguments. They are the same. Arguing about degree excluding the rest of the problem. I already know what you all think. I personally find adultery as Trump is guilty of abhorrent. But because accusations of hypocrisy is now the thing most traded with in politics, we get what we havw today. It is apparently impossible to to look at Clinton and see a line from there to here. We'll throw him away! But not because it actually, you know, meant anything.
The Moore vs Franken is a good comparison for my point. Franken was thrown aside for something relatively small. Moore was famous for touting the 10 commandments and raped an underage girl and kept republican party support. It was great the people of the state said WTF no and voted him out. But clearly the party has changed.
Trump is a special case, he does it all openly, and he has all the sins not just one. Open corruption, check (UAE 500 million personal payout, sure you can have chips against American interest), sexual assaults' (you bet), adulatory (hell we don't even know the amounts because of all the NDAs, and that is just the beginning.
On top of that he campaigned on the Epstein list and releasing it all DAY 1! Not only has he been continually trying to hide it, but even the stuff he lets out is still all about him. And not just him but all his advisors, and of course Russia again. He is spectacularly uniquely awful even for American politics.
And he just flat out sucks. He is stupid. And look at who he hires and all the dumb shit they do. Like you really think Hegsmeth is qualified? Patel? Tulsi for director of fucking national intelligence? Your country has lost so much, continues to every day he is office. During our life time we might not even understand the full damage he has done, but there is a reason he ranks at the bottom or damn close on every presidential ranking list, not its not TDS. It is that he a stupid, spoiled brat that is a complete embarrassment in everyway possible.
Hell even the comics that helped elect him are turning on him because they are starting to figure out he's not edgy, he's a dumbass.
edit: I should point out, I don't think you are completely out to lunch on your both sides doing the same thing take. just that the scale is massively different.
There's a lot there that is incidental to my point.
However, I will remind you that just a few months ago dems in VA elected a man who fantasized about having a political opponent's children killed because he said something nice about someone from the other party. The voters rejected Roy Moore when it cost way more than an AG job in Virginia or a Democratic senator who would be replaced by another Democrat.
I have no idea if Trump is a "special case." In many ways I hope so. But you have to at least allow people you disagree with to use the same arguments that were trotted out almost 3 decades ago. How convenient that you happen to have a moral line that falls just where it needs to fall at this present moment! Complaining about the scale of things is just an out, and it won't get you anywhere with people who don't already agree with you. To someone who doesn't think, or doesn't know, if Trump is a pedophile, how are you going to make your case? You can't.
On February 04 2026 09:54 Acrofales wrote:
On February 04 2026 04:12 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 02:34 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 01:11 WombaT wrote:
On February 04 2026 00:53 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 00:23 Biff The Understudy wrote: Remember when we were talking about empeaching a President for having had a blowjob performed on him by a consenting adult (and lying about it). You know because we couldn’t have an adulterer ready to lie to the face of the nation in the White House and all of that.
Those were the days.
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, but your characterization is exactly the one given in his defense. For the more self-reflective it's Clinton and the shameless defenses of him and his behavior that have led to a steep decline in moral expectations for presidents. Not that thete haven't been awful people in office, but so much of the way Clinton was defended reappears now with Trump. People made excuses for him all day long, pointed to the things they liked that he did, and closed ranks without giving a single inch. Clinton was a moderate dem policy wise and could be forced to work with Congress, but he was disastrous in other respects.
I mean does it? Does it really?
It’s worth also bearing in mind that this was in a less enlightened era as regards understanding and acceptance around the leveraging of power etc in the sexual domain and how that could be coercive and unethical.
So yeah people defended Clinton for getting a blowiob from the young intern, no big deal, here’s a high five but that was almost 30 years ago
You can’t moan about any decline of moral standards in the office and defend Donald Trump, ever. It’s preposterous. Fucking hell
Utter lunacy
I don’t recall defending Trump's character. But you do know that time runs one way right? And there were people back then who knew it was wrong, they just got sidelined. That’s part of my point. If you are going to make that argument then im going to point out that Trump and Clinton are similar ages and thus might be expected to have similar views of these things, so...his defenders sounded just like the most ardent Trumpist on these matters, but 30 years before. And Trump didn't even so that stuff while in office, but before!
On February 04 2026 01:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 00:53 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 00:23 Biff The Understudy wrote: Remember when we were talking about empeaching a President for having had a blowjob performed on him by a consenting adult (and lying about it). You know because we couldn’t have an adulterer ready to lie to the face of the nation in the White House and all of that.
Those were the days.
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, but your characterization is exactly the one given in his defense. For the more self-reflective it's Clinton and the shameless defenses of him and his behavior that have led to a steep decline in moral expectations for presidents. Not that thete haven't been awful people in office, but so much of the way Clinton was defended reappears now with Trump. People made excuses for him all day long, pointed to the things they liked that he did, and closed ranks without giving a single inch. Clinton was a moderate dem policy wise and could be forced to work with Congress, but he was disastrous in other respects.
No, man, it’s not Clinton, it’s you. Obama was morally as good as it gets as a us president, and Biden was just fine by historical standards.
You vote and support a man that is the most garbage human being ever to enter American politics, it just speaks volumes about you. There is no moral decline other than you own.
There's a fascinating omission from your list, but I think we both know why.
I didn't vote him. Try again.
Who says this all happened at once? Part of Bush's appeal was that he seemed a better man than Clinton. The chickens don't all fly back to the roost at once. Nobody here realizes or wants to acknowledge that with a few word tweaks you could transplant so, so many defenses of Clinton onto defenses of Trump.
Clinton was morally compromised and imo, that made him unfit to be a good president. That the point republicans forcefully made by then. And honestly, i think they did have a point. In Scandinavia, he certainly would have been removed from office.
Trump is literally 15 orders of magnitude worse than him, to the point he makes Clinton look like a saint. Anyone supporting a man that is such an absolute cunt is beyond morally bankrupt. That’s not a decline of American moral values. That’s on the republicans and on maga. Those people have no values, and no morals, period. If that’s the standard you set and expect for the leader of the nation, you are a terrible person.
The point is that no one cares anymore. Clinton's approval among Democrats didn't budge. Dems were loath to throw out the first dem to win re-election in decades. Make whatever *relative* judgement you want, the pattern is obvious and the slope was in fact slippery. His critics were more right than they knew, but yes, many of them eneded up adopting the arguments they laughed at.
On February 04 2026 03:32 WombaT wrote: Clinton being a pretty good President otherwise also gives him some leeway
Mirror image of what a MAGA person would say. It is literally the exact same argument.
Can't say much for opinion in the US, but from where I was at the time, the investigation just seemed like a witch hunt. Who Clinton had sex with is a personal matter, and whether or not he cheated on his wife is a private issue. Go ahead and avoid voting for someone who you think is morally depraved, but it is not something that should be investigated by Congress, and Ken Starr acted as a political hitman when broadening the scope of the Whitewater investigation to include adultery.
But then he lied about it under oath and the opinion flipped and it went from a private matter to a public one: lying under oath is a pretty serious issue. And skating by on a technicality may have been enough for Congress Democrats, but it wasn't enough for the court of the public opinion: according to polls and studies at the time, Gore needed to distance himself from Clinton due to the latter's personal negatives, and Bush seemingly gained support for his "moral character".
Fast forward 30 years, and the same party that was outraged about the moral depravity is defending something far more depraved. And Ken Starr, so righteous about Clinton's adultery served as a defense attorney for Epstein (lol) and then walked back most of his report from the 1990s when defending Trump in his impeachment trial. It's fucking hilarious how justice for thee but not for me this whole thing is. And you have the gall to blame Clinton for the fact that the GOP decided to embrace Trump. It's farcical. If the party of moral depravity (Democrats) had gone full Trump you might have a point, but it's not. It's the people who persecuted Clinton for his moral depravity that are the most depraved.
The special counsel law that was allowed to expire makes a great case for giving most federal laws an expiration date. They had been used for which hunts on presidents of both parties, and when the time came to renew it, Congress declined. So rather than have everything be instantly tribal, where one party supports it for four years and then switches positions later, it must be affirmatively supported.
I have not blamed Trump on Clinton. I don't think voter's chose him because because of his moral failure but in spite of them. But the allowance for wayward personal behavior was greatly expanded by Clinton. It can both be true (for the sake of argument) that Trump is an enhancement of of this problem and that Clinton helped pave the way. Again, it's too much of a coincidence that the EXACT same arguments are being made except with a few noun changes. And people over 40 take criticism of his personal behavior less seriously than they otherwise might for this reason.
---
More broadly it is funny but unsurprising that the logic of "norms" and the thought that Trump is leading us down the authoritarian path is so nicely ignored the moment we have to look back at someone not named Donald Trump. How can you complain about "norms" when you don't know what they are?
It's odd that you think a Canadian was super political in the American system 30 years ago. But even odder that you think for sure I was an apologist.
What I do think is that Monica got absolutely trashed for no reason.
I also think you severely down play how much Trump is hurting your country, party, and even American evangelical Christianity. It is hard to see it as anything buy ultra hypocritical and unchristian as it treats someone with zero Christian values as some sort of savior.
You have turned allies into enemies in such a short time it is amazing. All your allies are making deals with your enemies and Trump can't figure out why. My over arching point is that you are so wrapped up in getting the dems, what about the dems, but the dems, that you do not see that you "winning" is actually you and your country losing amazingly hard.
There were people 30 years ago who cared then and cared now. I don't know about you then, but I am reading what you are saying now.
For the millionth time in the last year: the tariffs are stupid, talk of invading Greenland was dumb (and counter-productive), saying Canada should be a state was very insensitive to our very sensitive northern neighbors (also, I don't want any part of Canada as a state, thanks). Trump and Vance's comments about Europe are often true and needed, but as usual with Trump the policy with which pursues his agenda makes working with the already difficult Europeans even more difficult. I wouldn't say he's losing, but...
That's not at all logically connected. I contend the inverse, you guys are so focused on Trump that you are incapable of seeing how Clinton was a significant step down this road. Abd it's too bad he was, because he was someone who could work with Congress and actually pass legislation, much of it good.
I don’t agree with the slippery slope argument. Bush received votes for “moral character “. Gore had to distance himself. Obama, Biden and Harris all had no sniff of sexual or other impropriety. Trump was unique until he remade the party in his image. Christian values used to mean something to many Republican voters (at least on the surface), the Dems were supposedly the party with the looser morals. Whether it was a shame or an about face it sure reeks of hypocrisy.
You are really under estimating or under selling what Trump has done internationally. I’m not sure if that’s because you’re unaware or what. It is not his words, those are stupid and Canadians, especially the competent ones don’t really care about them. It’s the actions and policy. It’s that no matter how dumb something he says is, he might do it and his army of yes men will tell him it’s brilliant and then claim 7d chess if he backs down.
Canada is the first country to step up in any of your wars. Both in physical support but also at the UN. We arrested Chinese nationals you asked us too, even though it directly hurt us. Both in trade and getting our citizens arrested. We renegotiated the free trade, even more in US favour his first presidency. But it didn’t matter, he wants more and more. We sell our crude at a huge discount to the US. Now there is a huge push for other markets. Restarting pipeline east and west talks. Even a proposal for a new northern port.
Most companies paid a premium to buy US over other alternatives. The thought was you had stability and safety. But then came the threats and real tariffs out of no where based on a late night tweet because your thin skinned bitch of a president heard a joke he didn’t like or some Fox News host said it would be a good idea. Now my company who once bought 90% US is down to less than 10%. We even invested in metric tooling. It wasn’t the first time, it was like the 10th time that our super policies lot rightwing ownership had to deal with huge swings in currency, pricing that would only be good that day for projects that are months out and tons of other bullshit. Meaning we are not coming back. We now have way more options to buy, it’s cheaper and all our customers get and are doing the same. We are not unique, this is massively common.
The tourism drop is massive, and it’s not just the constant insults. It’s the ever changing border rules. It’s having some border guard ask for you phone. It’s people being held in detention. All the snowbirds selling their place are buying further south. They are not coming back. And as the word gets out about cheaper alternatives with a big Canadian community the new retirees are likely not coming either.
Our military used to just buy American we didn’t even shop around. Now it looks like Sweden is going to get billions in sales and from now on we will be looking at alternatives. And Sweden is going to have us build lots here so massive jobs within Canada. Just one of the huge ways we hurt ourselves to support who we thought was our best most reliable ally.
We lost auto jobs. Well now we are going to allow Chinese EVs, and as a side bonus we can sell our grain there again that we lost the ability to supporting the US.
And there is way more, this is off the top of my head.
There is a similar story happening is most countries that considered the US a reliable ally.
And that you don’t want Canada, who cares? Trump certainly doesn’t. He only cares about his fragile ego and personal gain. He gives zero fucks about America or its people. He doesn’t even hide it and he doesn’t have to because all you sheeple just vote for him no matter how much he fucks you, open corruption doesn’t even matter.
He is not only the most embarrassing world leader, he’s also the worst.
He is not only the most embarrassing world leader, he’s also the worst.
His foreign policy is an abject failure- it doesn't even make sense from a 'America First' mentality.
To focus specifically on his hot takes on the Ukraine war. I don't know if I've heard a foreign leader that has sound more like a moron when talking about who started it and who is the aggressor. His latest 'win' was a very unclear pause on missiles which turned out to be only Kyiv and then after stockpiling missiles for three days, Russia launched one of their largest attacks at Kyiv. Trump's take: well, we'll take whatever we can get.
???
Like, what difference does it make if Russia launches 50 drones and missiles a day for five days or pauses for four days and then launches 250 drones and missiles on the fifth day except that the waves of missiles have been used throughout the war to try and overwhelm anti-missile defences? But to Trump, it shows Russia's is willing to cooperate.
???
I think Wiktoff has finally been benched, but Wiktoff should never have been involved in the first place, so that's not in the plus column.
I know JimmyJ is in it for the lolz and is high on Donny's domestic policies, but any time he opens his mouth about international affairs, either Trump's a moron or he's playing one and is the biggest stan for Russia First.
Has he ever talked about a foreign matter with any intelligence? How are the 90 deals in 90 days going? As far as I know, they still haven't filled out all the positions to even negotiate a normal number of trade deals and Mr Art-of-the-Deal is overloading the department by fighting trade wars all over the world. There simply isn't enough bandwidth in his administration. Meanwhile, everyone he has been jerking around are negotiating trade deals at an unprecedented rate and cutting the US out.
We'll see how well autarky works and just how many banana farms and potash mines will start up in the US with their shiny new protective tariff barrier. MAGA is Tax and Deficit Spend.
Even at the policy level- at Biden's worst he could at least still explain his own executive orders. Trump the Wise has his aides explain everything to him and then he says, 'sounds good' and signs it. If ever there was a Deep State, that's the closest you can get to a figurehead for a leader with the bureaucrats underneath pushing whatever agenda they can convince He-of-the-Blasphemous-Golden-Goat to do.
He is not only the most embarrassing world leader, he’s also the worst.
His foreign policy is an abject failure- it doesn't even make sense from a 'America First' mentality.
To focus specifically on his hot takes on the Ukraine war. I don't know if I've heard a foreign leader that has sound more like a moron when talking about who started it and who is the aggressor. His latest 'win' was a very unclear pause on missiles which turned out to be only Kyiv and then after stockpiling missiles for three days, Russia launched one of their largest attacks at Kyiv. Trump's take: well, we'll take whatever we can get.
???
Like, what difference does it make if Russia launches 50 drones and missiles a day for five days or pauses for four days and then launches 250 drones and missiles on the fifth day except that the waves of missiles have been used throughout the war to try and overwhelm anti-missile defences? But to Trump, it shows Russia's is willing to cooperate.
???
I think Wiktoff has finally been benched, but Wiktoff should never have been involved in the first place, so that's not in the plus column.
I know JimmyJ is in it for the lolz and is high on Donny's domestic policies, but any time he opens his mouth about international affairs, either Trump's a moron or he's playing one and is the biggest stan for Russia First. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks072waMayk
Has he ever talked about a foreign matter with any intelligence? How are the 90 deals in 90 days going? As far as I know, they still haven't filled out all the positions to even negotiate a normal number of trade deals and Mr Art-of-the-Deal is overloading the department by fighting trade wars all over the world. There simply isn't enough bandwidth in his administration. Meanwhile, everyone he has been jerking around are negotiating trade deals at an unprecedented rate and cutting the US out.
We'll see how well autarky works and just how many banana farms and potash mines will start up in the US with their shiny new protective tariff barrier. MAGA is Tax and Deficit Spend.
Even at the policy level- at Biden's worst he could at least still explain his own executive orders. Trump the Wise has his aides explain everything to him and then he says, 'sounds good' and signs it. If ever there was a Deep State, that's the closest you can get to a figurehead for a leader with the bureaucrats underneath pushing whatever agenda they can convince He-of-the-Blasphemous-Golden-Goat to do.
Given how he can't even pronounce countries, or know who their leaders are, it is clear he knows nothing of who is negotiating with.
I also love how on every trade mission Kushner shows up, unaffiliated with the government, as Trumps son in law just to make sure that Trump personally is making out well in any deal, because America First of course...
On February 04 2026 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 02:34 Introvert wrote: [quote]
I don’t recall defending Trump's character. But you do know that time runs one way right? And there were people back then who knew it was wrong, they just got sidelined. That’s part of my point. If you are going to make that argument then im going to point out that Trump and Clinton are similar ages and thus might be expected to have similar views of these things, so...his defenders sounded just like the most ardent Trumpist on these matters, but 30 years before. And Trump didn't even so that stuff while in office, but before!
[quote]
There's a fascinating omission from your list, but I think we both know why.
I didn't vote him. Try again.
Who says this all happened at once? Part of Bush's appeal was that he seemed a better man than Clinton. The chickens don't all fly back to the roost at once. Nobody here realizes or wants to acknowledge that with a few word tweaks you could transplant so, so many defenses of Clinton onto defenses of Trump.
Clinton was morally compromised and imo, that made him unfit to be a good president. That the point republicans forcefully made by then. And honestly, i think they did have a point. In Scandinavia, he certainly would have been removed from office.
Trump is literally 15 orders of magnitude worse than him, to the point he makes Clinton look like a saint. Anyone supporting a man that is such an absolute cunt is beyond morally bankrupt. That’s not a decline of American moral values. That’s on the republicans and on maga. Those people have no values, and no morals, period. If that’s the standard you set and expect for the leader of the nation, you are a terrible person.
The point is that no one cares anymore. Clinton's approval among Democrats didn't budge. Dems were loath to throw out the first dem to win re-election in decades. Make whatever *relative* judgement you want, the pattern is obvious and the slope was in fact slippery. His critics were more right than they knew, but yes, many of them eneded up adopting the arguments they laughed at.
On February 04 2026 03:32 WombaT wrote: Clinton being a pretty good President otherwise also gives him some leeway
Mirror image of what a MAGA person would say. It is literally the exact same argument.
Al Franken is an example of them Dems dealing severely (likely too severe) with an any impropriety.
Whereas Trump is an all timer and many of his staff or associates are similar. Even his advisors like Stone and Epsteins second best friend Bannon are ultra creeps in his orbit.
It’s like part of what made America great according to MAGA people is the ability for powerful men to abuse the power to sexual assault women and teens.
If you are actually JimmiC then I know we have talked about this before: Roy Moore, Ted Stevens, Al Franken, and Ted Kennedy (JFK too, but sticking with the Senate).
Partisans are only willing to throw people overboard when they are of no use or easily replaced. Hillary was ruthless to Bill's accusers but she was nominated for president beforw they were chucked overboard. That's why presidents get the treatment they do. But to circle back to the point i made to start all this, it is so, so easy to see the parallels and the evolution of the arguments. They are the same. Arguing about degree excluding the rest of the problem. I already know what you all think. I personally find adultery as Trump is guilty of abhorrent. But because accusations of hypocrisy is now the thing most traded with in politics, we get what we havw today. It is apparently impossible to to look at Clinton and see a line from there to here. We'll throw him away! But not because it actually, you know, meant anything.
The Moore vs Franken is a good comparison for my point. Franken was thrown aside for something relatively small. Moore was famous for touting the 10 commandments and raped an underage girl and kept republican party support. It was great the people of the state said WTF no and voted him out. But clearly the party has changed.
Trump is a special case, he does it all openly, and he has all the sins not just one. Open corruption, check (UAE 500 million personal payout, sure you can have chips against American interest), sexual assaults' (you bet), adulatory (hell we don't even know the amounts because of all the NDAs, and that is just the beginning.
On top of that he campaigned on the Epstein list and releasing it all DAY 1! Not only has he been continually trying to hide it, but even the stuff he lets out is still all about him. And not just him but all his advisors, and of course Russia again. He is spectacularly uniquely awful even for American politics.
And he just flat out sucks. He is stupid. And look at who he hires and all the dumb shit they do. Like you really think Hegsmeth is qualified? Patel? Tulsi for director of fucking national intelligence? Your country has lost so much, continues to every day he is office. During our life time we might not even understand the full damage he has done, but there is a reason he ranks at the bottom or damn close on every presidential ranking list, not its not TDS. It is that he a stupid, spoiled brat that is a complete embarrassment in everyway possible.
Hell even the comics that helped elect him are turning on him because they are starting to figure out he's not edgy, he's a dumbass.
edit: I should point out, I don't think you are completely out to lunch on your both sides doing the same thing take. just that the scale is massively different.
There's a lot there that is incidental to my point.
However, I will remind you that just a few months ago dems in VA elected a man who fantasized about having a political opponent's children killed because he said something nice about someone from the other party. The voters rejected Roy Moore when it cost way more than an AG job in Virginia or a Democratic senator who would be replaced by another Democrat.
I have no idea if Trump is a "special case." In many ways I hope so. But you have to at least allow people you disagree with to use the same arguments that were trotted out almost 3 decades ago. How convenient that you happen to have a moral line that falls just where it needs to fall at this present moment! Complaining about the scale of things is just an out, and it won't get you anywhere with people who don't already agree with you. To someone who doesn't think, or doesn't know, if Trump is a pedophile, how are you going to make your case? You can't.
On February 04 2026 09:54 Acrofales wrote:
On February 04 2026 04:12 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 02:34 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 01:11 WombaT wrote:
On February 04 2026 00:53 Introvert wrote: [quote]
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, but your characterization is exactly the one given in his defense. For the more self-reflective it's Clinton and the shameless defenses of him and his behavior that have led to a steep decline in moral expectations for presidents. Not that thete haven't been awful people in office, but so much of the way Clinton was defended reappears now with Trump. People made excuses for him all day long, pointed to the things they liked that he did, and closed ranks without giving a single inch. Clinton was a moderate dem policy wise and could be forced to work with Congress, but he was disastrous in other respects.
I mean does it? Does it really?
It’s worth also bearing in mind that this was in a less enlightened era as regards understanding and acceptance around the leveraging of power etc in the sexual domain and how that could be coercive and unethical.
So yeah people defended Clinton for getting a blowiob from the young intern, no big deal, here’s a high five but that was almost 30 years ago
You can’t moan about any decline of moral standards in the office and defend Donald Trump, ever. It’s preposterous. Fucking hell
Utter lunacy
I don’t recall defending Trump's character. But you do know that time runs one way right? And there were people back then who knew it was wrong, they just got sidelined. That’s part of my point. If you are going to make that argument then im going to point out that Trump and Clinton are similar ages and thus might be expected to have similar views of these things, so...his defenders sounded just like the most ardent Trumpist on these matters, but 30 years before. And Trump didn't even so that stuff while in office, but before!
On February 04 2026 01:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 00:53 Introvert wrote: [quote]
Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, but your characterization is exactly the one given in his defense. For the more self-reflective it's Clinton and the shameless defenses of him and his behavior that have led to a steep decline in moral expectations for presidents. Not that thete haven't been awful people in office, but so much of the way Clinton was defended reappears now with Trump. People made excuses for him all day long, pointed to the things they liked that he did, and closed ranks without giving a single inch. Clinton was a moderate dem policy wise and could be forced to work with Congress, but he was disastrous in other respects.
No, man, it’s not Clinton, it’s you. Obama was morally as good as it gets as a us president, and Biden was just fine by historical standards.
You vote and support a man that is the most garbage human being ever to enter American politics, it just speaks volumes about you. There is no moral decline other than you own.
There's a fascinating omission from your list, but I think we both know why.
I didn't vote him. Try again.
Who says this all happened at once? Part of Bush's appeal was that he seemed a better man than Clinton. The chickens don't all fly back to the roost at once. Nobody here realizes or wants to acknowledge that with a few word tweaks you could transplant so, so many defenses of Clinton onto defenses of Trump.
Clinton was morally compromised and imo, that made him unfit to be a good president. That the point republicans forcefully made by then. And honestly, i think they did have a point. In Scandinavia, he certainly would have been removed from office.
Trump is literally 15 orders of magnitude worse than him, to the point he makes Clinton look like a saint. Anyone supporting a man that is such an absolute cunt is beyond morally bankrupt. That’s not a decline of American moral values. That’s on the republicans and on maga. Those people have no values, and no morals, period. If that’s the standard you set and expect for the leader of the nation, you are a terrible person.
The point is that no one cares anymore. Clinton's approval among Democrats didn't budge. Dems were loath to throw out the first dem to win re-election in decades. Make whatever *relative* judgement you want, the pattern is obvious and the slope was in fact slippery. His critics were more right than they knew, but yes, many of them eneded up adopting the arguments they laughed at.
On February 04 2026 03:32 WombaT wrote: Clinton being a pretty good President otherwise also gives him some leeway
Mirror image of what a MAGA person would say. It is literally the exact same argument.
Can't say much for opinion in the US, but from where I was at the time, the investigation just seemed like a witch hunt. Who Clinton had sex with is a personal matter, and whether or not he cheated on his wife is a private issue. Go ahead and avoid voting for someone who you think is morally depraved, but it is not something that should be investigated by Congress, and Ken Starr acted as a political hitman when broadening the scope of the Whitewater investigation to include adultery.
But then he lied about it under oath and the opinion flipped and it went from a private matter to a public one: lying under oath is a pretty serious issue. And skating by on a technicality may have been enough for Congress Democrats, but it wasn't enough for the court of the public opinion: according to polls and studies at the time, Gore needed to distance himself from Clinton due to the latter's personal negatives, and Bush seemingly gained support for his "moral character".
Fast forward 30 years, and the same party that was outraged about the moral depravity is defending something far more depraved. And Ken Starr, so righteous about Clinton's adultery served as a defense attorney for Epstein (lol) and then walked back most of his report from the 1990s when defending Trump in his impeachment trial. It's fucking hilarious how justice for thee but not for me this whole thing is. And you have the gall to blame Clinton for the fact that the GOP decided to embrace Trump. It's farcical. If the party of moral depravity (Democrats) had gone full Trump you might have a point, but it's not. It's the people who persecuted Clinton for his moral depravity that are the most depraved.
The special counsel law that was allowed to expire makes a great case for giving most federal laws an expiration date. They had been used for which hunts on presidents of both parties, and when the time came to renew it, Congress declined. So rather than have everything be instantly tribal, where one party supports it for four years and then switches positions later, it must be affirmatively supported.
I have not blamed Trump on Clinton. I don't think voter's chose him because because of his moral failure but in spite of them. But the allowance for wayward personal behavior was greatly expanded by Clinton. It can both be true (for the sake of argument) that Trump is an enhancement of of this problem and that Clinton helped pave the way. Again, it's too much of a coincidence that the EXACT same arguments are being made except with a few noun changes. And people over 40 take criticism of his personal behavior less seriously than they otherwise might for this reason.
---
More broadly it is funny but unsurprising that the logic of "norms" and the thought that Trump is leading us down the authoritarian path is so nicely ignored the moment we have to look back at someone not named Donald Trump. How can you complain about "norms" when you don't know what they are?
It's odd that you think a Canadian was super political in the American system 30 years ago. But even odder that you think for sure I was an apologist.
What I do think is that Monica got absolutely trashed for no reason.
I also think you severely down play how much Trump is hurting your country, party, and even American evangelical Christianity. It is hard to see it as anything buy ultra hypocritical and unchristian as it treats someone with zero Christian values as some sort of savior.
You have turned allies into enemies in such a short time it is amazing. All your allies are making deals with your enemies and Trump can't figure out why. My over arching point is that you are so wrapped up in getting the dems, what about the dems, but the dems, that you do not see that you "winning" is actually you and your country losing amazingly hard.
There were people 30 years ago who cared then and cared now. I don't know about you then, but I am reading what you are saying now.
For the millionth time in the last year: the tariffs are stupid, talk of invading Greenland was dumb (and counter-productive), saying Canada should be a state was very insensitive to our very sensitive northern neighbors (also, I don't want any part of Canada as a state, thanks). Trump and Vance's comments about Europe are often true and needed, but as usual with Trump the policy with which pursues his agenda makes working with the already difficult Europeans even more difficult. I wouldn't say he's losing, but...
That's not at all logically connected. I contend the inverse, you guys are so focused on Trump that you are incapable of seeing how Clinton was a significant step down this road. Abd it's too bad he was, because he was someone who could work with Congress and actually pass legislation, much of it good.
Most companies paid a premium to buy US over other alternatives. The thought was you had stability and safety. But then came the threats and real tariffs out of no where based on a late night tweet because your thin skinned bitch of a president heard a joke he didn’t like or some Fox News host said it would be a good idea. Now my company who once bought 90% US is down to less than 10%. We even invested in metric tooling. It wasn’t the first time, it was like the 10th time that our super policies lot rightwing ownership had to deal with huge swings in currency, pricing that would only be good that day for projects that are months out and tons of other bullshit. Meaning we are not coming back. We now have way more options to buy, it’s cheaper and all our customers get and are doing the same. We are not unique, this is massively common.
Our military used to just buy American we didn’t even shop around. Now it looks like Sweden is going to get billions in sales and from now on we will be looking at alternatives. And Sweden is going to have us build lots here so massive jobs within Canada. Just one of the huge ways we hurt ourselves to support who we thought was our best most reliable ally.
Gotta be honest here, it’s something they will never get and will never believe. They’re lost in the sauce, the comment regarding the very sensitive Canadians responding to the very insensitive remarks really tells you how narrow their worldview is and their complete lack of empathy.
To most of the world, US has been an openly hostile nation. You can say that the Trump Administration is just saying words but the same administration and their associates are openly donating and assisting corrosive political actors in other nations who could not string together a coherent policy at gunpoint. And that’s the bare minimum of their hostility.
On February 05 2026 14:47 ChristianS wrote: Man, it’s wild to start the story of American presidents’ moral degradation at Clinton getting a blowjob, and not, y’know, Nixon.
Since the entire goal of that accusation was a massive DARVO it would make absolutely no sense to pin all the blame on another Republican.
On February 05 2026 11:14 Billyboy wrote: I don’t agree with the slippery slope argument. Bush received votes for “moral character “. Gore had to distance himself. Obama, Biden and Harris all had no sniff of sexual or other impropriety. Trump was unique until he remade the party in his image. Christian values used to mean something to many Republican voters (at least on the surface), the Dems were supposedly the party with the looser morals. Whether it was a shame or an about face it sure reeks of hypocrisy.
You are really under estimating or under selling what Trump has done internationally. I’m not sure if that’s because you’re unaware or what. It is not his words, those are stupid and Canadians, especially the competent ones don’t really care about them. It’s the actions and policy. It’s that no matter how dumb something he says is, he might do it and his army of yes men will tell him it’s brilliant and then claim 7d chess if he backs down.
The God of the Old Testament is regularly and repeatedly cruel and capricious. "Christian values" has never meant can't elect anyone to government who isn't Jesus, even to Christians. If you call someone a serial rapist and then people go nah I don't see it, you can't go ah but you still can't ignore the extramarital hijinks that's just as bad. It's like, wait a second. The more you ask people to believe stuff, the more they actually just begin to question "What difference does that make?" before judging whether they should believe it or not. This has led me to understand family life is not a public affair especially if the actual family isn't making it public. It just doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
On February 05 2026 11:14 Billyboy wrote: Canada is the first country to step up in any of your wars. Both in physical support but also at the UN. We arrested Chinese nationals you asked us too, even though it directly hurt us. Both in trade and getting our citizens arrested. We renegotiated the free trade, even more in US favour his first presidency. But it didn’t matter, he wants more and more. We sell our crude at a huge discount to the US. Now there is a huge push for other markets. Restarting pipeline east and west talks. Even a proposal for a new northern port.
Canada sells oil at a "discount" to the US because of the convenience of selling it right over a pipeline and Warren Buffett's trucks to their neighbor. And because Canada sells a lot of heavy crude. Not because it's mandated in an agreement or because Trump will nuke you if you don't drop the price or some other deal. It's supply and demand. It's not disadvantaging Canada. I can sell a potato to my neighbor cheaper than I can sell it to Europe also but if I wanted I could spend money to develop the infrastructure to sell less of it for more.
On February 05 2026 11:14 Billyboy wrote: Most companies paid a premium to buy US over other alternatives. The thought was you had stability and safety. But then came the threats and real tariffs out of no where based on a late night tweet because your thin skinned bitch of a president heard a joke he didn’t like or some Fox News host said it would be a good idea. Now my company who once bought 90% US is down to less than 10%. We even invested in metric tooling. It wasn’t the first time, it was like the 10th time that our super policies lot rightwing ownership had to deal with huge swings in currency, pricing that would only be good that day for projects that are months out and tons of other bullshit. Meaning we are not coming back. We now have way more options to buy, it’s cheaper and all our customers get and are doing the same. We are not unique, this is massively common.
The tourism drop is massive, and it’s not just the constant insults. It’s the ever changing border rules. It’s having some border guard ask for you phone. It’s people being held in detention. All the snowbirds selling their place are buying further south. They are not coming back. And as the word gets out about cheaper alternatives with a big Canadian community the new retirees are likely not coming either.
Our military used to just buy American we didn’t even shop around. Now it looks like Sweden is going to get billions in sales and from now on we will be looking at alternatives. And Sweden is going to have us build lots here so massive jobs within Canada. Just one of the huge ways we hurt ourselves to support who we thought was our best most reliable ally.
We lost auto jobs. Well now we are going to allow Chinese EVs, and as a side bonus we can sell our grain there again that we lost the ability to supporting the US.
And there is way more, this is off the top of my head.
There is a similar story happening is most countries that considered the US a reliable ally.
And that you don’t want Canada, who cares? Trump certainly doesn’t. He only cares about his fragile ego and personal gain. He gives zero fucks about America or its people. He doesn’t even hide it and he doesn’t have to because all you sheeple just vote for him no matter how much he fucks you, open corruption doesn’t even matter.
He is not only the most embarrassing world leader, he’s also the worst.
There are more important things in the world than tourism and your estimation of US interests might be far from accurate.
Basically, I figured something out. You're still just campaigning. The world isn't just campaigning.
Your post on the last page was the same,. So many people who can't vote in the US to begin with are campaigning forever like it's 2016 or 2020 or 2024. No amount of campaigning now will unelect Trump. Nor is there is any future election for people to vote for him in again. Your campaigning either falls on deaf ears, or preaches to the choir, who may also be deaf.
When I think a little bit further, I realize there might be an instinctual reason at work based on difference of political systems, because people who can't vote in the US usually live under parliamentary systems. And sure in that kind of system, if the ruling coalition collapses, or something else happens, you can call an election and get new MPs and a new prime minister. Or you can have someone maintain their leadership for 10-20 years. The US doesn't have that. If the year is divisible by 4, there's an election in November. That's it. That's the system. Whether we've been invaded, are at war, in civil war, rain, sleet, or snow, there's an election, and the winner gets 4 years. We don't undo or redo elections, under a very specific and long-standing norm that has existed since the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. That even if you don't like someone, they get their term. Being stuck in a loop of permanent campaigning where every post you make is a campaign ad summary of every talking point of what you hate, this is antithetical to the US presidential system as well as just being futile. Like what you said physically doesn't make sense. "All you sheeple just vote for him." He was voted for in the past. There's no voting in the future. There's no state of continuous voting for or against. The voting happened already and has finished. The other fruit of the Clinton impeachment was the website and organization Moveon.org which it would be apt to now revive the spirit of.
On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote: It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here?
On February 04 2026 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Clinton was morally compromised and imo, that made him unfit to be a good president. That the point republicans forcefully made by then. And honestly, i think they did have a point. In Scandinavia, he certainly would have been removed from office.
Trump is literally 15 orders of magnitude worse than him, to the point he makes Clinton look like a saint. Anyone supporting a man that is such an absolute cunt is beyond morally bankrupt. That’s not a decline of American moral values. That’s on the republicans and on maga. Those people have no values, and no morals, period. If that’s the standard you set and expect for the leader of the nation, you are a terrible person.
The point is that no one cares anymore. Clinton's approval among Democrats didn't budge. Dems were loath to throw out the first dem to win re-election in decades. Make whatever *relative* judgement you want, the pattern is obvious and the slope was in fact slippery. His critics were more right than they knew, but yes, many of them eneded up adopting the arguments they laughed at.
On February 04 2026 03:32 WombaT wrote: Clinton being a pretty good President otherwise also gives him some leeway
Mirror image of what a MAGA person would say. It is literally the exact same argument.
Al Franken is an example of them Dems dealing severely (likely too severe) with an any impropriety.
Whereas Trump is an all timer and many of his staff or associates are similar. Even his advisors like Stone and Epsteins second best friend Bannon are ultra creeps in his orbit.
It’s like part of what made America great according to MAGA people is the ability for powerful men to abuse the power to sexual assault women and teens.
If you are actually JimmiC then I know we have talked about this before: Roy Moore, Ted Stevens, Al Franken, and Ted Kennedy (JFK too, but sticking with the Senate).
Partisans are only willing to throw people overboard when they are of no use or easily replaced. Hillary was ruthless to Bill's accusers but she was nominated for president beforw they were chucked overboard. That's why presidents get the treatment they do. But to circle back to the point i made to start all this, it is so, so easy to see the parallels and the evolution of the arguments. They are the same. Arguing about degree excluding the rest of the problem. I already know what you all think. I personally find adultery as Trump is guilty of abhorrent. But because accusations of hypocrisy is now the thing most traded with in politics, we get what we havw today. It is apparently impossible to to look at Clinton and see a line from there to here. We'll throw him away! But not because it actually, you know, meant anything.
The Moore vs Franken is a good comparison for my point. Franken was thrown aside for something relatively small. Moore was famous for touting the 10 commandments and raped an underage girl and kept republican party support. It was great the people of the state said WTF no and voted him out. But clearly the party has changed.
Trump is a special case, he does it all openly, and he has all the sins not just one. Open corruption, check (UAE 500 million personal payout, sure you can have chips against American interest), sexual assaults' (you bet), adulatory (hell we don't even know the amounts because of all the NDAs, and that is just the beginning.
On top of that he campaigned on the Epstein list and releasing it all DAY 1! Not only has he been continually trying to hide it, but even the stuff he lets out is still all about him. And not just him but all his advisors, and of course Russia again. He is spectacularly uniquely awful even for American politics.
And he just flat out sucks. He is stupid. And look at who he hires and all the dumb shit they do. Like you really think Hegsmeth is qualified? Patel? Tulsi for director of fucking national intelligence? Your country has lost so much, continues to every day he is office. During our life time we might not even understand the full damage he has done, but there is a reason he ranks at the bottom or damn close on every presidential ranking list, not its not TDS. It is that he a stupid, spoiled brat that is a complete embarrassment in everyway possible.
Hell even the comics that helped elect him are turning on him because they are starting to figure out he's not edgy, he's a dumbass.
edit: I should point out, I don't think you are completely out to lunch on your both sides doing the same thing take. just that the scale is massively different.
There's a lot there that is incidental to my point.
However, I will remind you that just a few months ago dems in VA elected a man who fantasized about having a political opponent's children killed because he said something nice about someone from the other party. The voters rejected Roy Moore when it cost way more than an AG job in Virginia or a Democratic senator who would be replaced by another Democrat.
I have no idea if Trump is a "special case." In many ways I hope so. But you have to at least allow people you disagree with to use the same arguments that were trotted out almost 3 decades ago. How convenient that you happen to have a moral line that falls just where it needs to fall at this present moment! Complaining about the scale of things is just an out, and it won't get you anywhere with people who don't already agree with you. To someone who doesn't think, or doesn't know, if Trump is a pedophile, how are you going to make your case? You can't.
On February 04 2026 09:54 Acrofales wrote:
On February 04 2026 04:12 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 03:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 04 2026 02:34 Introvert wrote:
On February 04 2026 01:11 WombaT wrote: [quote] I mean does it? Does it really?
It’s worth also bearing in mind that this was in a less enlightened era as regards understanding and acceptance around the leveraging of power etc in the sexual domain and how that could be coercive and unethical.
So yeah people defended Clinton for getting a blowiob from the young intern, no big deal, here’s a high five but that was almost 30 years ago
You can’t moan about any decline of moral standards in the office and defend Donald Trump, ever. It’s preposterous. Fucking hell
Utter lunacy
I don’t recall defending Trump's character. But you do know that time runs one way right? And there were people back then who knew it was wrong, they just got sidelined. That’s part of my point. If you are going to make that argument then im going to point out that Trump and Clinton are similar ages and thus might be expected to have similar views of these things, so...his defenders sounded just like the most ardent Trumpist on these matters, but 30 years before. And Trump didn't even so that stuff while in office, but before!
On February 04 2026 01:55 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] No, man, it’s not Clinton, it’s you. Obama was morally as good as it gets as a us president, and Biden was just fine by historical standards.
You vote and support a man that is the most garbage human being ever to enter American politics, it just speaks volumes about you. There is no moral decline other than you own.
There's a fascinating omission from your list, but I think we both know why.
I didn't vote him. Try again.
Who says this all happened at once? Part of Bush's appeal was that he seemed a better man than Clinton. The chickens don't all fly back to the roost at once. Nobody here realizes or wants to acknowledge that with a few word tweaks you could transplant so, so many defenses of Clinton onto defenses of Trump.
Clinton was morally compromised and imo, that made him unfit to be a good president. That the point republicans forcefully made by then. And honestly, i think they did have a point. In Scandinavia, he certainly would have been removed from office.
Trump is literally 15 orders of magnitude worse than him, to the point he makes Clinton look like a saint. Anyone supporting a man that is such an absolute cunt is beyond morally bankrupt. That’s not a decline of American moral values. That’s on the republicans and on maga. Those people have no values, and no morals, period. If that’s the standard you set and expect for the leader of the nation, you are a terrible person.
The point is that no one cares anymore. Clinton's approval among Democrats didn't budge. Dems were loath to throw out the first dem to win re-election in decades. Make whatever *relative* judgement you want, the pattern is obvious and the slope was in fact slippery. His critics were more right than they knew, but yes, many of them eneded up adopting the arguments they laughed at.
On February 04 2026 03:32 WombaT wrote: Clinton being a pretty good President otherwise also gives him some leeway
Mirror image of what a MAGA person would say. It is literally the exact same argument.
Can't say much for opinion in the US, but from where I was at the time, the investigation just seemed like a witch hunt. Who Clinton had sex with is a personal matter, and whether or not he cheated on his wife is a private issue. Go ahead and avoid voting for someone who you think is morally depraved, but it is not something that should be investigated by Congress, and Ken Starr acted as a political hitman when broadening the scope of the Whitewater investigation to include adultery.
But then he lied about it under oath and the opinion flipped and it went from a private matter to a public one: lying under oath is a pretty serious issue. And skating by on a technicality may have been enough for Congress Democrats, but it wasn't enough for the court of the public opinion: according to polls and studies at the time, Gore needed to distance himself from Clinton due to the latter's personal negatives, and Bush seemingly gained support for his "moral character".
Fast forward 30 years, and the same party that was outraged about the moral depravity is defending something far more depraved. And Ken Starr, so righteous about Clinton's adultery served as a defense attorney for Epstein (lol) and then walked back most of his report from the 1990s when defending Trump in his impeachment trial. It's fucking hilarious how justice for thee but not for me this whole thing is. And you have the gall to blame Clinton for the fact that the GOP decided to embrace Trump. It's farcical. If the party of moral depravity (Democrats) had gone full Trump you might have a point, but it's not. It's the people who persecuted Clinton for his moral depravity that are the most depraved.
The special counsel law that was allowed to expire makes a great case for giving most federal laws an expiration date. They had been used for which hunts on presidents of both parties, and when the time came to renew it, Congress declined. So rather than have everything be instantly tribal, where one party supports it for four years and then switches positions later, it must be affirmatively supported.
I have not blamed Trump on Clinton. I don't think voter's chose him because because of his moral failure but in spite of them. But the allowance for wayward personal behavior was greatly expanded by Clinton. It can both be true (for the sake of argument) that Trump is an enhancement of of this problem and that Clinton helped pave the way. Again, it's too much of a coincidence that the EXACT same arguments are being made except with a few noun changes. And people over 40 take criticism of his personal behavior less seriously than they otherwise might for this reason.
---
More broadly it is funny but unsurprising that the logic of "norms" and the thought that Trump is leading us down the authoritarian path is so nicely ignored the moment we have to look back at someone not named Donald Trump. How can you complain about "norms" when you don't know what they are?
It's odd that you think a Canadian was super political in the American system 30 years ago. But even odder that you think for sure I was an apologist.
What I do think is that Monica got absolutely trashed for no reason.
I also think you severely down play how much Trump is hurting your country, party, and even American evangelical Christianity. It is hard to see it as anything buy ultra hypocritical and unchristian as it treats someone with zero Christian values as some sort of savior.
You have turned allies into enemies in such a short time it is amazing. All your allies are making deals with your enemies and Trump can't figure out why. My over arching point is that you are so wrapped up in getting the dems, what about the dems, but the dems, that you do not see that you "winning" is actually you and your country losing amazingly hard.
There were people 30 years ago who cared then and cared now. I don't know about you then, but I am reading what you are saying now.
For the millionth time in the last year: the tariffs are stupid, talk of invading Greenland was dumb (and counter-productive), saying Canada should be a state was very insensitive to our very sensitive northern neighbors (also, I don't want any part of Canada as a state, thanks). Trump and Vance's comments about Europe are often true and needed, but as usual with Trump the policy with which pursues his agenda makes working with the already difficult Europeans even more difficult. I wouldn't say he's losing, but...
That's not at all logically connected. I contend the inverse, you guys are so focused on Trump that you are incapable of seeing how Clinton was a significant step down this road. Abd it's too bad he was, because he was someone who could work with Congress and actually pass legislation, much of it good.
Most companies paid a premium to buy US over other alternatives. The thought was you had stability and safety. But then came the threats and real tariffs out of no where based on a late night tweet because your thin skinned bitch of a president heard a joke he didn’t like or some Fox News host said it would be a good idea. Now my company who once bought 90% US is down to less than 10%. We even invested in metric tooling. It wasn’t the first time, it was like the 10th time that our super policies lot rightwing ownership had to deal with huge swings in currency, pricing that would only be good that day for projects that are months out and tons of other bullshit. Meaning we are not coming back. We now have way more options to buy, it’s cheaper and all our customers get and are doing the same. We are not unique, this is massively common.
Our military used to just buy American we didn’t even shop around. Now it looks like Sweden is going to get billions in sales and from now on we will be looking at alternatives. And Sweden is going to have us build lots here so massive jobs within Canada. Just one of the huge ways we hurt ourselves to support who we thought was our best most reliable ally.
Gotta be honest here, it’s something they will never get and will never believe. They’re lost in the sauce, the comment regarding the very sensitive Canadians responding to the very insensitive remarks really tells you how narrow their worldview is and their complete lack of empathy.
To most of the world, US has been an openly hostile nation. You can say that the Trump Administration is just saying words but the same administration and their associates are openly donating and assisting corrosive political actors in other nations who could not string together a coherent policy at gunpoint. And that’s the bare minimum of their hostility.
The comment about sensitive Canadians was an observation that is generally true in my experience. I meant that comment seriously. This is just my experience, but Canadians are not generally "rah rah Canada" *until* you start talking about Canada vis a vis America. Now I'm not being mean, I don't know what it's like to have so much of your politics be about your much bigger nextdoor neighbor. Bur I knew as soon as Trump started talking about making Canada a state that it was just about the worst thing Trump could have said, which as you will remember, was in my list of criticisms.
On February 05 2026 14:47 ChristianS wrote: Man, it’s wild to start the story of American presidents’ moral degradation at Clinton getting a blowjob, and not, y’know, Nixon.
Since the entire goal of that accusation was a massive DARVO it would make absolutely no sense to pin all the blame on another Republican.
I mean sure, rhetorically I get it. But we’re out here talking about 200 years of Democrat sins and can’t seem to remember another bad thing a Republican did?
Is there a word for when rhetorical excess winds up undercutting an otherwise reasonable argument? Because I’ll totally acknowledge the Lewinski scandal was a) really bad, and b) an example of Democrats allowing tribalism to make them defend, justify, or try to distract from something really bad their guy did. Impeaching over it is pretty silly, and there’s plenty of better examples of Democrats doing bad things, but Intro is trying to give it all this extra weight as the start of a slippery slope we’re now inexorably sliding down. That’s just impossible to take seriously.
On February 05 2026 23:06 ChristianS wrote: Is there a word for when rhetorical excess winds up undercutting an otherwise reasonable argument?
It wasn't a reasonable argument. It could have been in a parallel universe where Democrats were tripping over themselves to slavishly defend Bill Clinton's behavior, which is the impression Introvert was trying to foment, but is just not the case.
EPT
