Trump/GOP Civil War

[zinfamous]

Her husband's lovers did not stand up in front on G-d and man, promising to forsake all others. Bill did. Hillary made the decision to lead the attacks on those women - some of which he groped very much against their will - and attempted to destroy them. That's on her. It's amusing though to see the hypocrisy on both sides, Republicans excusing in Trump what they so strongly derided in Clinton and Democrats so strongly deriding in Trump what they so strongly defended in Bill Clinton.

Again, this memory you have of this history is very much delusional. Put aside the fact that we don't really know the details of B Clinton's past indulgences nearly as well as we know the thoughts and desires of Trump, from his own mouth. The very clear difference between the two situations is that Bill was always, whether or not you accept this, publicly apologetic (...once he got around to it) and presented himself as one who "learned and grew from his 'mistakes.'" Trump is one who "never makes mistakes and is always right." Trump is one who never apologizes and so you either take him for his word (he just says what he thinks!) and decide which is true, or just accept that "what he thinks (and does)" is really just as reprehensible and you might imagine.

I don't think voters really defended Bill en mass, they just accepted this aspect of his character at that time--past or not--because he was so clearly a capable and competent elected official. The other problem with your story is that we have testimony that rejects some of the narratives that you wish to perpetuate re. Clinton.

Of course I'm not asking you to "believe" the words from the Clinton's or their accusers whether or not in articles, in court, or on file any more than I think you should believe the same narrative from Trump--you know, his own words which, as we know, are almost never honest; but you are treating two very contradicting narratives--the actual information that we have on these two issues--as somehow equivalent. That is a completely dishonest tack to take.

 

[zinfamous]

My only concern about the dems winning in 16 is the high likelihood of losing in 20, esp with Hillary at the top of the ticket.

When has that happened last? Two back to back 8yr terms with a single party?

Not since such was made exceedingly difficult with the term limits after FDR's 4 consecutive terms. So, if you include FDR 4 terms, finished off by Truman who then won a 4 year term of his own, you technically have 2x 8-year terms followed by another 4 year term.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, this memory you have of this history is very much delusional. Put aside the fact that we don't really know the details of B Clinton's past indulgences nearly as well as we know the thoughts and desires of Trump, from his own mouth. The very clear difference between the two situations is that Bill was always, whether or not you accept this, publicly apologetic (...once he got around to it) and presented himself as one who "learned and grew from his 'mistakes.'" Trump is one who "never makes mistakes and is always right." Trump is one who never apologizes and so you either take him for his word (he just says what he thinks!) and decide which is true, or just accept that "what he thinks (and does)" is really just as reprehensible and you might imagine.

I don't think voters really defended Bill en mass, they just accepted this aspect of his character at that time--past or not--because he was so clearly a capable and competent elected official. The other problem with your story is that we have testimony that rejects some of the narratives that you wish to perpetuate re. Clinton.

Of course I'm not asking you to "believe" the words from the Clinton's or their accusers whether or not in articles, in court, or on file any more than I think you should believe the same narrative from Trump--you know, his own words which, as we know, are almost never honest; but you are treating two very contradicting narratives--the actual information that we have on these two issues--as somehow equivalent. That is a completely dishonest tack to take.

I'm unaware of Bill Clinton ever admitting to sexual assault on tape but maybe our memories aren't as great as werepossum's.

People did excuse Clinton's marital infedelities, but they have mostly excused Trump's as well. It wasn't until he admitted to committing sexual assault that anyone took notice. For someone to try and compare the two is either an exercise in extremely selective memory or is an attempt to deceive.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Interesting Stat but I say it doesn't matter people are so pissed with the establishment. Personally I can't imagine anyone voting because a elected person told them to vote that way today.

Quarter of elected top Republicans won't endorse Trump

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cans-wont-endorse-trump/ar-BBxj7zI?li=BBnbcA1

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting Stat but I say it doesn't matter people are so pissed with the establishment. Personally I can't imagine anyone voting because a elected person told them to vote that way today.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cans-wont-endorse-trump/ar-BBxj7zI?li=BBnbcA1

Most people won't care but some fraction do as it's an information shortcut. For example if someone I'm friends with says someone is a good person if I know little about them otherwise I'm probably inclined to think they are a good person. Same thing here. You might ask yourself 'how the hell does anyone not know much about these candidates?!' but I'm positive there are a decent number of people who haven't paid much or any attention until right about now.

I would expect the impact of endorsements to be low, especially in an electorate as polarized as ours. It's probably not nothing though.

 

[nathanddrews]

Trump is one who never apologizes

But he did apologize for this.

I'm unaware of Bill Clinton ever admitting to sexual assault on tape...

In Clinton's case, it was actually worse since accusations about his actions were brought externally by other women. Those women either were ignored, gave up, or recanted after a long and horrible media campaign. While not recorded on tape, Hillary's role in defaming those accusers is well documented, but is qualifiable as hearsay. Trump's statements were of him describing events that may or may not have happened with no corroboration or accusations from any victims. Worst case scenario, Trump did these things and the target(s) never came forward. Best case scenario, he was exaggerating (lying) hyperbolically. Either way, it makes me think of that South Park episode where they gave chimpanzees a lot of money.

https://youtu.be/FFMVpQ4mfSw

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, this memory you have of this history is very much delusional. Put aside the fact that we don't really know the details of B Clinton's past indulgences nearly as well as we know the thoughts and desires of Trump, from his own mouth. The very clear difference between the two situations is that Bill was always, whether or not you accept this, publicly apologetic (...once he got around to it) and presented himself as one who "learned and grew from his 'mistakes.'" Trump is one who "never makes mistakes and is always right." Trump is one who never apologizes and so you either take him for his word (he just says what he thinks!) and decide which is true, or just accept that "what he thinks (and does)" is really just as reprehensible and you might imagine.

I don't think voters really defended Bill en mass, they just accepted this aspect of his character at that time--past or not--because he was so clearly a capable and competent elected official. The other problem with your story is that we have testimony that rejects some of the narratives that you wish to perpetuate re. Clinton.

Of course I'm not asking you to "believe" the words from the Clinton's or their accusers whether or not in articles, in court, or on file any more than I think you should believe the same narrative from Trump--you know, his own words which, as we know, are almost never honest; but you are treating two very contradicting narratives--the actual information that we have on these two issues--as somehow equivalent. That is a completely dishonest tack to take.

Possum routinely promulgates fiction as fact. When challenged, as with the false narrative about Hillary attacking Bill's lovers, he pretends the challenge never occurred. He just sets it aside temporarily, drags it out again later. Repetition is the heart of propaganda.

The portrayal of those lovers as innocents is extremely dishonest, anyway. They all knew he was a married man. Their transgressions are every bit as great as Bill's.

 

[fskimospy]

In Clinton's case, it was actually worse since accusations about his actions were brought externally by other women. Those women either were ignored, gave up, or recanted after a long and horrible media campaign. While not recorded on tape, Hillary's role in defaming those accusers is well documented, but is qualifiable as hearsay. Trump's statements were of him describing events that may or may not have happened with no corroboration or accusations from any victims. Worst case scenario, Trump did these things and the target(s) never came forward. Best case scenario, he was exaggerating (lying) hyperbolically. Either way, it makes me think of that South Park episode where they gave chimpanzees a lot of money.

https://youtu.be/FFMVpQ4mfSw

I would say that being accused by other people of something is not at all worse than flatly stating you did it to someone else in a candid moment. Trump is either a sex offender or wants people to think he is because he doesn't view it as a problem.

That's pretty horrible either way.

 

[nathanddrews]

I would say that being accused by other people of something is not at all worse

Alright then, we disagree and have each been awarded 5 Internetz for participating.

 

[Jhhnn]

While not recorded on tape, Hillary's role in defaming those accusers is well documented, but is qualifiable as hearsay.

If it's well documented, you should be able to link us up. I've issued the same challenge repeatedly & not one of the claimants has ever done so.

It's also amusing how Bill's former lovers are wrapped in some mantle of innocence after having knowingly slept with another woman's husband.

 

[fskimospy]

Alright then, we disagree and have each been awarded 5 Internetz for participating.

I guess? It's just an odd argument to make. If someone said 'fskimospy robbed a bank' that would certainly be a bad thing! I imagine most people would consider it worse if I was caught on tape confiding to someone about all the banks I robbed.

I guess your mileage may vary.

 

[nathanddrews]

Forgive me, I forgot to be particular and pedantic with what I typed and therefore confused you. Hillary's exact spoken words to Bill's accusers amounts to hearsay, that is, they have not been documented. However, many of her own statements, her advisor's statements, and her friends' statements have all been documented and show that she played a role in defaming and suppressing victims of Bill's "infidelities". Painting Hillary as a friend to women is just as ludicrous as ascribing such words to Trump as they are sides to the same coin. They are opportunists that will do whatever they can to crush those that oppose them. Must be why they were all such good friends up until 4 years ago.

If it's well documented, you should be able to link us up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...illary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0
http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-friends/1619008/

 

[Puffnstuff]

I believe that the Democratic Party's economic policies are working as evidenced by these facts that did not start to improve until Bush's economic policies were changed. I've been studying this all morning and have been enlightened by the post WWI economic data. This is a grass roots issue that affects each and every one of us and party rhetoric aside the economic impact of bad economic policies has been mitigated and will continue to improve if continued.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.t01.htm

 

[fskimospy]

Forgive me, I forgot to be particular and pedantic with what I typed and therefore confused you. Hillary's exact spoken words to Bill's accusers amounts to hearsay, that is, they have not been documented. However, many of her own statements, her advisor's statements, and her friends' statements have all been documented and show that she played a role in defaming and suppressing victims of Bill's "infidelities". Painting Hillary as a friend to women is just as ludicrous as ascribing such words to Trump as they are sides to the same coin. They are opportunists that will do whatever they can to crush those that oppose them. Must be why they were all such good friends up until 4 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...illary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0

Defamation has a specific legal standard that Clinton's comments have never been shown to meet, so you cannot say that she played a role in defaming people if we're being pedantic.

I think if you look at the entirety of Clinton's relations with women as compared to Trump it would be ludicrous to claim they are both sides to the same coin. It's not even remotely close.

 

[werepossum]

Calling for disenfranchisement of the entire nation? I must have missed the memo. Would you mind posting some sources to back this up?

Who called for the disenfranchisement of anyone!?! Do you know what that word means or how democracy works?

I find that people often think of 'enfranchisement' as 'winning'. They are not even remotely the same thing. You have a right to vote, not a right to win. If you lose the house, senate, and presidency because you didn't get enough votes that's a feature, not a bug.

The paranoia and delusions of persecution here are off the charts.

Ahem.

And it is threads like this where we learn how and why the Electoral College is forever necessary. There is a very real and very significant proportion of the public that is just too fucking stupid to process relevant information and make informed decisions about the world presented before them.

It's baffling that one can convince oneself that a determined fascist proto-dictator like Trump is in any way qualified to be president after the unconscionable proclamations that have fallen out of his mouth, all of which lead to a clear and present dissolution of US law and the constitution that have fallen out of his mouth.

If there is any conscience remaining in the EC, then the electors will simply vote for the US, our constitution, and our free people, and cast their EC votes for HRC instead of DT in those states where the electorate has clearly lost its collective reason.

Having the Electors vote for whomever they wish, no matter the will of the people, disenfranchises the entire nation. Whether you voted, and how you voted, would be moot.

Note that this is not Democrat "disenfranchisement", which is identified as forcing someone to do what every responsible adult already does. This is proposing to invalidate your vote completely, in favor of people who "know better".

 

[fskimospy]

Ahem.

Having the Electors vote for whomever they wish, no matter the will of the people, disenfranchises the entire nation. Whether you voted, and how you voted, would be moot.

Note that this is not Democrat "disenfranchisement", which is identified as forcing someone to do what every responsible adult already does. This is proposing to invalidate your vote completely, in favor of people who "know better".

Interesting that you think when the United States was founded the entire nation was disenfranchised. Guess you really really hated the Constitution as it was adopted, huh?

 

[werepossum]

Possum, you've seemed to have evolved a bit on these issues in a well thought out way. I have a hypothetical question.
Assuming the only election choices are vote Trump or vote Hillary or stay home which would you choose?
Assume its today and I know opinions can change.

Thanks, but I haven't really evolved much. I said from the start that I am never voting for Trump. There are people (honestly Algore is the only one I can bring to mind) that would force me to vote for Trump, just like there are people (Cruz comes to mind) who would force me to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, Hillary isn't bad enough to make me vote for Trump, and Trump isn't bad enough to make me vote for Hillary. I have no problem with anyone voting for either of them - this isn't Stalin versus Hitler - but for myself, both are too horrendous to make me consider them. I don't really care what they say or propose; I judge them on what they have done, what they have demonstrated about their character. Anyone can spout pretty, focus group tested platitudes. (Well . . . maybe not Trump. Nearly anyone.) Since I normally vote Libertarian, I'd have zero problem staying home. If for some bizarre reason we had to vote for one of them, then I'd hold my nose and vote for the Hildabeast as the lesser evil.

Had Kucinich gotten the nod, I'd have voted for him because I voted for him in the primary. That's a bond; if I vote in a party's primary and my candidate gets the nomination, then I am honor-bound to vote for him or her. That's probably the only one in the GOP clown car that could get my vote, primary or general; had Kucinich not been running (and he was statistically eliminated long before Tennessee), I would not have voted for any of them. Had Sanders won, I might have voted for him. Almost definitely if against Trump, since I really dislike Trump and there are things I admire about Sanders. That's saying a lot since I have never voted Democrat for President, even the first twelve years of voting when I was a Democrat. (I voted for Reagan twice and Romney once - he won the nomination and he was my guy in the primary, so . . . Otherwise, it's straight Libertarian for me.) But I also really, really like Gary Johnson though, so maybe not if he was not running against Trump.

That should be more than anyone wants to know about my politics. lol

 

[jackstar7]

Representative government is oppression...

Right.

 

[z1ggy]

At least Billy Boy stuck to adults:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...came-strolling-right-in-on-naked-contestants/

Granted, doesn't sound like Trump touched any of the underage teens as young as 15, but he certainly was looking at them which would very similar to viewing child pr0n.

Trump should just be glad this came out now, and not while he [could have been] President.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting that you think when the United States was founded the entire nation was disenfranchised. Guess you really really hated the Constitution as it was adopted, huh?

Of course the entire nation was disenfranchised as founded. Technical limitations practically mandated it, and in any case, the elites were extremely reticent to allow the common man (much less woman) any real say in selecting its leaders. Is that really something on which you are not clear, or merely something on which you suspect I am not clear? Only white nominally Christian landholders could vote at all - no women, seldom any minorities - and even they could merely select those who selected the leaders. True power rested in the hands of a few hundred rich white men.

Unlike yourself, that level of concentration of power is not a direction I believe to be smart or ethical. I want power spread as widely as possible among US citizens. All of us really are smarter than some of us.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course the entire nation was disenfranchised as founded. Technical limitations practically mandated it, and in any case, the elites were extremely reticent to allow the common man (much less woman) any real say in selecting its leaders. Is that really something on which you are not clear, or merely something on which you suspect I am not clear? Only white nominally Christian landholders could vote at all - no women, seldom any minorities - and even they could merely select those who selected the leaders. True power rested in the hands of a few hundred rich white men.

Unlike yourself, that level of concentration of power is not a direction I believe to be smart or ethical. I want power spread as widely as possible among US citizens. All of us really are smarter than some of us.

Of course technical limitations didn't demand it, I just find it interesting that you think the popularly elected state legislatures appointing electors is somehow mass disenfranchisement when even today those electors are not bound by law to vote for who gets the popular vote. We are only 'enfranchised' by their leisure. I also think it's funny that you believe the US was a mass disenfranchised nation until the Civil War.

lol.

 

[nathanddrews]

Defamation has a specific legal standard that Clinton's comments have never been shown to meet, so you cannot say that she played a role in defaming people if we're being pedantic.

OK, so she never "legally" defamed anyone. Trump never "legally" assaulted anyone.

I think if you look at the entirety of Clinton's relations with women as compared to Trump it would be ludicrous to claim they are both sides to the same coin. It's not even remotely close.

No, you're right, Clinton is much, much worse.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, so she never "legally" defamed anyone. Trump never "legally" assaulted anyone.

This is your standard, not mine. You claim that she defamed people based on the statements of others. Trump sexually assaulted people based on his own statements. I find a person's own description of their own bad behavior more credible than someone else's claim of their bad behavior. So do the police and the remainder of the legal system, which is why confessions are considered more powerful evidence than accusations. Apparently you think the opposite is true, which is frankly baffling.

No, you're right, Clinton is much, much worse.

Yes clearly someone 'defaming' someone who accuses someone of sexual assault is much worse than actually committing the sexual assault.

lolwut.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary's exact spoken words to Bill's accusers amounts to hearsay, that is, they have not been documented.

Which makes them bullshit.

 

[werepossum]

Of course technical limitations didn't demand it, I just find it interesting that you think the popularly elected state legislatures appointing electors is somehow mass disenfranchisement when even today those electors are not bound by law to vote for who gets the popular vote. We are only 'enfranchised' by their leisure. I also think it's funny that you believe the US was a mass disenfranchised nation until the Civil War.

lol.

Just as I find it funny that you get hysterical over the notion that a citizen should have to demonstrate qualification via identification to vote, yet encourage the nullification of that vote. Although I suppose there is a twisted sort of proggie logic there. As long as your vote literally means nothing, not much harm in allowing illegals to vote or in multiple votes.

And most electors are bound, for at least the first few ballots.