2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
That's very true. Though it would be nice if Republicans held elected officials in their own party to the same standards they hold Bill Clinton.Quote: RonCBill Clinton did WHATTHEHELLEVER you want to call it; that is unacceptable for a married man to do with anyone that is not his wife.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat's very true. Though it would be nice if Republicans held elected officials in their own party to the same standards they hold Bill Clinton.
Actually they do. The big complaint at the time was that as soon as a Republican has some issue against him the party throws him under the bus but Democrats defend their guy to the silliest points imaginable even after it is clear he was in the wrong.
Quote: MrGoldenSunNot shocked you missed the point that legacy preference is a systemic bias against minorities.
Because it is not. It puts bias against anyone not a legacy.
Quote:Of course you think this is the solution. You are so determined to avoid doing ANYTHING to consider maybe America is not some post-racial utopia. You hear "America is biased against black people" and your answer is "black people, pretend you're not black."
Do you understand how insane that is? How completely ridiculous you sound? The idea that the victims of racism are responsible to fix the problem is absurd. How about maybe the lesson is bias still exists?
I gave several good examples of how to fix it. I am thinking you would prefer a "Rooney Rule" where a business has to show that they interviewed from so many resumes with "black names?" People have done it before, changed their names that is. America will never be a post-racial utopia as you say because there is too much money and power to be had digging up proof of racism. Today the thing is "micro aggressions." Micro aggressions are anything a minority decides they do not like at the moment and can cry about. Some universities are caving in to the notion, the solution should be a figurative slap and tell the person to man up (grow up if female.)
Quote:I meant pre-college school, where you typically have no choice.
School choice has been proposed many times all over the nation. Who is the side proposing that kids be allowed to escape the bad schools? Almost always it is the same conservatives and Republicans you call the racists. Who defends the current system? Liberals, Democrats, and teachers unions. Blacks side with the Democrats who want to keep the current system. Cry me a river.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThat's very true. Though it would be nice if Republicans held elected officials in their own party to the same standards they hold Bill Clinton.
While not perfect in any way, they have tossed many under the bus.
I would like both parties to hold their folks placed in office to a high standard.
When a Drill Sergeant has so called consensual sex with a recruit, the DOD calls it rape. Seems the level of subordination is so great that true consent is not possible.
I wonder where the Commander in Chief and and an intern stand in this level of subordination business.
Both of them lied and were called out on it. The candidates have hired staff in their own image...
There was also a reference to a writer interviewing a high level Clinton friend being told by that person that trust doesn't matter...well before the election process started from the way it sounded.
"Trust doesn't matter"...wow...not that I think that is only the bastion of Clinton; it is more like a theme for this election cycle.
Quote: Sabretom2Consensual my ass.
When a Drill Sergeant has so called consensual sex with a recruit, the DOD calls it rape. Seems the level of subordination is so great that true consent is not possible.
I wonder where the Commander in Chief and and an intern stand in this level of subordination business.
I am the most powerful man in the free world and you are a lowly intern...yeah, no pressure there...
Somehow that seems to matter little to many Clinton supporters.
If it was a four star general (subordinate to the President) having WHATEVERTHEHELLBABSCALLSIT with a colonel, for example, the four star would face potential serious consequences--like relief from duty, reduction of pay grade, and even jail--when it was discovered. That in spite of the fact the colonel may have indeed consented.
The boss needs to keep his cigar in his own mouth and not her vagina, his hands off her breasts, and generally behave like a gentleman (or, if it is a woman, like a lady) while in the highest office in the land.
How the hell some of you just write it off as nothing is crazy.
--he's the husband of the candidate
--he is campaigning for her
--she has said that he would hold a role in her administration
--the "good" part of his history helps her; why should Republicans ignore the bad parts and let her campaign just use the good parts?
If she had divorced him, his history would matter a lot less.
Quote: Sabretom2Consensual my ass.
When a Drill Sergeant has so called consensual sex with a recruit, the DOD calls it rape. Seems the level of subordination is so great that true consent is not possible.
.
Quote: RonCOh dear...this is one of the most ridiculous posts attempting to excuse Bill Clinton's behavior that I have ever read. Bill Clinton did WHATTHEHELLEVER you want to call it; that is unacceptable for a married man to do with anyone that is not his wife. Get/give as many blow jobs, etc. as you want before you are married; marriage is supposed to mean you get them from your one partner from then on. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll do not change right and wrong...and it isn't like Hillary said that he could get blown by whoever he wanted to go down on him. I doubt she considered it "okay" for him to fool around with Monica.
Besides that...he knew what the question was and what the correct answer was. He lied anyway.
I'm not excusing his behavior in the slightest. I'm saying that's how it was, then. And for many people, including the hooking up generation, still is.
Throw all the sanctimonious condemnation you want at him, or me, or everybody born from about 1946 to 1960. It was simply a common fact of life from about 1967 already well into the Playboy era, through the swinging 70s, disco, and the first couple years of the 80s. Can't change it retroactively by sneering at it now. It was what it was.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I grew up about 10 years behind Bill,.but started very early, so relatively contemporary. The culture of that time was everything short of vaginal/penile sex was not sex, it was petting, or a "base", or foreplay. Everything.
.
I once had a girlfriend whose who informed me that she was not having sex, as long as she didn't "go all the way." Her brother was of the same opinion. This was early 70s. They were both fairly religious people (more than me) as well, which was interesting.
Quote: rxwineI once had a girlfriend whose who informed me that she was not having sex, as long as she didn't "go all the way." Her brother was of the same opinion. This was early 70s. They were both fairly religious people (more than me) as well, which was interesting.
Exactly.
Because under our system, the president is NOT untouchable royalty. Nor is anyone else supposed to be.Quote: petroglyphThat is an excusable lie, for several reasons. Why should the pres. have to convict himself?
I remember one preacher's daughter quite well, may have been more than one. This one, I was quite young and so was she. In a couple minutes I'll remember her name, I'm slow.Quote: rxwineI once had a girlfriend whose who informed me that she was not having sex, as long as she didn't "go all the way." Her brother was of the same opinion. This was early 70s. They were both fairly religious people (more than me) as well, which was interesting.
Was Bill's dad a minister? Hillary's ;-?
Quote: AZDuffmanActually they do. The big complaint at the time was that as soon as a Republican has some issue against him the party throws him under the bus....
Really? Please provide any example of either of you, Boz, or SanchoPanza criticizing a Republican for sexual misconduct on this forum, the way you just went after Clinton.Quote: RonCWhile not perfect in any way, they have tossed many under the bus.
Quote: MichaelBluejayReally? Please provide any example of either of you, Boz, or SanchoPanza criticizing a Republican for sexual misconduct on this forum, the way you just went after Clinton.
So I have to "prove it" to you? Blah.
MOST threads that used to be allowed here regarding politics when I joined were supposed to come under DT when that was created. I don't participate in DT; I just don't see at as being worth it. Too little participation. I don't know if I ever criticized a Republican for sexual misconduct on either forum; it isn't like I remember every single post. I have criticized Republicans in this thread for other things. Many Democrats/Liberals here have refused to do the same.
I am sure some of you do remember all of your posts...I could really care less about doing so...
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm not excusing his behavior in the slightest. I'm saying that's how it was, then. And for many people, including the hooking up generation, still is.
Throw all the sanctimonious condemnation you want at him, or me, or everybody born from about 1946 to 1960. It was simply a common fact of life from about 1967 already well into the Playboy era, through the swinging 70s, disco, and the first couple years of the 80s. Can't change it retroactively by sneering at it now. It was what it was.
Saying that is just the way it was at that time does not make it right. That is part of the problem we have in this country--if enough people do the wrong thing, it is suddenly considered okay. In most of America, free love was not really all that accepted.
That makes what I consider to be 'bad things' OK because the majority felt them to be OK, at least at the time.
Tis a conundrum, to say the least....
Slavery was once supported by the masses, at least the masses that had a voice. That ended...
But slavery remains, in places here and there, that no one wants to talk about.....
Go after the ( insert some group here, many options to choose from ) and you can find supporters. Perhaps you can find a majority in the political area that is allowed to actually vote, and/or control and 'get them' (insert some minority group). Well, you can get them 'handled' in any manner that is considered "moral' by the masses in that place and time.
Hang them, shoot them, gas them, enslave them and have them build pyramids in the desert.
I have a problem with morality by the masses. I assume I will die with that problem in my backpack.
Seeing as how this is a glaringly transparent shift from a question about the actions of the Republican Party to several forum members, it presents an opportunity to present some of the more prominent Republicans who were shunned by the party after their scandals erupted:Quote: MichaelBluejayReally? Please provide any example of either of you, Boz, or SanchoPanza criticizing a Republican for sexual misconduct on this forum, the way you just went after Clinton.
Jon Hinson
Larry Craig
Bob Allen
Mark Foley
Phil Giordano
Bob Packwood
Bob Livingston
Dan Crane
Robert Bauman
Dennis Hastert
Got any Democrats who were similarly outed?
So why isn't Donald Trump on that list?Quote: SanchoPanzaSeeing as how this is a glaringly transparent shift from a question about the actions of the Republican Party to several forum members, it presents an opportunity to present some of the more prominent Republicans who were shunned by the party after their scandals erupted:
Jon Hinson
Larry Craig
Bob Allen
Mark Foley
Phil Giordano
Bob Packwood
Bob Livingston
Dan Crane
Robert Bauman
Dennis Hastert
Which laws do you say has broken?Quote: MathExtremistSo why isn't Donald Trump on that list?
Quote: rxwineAs far as I'm concerned, we've got an exceptionally flawed candidate on one side, and then there's Hillary on the Democratic side, who is within normal limits flawed..
Normal limits? Compared to who, John Gotti?
How much equity did she steal from landowners in Whitewater? How many secrets did she allow to be hacked because she could not understand how to use the secure fax and email? How many other things?
Quote: AZDuffmanNormal limits? Compared to who, John Gotti?
Thanks for reminding me and Trump's links to the mob.
Quote:According to gaming regulators, Leung "flew in 16 Italian organized crime figures from Canada who stole more than $1 million from the casino in a credit scam," reported the New York Daily News in 1995. "The incident was never reported because Trump never filed charges."
Quote:Sater pleaded guilty to a charge of money laundering in 1998 and was indicted again in 2000 for taking part in a $40 million stock scheme involving four Mafia families, according to the New York Times report.
From 2003 to 2007, Sater traveled the country promoting projects for Trump, and his company was a partner in the Trump SoHo hotel. Trump told the Times he "never knew that."
Three years later, Sater returned to the Trump Organization and had business cards that described him as Trump’s "senior advisor," the AP reported. Trump told the AP that he’s "not familiar" with Sater.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/ted-cruz/yes-donald-trump-has-been-linked-mob/
Quote: MathExtremistSo why isn't Donald Trump on that list?
What is the scandal that would put him on this list? Did he do something to discredit the office he held as elected official?
ME, we have a choice between two flawed candidates. Hillary has lied time and again about the emails; she continues to perpetuate those lies on an almost daily basis. her best defense is "they did it, too" which is a very weak defense. Are we to think the Democrats would not ask Rice about her handling of emails were she actually a candidate?
Trump is also a flawed candidate.
It is just a matter of which flawed candidate you support...there is no good candidate.
Of course, I never speak ill of any Republican. Or so the bullshit line used by others (not you, I don't think) goes...
Some help for the reticent:Quote: SanchoPanzaGot any Democrats who were similarly outed?
Daniel Inouye.
Gus Savage.
Barney Frank.
Brock Adams.
Fred Richmond.
John Young.
Wayne Hays.
Gerry Studds.
Mel Reynolds.
Edward Kennedy.
Sorry, but have been unable to find any similar legal accusations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump.
Quote: billryanThe man carried on " the affair of the century" and is an admitted serial adulterer but you don't see any evidence of sexual misconduct?
Not to mention a story in one of his ex-wives books. Also his lawyer rather than denying it happened claimed that spousal rape is not illegal, something that has not been true anywhere in the US since 93 and hasn't been true in New York since 84. He committed this supposed rape in 89 by which point it had been illegal for half a decade and his lawyer made this statement in 2016 over 30 years since the law was passed, on that note Trump should probably find himself a more competent lawyer.
Despite whatever lawyers want to say with or without any substantiation, the fact of the matter was that the allegation was not adjudicated. Nor were charges ever brought, even in connection with the nasty divorce case. As the first page of "Lost Tycoon" states: "“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”Quote: TwirdmanHe committed this supposed rape in 89 by which point it had been illegal for half a decade
Should we retrieve some of Monica Lewinsky's statements, even trying to include the references that The New York Times found just too steamy for what it claimed to be the entire text of the Starr report?
That kind of resolution requires an ability to stand down, to compromise, to not have a need to be the big guy thumping his chest and threatening the other guy. That's not Trump. Trump doesn't apologize, he doesn't compromise, and he escalates his threats when others don't immediately capitulate. (Remember "The wall just got ten feet higher!"?) Imagine Trump during a situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would he navigate a diplomatic solution or would he threaten and provoke his opponent? I'm less worried about Trump's domestic agenda (damaging as it would be) than I am about his arrogance's effect on security of the country, and by extension, the world. If radical Muslims hate us now, just wait until there's President Trump.
Quote: MichaelBluejayIf radical Muslims hate us now, just wait until there's President Trump.
Yeah, because radical musllims like us so much better what with Obama praising islam every chance he gets!
I would suggest you read "The Art of War."
Quote: RonCThe President is just as classless as Trump and Clinton. You don't go to a foreign country and talk about a candidate for President from the other party. You are there representing the United States, not the Democrat party. He's an ass.
In general, I would agree. In this particular case, you're wrong, because the rest of the world is FREAKING OUT that we might elect such a reactionary, inexperienced idiot as President. You should read some foreign press from the last 9 months if you don't know what I'm talking about. They were thrilled to see the end of Cowboy George ; now they're facing GWB on steroids.
Obama needs to acknowledge what he's being told everywhere he goes, which is that Trump is a disaster to every ally we have. So yeah, he's going to put stuff into foreign speeches. And domestic. And press conferences. And every time someone puts a camera on him.
Quote: beachbumbabsIn general, I would agree. In this particular case, you're wrong, because the rest of the world is FREAKING OUT that we might elect such a reactionary, inexperienced idiot as President.
Funny how they did not have this worry at this time in 2008! Huge idiot with less experience then.
Here is the thing---screw them! The "rest of the world" is upset because Trump talks and acts like a leader of the USA who will look out for the USA first and is not some kind of "citizen of the world."
Obama is and always has been a total hack that cannot leave partisanship behind.
Quote: beachbumbabsIn general, I would agree. In this particular case, you're wrong, because the rest of the world is FREAKING OUT that we might elect such a reactionary, inexperienced idiot as President. You should read some foreign press from the last 9 months if you don't know what I'm talking about. They were thrilled to see the end of Cowboy George ; now they're facing GWB on steroids.
Obama needs to acknowledge what he's being told everywhere he goes, which is that Trump is a disaster to every ally we have. So yeah, he's going to put stuff into foreign speeches. And domestic. And press conferences. And every time someone puts a camera on him.
Our country is, and will be, just fine. Yes...we will survive Obama and we will survive Trump. Frankly, I think Trump will do fine. Less countries will make us look like chumps, and that is a good thing. I'm pretty sure he won't get involved in a lopsided deal like the one made with Iran. Countries that are running all over Obama are not going to be happy with the change. So what?
I'm not an "America's right no matter what" person--we have made mistakes over the past 16 years Both Presidents. We made mistakes before that, too. All in all, though, we are a decent country trying to do the right thing. This Obama thing smacks of him taking our election overseas. Say what you want in the country, but leave partisanship at home when on foreign soil. He could address all of your concerns right here as part of the campaign. He represents all of us when he is traveling. He can campaign for who he wishes when he gets back home.
Quote: RonCOur country is, and will be, just fine. Yes...we will survive Obama and we will survive Trump. Frankly, I think Trump will do fine. Less countries will make us look like chumps, and that is a good thing. I'm pretty sure he won't get involved in a lopsided deal like the one made with Iran. Countries that are running all over Obama are not going to be happy with the change. So what?
+1. Trump will be willing to walk away from the table, something we really have not had since WWII. Possible exception with Reagan. He was not in such a rush to make a deal with the USSR that he would sign anything. He waited them out. He was the perfect example of walking away during the illegal PATCO strike, He won huge on both.
Also, Ivana said he raped her.
Quote: ams288Trump isn't going to be President, so this is all irrelevant.
Also, Ivana said he raped her.
Lots of people said Willy let it Free and forced it upon them.
Hillary isn't going to be President; so all of it is relevant.
That's because the global community doesn't happen to see everything through AZDuffman's eyes.Quote: AZDuffmanFunny how they did not have this worry at this time in 2008! Huge idiot with less experience then.
Wow, if there were on Olympics for ironic statements, you would win.Quote: AZDuffmanObama is and always has been a total hack that cannot leave partisanship behind.
Her statement, which was posted just a couple of hours ago in this thread, made clear that the one incident in question was not rape in either the literal or legal meaning.Quote: ams288Also, Ivana said he raped her.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Wow, if there were on Olympics for ironic statements, you would win.
How so?
Quote: SanchoPanzaHer statement, which was posted just a couple of hours ago in this thread, made clear that the one incident in question was not rape in either the literal or legal meaning.
All it means is one can believe her original version or her recanted explanation.
Neither Monica Lewinsky nor Bill Clinton are running for president. I'm stunned at your willingness to denounce one candidate because her spouse had an extramarital affair while supporting another candidate who personally had several and bragged about it. Such partisan hypocrisy cannot be explained away by a religious objection to adultery.Quote: SanchoPanzaShould we retrieve some of Monica Lewinsky's statements, even trying to include the references that The New York Times found just too steamy for what it claimed to be the entire text of the Starr report?
Quote: Donald J. Trump, on how to treat womenYou have to treat 'em like shit.
Quote: MathExtremistNeither Monica Lewinsky nor Bill Clinton are running for president. I'm stunned at your willingness to denounce one candidate because her spouse had an extramarital affair while supporting another candidate who personally had several and bragged about it.
Hillary always ran as Mrs Bill Clinton so as she claims part of his record then it is all fair game.
Denouncing the one who has a husband who got disbarred for perjury,
Don't be stunned. On my part, religion was never raised. So much for that strawman. The partisan hypocrisy is Mrs. Clinton's. It was she who raised her championship of women's rights, a position that included her saying that ALL women who all make accusations of sexual harassment should be believed. Yet her sordid history in her very own cases shows the diametrically opposite.Quote: MathExtremistNeither Monica Lewinsky nor Bill Clinton are running for president. I'm stunned at your willingness to denounce one candidate because her spouse had an extramarital affair while supporting another candidate who personally had several and bragged about it. Such partisan hypocrisy cannot be explained away by a religious objection to adultery.
Quote: rxwineAll it means is one can believe her original version or her recanted explanation.
Trump has his exes sign heavy duty non-disclosure agreements when he divorces them for the younger newer wife.
And if they do speak out of turn, they always recant once Trump threatens their alimony payments....
Marla Maples had some not-so-nice things to say about him around 1999/2000 when he was talking about a potential run for the Presidency.
Hillary Clinton never had an affair while Donald Trump has admitted to several. Yet you accept Trump's philandery while chastizing that of Clinton's husband.Quote: SanchoPanzaThe partisan hypocrisy is Mrs. Clinton's. It was she who raised her championship of women's rights, a position that included her saying that ALL women who all make accusations of sexual harassment should be believed. Yet her sordid history in her very own cases shows the diametrically opposite.
You were, presumably, thrilled when the articles of impeachment were filed against Bill Clinton. Those include the phrase "has brought disrepute on the Presidency." Trump's actions -- gleefully admitted -- would certainly bring disrepute on the Presidency. How can you justify overlooking that?
