Jump to content

US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

To be fair, though...this isn't just slapping down political dissidence. These people did actually personally accuse him of a crime. 

Yes, it is. This is literally what Trump does all the time. Any history of the man goes over it extensively because it's his MO.

When he feels wronged, he sues. Often frivilously in order to use his wealth to bully his opposition into silence.

His threats of suing these women are just like his threat to jail Clinton, they are an attempt to attack those that challenge him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

My comment isn't about his guilt or innocence, or indeed the wisdom of suing them. But if he thinks he's innocent or even if he just st thinks there's no case, suing people who publicly accuse you of a crime pretty much falls under 'standard procedure' and therefore doesn't require an explanation of bullying political dissidence. 

It really doesn't, for most people. Most people don't have the money to do this, and even those that do, often don't have the inclination.

For Trump, threats to sue are second nature and actual lawsuits are a common tool he uses to bully and intimidate people, but the record shows that these are often deployed when he knows full well the accusation against him is true.

The net result is a man who's using his money to try to bully his way out of sexual assault allegations. That's as clear an example of rape culture as you can ask for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shryke said:

Yes, it is. This is literally what Trump does all the time. Any history of the man goes over it extensively because it's his MO.

When he feels wronged, he sues. Often frivilously in order to use his wealth to bully his opposition into silence.

His threats of suing these women are just like his threat to jail Clinton, they are an attempt to attack those that challenge him.

I think you're proving my point. I agree, he does this all the time...starting from way back before he was even involved in politics.

Because it isn't about silencing political dissent, but rather a standard recourse people use...some kinds of people more than others...when publicly accused of criminal activity. The fact that this behaviour was well established before he entered politics kinda establishes that this is not necessarily about politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

It really doesn't, for most people. Most people don't have the money to do this, and even those that do, often don't have the inclination.

For Trump, threats to sue are second nature and actual lawsuits are a common tool he uses to bully and intimidate people, but the record shows that these are often deployed when he knows full well the accusation against him is true.

The net result is a man who's using his money to try to bully his way out of sexual assault allegations. That's as clear an example of rape culture as you can ask for.

For those who can afford it, obviously, it's a much more established pattern, but legal advice on public accusations runs as it does because it can often result in a lawsuit. And, again, I agree this is second nature to him, thereby meaning it isn't about political dissent. 

 

If your definition of 'as clear an example of rape culture as you can ask for' is something which you lead off your post by calling rare, I'd assume that there are a very wide range of things which are all very clear examples of rape culture. Such latitude probably coincides with a sense that culture itself is largely rape culture, I'd assume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, James Arryn said:

...suing people who publicly accuse you of a crime pretty much falls under 'standard procedure' and therefore doesn't require an explanation of bullying political dissidence. 

Not so much. Because he's not going to sue and risk ending up with a judgment that the claims are substantially true. He's just trying to intimidate additional women from coming forward.

It'd be a nice time for Gloria Allred to offer to defend any woman who comes forward free of charge. Maybe she already has?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Here's some social media for you.  Is it true?  I hope so as it's being sent all over the liberal twitterverse, but that doesn't make it true.

 

 

John Harwood's a respectable, well-known journalist, I have no doubt that some senior GOP contact of his told him those numbers. Now whether that contact actually saw those numbers and whether they were what the internal GOP pollsters expected or if that was their current 'worst-case' model, I have no idea. Harwood probably has no idea either, he's just reporting what he's told.

But the new ABC/WaPo poll today now has Clinton up 50-38-5-2 in the 4-way, and they were the ones that only had Clinton at +4 last week when the other top pollsters were already seeing around a +8 margin for Clinton. Regardless of whether or not that turns out to the final margin, there's definitely starting to be a pretty hefty contingent of top polls that are showing Trump collapsing further (and Clinton consolidating third-party and undecided voters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Obama endorses all the way down ballot
After watching the GOP make large gains in statehouses during his presidency, Obama is making a last-gasp attempt to build his party from the bottom up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-endorsements-down-ballot-230194

If anybody understands the importance of down ballot voting, it's Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

For those who can afford it, obviously, it's a much more established pattern, but legal advice on public accusations runs as it does because it can often result in a lawsuit. And, again, I agree this is second nature to him, thereby meaning it isn't about political dissent. 

Except that whatever his past, Trump is certainly now a politician and he himself alleges that the accusations are politically motivated. Thereby meaning that in this case it is very much a political issue. Not about dissent, strictly speaking (which is why I didn't use the term): but about silencing political opposition, without a doubt.

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

If your definition of 'as clear an example of rape culture as you can ask for' is something which you lead off your post by calling rare, I'd assume that there are a very wide range of things which are all very clear examples of rape culture.

Well... yes, there are. Although I'm not sure what clarity has to do with rarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think you're proving my point. I agree, he does this all the time...starting from way back before he was even involved in politics.

Because it isn't about silencing political dissent, but rather a standard recourse people use...some kinds of people more than others...when publicly accused of criminal activity. The fact that this behaviour was well established before he entered politics kinda establishes that this is not necessarily about politics.

No dude, I am not proving your silly point. That he has always done this is exactly the point. He's always been a authoritarian and a petty vindictive person. He's always been interested in using political and economic power to attack those that criticise him. (from his many lawsuits to his central park 5 letter and onward) 

It is about silencing his critics and if he has political power his critics will be enemies of the state itself.

Stop trying to excuse this shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think he was excusing it. Just saying that for trump suing his accusers is what he always does. You're right that it is far worse if he has any political power.

And despite all the stories of Clinton demonizing bills accusers - did a single one get sued?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

And, again, I agree this is second nature to him, thereby meaning it isn't about political dissent. 

I agree that there is kind of a difference. Trump really hates his enemies, and not for reasons of political expediency, it's true. He doesn't hate these women because they are bad for his campaign; he hates them for being bad for Donald Trump. He's not racist because it gets votes, he was racist long before he was in politics. He's not anti-Muslim to get votes; he's just anti-Muslim. 

I don't think Hitler hated Jews for political reasons either. Those were his actual beliefs.

Like all demogogues before him, the only thing changed by Donald Trump running for office, is that now he believes that his interests and the state's interest are identical, and an attack on him is an attack on America. 

I wish it was just about political corruption, and not the distilled dynsfuction of the human psyche that is to blame for all the worst human tragedies, here before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if Trump had always been notably partial to blue suits, red ties, and white shirts as a shallow expression of his nationalism, you can't then attribute his continuing to wear them at his campaign events to a cynical attempt at appealing to the nationalistic identity of his base.  He's a shallow nationalist, no question, but just because this long standing behavior has taken on a whole new range of implications doesn't necessarily mean that his motivation or intent has changed.

And while it's certainly true that his callous bullying will serve him as well or better in the political field as it has in his private business dealings, i think its still mainly serving to assuage his personal feelings/ego, moreso than any political calculation.

 

I think if there was any way to see inside his head (god help us) we would find that he is far more bothered by the idea that anyone would believe that The Donald had to force himself on any woman lucky enough to attract his attention, than he would be worried about the political ramifications of a presidential candidate being accused of sexual assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, James Arryn said:

My comment isn't about his guilt or innocence, or indeed the wisdom of suing them. But if he thinks he's innocent or even if he just st thinks there's no case, suing people who publicly accuse you of a crime pretty much falls under 'standard procedure' and therefore doesn't require an explanation of bullying political dissidence. 

I wholly support the justice system pursuing charges against him, but that's a separate issue. As is the Putin stuff; again, I think he's vile and his election would be horrible for the world, but I don't withhold my assessment of fairness only for those whom I feel are personally deserving. That's the kind of thing people I wouldn't feel are deserving are often prone to doing.

There is no there there in this comment.  It verges upon word salad, lacking syntactical significance, particularly as the subject is that Orange Stalin wishes to silence women he's sexually assaulted.

It's plethora of words that throw a veil over the facts that he did commit those actions upon the bodies of these women -- while changing the subject from his assaults and attempts to silence those who are speaking out, to what is meaningless within that context -- is it fair?

Believing the women who have come forward (all of them with corroborating support from the time it happened) isw unfair to what or whom?

 The legal process with which he threatens the women? the political process that he's entirely subverted for the benefit of Putin's ambitions and personal vendetta against his opponent?  To him? He himself placed all this out into public view by using the threat of personal legal action from the Oval Office to silence anyone who isn't himself.

Not to mention all his other proven crimes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fez said:

 

John Harwood's a respectable, well-known journalist, I have no doubt that some senior GOP contact of his told him those numbers. Now whether that contact actually saw those numbers and whether they were what the internal GOP pollsters expected or if that was their current 'worst-case' model, I have no idea. Harwood probably has no idea either, he's just reporting what he's told.

But the new ABC/WaPo poll today now has Clinton up 50-38-5-2 in the 4-way, and they were the ones that only had Clinton at +4 last week when the other top pollsters were already seeing around a +8 margin for Clinton. Regardless of whether or not that turns out to the final margin, there's definitely starting to be a pretty hefty contingent of top polls that are showing Trump collapsing further (and Clinton consolidating third-party and undecided voters).

I really hope the ABC poll is a legit result and is not just herding by the pollster, right now is exactly when we would expect to see herding occur which could result in a big polling miss.

 

because clintons margin in that poll is twelve points, twelve point margin by the presidential candidate is the threshold where democrats get a 25% chance of winning a majority in the House of Representatives.

 

note, that is pathetic, but this is because the gerrymandering map software used in 2010, tested all the districts republicans drew were software drawn at such a granular level and ran through simulations and tests until they successfully simulated the gerrymander to withstand a twenty point wave, so realistically democrats need to win 60-40 in the house vote to earn a majority. 

Note, democrats wave year in 2006 was only 56-44 vote and they got 60+ seats, this year will likely be more than that and democrats will be lucky to get twenty seats.

also note this is entirely obamas fault for his total abandonment of the rest of the national and state democrat parties after getting elected. 

The massive disenfranchisement and theft of democracy from 2010 probably will be sufficient to even withstand an extreme outlier event like trump.  Depressing but true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally got my ballot! I was a little worried because we are moving in a week and if it had't come I would have been unable to vote (I'll be driving across the country on Nov 8). Now to figure out all these damn propositions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I filled out and mailed my ballot last week.  While filling it out, couldn't help reflecting on how remarkable it is that Americans have had the chance to vote for a woman this time, and an AA in '08 and '12.  Even if a voter chose not to vote for those candidates, they still had the choice.  A good thing for our country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...