Jump to content

US Elections: Groper in Chief


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Actually many have accused Hillary of silencing and threatening many of Bills alleged victims. So it's not like the only thing ppl ever accused her of was having a assualtist husband.

Yes, she clearly has the same disdain and lack of respect for women that her opponent displays.

Trump%20GABP_zpsc1omekat.jpg

 

And disregard the fact that it was his campaign that dug up and revived that tired-ass narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that Hillary Clinton has been accused of abusing women with whom her husband had affairs is NOT THE SAME THING AS SHE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DOING THAT. Unlike, say, the evidence by countless numbers of women who have been actually, you know, ABUSED BY TRUMP.

Just think about that, fer pete's sake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

God forbid we be friendly with evil Russians. Weve never been full on allies with places that have far more brutal social policies than them.

Quote

The timing is good to resurrect a liberal version of Mccarthyism.

Trump is Putins manchurian candidate!

You know there is some evidence that several of Trump's businesses are entangled with Russian financiers who tended to pal around with Putin.

If Hillary is going to have to take shit for the Clinton Foundation receiving foreign money, then it seems like fair game, to me, to ask questions about Trump's business dealings with these guys.

Also, personally, I really don't want a pissing contest with Putin. But, they're limits to what we should allow Putin to do. And certainly, there is no reason to trust him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

It's not that simple.  There has to be a "case in controversy" that allows them to strike down Marriage Equality.  How is anyone injured by Marriage Equality such that a case could be brought which would allow Marriage Equality to be struck down.  And that is ignoring Stari Decisis.

If Trump truly doesn't care about marriage equality, I suspect he'll allow himself to be led to justices sympathetic to that aim and he'll wash his hands of it.  Then the chips will fall where they may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's not about being friendly with Russians, it's about the possibility that they influenced our election illegally. The Orangutan can't get loans from domestic banks. The current theory is that his into Russian banks for a fairly obscene sum. That's the issue.

  http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a50598/russian-talked-to-trump-campaign/?src=socialflowTW

 

/I'm not sayin' I buy it necessarily, I'm just sayin'. 

I don't care much about a foreign entity influencing our elections. USA has been hand picking foreign leaders for decades. I don't discount the bank stuff though.

It's pretty interesting the longer you live you see these trends manifest in different ways.

During Bush's terms liberals were the tin foil hatists. Then during Obama, conservatives were the tin foil hatists. Now looks like the liberals are going back to the tin foil hat pile. That's not meant as a putdown to either side. Im a conspiracy guy so im always prone to believe a juicy conspiracy. I'm always gonna be labeled tin foil hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

If Trump truly doesn't care about marriage equality, I suspect he'll allow himself to be led to justices sympathetic to that aim and he'll wash his hands of it.  Then the chips will fall where they may.

Well, I guess if a Trump appointed court over turns marriage equality, then liberals better not complain about it because that's:

Identity politics.

And that just isn't fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't care much about a foreign entity influencing our elections. USA has been hand picking foreign leaders for decades. I don't discount the bank stuff though.

 So let's say you're a thief. You don't mind being robbed, because you've done it to others? Maybe we deserve it karmically, but I sure as hell would like to know if someone managed to pull the same trick on us, wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, but there is a distinction to be made here. Bill Clinton's past sexual misadventures have been applied directly to Hillary's forehead, by a guy who likely has done as much or worse. The hypocrisy is kinda maddening on two levels

I know, it is annoying as hell. I just believe us lefties have to hold our side accountable for the same issues. I understand the situations are not the same, but I dont want people sweeping Bill's past under the rug, as many seem to have forgotten everything except Lewinsky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, but there is a distinction to be made here. Bill Clinton's past sexual misadventures have been applied directly to Hillary's forehead, by a guy who likely has done as much or worse. The hypocrisy is kinda maddening on two levels. 

So, now that the election is over, here is how I feel about this: staying married to, and defending, a man who she knows abuses his authority to act like an occasionally well over the legal line pick-up artist seriously damages her credibility as a feminist.

That doesn't mean I'd line up to support the groper-in-chief-elect over her for President.

But it has always seriously diminshed my enthusiasm for her as the first female President. It would have, to me, been a serious stain on feminist history, that even the President could still be brought that low by the man in her life.

Either way, Bill or Trump, we knew it'd be bad for the White House interns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red Tiger said:

I know, it is annoying as hell. I just believe us lefties have to hold our side accountable for the same issues. I understand the situations are not the same, but I dont want people sweeping Bill's past under the rug, as many seem to have forgotten everything except Lewinsky.

I agree, but that doesn't include painting Hillary with the same brush. And that is what has happened here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 So let's say you're a thief. You don't mind being robbed, because you've done it to others? Maybe we deserve it karmically, but I sure as hell would like to know if someone managed to pull the same trick on us, wouldn't you?

It would probably depend on what was stolen and how much I cared about it.

I have very little faith in the honesty or fairness of our political system so the idea that some other country undermined the already corrupt system doesn't mean much to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

What does this mean?  Is there a link about this somewhere?

Its Kushner's revenge. That's Trump's son-in-law. Christie led the prosecution against Kushner's father 12 years ago. When the inner circle didn't think Trump would win, Christie was allowed to lead the transition; it was a shit assignment that wouldn't mean anything after Clinton won. But now that Trump's won its one of the most important tasks around for the incoming administration, far too nice a plum to let Christie have anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

During Bush's terms liberals were the tin foil hatists. Then during Obama, conservatives were the tin foil hatists. Now looks like the liberals are going back to the tin foil hat pile. That's not meant as a putdown to either side. Im a conspiracy guy so im always prone to believe a juicy conspiracy. I'm always gonna be labeled tin foil hat.

God, you're into this False Equivalence thing, aren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

Its Kushner's revenge. That's Trump's son-in-law. Christie led the prosecution against Kushner's father 12 years ago. When the inner circle didn't think Trump would win, Christie was allowed to lead the transition; it was a shit assignment that wouldn't mean anything after Clinton won. But now that Trump's won its one of the most important tasks around for the incoming administration, far too nice a plum to let Christie have anymore.

How did Christie not see that coming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

It would probably depend on what was stolen and how much I cared about it.

I have very little faith in the honesty or fairness of our political system so the idea that some other country undermined the already corrupt system doesn't mean much to me.

Fair enough, Comrade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

How did Christie not see that coming?

He had no choice? He's done in Jersey, he's done nationally, partly cause Trump ate his "I'm a brash asshole that tells it like it is" market . Might as well throw the number sticks.

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...