Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

[pilferk]

Oh well. I?m sure you?ll still take pride in your porn star banging president while quoting the bible in your signature

It's amazing isn't it? GOP is the party of hypocrites.

Exactly what does my forum signature and if/who a then-private-citizen had sex with a decade ago have to do with 80% of US taxpayers paying less in federal income taxes under the new tax system? 

I'm guessing that in her chosen profession, Ms. Daniels' finances are subject to the same tax laws as the rest of us and welcomes the possibility of paying less in taxes.

It has to do with the undying support you bible thumping morons give to this completely dispicable piece of shit of a president. But go ahead and bible thump, y'all gonna have a long ass time before you see another GOP president. 

Dude, that's just uncalled for (and one of the reasons I've spent so much time away from this thread).

I don't care WHAT you ideology is, I don't care that I agree with a lot of what you say politically, and about this president.  There is zero reason to insult Gypsy, or religious people in general, by calling them morons.

You are essentially engaging in exactly the type of hate mongering and fear mongering we see coming from this president. 

You, we....everyone.....needs to be better than that.

Attack the post, not the poster. 

[pilferk]

What this administration did today to McCabe is reprehensible Firing the guy 2 days before retirement to keep him from collecting his pension after 22 years of service is disgusting. All based on the Nunes memo who is a known Trump butt puppet and for not being candor, just like Sessions was during his testimony oh wait. I dare any Trump puppet to defend this.

Basically, to try to discredit his testimony in the Mueller probe.

AND, to wrap it all up, he was basically fired for leaking information that was harmful to HRC's campaign.  Which sounds exactly like something a Clinton Shill (as alleged by Trump) would do, right?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

[chineseblues]

Oh well. I?m sure you?ll still take pride in your porn star banging president while quoting the bible in your signature

It's amazing isn't it? GOP is the party of hypocrites.

Exactly what does my forum signature and if/who a then-private-citizen had sex with a decade ago have to do with 80% of US taxpayers paying less in federal income taxes under the new tax system? 

I'm guessing that in her chosen profession, Ms. Daniels' finances are subject to the same tax laws as the rest of us and welcomes the possibility of paying less in taxes.

It has to do with the undying support you bible thumping morons give to this completely dispicable piece of shit of a president. But go ahead and bible thump, y'all gonna have a long ass time before you see another GOP president. 

Dude, that's just uncalled for (and one of the reasons I've spent so much time away from this thread).

I don't care WHAT you ideology is, I don't care that I agree with a lot of what you say politically, and about this president.  There is zero reason to insult Gypsy, or religious people in general, by calling them morons.

You are essentially engaging in exactly the type of hate mongering and fear mongering we see coming from this president. 

You, we....everyone.....needs to be better than that.

Attack the post, not the poster. 

I am absolutely hot headed (Irish blood in me, can't help it). Yeah I probably cross the line on civility sometimes but when I see people like Gypsy with her bible quote supporting a complete and utter piece of human filth it annoys me. You can't have rational ad sane conversations with people who believe in a made up story that has ZERO evidence or facts to back it up. There's a pretty damn good reason why these people are so enamoured with trump. It's not because of his policies or any of that, it's because they have had a lifetime of brainwashing at the hands of their churches and are susceptible to believing any made up bullshit as long as you throw god in there.

"Organized religion makes a Mockery of humanity..."

Just sayin...

[chineseblues]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

Did he fuck her in the White House? No, but it's looking more and more like he engaged in threatening her while he was in the White House.

[chineseblues]

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will  not destroy America...America will triumph over you.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/974978856997224448

The gloves are coming off.

[pilferk]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

It wasnt the blow job that took Clinton down. It was lying about it.

And this is akin to saying all the past trangressions and harassments and philandering by Clinton, prior to his presidency, should be/have been off limits and irrelevant to the national discussion.

Do you actually feel that way? Do the rest of the conservatives/Repubs? Because it sure gets talked about a lot (even now, to justify Trump).

What was it mamma said about two wrongs?

Lastly, libs/dems dont claim to be the moral majority, nor do they get a decent percentage of votes from the evangelical/devout population, who would find this conduct a disqualifier (and they would be vocal about it, if history is to be believed) in any other(esp Democratic) candidate.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

It wasnt the blow job that took Clinton down. It was lying about it.

And this is akin to saying all the past trangressions and harassments and philandering by Clinton, prior to his presidency, should be/have been off limits and irrelevant to the national discussion.

Do you actually feel that way? Do the rest of the conservatives/Repubs? Because it sure gets talked about a lot (even now, to justify Trump).

What was it mamma said about two wrongs?

Lastly, libs/dems dont claim to be the moral majority, nor do they get a decent percentage of votes from the evangelical/devout population, who would find this conduct a disqualifier (and they would be vocal about it, if history is to be believed) in any other(esp Democratic) candidate.

My point is Trump did not cheat on his wife while President and he did not use the office ( literally) to achieve it.

Yes, both were wrong,  I'm not saying it was OK in either circumstance.

[GypsySoul]

It wasnt the blow job that took Clinton down. It was lying about it.

And this is akin to saying all the past trangressions and harassments and philandering by Clinton, prior to his presidency, should be/have been off limits and irrelevant to the national discussion.

Do you actually feel that way? Do the rest of the conservatives/Repubs? Because it sure gets talked about a lot (even now, to justify Trump).

What was it mamma said about two wrongs?

Lastly, libs/dems dont claim to be the moral majority, nor do they get a decent percentage of votes from the evangelical/devout population, who would find this conduct a disqualifier (and they would be vocal about it, if history is to be believed) in any other(esp Democratic) candidate.

First off, thank you. 
My sig has been my sig here for something like 20 years now.

On topic: 
I disagree that either the BJ and/or the lying "took Clinton down."
Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but was not convicted by the Senate so he wasn't removed from office.  He just has a black mark on his presidency in history books. None of his sexual transgressions over his entire political career & afterwards has had any repercussions politically or publicly among his supporters or financially among his donors/publishers/speaking engagements/etc.

HC's disregard/contempt for Republican voters (especially women republican voters), and to some extent her words/actions toward the women who came forward about her husband, was her political downfall and continues to be a thorn in the side of Democrats since she still represents herself to be the face of the party. 

Does this excuse/justify President Trump's own alleged transgressions?  Of course not.  But it's not a big leap for anyone to draw comparisons to the Clinton's.

As for the assertion about the evangelical/devout population finding said conduct a disqualifier: I believe what they/we take more into consideration when voting are candidates that run on pro-life and protection of religious liberties type platforms. Human fallibility is something most people do take into account but IMO is not a major factor in casting one's vote.

[tim_m]

What this administration did today to McCabe is reprehensible Firing the guy 2 days before retirement to keep him from collecting his pension after 22 years of service is disgusting. All based on the Nunes memo who is a known Trump butt puppet and for not being candor, just like Sessions was during his testimony oh wait. I dare any Trump puppet to defend this.

Basically, to try to discredit his testimony in the Mueller probe.

AND, to wrap it all up, he was basically fired for leaking information that was harmful to HRC's campaign.  Which sounds exactly like something a Clinton Shill (as alleged by Trump) would do, right?

If he did that you'd think Trump would be kissing his ass!

[tim_m]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

Definitely, there has to be something there that she knows that he really doesn't want made public. I won't go speculating on what but it's gotta be pretty damning. Also notice Trump hasn't said a word? That is very suspicious to me as well since typically has no qualms about taking to twitter to attack well everyone.

[tim_m]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

Did he fuck her in the White House? No, but it's looking more and more like he engaged in threatening her while he was in the White House.

And if Trump org money was used to pay her off that is a big no no and a federal offense. Another impeachable offense.

[tim_m]

It wasnt the blow job that took Clinton down. It was lying about it.

And this is akin to saying all the past trangressions and harassments and philandering by Clinton, prior to his presidency, should be/have been off limits and irrelevant to the national discussion.

Do you actually feel that way? Do the rest of the conservatives/Repubs? Because it sure gets talked about a lot (even now, to justify Trump).

What was it mamma said about two wrongs?

Lastly, libs/dems dont claim to be the moral majority, nor do they get a decent percentage of votes from the evangelical/devout population, who would find this conduct a disqualifier (and they would be vocal about it, if history is to be believed) in any other(esp Democratic) candidate.

First off, thank you. 
My sig has been my sig here for something like 20 years now.

On topic: 
I disagree that either the BJ and/or the lying "took Clinton down."
Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but was not convicted by the Senate so he wasn't removed from office.  He just has a black mark on his presidency in history books. None of his sexual transgressions over his entire political career & afterwards has had any repercussions politically or publicly among his supporters or financially among his donors/publishers/speaking engagements/etc.

HC's disregard/contempt for Republican voters (especially women republican voters), and to some extent her words/actions toward the women who came forward about her husband, was her political downfall and continues to be a thorn in the side of Democrats since she still represents herself to be the face of the party. 

Does this excuse/justify President Trump's own alleged transgressions?  Of course not.  But it's not a big leap for anyone to draw comparisons to the Clinton's.

As for the assertion about the evangelical/devout population finding said conduct a disqualifier: I believe what they/we take more into consideration when voting are candidates that run on pro-life and protection of religious liberties type platforms. Human fallibility is something most people do take into account but IMO is not a major factor in casting one's vote.

But don't you find it alarming and disturbing that those same evangelicals that are giving Trump a pass would be burning Obama at the stake for the same transgressions?

[pilferk]

First off, thank you. 
My sig has been my sig here for something like 20 years now.

On topic: 
I disagree that either the BJ and/or the lying "took Clinton down."
Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but was not convicted by the Senate so he wasn't removed from office.  He just has a black mark on his presidency in history books. None of his sexual transgressions over his entire political career & afterwards has had any repercussions politically or publicly among his supporters or financially among his donors/publishers/speaking engagements/etc.

He was prosecuted/impeached for perjury.  And censured for it by the legislature.  And fined for contempt of court for it. And disbarred for it (OK, he was disbarred and then chose to resign during the appeal process...but the final effect was he lost his license to practice law).

All those consequences were from the lying, not the actual blowjob.

Consequences for actual sex act? Zero.

There are varying degrees of getting "taken down".  Just because he isn't in an orange jumpsuit for it, doesn't mean there weren't consequences.  I understand the Republicans, for purely partisan reasons, would like to see different consequences, but.....

HC's disregard/contempt for Republican voters (especially women republican voters), and to some extent her words/actions toward the women who came forward about her husband, was her political downfall and continues to be a thorn in the side of Democrats since she still represents herself to be the face of the party. 

Keep that bolded bit in mind for a second. I'll get back to it in a bit.

And...HRC doesn't keep representing herself as the face of the party. In fact, she's pretty much disappeared from public life, with the exception of a couple speeches. THE REPUBLICANS keep pushing her as the face of the party, because she is an easy target; the boogeyman they want to tell hushed stories about to justify their vote for Trump.

Guess what: HRC lost. She's not the president. She's not the face of anything.

It might be time to start applying the same standards of conduct to the guy who did win that got applied to HRC (or Obama, for that matter).  Because right now, it sure looks like the Repubs are so giddy with having won back in 2016, they're willing to turn a blind eye toward just about anything else.  Andy they are doing long term damage to their party by doing so, IMHO.

Does this excuse/justify President Trump's own alleged transgressions?  Of course not.  But it's not a big leap for anyone to draw comparisons to the Clinton's.

Oh, no....I agree.  There are a LOT of parallels, here.  Thats entirely the point.  And I'm watching/reading/listening to Republican pundits (and...though not so much here) and voters who condemned Clinton (both of them) for their moral failings rush to defend Trump.  Literally, using the line "Well, look what Bill Clinton did" as a defense....an act Repubs found so reprehensible (meaning....a convenient political tool to be able to feign moral outrage over)  they tried (and some would say succeeded given the last 2 years of his presidency) to destroy his presidency over it.  And to them, it very much was "the blowjob"....and it very much still is, if you listed to the religious right commentaries....at least when it comes to the Clintons.

As for the assertion about the evangelical/devout population finding said conduct a disqualifier: I believe what they/we take more into consideration when voting are candidates that run on pro-life and protection of religious liberties type platforms. Human fallibility is something most people do take into account but IMO is not a major factor in casting one's vote .

1) I can give you half a dozen or more examples, pre-trump, where Republicans were either forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries primarily because of philandering or other "violations" of the Republican "moral majority" code.  So.....I'm not sure I believed this, in the recent past.

2) But, of late, I'm coming to the same conclusion you are (which is a paradigm shift).  But that's rather the point.  Those voters, who sit there and espouse the fact they won't vote Dem because of the Dem moral failings are really just looking for an excuse.  And they will embrace that paradox, voting contrary to their stated morality, to embrace "other issues" (and I'd state the primary "other issue" is "not being a democrat") to vote for the R.....because thats their "team".

3) Now, having kept in mind that first bolded bit, look at this 2nd one.  You've sort of made my point, here.  For HRC, you're quoting moral (and not really legal) failings as a primary (or even secondary) disqualifer for voting for her.  And then make excuses for Republican candidates and preach "forgiveness" for human failings.

[pilferk]

My point is Trump did not cheat on his wife while President and he did not use the office ( literally) to achieve it.

Yes, both were wrong,  I'm not saying it was OK in either circumstance.

Thats a mighty fine hair on the elephants ass to split in term of what's "relevant" and what's not, when judging character.

And I'd point out that Trump DID use his position of power (just not presidential power), ALLEGEDLY, to commit "icky" acts (like walking in on teenage girls who were changing).

I get it: Repubs will further and further granularize what Trump did/has done/will do, to try to justify it.  That's a large part of my point. Thanks for helping make it!

"Well, we didn't like it when the OTHER guy did it because he was president at the time...our guy wasn't" is rationalization in it's highest art form.

If you're taking exception from "the blowjob"....you should find Trumps actions just as morally reprehensible.  The guy cheated on his pregnant wife and then (someone) tried to cover it up.  It certainly speaks to character, or lack thereof.  And it's a long term pattern with this guy.  He's literally cheated on every wife (and this is a matter of court and public record, I might add) he's had...all 3 of them.

[GypsySoul]

He was prosecuted/impeached for perjury.  And censured for it by the legislature.  And fined for contempt of court for it. And disbarred for it (OK, he was disbarred and then chose to resign during the appeal process...but the final effect was he lost his license to practice law).

All those consequences were from the lying, not the actual blowjob.

Consequences for actual sex act? Zero.

There are varying degrees of getting "taken down".  Just because he isn't in an orange jumpsuit for it, doesn't mean there weren't consequences.  I understand the Republicans, for purely partisan reasons, would like to see different consequences, but.....

An asterisk after his name in history books is not a take down.  None of those consequences you listed had any personal or political repercussions.  He remained in office and, to this day, remains extremely popular and sought after by his party/supporters/donors/speaking engagements/etc.

1) I can give you half a dozen or more examples, pre-trump, where Republicans were either forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries primarily because of philandering or other "violations" of the Republican "moral majority" code.  So.....I'm not sure I believed this, in the recent past.

As you stated, they suffered experienced the consequences of being "forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries" because of it.  Post-Trump win, other "violations" of this nature on both sides of the aisle have also had the same consequences so I'm not quite understanding your point here.

* 'suffered' is not a word that should be used to describe these consequences. 



Here I'm addressing both pilferk and tim_m's posts because I think we're all basically agreeing while accusing each side of using the same tactics.

2) But, of late, I'm coming to the same conclusion you are (which is a paradigm shift).  But that's rather the point.  Those voters, who sit there and espouse the fact they won't vote Dem because of the Dem moral failings are really just looking for an excuse.  And they will embrace that paradox, voting contrary to their stated morality, to embrace "other issues" (and I'd state the primary "other issue" is "not being a democrat") to vote for the R.....because thats their "team".

3) Now, having kept in mind that first bolded bit, look at this 2nd one.  You've sort of made my point, here.  For HRC, you're quoting moral (and not really legal) failings as a primary (or even secondary) disqualifer for voting for her.  And then make excuses for Republican candidates and preach "forgiveness" for human failings.

But don't you find it alarming and disturbing that those same evangelicals that are giving Trump a pass would be burning Obama at the stake for the same transgressions?

Yes as a person of faith myself, I do find the partisan personal aspect of political mudslinging alarming & disturbing especially by the so-called moral majority.  He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...(John 8:7)

Unfortunately, this outlook is rampant not only in threads like this but also in the media (both sides).  Who had sex with whom should not be the LEAD* story of any political news show when there are so many other REAL issues that affect peoples every day life.  Should it be reported on the news?  Yes, of course.  But it shouldn't be the lead or take up the majority of the newscast.... we have late-night tv pundits to do that.

*quantified, of course, if said LEAD story is about rape/sexual harassment by a former governor/president and his wife who mercilessly harassed/impugned her husband's victims.

[tim_m]

Clinton actually was impeached. The only thing that actually did save his ass was the fact that Gore was the deciding vote.

[tim_m]

He was prosecuted/impeached for perjury.  And censured for it by the legislature.  And fined for contempt of court for it. And disbarred for it (OK, he was disbarred and then chose to resign during the appeal process...but the final effect was he lost his license to practice law).

All those consequences were from the lying, not the actual blowjob.

Consequences for actual sex act? Zero.

There are varying degrees of getting "taken down".  Just because he isn't in an orange jumpsuit for it, doesn't mean there weren't consequences.  I understand the Republicans, for purely partisan reasons, would like to see different consequences, but.....

An asterisk after his name in history books is not a take down.  None of those consequences you listed had any personal or political repercussions.  He remained in office and, to this day, remains extremely popular and sought after by his party/supporters/donors/speaking engagements/etc.

1) I can give you half a dozen or more examples, pre-trump, where Republicans were either forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries primarily because of philandering or other "violations" of the Republican "moral majority" code.  So.....I'm not sure I believed this, in the recent past.

As you stated, they suffered experienced the consequences of being "forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries" because of it.  Post-Trump win, other "violations" of this nature on both sides of the aisle have also had the same consequences so I'm not quite understanding your point here.

* 'suffered' is not a word that should be used to describe these consequences. 



Here I'm addressing both pilferk and tim_m's posts because I think we're all basically agreeing while accusing each side of using the same tactics.

2) But, of late, I'm coming to the same conclusion you are (which is a paradigm shift).  But that's rather the point.  Those voters, who sit there and espouse the fact they won't vote Dem because of the Dem moral failings are really just looking for an excuse.  And they will embrace that paradox, voting contrary to their stated morality, to embrace "other issues" (and I'd state the primary "other issue" is "not being a democrat") to vote for the R.....because thats their "team".

3) Now, having kept in mind that first bolded bit, look at this 2nd one.  You've sort of made my point, here.  For HRC, you're quoting moral (and not really legal) failings as a primary (or even secondary) disqualifer for voting for her.  And then make excuses for Republican candidates and preach "forgiveness" for human failings.

But don't you find it alarming and disturbing that those same evangelicals that are giving Trump a pass would be burning Obama at the stake for the same transgressions?

Yes as a person of faith myself, I do find the partisan personal aspect of political mudslinging alarming & disturbing especially by the so-called moral majority.  He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...(John 8:7)

Unfortunately, this outlook is rampant not only in threads like this but also in the media (both sides).  Who had sex with whom should not be the LEAD* story of any political news show when there are so many other REAL issues that affect peoples every day life.  Should it be reported on the news?  Yes, of course.  But it shouldn't be the lead or take up the majority of the newscast.... we have late-night tv pundits to do that.

*quantified, of course, if said LEAD story is about rape/sexual harassment by a former governor/president and his wife who mercilessly harassed/impugned her husband's victims.

You gotta admit that if stuff like this were coming out about Obama, people like Hannity and his ilk would be setting their hair on fire but they continue to kiss Trump's ass.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

It wasnt the blow job that took Clinton down. It was lying about it.

And this is akin to saying all the past trangressions and harassments and philandering by Clinton, prior to his presidency, should be/have been off limits and irrelevant to the national discussion.

Do you actually feel that way? Do the rest of the conservatives/Repubs? Because it sure gets talked about a lot (even now, to justify Trump).

What was it mamma said about two wrongs?

Lastly, libs/dems dont claim to be the moral majority, nor do they get a decent percentage of votes from the evangelical/devout population, who would find this conduct a disqualifier (and they would be vocal about it, if history is to be believed) in any other(esp Democratic) candidate.

Not saying what happened prior to his presidency is not relevant.  But unlike Bill C, Trump's infidelity isn't an impeachable offense as it did not happen when he was President. The court of public opinion will rule on Trump over this.