Trump haters. He'll defeat Hillary.....

Post Reply New Topic

Yup. Time to toss Crooked Hillary, low energy Bush, and the utterly vile feminist skanks on the proverbial dustbin of history.

Two or three more?

Everybody will love Trump eventually!

You can only lie about a person so much to the point of ridiculousness until they do the research on their on own

The powers the be in this country have wanted Hillary to be president for a long time now and it has always been something shoved down the throats of Americans which is why this time the field was cleared for but a self-avowed socialist 75 year old backbencher from Vermont to the forefront of American politics and as attractive as Bernie's "revolution" is I think it has gained much of it's strength as being the de facto anti-Clinton candidate. In the end she'll end up getting Trump elected too, it's all playing out perfectly.

Hillary doesn't really appeal to regular folks because that's not who she is trying to appeal to, she is own by the special interests including most of Wall Street and has been more than ethically challenged to accept money from anybody. Hillary's emails are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to quid pro quo that happened with The Clinton Foundation. Hillary made $25 million dollars in SPEECHES after stepping down as Secretary of State in 2013 and starting her campaign for president in 2015! I agree with Bernie that must of been one hell of speech! But wait, she won't even release the transcripts.

It's not lies about Trump that makes me dislike him, but for the very things that he says (everyone's financial problems will be solved if only Mexican drug smugglers and rapists are deported by the millions, that all Muslim Americans are potential terrorists, that the President if foreign born, etc). That, and the frightening racists who he appeals to, such as The Daily Stormer, David Duke, the current KKK Grand Dragon, etc.

He never said all our financial issues would be solved that way. A huge majority of terrorists are Muslim, because in their religion it basically glorifies violence. Your last point is complete absurd. That's like saying you can't like Paul McCartney, because some serial killers listened to The Beatles.

Well, most of Trump's fan club are led to believe all their economic problems are going to be solved with mass deportations. And you can't accuse innocent people of being terrorists just because they share a common religion with violent fanatics. As a matter of fact, most domestic terrorists in America are white supremacists - many of whom you would expect to show up at Trump rallies - are you going to accuse all Trump supporters of being terrorists by that reasoning? And in closing, while most Trump supporters are law abiding citizens, he attracts more than his share of scary people in the white supremacist movement, and that makes me be wary of this particular messenger and his message.

You seem to have a pathological grudge against women.

I don't particularly care. I'm not being formally legalistic here; it's just remarkably bad form to hit on someone within your own chain of command.

I did not mean to imply that, though I can see where it could be taken from what I said. I actually believe Lewinsky that her affair was consensual; Clinton was a remarkably charismatic guy in person. ...but the second half of my criticism still applies, that sexual favoritism leads to unfair advantage as compared to other interns who didn't catch the President's eye or who had more scruples.
To take a military example, say a convoy leader always makes sure his girlfriend isn't riding point, even though she's qualified and classed to do so. Is that fair to everyone else? Or if she's not his girlfriend, but she and everyone else knows what would happen in terms of assignments if she started sleeping with him, is that fair to her? Can she make an honorable decision about relationships in that case?
In Lewinsky's case, don't you think that a glowing recommendation (or a refusal to recommend) from the President might have been in the back of her mind, just a little bit?


I'm not trying to imply a legal accusation here. In my book, it's harassment to hit on inferiors (if the inferior hits on you, it's not harassing them but it's unfair to the rest of the staff). I wouldn't report a supervisor who hit on me to HR unless they did it more than once... but when the person in question is the head of the company, as with one place I worked as a teenager, there's not much that HR (if it's a big enough company to have an HR dept) is likely to do. So you have to go to the government. When the person in question is the head of the government...

So, yeah: Clinton I and Lewinski had a thing. Was it illegal? Probably not. Was it in extremely bad form? Absolutely, and not just because he was cheating on his wife. Should the Rs have flipped out they way they did, special prosecutor and all? Gods, no. If they had just shut up about the whole thing they probably would have done more long-term damage to his reputation, but they ended up looking so much worse than him that they became his salvation.


I honestly don't know of even any feminists who believe that consent can be retrospectively withdrawn, accusations from right-winger and MRAs notwithstanding. I have heard more that a few who will say that mere 'consent' isn't enough, that there must be affirmative consent. As in, the person has to be all over you with lots of 'yesses' for it to count as actual consent, and that a woman shouldn't have to actually say 'No' if she's not interested. Coming from the 'No means No' generation, that seems a little to far to me, though I agree that it would make for better sex all around.
The feminists use as examples cases where a woman was afraid to say no at the time, and the guy in question took that as consent, and then accused her of changing her mind after the fact; cases where she was unconscious, and he took that as consent; also cases where a woman changes her mind during the event, and the guy refuses to leave or stop anyway, and accuses her of changing her mind 'after the fact' when it was really only 'after the coffee.'

Don't forget the Hispanics, the blacks, the liberal Jews, the Asians, the disabled, women in general who don't aspire to trophy-wifedom, the Muslims... am I forgetting anybody?

Don't forget the poor and the retired veterans. Oh and the troops that Trump will send to their deaths!

Yes, of course: and the Japanese allies/Oregonians/Californians/or Washingonians that North Korea will somehow manage to bomb when Kim Jung Un gets upset over some inanity of Trump's. Mutual temper tantrums in the red-button leaders of nuclear armed states: what could possibly go wrong?

Absolutely nothing! HEIL TRUMP OUR GLORIOUS LEADER!

Well, as a Washingtonian, I'd be dead.

You are attempting to redefine what harassment means which could lead to moral ambiguity in anyone you taught this to.

It is much the same as this person who is attempting to redefine what consent means:

https://bandanablog.wordpress.com/2013/ ... elt-sense/

This is not helpful becuase it fails to take responsibility for actions and she isn't talking about consent in any meaningful sense.

Also it is perfectly possible to harass a superior, if you take the actual definition. This is like the oppressed group can't be bigoted fallacy.

Well.
that is ...unhelpful. I would have said that attitude didn't really exist.


I agree that it is possible to harass a superior, but usually not for long. The superior can always fire the harasser.

Here, hear!

Being the SOB that I can be at times, I would laugh my ever-loving arse off if the tRump did win, since the American electorate would once again prove H. L. Men men's dictum, "Never overestimate the intelligence of the American electorate."

And no, I haven't changed my mind about either the tRump or Billery. I still feel the Bern, but I trust any politician about s far as I can hit the broad side of a cow barn with a softball (and I can't do that tremendous feat).