Senate The US Politics discussion

geez please don't compare Bush or anyone else to this guy. If it was Trump he'd just lie and say the WMD were found in Iraq and the media was lying.

 

Just what I thought. lol

 

@J-Rod , your reading makes little sense for a couple reasons:

1. If he was only saying that he doesn't formally ask for permission in the way that husbands and wives don't, or boyfriends and girlfriends might not, what was the point of the statement? How does it fit into the topic you described, of how women will let powerful men behave. You think he's saying they will let them behave. . .no differently than anyone else? Really? Even though that goes against literally every other remark in the recorded conversation, including his own?

1b. Since you want to do such close reading, the discussion was not about asking permission. He emphasized the point that he doesn't "wait." With the term left so general, we have to assume that it applies to any and all forms of acceptance. He doesn't wait for them to seem interested or look willing. He doesn't wait until he knows the person or they are comfortable with him. He doesn't wait to see how they feel about people getting in their personal space. He doesn't wait. Period. That is literally not how people--even longtime spouses that are deeply physically attracted to one another and in love--behave. You are inserting things into his statement that simply aren't there.

2. If the statement was only what you try to describe, why was Mike Pence horrified? Pence released a public condemnation of Trumps "words and actions," recall. He has stood faithfully by Trump during every other controversy and scandal, but this is the one that disgusted and outraged him. Why? Because Trump was simply pointing out that people usually don't ask for written permission before they kiss one another? Really?

3. People are not outraged about whether or not he personally said that he grabs women's genitals. They are upset that he expressed an attitude that, if one is powerful, the only thing that should dictate how you treat a women is how attracted to that women one feels. That is something he literally said. And even if it was "just joking" it was a joke many people do find offensive. Similarly, if I and others started joking about killing or hating white people, I somehow doubt you would be thrilled. Saying it was a joke wouldn't mitigate its offensive nature.

 

Its comments like these that make me really worry about the future. Some things are subjective (like if you think that painting is good or not) and then there's just living in another reality. There are literally decades of stories of what a horrible person Trump is. If his supporters follow him because he'll mostly push the typical conservative agenda despite not having any values, well, at least that makes sense. He hasn't turned over a new leaf, as his many many public appearances and twitter tirades show (and he most likely never will). Yet so many people still give him the "benefit of the doubt". He's long pass his second (or second hundredth) chance by now.

With possibly another government shutdown (and default) about to be held hostage (again) in the next month, the White House is instead busy engaging in a cover-up. And we're quibbling over the exact words of something Trump said and kind of almost apologized for (then un-apologized). Its not like it was a one-off thing, that's how he's always acted. Its not like the tape was that big a shock, that someone found it was a surprise, but still, not like he had a good reputation.

People are actually nostalgic for Bush because of how... undignified Trump is. Of course, many of the current trends started with Bush (or probably even further back with Gingrich, who is kind of back in power these days). At least with Bush he looked like he cared about the country and the people (and at least his administration looked somewhat competent part of the time). Trump only sounds presidential when he's reading off a teleprompter (and then promptly reverts to his real self, especially on twitter). Its always hard to tell with Trump and his people if they're just doing a poor job of covering things up in relations to them being Russian stooges (not that it matters, with the Republican Congress not caring about rules much) or if more of this is due to Trump's ego. Normally you'd think that there would be people to restrain or advise the president that acting purely out of ego would be bad, but that's unlikely in this administration.

 

Also, just for a moment's reflection. This is what the conservative media posits.

Unacceptable commentary about law enforcement:
1. Crouching slightly and silently during a 3 minute song to discourage the use of lethal force by police in situations where it isn't absolutely necessary

Acceptable commentary about law enforcement:
1. Calling them a "disgrace" on national television
2. Saying that they are corrupt and politically motivated in ways that are "worse than Watergate."
3. Exposing the results of ongoing investigations that need some level of secrecy to operate effectively
4. Deliberately and explicitly doing things that cooperating law enforcement agencies in other countries say will damage prospects for future cooperation and which our own law enforcement agencies describe as deeply harmful.

. . .

 

It's okay when law enforcement is racist. It's not okay when they investigate a rich white guy I like.

 

Let's not get carried away. We can have our different opinions on the meaning of his words and the context of his setting. I think he was bull********. You think he was literal. All of which is fine and a good debate.

However I don't like the subject and find even my own understanding of the conversation distasteful. I mean, to be clear, even if I'm 100% accurate in my opinion of what he meant, it's still ugly. So the question becomes: Do I lose bigly, or do I just lose. Because there is no winning hand for the side of decency in this particular deck. We are only disagreeing on how ugly was it.

I'm not defending what he said as if it was ok. It wasn't. I am, however, saying that he never said what he's been credited with saying.

That's a fact.

 

I am saying what he HAS said is more than enough to be disgusted with a racist, lying, sexual predator and I cannot understand why anyone works so hard to excuse that and keep supporting him.

That's also a fact.

 

True. And it's just gross in any situation. This goes for any man/woman/whoever who wants to aggressively kiss a person, among other things, without a care for the other person's consent. It's the tactic of narcissistic abusers, and this is why women and families flee from an abuser with nowhere else to go sometimes.

So, when I run into a Trump supporter, I'm like, "I'm done. If you can't see this, you're not worth my time or attention."

 

Then why exaggerate what he's said? If it's enough, then it's enough.

 

Will Farrell said it best.

I will concede that Jedi-Rising has a point. Comparing Mitt Romney and Trump to Bush gets stale. Like Anakinfan said, Bush treated women well in his middle-age himself, at least as far as his personal life was concerned. Not in his policies. I heard he was a hapless jerk toward one of his exes when he was young, but he was not outright abusive like Trump has been for his entire life. Romney acts like a clueless man out of his time with women, and Trump is a more extreme version of that.

 

Perhaps we should discuss this?

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ct-trump-report?amp&__twitter_impression=true

However, it should be noted that the obstruction of justice charge does not equal an easy conviction...especially with this nuthouse Congress.

 

I stand ready! LOL!

While we wait...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...ignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push

President Donald Trump: The memo paints a partisan bias atop the FBI against the president. Also the dubious way the FBI initially obtained a FISA warrant for Trump aide Carter Page will likely impact public perception of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling.

Rep. Devin Nunes: He is the author of the memo Republicans are now holding aloft as proof of a Deep State liberal bias.

Republicans: Based on how the memo was crafted, the underpinnings of the FBI’s snooping on Team Trump appears to largely be based on “fake news.”

The American people: Despite complaints Mr. Nunes memo reveal classified investigative FISA techniques, it’s not necessarily a bad thing when the American public gets a look into the inner workings of powerful government entities.

LOSERS

James Comey, Andrew McCabe: The now departed FBI director and deputy director appear to have ruined their careers at the bureau by putting so much stock in the dubious dossier.

Christopher Steele: The ex-British spy is described as being blinded by his zeal to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. He apparently also lied to the FBI about blabbing to the media.

Rod Rosenstein: It may be a touch awkward for the Trump-appointed deputy attorney general, who signed off on a FISA warrant, to show up for work on Monday. President Trump was asked Friday if he still had confidence in Mr. Rosenstein, “You figure that one out,” he responded.

Robert Mueller: While his investigation is completely separate from what is outlined in the memo, the roots of the reason for his hiring can be traced back to the dubious dossier. No matter what he uncovers, the public already perceives a partisan taint.

 

Not sure where you read any exaggeration from me. I thought I only posted his own words, I'll have to go back and look.

 

I hope your mental gymnastics trainer was an imaginary Russian guy named Boris who yelled at you all day long and threatened to kill your pets and also colluded with Trump to win the election. You're gonna need that kind of training. But remember not to tell us that he colluded with Trump. It would hurt your case.

 

Maybe I was mistaken? I thought you were trying to say that Trump said that he grabbed women by the hoohaa. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But certainly the Press attributes the quote to him.

President Donald Trump: The memo paints a partisan bias atop the FBI against the president. Also the dubious way the FBI initially obtained a FISA warrant for Trump aide Carter Page will likely impact public perception of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling.

Rep. Devin Nunes: He is the author of the memo Republicans are now holding aloft as proof of a Deep State liberal bias.

Republicans: Based on how the memo was crafted, the underpinnings of the FBI’s snooping on Team Trump appears to largely be based on “fake news.”

The American people: Despite complaints Mr. Nunes memo reveal classified investigative FISA techniques, it’s not necessarily a bad thing when the American public gets a look into the inner workings of powerful government entities.

LOSERS

James Comey, Andrew McCabe: The now departed FBI director and deputy director appear to have ruined their careers at the bureau by putting so much stock in the dubious dossier.

Christopher Steele: The ex-British spy is described as being blinded by his zeal to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. He apparently also lied to the FBI about blabbing to the media.

Rod Rosenstein: It may be a touch awkward for the Trump-appointed deputy attorney general, who signed off on a FISA warrant, to show up for work on Monday. President Trump was asked Friday if he still had confidence in Mr. Rosenstein, “You figure that one out,” he responded.

Robert Mueller: While his investigation is completely separate from what is outlined in the memo, the roots of the reason for his hiring can be traced back to the dubious dossier. No matter what he uncovers, the public already perceives a partisan taint.

 

I admit to being curious as well. I blame this on the false idea that facts are not binary. A fact, per Merriam Webster:
1a : something that has actual existence
b : an actual occurrence

So, let's look at this fact that there is video of Trump talking about a reporter with a disability. While talking about that reporter, Trump shakes his body and contorts his hands in a way that appears to mimic the disability of the reporter. So let's set aside for the moment whether he "made fun" of the reporter. Let's focus on the fact that Trump clearly makes motions that are abnormal from what he would normally do when speaking. Simply as a point of fact- Trump made motions on video when discussing that reporter. That is an indisputable fact as anyone can roll the tape.

What Kellyanne Conway and others have done is introduce the mythlogical idea of Alternative Facts- sorry no. FACTS are binary things. Either it happened or it didn't. A fact is provable. But this is not theory where in some alternate universe there exists the idea that 2+2=5. We are dealing with what is provable in this universe. And what is provable is that Trump is on video-unedited video- talking about a reporter and moving his body abnormally while doing so. How do you dispute that?

It appears to me as though you dispute the interpretation that Trump was purposely making fun of the reporter with those motions. If that is indeed your argument, I would ask why you believe Trump made those motions and whether doing so was necessary or a good idea. Likewise, I would ask what we are supposed to think Trump is doing based on those motions.

Politicians are experts at taking occurrences that have factually occurred and twisting their interpretations. And yes, you can look at something and come away with different opinions- that stupid colored dress a few years back proves that. What is troubling however is when Trump or his supporters state that something "never happened". As most recently with the allegations that he told supporters he never said ANYTHING that was on tape in the Access Hollywood bus and that it was fabricated. That is factually wrong. Trump is seen on video. And there are multiple people around Trump- chief among them Billy Bush, who attested that Trump said what was in the video. What Trump is now trying to do is deny fact. The problem I and others have with this is that Trump has denied facts so often that we are past the Boy who cried "Believe me!" - I have factual reasons I can point to as to why I don't believe him. Does that make sense J-Rod?

 

it's also something someone who thinks he's on his favorite sports team says

but they aren't getting the trophy, and they aren't getting paid.

 

Okay, I'm going to say two things.

First, the whole "literally versus seriously" thing. J-Rod alluded to it. And I am long sick of it. Every indication about Trump's past and actions along with his words points to him speaking literally most or all of the time. When it comes to comments suggesting assault? He's literally raped and assaulted people. When it comes to comments about his WALL, with all of the inhumane things going along with it, he's meant it as a serious policy. He absolutely would have contested the election saying it was rigged if he had lost. He absolutely would have tried to "lock her up" if it had been viable. He still would, and she's gone. He's fired the FBI director and threatened to fire other people who are investigating him. He has said countless racist, sexist, misogynistic, classist, corrupt, and just classless and entitled comments, and he has given every indication that this is his sincere worldview. Look at how he's behaved in his business transactions! Look at his history of not paying contractors. Look at his multiple bankrupties. Look at his scams. Look at his calling for innocent people to be put to death. Look at his history of affairs. He raped his wife. Why the **** do you not take him literally OR seriously?! This is who he is. He has not changed, not since 2015, not since his inauguration, not for his entire adult life. He has a consistent way of acting.

But J-Rod is not going to care about any of what I just said. He won't take it seriously. He'll wave it off as hysterics and incorrect and unverified opinions. I know this because this what he has consistently done. He's done it today. Which is why I want to say the second thing.

I was told not to tell people to leave, and I understand why, and I won't do it again. I'm not even going to address him now. I'm going to address all of you who I know agree with me.

This is what I am talking about when I say he doesn't contribute to the conversation. We don't get great and spirited debates out of talking to him, not most of the time anyway. We get derailment. We get roadblocks and frustration with essentially nothing to show for it. Arguing with him about these things is literally a waste of time. The vast majority of his recent posts, even when they've been cordial and respectful (and they haven't always) have been more than unreasonable. They've been obstinate and borderline delusional and have not contributed in any real way to the discussion here.

He can stay or go, I don't care, but we don't have to take him seriously. We don't have to feel obligated to address all of his myriad inane points. We can be polite if we must, but we don't have to invest the effort to write up what are time-consuming posts that I know drain energy to address him when we disagree with him. So let's not, please. I'm tired of reading through it, especially when it's quite frankly really repetitive.

If he has a question, answer it, whatever. I will, if I think it's a decent question. If you have a question for him, why not do the same. That's useful, that exchange of feedback. But debating with him is a waste of time. Maybe someday, under different circumstances. Not now.

Just consider it.

 

I've posted the video before. Several times he's used those gestures imitating someone who was wrong. He's even made those gestures making fun of himself when he was wrong. It's a guy flailing around trying to find an excuse for what he had said.

Unless he's making fun of a disability he himself has, it's not a mockery of someone with disabilities. It's a mockery of someone who has been proven wrong.

It's how you prefer it.

I'm so confused. Do we get to gaslight or not?