The Trump Effect & The New Democrats

[Curious George]

True.
But they're their own people....hardly related to my peaking.
And they arrived after me 20s.

How else were they made?

 

[Revoltingest]

How else were they made?

Borg conception & maturation chambers.

 

[BSM1]

ecco said:​

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about what the lady said.
Trump is the father of several children. All those children have mothers. Those mothers all had those children because Donal Trump had coitus with them.




What rationalization? What I presented was a factual interpretation. You are certainly allowed to present a factual interpretation of any politician's statements.

Please try with the following:

We will build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.

I noticed you dodged the question.

 

[Shadow Link]

While there's great disagreement over various Trump agendas, there's wide agreement
that he's candid with his opinions. (Some might say "honest", others "boorish".)
People are becoming less restrained in their insults, ribald language, open hostility,
& even calls for violence. Democrats haven't ignored Trump's success over their rather
wooden chosen one. So in this recent election, they unleash their own versions of Trump.

The New Democrats speak....
New congresswoman curses out Trump in call for impeachment

Quoted from the article.....
It didn't take long for new Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to introduce herself to President Donald Trump and the nation. And she did so in the most profane way possible.

Tlaib, who was sworn in as Michigan's representative from the 13th Congressional District on Thursday afternoon, was speaking at an event for progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org when she relayed a conversation with her son to the crowd: "And when your son looks at you and says, 'Momma, look you won, bullies don’t win,' and I said, 'Baby they don't,' because we’re gonna go in and impeach the motherf-----."

[On Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib] Why all the focus in trying to raise minimum wages, when all it really does is increase the prices of goods to pay for those wage increases? Is it to create more tax revenue? What is the point of creating Economic Inflation for the long haul?


Am I missing the point of seeing a benefit for ($15 an hour) minimum wage increases?

 

[LuisDantas]

Shame....like supporting Bill Clinton while knowing
he stood accused of worse sexual assault.
Yeah....they're paragons of virtue & consistency.

Dude, you are bringing back situations from about 20 years ago to attempt to force a perception of "equivalence"... all the while conveniently glossing over the much more recent realities of the fate of that Senator and the shamelessness of the current POTUS.

It seems to me that you made an excellent job of pointing out how asymetrical the reality actually is.

But those of us outside of both parties believe that
sexual assault is always wrong....not just when a
sin of the other party.

I quite agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which ones do you disagree with in post #48?

I believe that no Democrats are intentionally emulating Trump,
but a several other things are going on....
- Those who speak as crudely as Trump does are now more
accepted in the environment he spawned.

True enough.

One wonders how those people distribute among supporters of Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party/Alt-Right and other groups.

Then again, considering who voted for him and which party he associated himself with, there may well be little surprise there.

Also, I must ask whether you realize that what you said above amounts to stating that American society is failing to give Trump the repudiation that he deserves.

- Angered by his crude persona, they lash out with less restraint.
- Other Democrats have urged nastier behavior.
- TDS & TAD

It seems to me that you will hurt your case and your credibility until and unless you decide whether you approve of repudiation of Trump's bad behavior and bad example or you do not.

Otherwise, it will be supremely difficult not to conclude that you are simply being very biased.

 

[Revoltingest]

[On Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib] Why all the focus in trying to raise minimum wages, when all it really does is increase the prices of goods to pay for those wage increases? Is it to create more tax revenue? What is the point of creating Economic Inflation for the long haul?


Am I missing the point of seeing a benefit for ($15 an hour) minimum wage increases?

I see an advantage to higher wages for low wage earners.
But I oppose the min wage for various reasons, primarily
because it won't work as intended.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dude, you are bringing back situations from about 20 years ago to attempt to force a perception of "equivalence"...

No, no, no...you've got it all wrong.
It comes up in a thread about the Trump Effect.
It's an issue that bad behavior has existed historically.
How has it been treated?
How has it changed?
Is the Trump Effect real?
And then, his behavior relates to Hillary's having covered
it up with attacks on the accusers, directly relating to
the election, & how it proceeded.
While it's uncomfortable for liberals who supported him
knowing his history, it's still significant for this thread.
Partisan tolerance of sexual predation might've culminated
in Trump's election, but it certainly started earlier.

And nowhere did I say they're equivalent.
If anything, Bill looks worse than Trump regarding sexual assault.

....all the while conveniently glossing over the much more recent realities of the fate of that Senator and the shamelessness of the current POTUS.

I haven't glossed over it at all.
I'm one of the very few posters here who even calls him out for being a boor.

It seems to me that you made an excellent job of pointing out how asymetrical the reality actually is.


I quite agree.

Which conflicts with your attempt to say I gloss over Trump's behavior.
Perhaps your mistake lies in my not paying it as much attention as you'd like, eh.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, no, no...you've got it all wrong.
It comes up in a thread about the Trump Effect.
It's an issue that bad behavior has existed historically.
How has it been treated?
How has it changed?
Is the Trump Effect real?
And then, his behavior relates to Hillary's having covered
it up with attacks on the accusers, directly relating to
the election, & how it proceeded.
While it's uncomfortable for liberals who supported him
knowing his history, it's still significant for this thread.
And nowhere did I say they're equivalent.
If anything, Clinton looks worse than Trump regarding sexual assault.


I haven't glossed over it at all.
I'm one of the very few posters here who even calls him out for being a boor.

Which conflicts with your attempt to say I gloss over Trump's behavior.
Perhaps your mistake lies in my not paying it as much attention as you'd like, eh.

Have a good day. I made as much of an attempt at following your logic today as I am going to.

 

[MetallicHue]

Have a good day. I made as much of an attempt at following your logic today as I am going to.

Have you got that revolting aftertaste in your mouth?

 

[Shadow Link]

I see an advantage to higher wages for low wage earners.

Yeah, maybe they'd get a short term benefit out of it.

But I oppose the min wage for various reasons, primarily because it won't work as intended.

Maybe she just needed to inspire votes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then again, considering who voted for him and which party he associated himself with, there may well be little surprise there.

As one who voted for Trump, I won't accept aspersions cast for
his sexual antics, given that Hillary (the alternative) also enabled
behavior even worse for Bill. We faced the lesser of 2 evils.

You'd prefer that Hillary had won, right?
If so, would this mean that you condoned her attacking women
who accused Bill of assault & even rape? Of course not.

Also, I must ask whether you realize that what you said above amounts to stating that American society is failing to give Trump the repudiation that he deserves.

That's not what I'm saying.
It's that the public, the media, & politicians are all too accepting of bad behavior.
To single out only one player for criticism might be criticized for "glossing over"
the others, eh?

It seems to me that you will hurt your case and your credibility until and unless you decide whether you approve of repudiation of Trump's bad behavior and bad example or you do not.

Have you not read the OP?
This thread is about criticizing both Trump & the Democrats who are aping his bad behavior.
A reasonable person would conclude this as "repudiation", even if that word isn't used.

Otherwise, it will be supremely difficult not to conclude that you are simply being very biased.

I'll be "biased" unless I take your side, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have a good day. I made as much of an attempt at following your logic today as I am going to.

Back atch ya, bruderherz.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe she just needed to inspire votes.

It's a liberal "dog whistle".

(I was in the mood to say something provocative.)

 

[Shadow Link]

It's a liberal "dog whistle".

(I was in the mood to say something provocative.)

Sad but true!

 

[ecco]

Only after The Drudge Report

So how many voted for him after the scandal broke?
44,909,889

Of those 44,909,889 how many had ever heard of the Drudge Report back then? I sure didn't.

Remember, your original comments were about Democrats giving Clinton a pass. We didn't. Because we did n't know about Lewinsky.

Even today I don't follow the Drudge Report any more than I follow Breitbart.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: I don't understand why everyone is so upset about what the lady said.​

Trump is the father of several children. All those children have mothers. Those mothers all had those children because Donal Trump had coitus with them.

May we use your particular form of rationalization to any statement made by every politician?

What rationalization? What I presented was a factual interpretation. You are certainly allowed to present a factual interpretation of any politician's statements.

Please try with the following:

We will build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.

I noticed you dodged the question.

No, I didn't dodge anything. Your question was based on the misrepresentation that my comment was rationalization. It wasn't; it was a factual interpretation as I stated.

What rationalization? What I presented was a factual interpretation. You are certainly allowed to present a factual interpretation of any politician's statements.
​

I am aware that you used your false allegation to avoid the addressing:

Please try with the following:
We will build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.
​

Clearly, it is not me that is dodging, it is you.

 

[ecco]

You'd prefer that Hillary had won, right?
If so, would this mean that you condoned her attacking women
who accused Bill of assault & even rape?

The operative word being "accused". What ever happened with those accusers? Were their claims valid enough to bring even civil trials? I don't remember Clinton being charged with rape.

I'll be "biased" unless I take your side, eh.

Your bias is quite clear for all to see.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of those 44,909,889 how many had ever heard of the Drudge Report back then? I sure didn't.

Hmmm....how were you when Drudge broke the scandal?
Other media did meta-coverage, ie, complaining that Drudge
either broke the old rules or wasn't credible.
(It turned out that Drudge was the only credible source in this.)

Remember, your original comments were about Democrats giving Clinton a pass. We didn't. Because we did n't know about Lewinsky.

Of course, I wouldn't want anyone to infer that number of people
in the figure I cited (ie, the number of voters for Bill) were all
fully engaged news consumers. But this suggests harsh criticism
of them for being fully unaware of a major news story just because
they limited their sources to what is comfortable, eg, NPR.

Note also that Bill's illicit dalliances as governor had been out there
in news coverage for many years.

Even today I don't follow the Drudge Report any more than I follow Breitbart.

That's too bad.
Drudge aggregates news from both the left & the right....from mainstream to
loopy....from Breitbart & Infowars all the way to the NY Times & Washington Post.
One sees a picture of broad perspectives in this country.
All news is agenda laden.
To read competing perspectives is the only to gain a full picture.
If one only consumes liberal sources, is one really informed?

 

[Revoltingest]

The operative word being "accused". What ever happened with those accusers? Were their claims valid enough to bring even civil trials? I don't remember Clinton being charged with rape.

I never said Bill was prosecuted for rape.

Consider the double standard at work here.
Many lefties excuse Bill by saying that he was never convicted
or even prosecuted for sexual assault claimed by multiple women.
But we see lefties convinced that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford,
despite there being no conviction, no trial, nor even any credible
evidence.

Bill's accusers can say when & where he did it.
Ford cannot remember either when or where, yet they credit
here with providing the gospel truth.
With Bill, we even have his aggressive lying about never having
diddled Monica. Well, this lie sure fell apart under scrutiny.
But with Kavanaugh, the accusations all evaporated.

Your bias is quite clear for all to see.

Meh....is there anyone who is without bias?
Certainly, you don't claim to be bias free, eh.
What matters is having reasonable standards of judgement,
& applying them fairly & uniformly to friend & foe alike.