Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[Ashmoria]

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN14V18L

President-elect Donald Trump escalated a fight with U.S. spy agencies on Wednesday, nine days before he takes over their command as president, and accused them of practices reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

This is why I refuse to pick a side, because both sides, plus Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, clearly have to explain how they have, in my opinion, run US politics down into a complete farce, throwing fierce insults and accusations against each other.

It is already nearly impossible not to break Godwin’s law because of the far-right support for Trump, even though he later disowned the alt-right.

most people have at least policy preferences. there couldn't be a starker contrast between what will happen now and what would have happened in a Clinton presidency.

[Yorkers]

In other words, you recognize this is false, but will act as if it's real because you don't like him.

I recognize that this story is unproven, and am inclined to believe that it is the sort of thing which might be true, because it matches what Donald Trump has shown us about what kind of person he is over the course of his life.

No it doesn't.

[Patridam]

that link shows no more proof that they did it than that they are making up doing it now.

Then why are you taking the CIA at face value when they admit it's unverified?

Because its something that says Trump is bad, obviously. Anyone here who seriously believes this report has got some crazy confirmation bias.

[Gauthier]

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN14V18L


This is why I refuse to pick a side, because both sides, plus Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, clearly have to explain how they have, in my opinion, run US politics down into a complete farce, throwing fierce insults and accusations against each other.

It is already nearly impossible not to break Godwin’s law because of the far-right support for Trump, even though he later disowned the alt-right.

False equivalence. Trump and his supporters lowered the discourse, not Clinton. Clinton is also gone now.

There will be cluckings well into 2020.

[Ashmoria]

that link shows no more proof that they did it than that they are making up doing it now.

Then why are you taking the CIA at face value when they admit it's unverified?

I didn't say it was proven. I said it was credible. see the difference?

[Astrolinium]

Consent is a very murky thing to prove, especially when rape or sexual assault is at issue. Many men take women's actions as "consent" when they really don't want it ("No means yes" comes to mind).

And it also is just more evidence of his megalomania, if nothing else.

But there's nothing murky about our interpretations. You interpret that he is using power to cover up non-consensual sex, and I interpret he is getting consent in part because he is rich and famous. You SAID you find my interpretation - one that involves consent - more disturbing than your own. That is all kinds of f*cked up and disturbing man.

"Consent cannot be given when it is the result of coercion, intimidation, force, or threat of harm."

http://web.plattsburgh.edu/title-ix/define-consent.php

[Patridam]

In other words, you recognize this is false, but will act as if it's real because you don't like him.

I recognize that this story is unproven, and am inclined to believe that it is the sort of thing which might be true, because it matches what Donald Trump has shown us about what kind of person he is over the course of his life.

You are inclined to believe it because it fits the boogeyman version of Donald Trump you have imagined in your head.

[Yorkers]

Then why are you taking the CIA at face value when they admit it's unverified?

Because its something that says Trump is bad, obviously. Anyone here who seriously believes this report has got some crazy confirmation bias.

Basically a summation of what I'm trying to say.

[Frenequesta]

Consent is a very murky thing to prove, especially when rape or sexual assault is at issue. Many men take women's actions as "consent" when they really don't want it ("No means yes" comes to mind).

And it also is just more evidence of his megalomania, if nothing else.

But there's nothing murky about our interpretations. You interpret that he is using power to cover up non-consensual sex, and I interpret he is getting consent in part because he is rich and famous. You SAID you find my interpretation - one that involves consent - more disturbing than your own. That is all kinds of f*cked up and disturbing man.

Yes, but they're both disturbing. Our interpretations are two sides of the same coin.

[Yorkers]

Then why are you taking the CIA at face value when they admit it's unverified?

I didn't say it was proven. I said it was credible. see the difference?

Credible? How on earth?

[Astrolinium]

I recognize that this story is unproven, and am inclined to believe that it is the sort of thing which might be true, because it matches what Donald Trump has shown us about what kind of person he is over the course of his life.

You are inclined to believe it because it fits the boogeyman version of Donald Trump you have imagined in your head.

It's hardly a bogeyman when my idea of him is based only on things he's actually said, with his own mouth.

[Patridam]

"Consent cannot be given when it is the result of coercion, intimidation, force, or threat of harm."

http://web.plattsburgh.edu/title-ix/define-consent.php

So any one who is rich or famous can never have sex, because just by virtue of being rich and famous they are commiting coercion and raping anyone they have sex with. That's even more f*cked up.

[San Lumen]

I don't think anyone will care if he's married or not. I could care less.

you would be wrong.

that's why Charlie crist got married. fat lot of good it did him.

you have any proof of that?

[Patridam]

But there's nothing murky about our interpretations. You interpret that he is using power to cover up non-consensual sex, and I interpret he is getting consent in part because he is rich and famous. You SAID you find my interpretation - one that involves consent - more disturbing than your own. That is all kinds of f*cked up and disturbing man.

Yes, but they're both disturbing. Our interpretations are two sides of the same coin.

No. One is consexual and the other is not. The one that is non-consensual is clearly more f*cked up, unless you are looking at it from the position of a serial rapist who gets off on a lack of consent.

We better check Frenq's basement.

[Ashmoria]

I didn't say it was proven. I said it was credible. see the difference?

Credible? How on earth?

credible by what we know about Donald trump.

its not so weird that it is out of the question for any man.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Besides Grab Them By The Pussy there's also the bit about just popping Tic-Tacs and kissing them right away, and bragging about how fame let you get away with doung things to women. Which lined up with allegations against him, especially the Tic-Tacs bit.

Evangelicals who voted for Trump really crack me up. They're prattling on about traditional values while voting for a thrice married serial adulterer who was once a New York liberal.

Know what GOP stands for now?

Grab
Our
Pussy

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

[Ashmoria]

you would be wrong.

that's why Charlie crist got married. fat lot of good it did him.

you have any proof of that?

don't worry about it.

just remember that when booker announces his engagement he will follow it up with a run for the white house.

same for Andrew Cuomo but I think it is unlikely that he will run.

[Ashmoria]

Evangelicals who voted for Trump really crack me up. They're prattling on about traditional values while voting for a thrice married serial adulterer who was once a New York liberal.

Know what GOP stands for now?

Grab
Our
Pussy

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

with proof as opposed to no proof.

[Gauthier]

Evangelicals who voted for Trump really crack me up. They're prattling on about traditional values while voting for a thrice married serial adulterer who was once a New York liberal.

Know what GOP stands for now?

Grab
Our
Pussy

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

There goes more clucking in defense of Trump. Clinton is out of the picture, quit blaming her for natural disasters.

[Hittanryan]

Evangelicals who voted for Trump really crack me up. They're prattling on about traditional values while voting for a thrice married serial adulterer who was once a New York liberal.

Know what GOP stands for now?

Grab
Our
Pussy

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

Democrats don't run on "family values," nor do they court religious fanatics. Sorry, the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the religious right are established facts as of 2016.

[G-Tech Corporation]

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

with proof as opposed to no proof.

There isn't any proof that Hillary is an actual New York liberal? News to me. Or was there no proof that that relationship was dodgy? Again, color me surprised.

Babbling aside, my point is that evangelicals weren't exactly spoiled for choice. Saying "evangelicals should have voted for Hillary because Trump isn't evangelical" is analogous to saying "Socialists should have voted for Trump because Hillary isn't socialist".

[Hittanryan]

you have any proof of that?

don't worry about it.

just remember that when booker announces his engagement he will follow it up with a run for the white house.

same for Andrew Cuomo but I think it is unlikely that he will run.

God I hope not. Take it from a New Yorker, Cuomo is everything people claimed Hillary was and worse. I would decline to vote in a Trump vs. Cuomo election.

[Ashmoria]

with proof as opposed to no proof.

There isn't any proof that Hillary is an actual New York liberal? News to me. Or was there no proof that that relationship was dodgy? Again, color me surprised.

Babbling aside, my point is that evangelicals weren't exactly spoiled for choice. Saying "evangelicals should have voted for Hillary because Trump isn't evangelical" is analogous to saying "Socialists should have voted for Trump because Hillary isn't socialist".

oh yes you were talking about her being a new York liberal. THAT was the thing you were implying.

[G-Tech Corporation]

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

There goes more clucking in defense of Trump. Clinton is out of the picture, quit blaming her for natural disasters.

Except we're literally discussing how evangelicals voted- last time I checked, Clinton was on the ballot. Unless you got a different ballot than me?

As opposed to Hillary, an actual New York liberal famously in a relationship that is in all likelihood a sham or open?

Democrats don't run on "family values," nor do they court religious fanatics. Sorry, the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the religious right are established facts as of 2016.

So exactly why are you chagrined evangelicals voted for Trump? You just laid out the logic in your own post.

[Ashmoria]

don't worry about it.

just remember that when booker announces his engagement he will follow it up with a run for the white house.

same for Andrew Cuomo but I think it is unlikely that he will run.

God I hope not. Take it from a New Yorker, Cuomo is everything people claimed Hillary was and worse. I would decline to vote in a Trump vs. Cuomo election.

that's why I think he wont run. he has shown himself to be a corrupt sack of shit. if he does it would take extraordinary circumstances for him to win the nomination.