Donald is a funny name if you think about it

[slappybrown]

Lectured? You asked a question about why we felt you were making a false equivalency and we answered. I thought it was a respectful conversation.

Edit: now see your edit indicating you were joking, all good

Everything is a false equivalency when someone is called out. Too much pride in accepting their own hypocrisy.

I don't know what you're saying here but the discussion I'm referring to was a pretty narrow one.

[grunthy]

lol

Somehow still the democracts fault for the republican nominee

Or perhaps this is another genius grunty troll

You guys are so dumb... YOU FELL FOR IT AGAIN!

There was even talk in here about voting for him, from democrats, to screw the GOP over in the general...

But my comment was about who he mostly appeals to. Which are those two groups.

Come on man, his base are republican voters. He does better among rust belt dems than say, Romney, but the idea that Democrats won him the nom is nonsense. He won because Republicans voted for him. He doubled cruz p in raw vote totals with the largest ever primary count at 14mm plus, with, what ballpark 30-35 primaries open only to registered republicans/Indys? Do not blame "democrats" for your party's failure.

Those two groups put him over top. It is actually hard to deny that. The "regular" republicans votes were split apart. I was just hoping that if trump won the primary that the democrats wouldn't **** up and nominate Clinton. Well...

[count2infinity]

Do not blame "democrats" for your party's failure.

[slappybrown]

Somehow still the democracts fault for the republican nominee

Or perhaps this is another genius grunty troll

You guys are so dumb... YOU FELL FOR IT AGAIN!

There was even talk in here about voting for him, from democrats, to screw the GOP over in the general...

But my comment was about who he mostly appeals to. Which are those two groups.

Come on man, his base are republican voters. He does better among rust belt dems than say, Romney, but the idea that Democrats won him the nom is nonsense. He won because Republicans voted for him. He doubled cruz p in raw vote totals with the largest ever primary count at 14mm plus, with, what ballpark 30-35 primaries open only to registered republicans/Indys? Do not blame "democrats" for your party's failure.

Those two groups put him over top. It is actually hard to deny that. The "regular" republicans votes were split apart. I was just hoping that if trump won the primary that the democrats wouldn't **** up and nominate Clinton. Well...

It is very easy to deny that registered dems put him over the top because it's simply not true.

[grunthy]

You guys are so dumb... YOU FELL FOR IT AGAIN!

There was even talk in here about voting for him, from democrats, to screw the GOP over in the general...

But my comment was about who he mostly appeals to. Which are those two groups.

Come on man, his base are republican voters. He does better among rust belt dems than say, Romney, but the idea that Democrats won him the nom is nonsense. He won because Republicans voted for him. He doubled cruz p in raw vote totals with the largest ever primary count at 14mm plus, with, what ballpark 30-35 primaries open only to registered republicans/Indys? Do not blame "democrats" for your party's failure.

Those two groups put him over top. It is actually hard to deny that. The "regular" republicans votes were split apart. I was just hoping that if trump won the primary that the democrats wouldn't **** up and nominate Clinton. Well...

It is very easy to deny that registered dems put him over the top because it's simply not true.

Again never said it was just them.

[Gaucho]

Do not blame "democrats" for your party's failure.

[shmenguin]

Democrats voting for trump in the primaries was a significant enough phenomenon to be mentioned here today.

That's quite a nugget of wisdom.

[Algernon]

nobody is the biggest and most consistent troll on this forum

[Orlando Penguin]

I love all the deflection comments about Bill Clinton is worse? Didn't they try and impeach him? Nothing makes sense

Not only did they try, they succeeded too.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -impeached

[shmenguin]

I watched that video. I mean...yeah, he shouldn't say that crap. And I don't blame women for taking that sort of thing personally. But I expected worse. Unpopular opinion alert...This did sound like locker room talk to me. an insecure guy trying and failing to sound cooler than he is (which is his MO). It seems more creepy than rapey tbh. I don't believe he actually fish hooks women's private parts and reels them in against their will.

He's a creep with no social awareness. This is an example of that. I dunno...I'm pleased that this is hurting him, but I don't think the mass freak out is 100% on point. 90% maybe. Not 100.

[AuthorTony]

It seems more creepy than rapey tbh. I don't believe he actually fish hooks women's private parts and reels them in against their will.

While I don't believe Trump is a back alley rapist, and I don't believe the allegations that he raped the 13-year-old, I wouldn't be shocked if he hasn't inappropriately groped/touched/kissed/fondled women in the past without their permission. That kind of behavior just seems to go along with his public and private persona, at least up until he decided he wanted to be President.

[dodint]

It seems more creepy than rapey tbh. I don't believe he actually fish hooks women's private parts and reels them in against their will.

While I don't believe Trump is a back alley rapist, and I don't believe the allegations that he raped the 13-year-old, I wouldn't be shocked if he hasn't inappropriately groped/touched/kissed/fondled women in the past without their permission. That kind of behavior just seems to go along with his public and private persona, at least up until he decided he wanted to be President.

I feel like he would be qualified to run Fox News. I hear there is a vacancy...

[grunthy]

nobody is the biggest and most consistent troll on this forum

Even the roid head of the forum gets it.

[Algernon]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLThutkDSom/

[Algernon]

nobody is the biggest and most consistent troll on this forum

Even the roid head of the forum gets it.

That's not something to be proud of

And this roid head is the most evolved member of this board

[grunthy]

nobody is the biggest and most consistent troll on this forum

Even the roid head of the forum gets it.

That's not something to be proud of

And this roid head is the most evolved member of this board

Sometimes it is fun to trigger people so they have to go to their safe space.

[slappybrown]

I personally think most of your posts here are genuine.

[Factorial]

Think more broadly:

You both claim to have a core set of values, which effortlessly and logically informs your specific (and "righteous") views. It's demagoguery, to be honest.

That's discounting logical deduction. Of course anyone can lay claim to "a set of values" (ETA - and anyone with a political view point to one degree or another does). Can that person defend them logically, however? Notice, I do not demand that anyone agrees with my conclusions - unlike EVERYONE else with a contrary political opinion, I'll humbly point out. That is the inevitable consequence of my political conclusions, and - ironically - the inevitable consequence of their conclusions, obviously.

The problem is you presume the existence of absolute truths in the matter of human interaction and existence, and trumpet a set of beliefs as the only defensible basis for the human condition.

Meaning: you are no different than anyone else here. The beliefs you hold are not morally inviolable when put into practice any more than other beliefs; ironically enough for the very same reasons your philosophy is attractive. Perhaps yours are better and would approach the best solution to the condition that is humanity and consciousness; perhaps not. But running around telling people that they're stupid because they disagree with your viewpoints -- even those of us who understand the moral imperatives and philosophical underpinnings of your beliefs and even sympathize with them -- is no way to successfully promote your position. And yes, I know that the latter is not a particular concern of yours.

Thanks Slappy. Hopefully this issue will be put to rest on this board.

[Algernon]

I don't even know where slappy gets the energy to respond to Guinness in depth

[large garlic]

There was an article in the NYT today from Nicholas Kristof where he interviews a woman who was sexually assaulted by Trump in the 90s. It pretty much went down like Trump describes in the video--some p**** grabbing (while her boyfriend was in the room) and some forced kissing. She repeatedly fended him off from going further. She and her boyfriend operated some minor beauty pageant/calendar girl company and had an agreement to hold events in one of Trump's AC casinos. He stiffed them on the payment, they sued, and then she dropped the sexual assault charges as part of the settlement.

Now, to be fair, the woman in question sounds like a piece of work. After her boyfriend dumped her, she went back to Trump several years later and dated him before he married Melania. She also supposedly has asked the Trump campaign for work, since she's now a makeup artist. But her former boyfriend, who has no reason to help her at this point, corroborates everything she said about Trump's behavior in the 90s.

[grunthy]

I personally think most of your posts here are genuine.

About 60%.

The Clinton picture was definitely a troll attempt to bring out c2i and tif.

[Troy Loney]

I think in the long run this actually benefits the gop. Trump was losing before the sexual assault speak, but now this taints clintons victory because it's even more a trump loss than a Clinton win. Trump can be written off as a mistake and the gop can elect a normal candidate because 2016 can be attributed to trumpism and the political brand can become toxic and have less role in the primary.

[Trip McNeely]

I think in the long run this actually benefits the gop. Trump was losing before the sexual assault speak, but now this taints clintons victory because it's even more a trump loss than a Clinton win. Trump can be written off as a mistake and the gop can elect a normal candidate because 2016 can be attributed to trumpism and the political brand can become toxic and have less role in the primary.

Yea agreed....if the GOP can allow a normal candidate to come out of the primaries. I mean if trump didn't win it would have probably been Cruz or maybe even Carson.

Would it be insane for me to think that the Donald could run again if he loses this one?

[blurryhaze312]

I watched that video. I mean...yeah, he shouldn't say that crap. And I don't blame women for taking that sort of thing personally. But I expected worse. Unpopular opinion alert...This did sound like locker room talk to me. an insecure guy trying and failing to sound cooler than he is (which is his MO). It seems more creepy than rapey tbh. I don't believe he actually fish hooks women's private parts and reels them in against their will.

He's a creep with no social awareness. This is an example of that. I dunno...I'm pleased that this is hurting him, but I don't think the mass freak out is 100% on point. 90% maybe. Not 100.

All of this freak-out was more than due - dial it up to 200%, I don't care. If this is what it takes to finally bury his chances, I'm all for it.

[columbia]

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTr ... 9442653184