https://www.mediaite.com/news/the-new-york-times-rates-10-democrats-chances-of-beating-trump-and-puts-kamala-harris-dead-last/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/22/opinion/kamala-harris-democrats.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/22/opinion/best-worst-candidates-to-replace-biden.html
The New York Times, one of the revered bastions of real journalism polled their real journalists to find the most electable democrat. Strangely Harris ended up 10th. Maybe the real journalists know something JUCO journalists don't.
FYI, the law school Harris attended is currently ranked 82nd out of 196 law schools. How much of this ranking is due to it's absorption into the California state university system, I don't know. So far, I can't find a rating in the mid '80s, other than it wasn't top 20. So, while completing law school is an achievement, it's hard to gauge the extent of that achievement without knowing the quality of the law school.
58 comments:
I seem to occupy a large space in your mind.
This Community College journalism grad never said that Harris is the best candidate to replace Biden as far as policies or as polling. I just noted that she's the natural candidate to replace Biden and that she's a far and away better candidate than the felon the GOP is running (you know the one... the guy who mocked the disabled and laughs about sexually assaulting women and ogling teenaged girls...)
Indeed, I've said on my own blog and probably elsewhere that Michelle Obama is probably the clear best choice candidate for the Democrats IF she were interested in running. But in this context, where Biden is needing to withdraw due to health concerns, it makes sense for Harris to be the candidate. Clearly, the Democrats agreed and I suspect within a month, we'll see polls showing that the US citizenry in general agrees (minus the hard-core "maga" devotees). If she was polling even with Trump even before she was running, then it seems reasonable that once it's known she's running and the US reviews her skills and expertise, those poll numbers will go up.
As poll after poll has shown for the last several months, people really wanted to see ANYONE else besides Biden/Trump. Now they have an option.
Don't you think people are tired of the whirling dervish of madness and chaos that surrounds the convict candidate? The unrelenting mean-ness, cruelty and idiocy of his words?
"I seem to occupy a large space in your mind."
Not so much a large space as an easy target. When someone feels as strongly about themselves as you do, and when you put so much stock in your JUCO journalism school, it's hard not to throw out a little snark.
"This Community College journalism grad never said that Harris is the best candidate to replace Biden as far as policies or as polling. I just noted that she's the natural candidate to replace Biden and that she's a far and away better candidate than the felon the GOP is running (you know the one... the guy who mocked the disabled and laughs about sexually assaulting women and ogling teenaged girls...)"
I merely pointed out that the revered, real, journalists seem pretty convinced that Harris is a bad choice to be appointed Biden's successor. It's interesting that you seem unable to have a conversation about the DFL candidate, without bringing up Trump.
"Indeed, I've said on my own blog and probably elsewhere that Michelle Obama is probably the clear best choice candidate for the Democrats IF she were interested in running. But in this context, where Biden is needing to withdraw due to health concerns, it makes sense for Harris to be the candidate. Clearly, the Democrats agreed and I suspect within a month, we'll see polls showing that the US citizenry in general agrees (minus the hard-core "maga" devotees). If she was polling even with Trump even before she was running, then it seems reasonable that once it's known she's running and the US reviews her skills and expertise, those poll numbers will go up."
Again, I'm merely pointing out what the real journalists from a revered journalism source say about the subject.
"As poll after poll has shown for the last several months, people really wanted to see ANYONE else besides Biden/Trump. Now they have an option."
I guess we'll find out.
"Don't you think people are tired of the whirling dervish of madness and chaos that surrounds the convict candidate? The unrelenting mean-ness, cruelty and idiocy of his words?"
I've said for quite some time that I'd have preferred anyone but the two choices we had. I'd still prefer a different choice, but I don't have a different choice. So I'll vote for the candidate that is closest to my political leanings and who'll govern in a more conservative manner.
But don't mistake my willingness to vote for the GOP candidate as unbridled endorsement for everything about him.
I'm eagerly counting the months until we can have a presidential election free from the same few candidates. I want someone and something different. Unfortunately Harris isn't new, different, or interesting.
I merely pointed out that the revered, real, journalists seem pretty convinced that Harris is a bad choice to be appointed Biden's successor. It's interesting that you seem unable to have a conversation about the DFL candidate, without bringing up Trump.
I can't read the NYT articles, but it appears these few journalists (great journalists, all) appear to think that Harris has the worst odds of winning, not that the Democrats shouldn't run her. Although, again, I can't read the stories.
I can't tell if they're dealing with the reality that Harris is already ON the Biden/Harris ticket and, as such, she's the only one who CAN use the system that's already in place to start running. I can't see what any of their arguments are, so I'll have to withhold judgment.
As to not mentioning Trump in a Harris/Trump run-off, well, he's sort of the other half of the equation, isn't he? Why wouldn't I mention him... Trump is who she's running against. Trump is clearly unfit, clearly amoral, clearly a convicted felon, clearly a deeply flawed and chaotic candidate. I rather think that most any qualified Democrats would have a good chance to win against him.
Where am I mistaken?
And I take your willingness to vote for Trump as a willingness to vote for Trump. IF he were the Democratic nominee, I would not vote for him. He is unqualified and unfit in too many ways. I wouldn't even vote for Clinton who was not nearly as unfit as Trump and who was at least quite intelligent with some good policies. Still, I wouldn't vote for him.
You're willing to vote for a man who mocked the disabled (that alone would lose my vote) who laughed about sexual assault, who laughed on public airwaves about abusing his powers to ogle half-dressed teen-aged girls... On and on. He has so many "that's a line too-far" problems that would stop me from voting for him.
But not you.
I'm just noting that reality. You'll have to live with that forever.
"I can't read the NYT articles, but it appears these few journalists (great journalists, all) appear to think that Harris has the worst odds of winning, not that the Democrats shouldn't run her. Although, again, I can't read the stories."
I'm sorry you can't read, I had no problem finding the text. Not to mention that I provided a link to a summary of the piece. Yes, these real, revered journalists concluded that Harris is the weakest, least electable of the prospective candidates they evaluated.
"I can't tell if they're dealing with the reality that Harris is already ON the Biden/Harris ticket and, as such, she's the only one who CAN use the system that's already in place to start running. I can't see what any of their arguments are, so I'll have to withhold judgment."
They are evaluating Harris against 8-9 other potential candidates to replace Biden. They evaluated each individually, gave them a score, then compared the scores. Harris scored low.
"As to not mentioning Trump in a Harris/Trump run-off, well, he's sort of the other half of the equation, isn't he? Why wouldn't I mention him... Trump is who she's running against. Trump is clearly unfit, clearly amoral, clearly a convicted felon, clearly a deeply flawed and chaotic candidate. I rather think that most any qualified Democrats would have a good chance to win against him."
At this point, Trump is a given. The question is totally about who the DFL elites are going to anoint to replace Biden. Once the anointing and coronation is complete, THEN it will be time to compete against Trump. The current competition is against some unknown number of unknown other options (I'm assuming that the NYT roster isn't official or complete), and the constituency Harris has to appeal to is the DFL elites, the Donor class, and the Super Delegates (who are proxies for the elites. She also has to convince the system to anoint her, before anything else happens. SO, comparisons to Trump, at this point, only seem intended to divert from the present situation.
"Where am I mistaken?"
See above.
"And I take your willingness to vote for Trump as a willingness to vote for Trump. IF he were the Democratic nominee, I would not vote for him. He is unqualified and unfit in too many ways. I wouldn't even vote for Clinton who was not nearly as unfit as Trump and who was at least quite intelligent with some good policies. Still, I wouldn't vote for him."
Yes, it's more accurately a willingness to vote for the policies he's likely to follow and/or implement. Even more accurately, it's a vote against the alternative. Prior to this year, my vote was pretty pointless. The MN DFL is going to elect anything with a DFL after the name, and the MN DFL controls the populous areas and the system. This time around, my sense is that MN might be in play and if my vote can deny Biden/Harris/Whoever the presidency than I can live with that.
"I'm just noting that reality. You'll have to live with that forever."
It's a chance I'll have to take.
Dan, I really wish you would be a little more interested in being accurate even if it's at the expense of what you must think is effective rhetoric.
"The unrelenting mean-ness, cruelty and idiocy of his words"? How ridiculous -- and how telling that you keep harping on the same two or three examples from eight years ago (and longer). There's plenty to criticize Trump about without this kind of absurdity.
And I would reiterate as I have numerous times before (even recently), it's simply inaccurate to say, as you do here (twice), that the man joked about committing sexual assault. "They let you" is a clear indication of consent that precludes assault, and I was under the impression that consent is your standard for what's moral.
The man you claim to follow was quite clear about the duty to love your enemies, and the grace you emphasize so often should be extended to your political opponents, too.
---
...and I wouldn't have you stop there, either.
You demean your fellow human beings in the womb -- distinct, living, human organisms; members of our species, no mere mass of tissue -- as you seek to deprive them of their right to live and enable others to end their lives sometimes quite painfully.
(But, please, lecture us about cruel words!)
And over the years that we've communicated, going back more than a decade, I have found that you have never been vigorous in a commitment to being honest, to communicate to clarify and not obfuscate, and to elaborate on what you really believe, particularly on theological matters.
Being honest with each other as we criticize politicians, debate the duties we owe to children in utero, and argue for our deepest held beliefs: is that really too much to ask?
Evidently so.
Bubba,
Thanks for stopping by. As always appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I've certainly missed seeing your comments. Hope things are going well.
"They let you" is a clear indication of consent that precludes assault, and I was under the impression that consent is your standard for what's moral."
They let you... they wanted it...
That is exactly what rapists and sexual predators say, isn't it? This has all been covered before. If the man was otherwise one who clearly respects women and was otherwise a boy scout, and THEN, that tape came out, you might want to give the man a break, recognizing the words were vulgar, sick and twisted, but say, well, that was a very bad day for an otherwise good man.
Trump is demonstrably not an otherwise good man. He's a serial cheater, a man who regularly uses demeaning, vulgar, misogynistic language about women... a man with at least a couple dozen sexual assault allegations against him...
Sexual predation of girls and women is a horrible reality in our world and given the known data, one would be dangerously naive to take him at his word.
I'm not naive and have too much respect for women and humanity to just give his egregious, vulgar, misogynistic words a pass.
I'm rather surprised how many "family values" conservatives are willing to do so.
I can love and pity Trump in the same way I can love and pity rapists and child abusers. Trump is clearly troubled and emotionally damaged, being raised in a troubled, abusive family.
But that I can pity sexual predators like Trump, it doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to their actions. I wouldn't give a sexual predator a job as a teacher, I certainly don't think we should promote them to the presidency.
That the GOP continues to do so is a poor reflection on them.
Dan
As to the dangerous, predatory comments in the sexual assault speech he gave... even if a man was otherwise honorable, good and decent, if that was the ONLY rapey thing he said, boasting and laughing all the while, that man would not get my vote. Period.
That's one difference between my kind of people and your kind.
Dan
"That is exactly what rapists and sexual predators say, isn't it?"
I don't know I've never spent much time with predators. What I do know is that "let you" shows that consent was involved. The problem is that there are women who will use their beauty, sexuality, and physical attributes to attract rich and powerful men for sex. I'm not suggesting that it's right, I am suggesting that it's reality. That some men indulge in what some women offer is a reality. Again, I'm not saying it's right, just that it is.
"Trump is demonstrably not an otherwise good man. He's a serial cheater, a man who regularly uses demeaning, vulgar, misogynistic language about women... a man with at least a couple dozen sexual assault allegations against him..."
Yet we regularly hear stories of how he helps those in need, and see all sorts of news stories about the times he was lauded by NY officials and black leaders for the good things he did/does. He's a deeply flawed human being, who's defined by his political opponents in a one dimensional manner. Again, I dislike his flaws as much as anyone, but I can also acknowledge that his more than a collection of (old) actions.
"Sexual predation of girls and women is a horrible reality in our world and given the known data, one would be dangerously naive to take him at his word."
Given that those on your side can't define what a "girl" or "woman" is, and encourage biological males to be in spaces that have previously been women only, and have repeatedly placed biological males in women's prisons resulting in sexual assault, this is rich. Where's your concern for "women" and "girls" when a company like Pornhub knowingly posts content involving underage girls having sex, and women/girls who didn't consent to do videotaped or have those videos posted publicly? Where's your concern for "women" and "girls" when women's sports is being rendered meaningless.
"I'm not naive and have too much respect for women and humanity to just give his egregious, vulgar, misogynistic words a pass."
Nor am I. What I am, is able to look at what was actually said and not distort or misrepresent what was actually said.
"I'm rather surprised how many "family values" conservatives are willing to do so."
I'm unaware of any "family values" conservatives that have "given him a pass" for any of the things he's said. I'd ask for proof of your claim, but know that it would be pointless.
"I can love and pity Trump in the same way I can love and pity rapists and child abusers. Trump is clearly troubled and emotionally damaged, being raised in a troubled, abusive family."
What an interesting way you have of showing "love and pity" I sincerely hope that you never show me "love and pity", because you showing me "grace" is enough vitriol, and lies.
"But that I can pity sexual predators like Trump, it doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to their actions. I wouldn't give a sexual predator a job as a teacher, I certainly don't think we should promote them to the presidency."
The "blind eye" lie. Strangely enough, the DFL turned a "blind eye" to the various Biden ethical concerns, lies, and deterioration. Hell, the DFL and MSM hid Biden's deterioration from the public for who knows how long. Remember when Pierre was whining about "cheap fakes" when the videos in question were actually accurate? Both sides have a long history of turning a "blind eye" to the failures of their candidates. Probably because perfect, flawless humans don't exist and because there is no alternative.
"That the GOP continues to do so is a poor reflection on them."
That you feel it necessary to make up some bullshit story in order to virtue signal, is a poor reflection on you.
"As to the dangerous, predatory comments in the sexual assault speech he gave... even if a man was otherwise honorable, good and decent, if that was the ONLY rapey thing he said, boasting and laughing all the while, that man would not get my vote. Period."
What "sexual assault speech"? I've never heard of a "sexual assault speech". As was pointed out being given permission or extending consent, mitigates the claims of "sexual assault".
"That's one difference between my kind of people and your kind."
The only difference is that you and your kind just choose to accept different flaws in those you vote for. Probably because POTUS isn't a pastor, and because a flawless candidate doesn't exist.
This faux virtue intended to shame people into not voting for Trump and thereby increase the chance of a DFL win is it's own special kind of sleazy.
If the same people telling you that Harris is the best possible candidate are the same people who spent the whole primary season telling you that Biden was perfectly capable of being president, wouldn't that make you question their judgement?
(you know the one... the guy who mocked the disabled and laughs about sexually assaulting women and ogling teenaged girls…)
I don’t know how many times fool Trabue has to be told that Trump NEVER mocked the disabled, etc. Yet he keeps repeating it because it makes him feel superior.
The issue of Trump’s joking about what some women will allow, as noted by Bubba and Craig, was about CONSENT and I’ve never heard of any women consenting to rape, and I sincerely doubt any rapist, etc would joke about it, so Dan must hang around with those sort of people to know what they say.
Of course Trabue isn’t put off by Biden’s sniffing little girls.
Trump is a politician who has a proven political record. We aren’t voting for a perfect man, just the best politician available at this time. Demokrat Presidents throughout time have been adulterers BIG TIME, let alone abject racists and anti-Semites, yet Dan’s ilk have no problem voting for them.
This just reminded me that back in the 2020 campaign, Biden called out for someone he identified as a friend to "stand up" when the guy was wheelchair bound. (Or something like that)
If I remember right the incident Dan clings to was misrepresented and blown way out of proportion.
It's always been a choice between 2-3 candidates for president and it's always been a choice for the best option. Unfortunately, for the last 3 elections, the choices have been really bad. Despite that, we have to choose the best option from those that are presented, with regard to how they'll do the job.
In this case, absent a miracle, that person would be Trump.
There's a trend I'm seeing on Twitter where the MSM, and various leftists claim that Trump referring to Harris as the "border czar" is a problem because she wasn't. Then we see normal people providing the vast amount of available evidence that shows that she was the "border czar".
Along with the clip of her lying about having been to the border, and getting busted for he lie.
I don't know I've never spent much time with predators. What I do know is that "let you" shows that consent was involved.
No. No, it doesn't. It shows that a misogynistic man - a man who lies literally all the time - who was boasting about assaulting women by grabbing them by the crotch, THAT man was willing to say, "but they let me" or "she asked for it" or "she wanted it..." etc, as rapists often do. But Trump saying that does NOT show that consent was involved.
Are you saying you're not aware of this kind of language employed by rapists (and their defenders)?
Facts about rape culture:
Examples of Rape Culture
Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”)
Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”)
Sexually explicit jokes
Tolerance of sexual harassment
Inflating false rape report statistics
Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history
Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television
Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive
Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive
Pressure on men to “score”
Pressure on women to not appear “cold”
Assuming only promiscuous women get raped
Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped
Refusing to take rape accusations seriously
Teaching women to avoid getting raped
https://inside.southernct.edu/sexual-misconduct/facts
Also, assuming a sexual assault/rape victim remains silent is NOT the same as "she let me do it." Men in positions of power (especially prior to the ~2000s and especially prior to the Me, Too movement), men who are bigger and bullies... they may well be able to intimidate their rape victim into silence. That doesn't mean "she let me."
Seriously, the rest of the western world (at least - and many other places, as well) is finally getting to understand this. How is it possible that you actually think that a known serial liar should be taken at his word when he says of his sexual assault victim, "THEY let me do it."
By the way, your claim:
The problem is that there are women who will use their beauty, sexuality, and physical attributes to attract rich and powerful men for sex. I'm not suggesting that it's right, I am suggesting that it's reality.
Is ALSO part of the language used by rapists and rape culture promoters. It's vulgar, it's misogynistic, it's dated thinking... it lends support to the sexual predators of the world. "There are women out there who 'want it,' and let rich, powerful men sexually assault them..."
Please, for the sake of your family and any women you love, delete these sorts of comments. When men say rape-y things like this, the rapists are encouraged and the women, girls and children in their lives may see it and learn a really perverse message.
This is not "locker room talk," and to the degree it's normal in some circles of vulgar men, it should not be. It's sexually predatory talk and abusive - and dangerous - to women and girls. As we see in the Trump case.
I don’t know how many times fool Trabue has to be told that Trump NEVER mocked the disabled, etc. Yet he keeps repeating it because it makes him feel superior.
I don't know how many times you all repeat this lie. OF COURSE, he did. We saw it. My disabled friends saw it. We KNOW what he was doing. It's the same thing vulgar and idiotic little boys (often) do to mock someone - mimicking the spasms of a person with cerebral palsy or similar condition. You can't say it didn't happen when it's on videotape for all the world to see.
In addition to the rape speech ("grab 'em by the *****"), this ALONE should have caused (DID cause) all decent people not to vote for him. Either one of these instances which we all saw with our own eyes should have been enough to cause all good people to not vote for him. IF it was a Democrat doing that, that Democrat would not win an election.
I guess we see which party is actually the party of family values.
The event in question, Glenn (and other defenders of an obviously deviant, amoral and idiotically childish Trump):
"Mr Trump called Mr Kovaleski "a nice reporter".
"Now the poor guy, you gotta see this guy," [Trump] continued, before launching into an apparent impression of Mr Kovaleski, waving his arms around with his hands at an odd angle.
"Uhh I don't know what I said. Uhh I don't remember. He's going like 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said.'"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34930042
It's sick. It's deviant. It's childish in a wicked, wicked way. And then, to say he wasn't doing what he clearly WAS doing... that's doubling down on the wickedness of it all.
Craig, will you at least acknowledge the vulgar deviancy in Trump's mocking the disabled... or at least mocking this disabled man ("the poor guy, you ought to see him!") (which, in turn, mocks the disabled as a group...)?
Will you take a moral stand and rebuke Glenn for trying to gaslight moral, reasonable people by claiming it didn't happen?
Also, Trump was not only mocking him but he was also lying about what the good reporter (not "poor man") said.
Vulgarity upon vulgarity. Perversion upon perversion.
Which side are you on, Craig?
"No. No, it doesn't. It shows that a misogynistic man - a man who lies literally all the time - who was boasting about assaulting women by grabbing them by the crotch, THAT man was willing to say, "but they let me" or "she asked for it" or "she wanted it..." etc, as rapists often do. But Trump saying that does NOT show that consent was involved."
Based on the actual evidence we actually have, the only way you can draw that conclusion is to read into what was actually said.
What seems to be the case is that these women "let" him engage in some sort of activity. That's all we know with a reasonable degree of certainty. Now you can take all sorts of crap and string it together, and infer, and read in whatever you want. But if you're basing your criticism solely on the ET tape, then consent is a totally reasonable conclusion.
"Are you saying you're not aware of this kind of language employed by rapists (and their defenders)?"
I don't spend much time around rapists and their defenders, so I don't know. What I DO know is that to draw conclusions about one individual based on what other individuals might have said is wrong. Why would I (for example) be held responsible for something you (Dan) said? This sort of guilt by "association" is bullshit, especially hwne you are manufacturing the "association".
Since none of your "facts" actually seem to apply to the Trump situation, unless you have secret knowledge that you're hiding, I see no point in trivializing a serious crime so you can try to score cheap political points.
"Also, assuming a sexual assault/rape victim remains silent is NOT the same as "she let me do it." Men in positions of power (especially prior to the ~2000s and especially prior to the Me, Too movement), men who are bigger and bullies... they may well be able to intimidate their rape victim into silence. That doesn't mean "she let me.""
Well, this assumes facts not in evidence as they say in court. Feel free to let your imagination soar, but I'll stuck to the available evidence.
"Seriously, the rest of the western world (at least - and many other places, as well) is finally getting to understand this. How is it possible that you actually think that a known serial liar should be taken at his word when he says of his sexual assault victim, "THEY let me do it.""
It's strange, you have no problem taking everything else he says in that recording as the gospel Truth, except this one little thing where you've decided he's lying. I prefer to live in the real world, not in one where you just make shit up and pretend that it actually happened.
"Is ALSO part of the language used by rapists and rape culture promoters. It's vulgar, it's misogynistic, it's dated thinking... it lends support to the sexual predators of the world. "There are women out there who 'want it,' and let rich, powerful men sexually assault them...""
While that may be True to some degree. That doesn't mean that my claim is in any way inaccurate, or that it's not happening all over social media/OF/FH as we speak.
"Please, for the sake of your family and any women you love, don't say things that are literally True because they make Dan get his panties in a wad."
Again, when you accuse (even obliquely) specific individuals of rape or sexual assault with no actual evidence it borders on actual slander/libel, it's certainly bearing false witness (or at least false inference), and it's pretty much just gossip.
Let's not forget that Dan and people like him used the verdict in a civil case (drastically lower burden of proof) ,which specifically cleared Trump of "rape", of some sort of "sexual misconduct" as an excuse to call him a "rapist".
But no, lying about Trump isn't a big deal.
Dan, about "they let you," you ask:
"That is exactly what rapists and sexual predators say, isn't it?"
Let's stipulate that it is, never mind that a man would say THE EXACT SAME THING in order to brag about entirely consensual encounters, and that it's possible that a celebrity like Trump actually would meet groupies who would willingly throw themselves at him and not just prospective victims who would be subjected to his abuse.
If a man couches his bragging in the language of consent, HE'S NOT BRAGGING ABOUT ASSAULT. He may be lying about that consent, as you presume in your gracious omniscience, but he's not bragging about a lack of consent, is he?
Rather than bragging about assault, he's bragging about not NEEDING to assault women. There is a difference, or at least I would think you could see the difference as much as you have previously insisted that consent is the boundary for morality.
And yet, you CONTINUE to mischaracterize his statement by claiming that Trump "was boasting about assaulting women."
You can be more accurate than that -- you SHOULD be more accurate than that -- but you continue to give the distinct impression that you'd rather paint political opponents in the worst possible light than in the most accurate light, just as you'd rather diminish the humanity of children in the womb in order to deprive them of the right to live, and just as you simply seem incapable of being forthright with us.
You have an honesty issue, Dan.
YOU are the known serial liar in this conversation.
"Thanks for stopping by. As always appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I've certainly missed seeing your comments. Hope things are going well."
You're welcome, Craig! Life is always busy, so I imagine my visiting here will always be the exception and not the rule, but I appreciate the kind words.
I don't spend much time around rapists and their defenders, so I don't know.
* Sexual violence is a serious crime and a great evil in our world.
* Because I care about finding solutions to such matters, I READ. I read what experts have to say about sexually predatory behavior and the people (men, mainly) who engage in that sort of evil.
* Even though I'm not an expert on the topic (beyond knowing too many people this has happened to), I can and do read what experts - including the women and girls who are preyed upon by these deviants - have to say.
* You DON'T?
Well, if so, there's the problem. Perhaps it's just your ignorance that causes you to make claims and statements that are part of the rape culture evil that defends and supports sexual predators.
Would you like some articles?
"It's sick. It's deviant. It's childish in a wicked, wicked way. And then, to say he wasn't doing what he clearly WAS doing... that's doubling down on the wickedness of it all."
I'll agree that it was childish, pointless, and in very bad taste. I can't join your hysteria with the rest.
"Craig, will you at least acknowledge the vulgar deviancy in Trump's mocking the disabled... or at least mocking this disabled man ("the poor guy, you ought to see him!") (which, in turn, mocks the disabled as a group...)?"
I'll "acknowledge" what I just said above. It was inappropriate, juvenile, in bad taste, and all the rest. He shouldn't have done it. However, as it was a one time incident, I just can't buy the hysterical shrieking blowing it out of proportion. One reality is that the more you do something, public speaking for example, the greater the chances of saying something stupid get. It happened once, as far a I know he apologized, and you making it sound like a pattern is simply wrong. I'm not defending what he said/did, but I'm also not jumping on your hysterical bandwagon of vitriolic attacks.
"Will you take a moral stand and rebuke Glenn for trying to gaslight moral, reasonable people by claiming it didn't happen?"
Nope. I let you say all sorts of stupid stuff on a regular basis, why would you expect me to censor anyone else?
"Also, Trump was not only mocking him but he was also lying about what the good reporter (not "poor man") said."
Again, you insert facts not in evidence (the legal term) and jump to conclusions based on your imagination.
"Which side are you on, Craig?"
Hopefully YHWH's. In this election I'm on the side that's not Biden/Harris or whoever gets anointed.
* It is and it should not be trivialized by you making shit up to achieve a partisan political goal.
* I'm sure you do, I'm sure you are very careful to not use biased sources. I'm sure you're aware that sexual violence among lesbian couples is disproportionately high. I'm sure that bitching about imaginary sexual assault on a blog is really helping the actual victims.
* The humble brag bullet point. The "I'm not an expert, but I'm actually an expert." flex.
* Who said I don't?
"Well, if so, there's the problem. Perhaps it's just your ignorance that causes you to make claims and statements that are part of the rape culture evil that defends and supports sexual predators."
Well since you've just made up that accusation out of thin air, I guess I'm glad that I've never actually done those things. What spews from your mind, isn't reality.
"Would you like some articles?"
No, I'm capable of doing my own research, sifting out the biased material, and reaching my own conclusions. I don't need or ask for anyone to spoon feed me research.
Let's stipulate that it is, never mind that a man would say THE EXACT SAME THING in order to brag about entirely consensual encounters, and that it's possible that a celebrity like Trump actually would meet groupies who would willingly throw themselves at him and not just prospective victims who would be subjected to his abuse.
It IS possible that someone like Trump MIGHT possibly have it happen that "women throw themselves at him..." (never mind, for now, how vulgar and misogynistic that sort of claim can be and HAS traditionally been, used by sexual predators like Trump to justify their crimes and offenses).
BUT, a GOOD man would NOT take advantage of his power in that way. And he certainly wouldn't boast or laugh about it.
But as noted, Trump is demonstrably NOT a good man, as this vulgar misogynistic discussion demonstrates. As his serial cheating on multiple wives and women with other wives and women demonstrates - AS does his boasting and laughing about THAT demonstrates. As the ~2 dozen sexual assault allegations demonstrate. As the abusing his power to ogle half-dressed teen-aged girls demonstrates - AND as his boasting and laughing about that demonstrates.
Trump is demonstrably NOT a good man.
And once again, even with JUST that one sexual assault boasting event, I wouldn't have voted for him - whether he was Democrat or Republican. You all are willing to do that.
But it's not just the one event. He has an established record of vulgar, rapey, misogynistic treatment of women and girls. He has the many sexual assault allegations.
Once again, given the whole of his known character, if we were a schoolboard, we wouldn't give him a job as a teacher (or at least, I'd HOPE you all wouldn't, but who can say?). If he's not qualified to teach because of his lack of character and his vulgar, misogynistic character, then of course, he's not qualified to lead a nation.
Why does this case have to be made?
Craig:
when you accuse (even obliquely) specific individuals of rape or sexual assault with no actual evidence it borders on actual slander/libel
The testimony of two dozen women IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Those sexual assault victims were THERE and know what happened to them. You recognize that, right?
Why do I have to even say that?
Bubba...
you CONTINUE to mischaracterize his statement by claiming that Trump "was boasting about assaulting women."
IF it were a mischaracterization. It's not. YOU CAN GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY har har har IS boasting about sexual assault. Now, you may believe when sexual predators tell you, "They wanted it!" but that language used by Trump is literally boasting about sexual assault.
That's not mischaracterization and as to your other false claims about me being a serial liar, that IS a mischaracterization. You can't point to one place where I've lied. Because I don't lie in these conversations. Why would I?
At BEST, you may disagree with me taking Trump's own vulgar, disgusting, vomitous, women-hating words in a different way than you do (where YOU are willing to give a HUGE benefit of the doubt to a demonstrable serial liar that I'm not willing to give), but disagreeing with YOUR OPINION is not lying.
You recognize that, right?
I'm a serial liar? By all means, point to a series of lies I've made.
You can't. There, Craig, is your slander, not in me calling a misogynistic spade a spade.
Why does the right go so far and hard to try to defend an obvious deviant idiot pervert?
...I see that rape culture entails "Publicly scrutinizing" someone's "mental state, motives, and history."
Would it be fair to say that Dan's focus on the salacious details of Donald Trump's private life verges on being a little rapey? Just sayin'.
---
Craig writes, "The problem is that there are women who will use their beauty, sexuality, and physical attributes to attract rich and powerful men for sex. I'm not suggesting that it's right, I am suggesting that it's reality."
Dan asserts in reply, "Is ALSO part of the language used by rapists and rape culture promoters. It's vulgar, it's misogynistic, it's dated thinking... it lends support to the sexual predators of the world. 'There are women out there who "want it," and let rich, powerful men sexually assault them...'"
But we were just told that rape culture entails "Defining 'manhood' as dominant and sexually aggressive" and "Defining 'womanhood' as submissive and sexually passive."
To avoid rape culture, we must therefore insist that women CAN be dominant and aggressive.
It's a pattern that goes back to Genesis 39 at the very least and is presumably part of the culture of NYC post-Studio 54 -- Women's Lib and all that.
It has been said that the truth needs no defense. Truth IS truth even if some would abuse the truth to enable their own poor behavior and others would deny the truth as outdated (a form of chronological snobbery) or denigrate the truth as misogyny or some other -phobia or -ism.
The truth matters, and again I would say that a professing Christian could have a complicated relationship with the truth ONLY if he had a personal ethos similar to the Muslim doctrine of taqqiya which permits lying if it's useful.
Bubba...
and again I would say that a professing Christian could have a complicated relationship with the truth
And AGAIN I note that Bubba can't point to a SINGLE lie I've made, much less a series of lies.
That reality demonstrates, then, that Bubba is lying - making a false claim - IN his claim that I'm a serial liar.
In all our years having these conversations, I can say as a certainty (because I know myself) that I have not deliberately made a false claim in ANY of our conversations over all those years. And that's not because I'm a perfect man or a perfectly honest man or anything like that. It's just because I find it irrational and pointless to tell a bunch of strangers a point that I know to be false because... why? What would the point be?
It's just irrational and I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.
Just as Bubba's claim that I'm a serial liar is false and nonsense.
"It IS possible that someone like Trump MIGHT possibly have it happen that "women throw themselves at him..." (never mind, for now, how vulgar and misogynistic that sort of claim can be and HAS traditionally been, used by sexual predators like Trump to justify their crimes and offenses)."
Dan literally just announced that things like Truth and reality are no longer barriers that constrain him. He is literally just embellishing a tiny bit of information (which he also just cast doubt on the veracity of) into somethin that it is not.
"BUT, a GOOD man would NOT take advantage of his power in that way. And he certainly wouldn't boast or laugh about it."
Well, that's another subject entirely. As we know all sorts of people take advantage of their wealth and power to engage in all manner of bad actions. Strangely enough, pretty much every single human in history has or will "take advantage" of whatever "power" they might have in order to engage in bad behavior. I'd be willing to bet that everyone except Dan would acknowledge this.
"But as noted, Trump is demonstrably NOT a good man, as this vulgar misogynistic discussion demonstrates. As his serial cheating on multiple wives and women with other wives and women demonstrates - AS does his boasting and laughing about THAT demonstrates. As the ~2 dozen sexual assault allegations demonstrate. As the abusing his power to ogle half-dressed teen-aged girls demonstrates - AND as his boasting and laughing about that demonstrates."
You'll note that absolutely nobody is praising those things, defending those things, or doing anything but being critical of those things.
"Trump is demonstrably NOT a good man."
"No one is good, only YHWH." or words to that effect.
"And once again, even with JUST that one sexual assault boasting event, I wouldn't have voted for him - whether he was Democrat or Republican. You all are willing to do that."
One more un provable claim that allows Dan to virtue signal. Strangely enough Hillary was actively involved in enabling Bill's many affairs, and actively attacked the multiple women that made sexual assault/rape/harassment claims against Bill, yet you touted her as a wonderful human being and great candidate.
"Why does this case have to be made?"
It doesn't yet you'll continue to whine hysterically about some made up bullshit you think we said or did.
"The testimony of two dozen women IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Those sexual assault victims were THERE and know what happened to them. You recognize that, right?"
Well, it's "evidence" but it's not evidence that's admissible in a court of law or anything. It's unproven and unprovable claims that do not have enough weight to them to even go to court.
"Why do I have to even say that?"
You don't, but you will anyway because it allows you to justify your libel/slander/gossip.
"IF it were a mischaracterization. It's not. YOU CAN GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY har har har IS boasting about sexual assault. Now, you may believe when sexual predators tell you, "They wanted it!" but that language used by Trump is literally boasting about sexual assault."
At best, based on the evidence we have, it's "evidence" of a hypothetical sexual encounter of some sort, likely consensual, based on the only evidence we actually have. It's strange that after this tape came out (also strange that ET hid it for so long), not one woman (that I'm aware of) came forward to claim that Trump was talking about a specific encounter that actually happened. Why would that be?
"That's not mischaracterization and as to your other false claims about me being a serial liar, that IS a mischaracterization. You can't point to one place where I've lied. Because I don't lie in these conversations. Why would I?"
Talk about low hanging fruit.
"You recognize that, right?"
That may be True, but based on the available evidence, I don't think so. But what I DO recognize is that you are more than willing to embellish, add to, invent, and use the words and actions of others to accuse Trump of hings for which you have no direct evidence.
"You can't. There, Craig, is your slander, not in me calling a misogynistic spade a spade."
Look, Dan throws shit against the wall to avoid dealing with his own libel/slander/gossip.
"Why does the right go so far and hard to try to defend an obvious deviant idiot pervert?"
They/we are not defending the actions that have you so hysterical and worked up. We're acknowledging that we have two flawed human beings running for office and that of the two Trump is more likely to govern in a conservative manner.
But you knew that, you 'd just rather lie about it.
Much like I'm not going to waste time digging through a thread to collect Dan's unanswered questions, I'm not going to search for his lies either. If past history is any guide, he'll deny, deny, deny, then deflect, then he'll change the subject when confronted with is own words that might haunt him.
Bubba, you are always welcome whenever you have the time.
Do you fellas think Trump will actually debate Harris? He's said he will, but I'm very doubtful because she'd clearly beat him badly. AND I think he's afraid she'll beat him badly.
Do you fellas think there's a chance at all that Trump won't be beaten badly in a debate IF he debates her?
I don't think his traditional approaches to bully, bluff (like) and bluster his way through debates would work with her and he'd only look like a senile bully.
We shall see.
Seriously boys, there's no shame in the GOP saying, "You know, we have an unfit man running for president... we should replace him." Because everyone else BUT the maga crowd knows he's unfit for president. Learn from the Democrats. Maybe we could actually have a contest of ideas and ideals and not bully and bluster?
If past history is any guide, he'll deny, deny, deny, then deflect, then he'll change the subject when confronted with is own words that might haunt him.
As the record shows, Craig, ANY time you all have charged me with lying, it's turned out not to be the case. It's been occasionally the case that I've been mistaken in good faith and more often than not, it's been the case that you were just factually wrong or, at best, not actually understanding my words.
If you could point to even one lie, in all these decades now, you would. You never have because I have no reason to lie in a simple online discussion. Why would I?
Is it the case that you fellas lie in these scenarios, so you suspect that I do, too? As a rational adult, I just see nothing to gain by lying and great embarrassment and shame if I DID lie. So, why?
Also, Craig, I DID re-watch the Gabbard-Harris debate. I did not see Harris being destroyed. I saw two strong women disagreeing with each other on some points and both being a bit over-the-top in their attacks on the other ("That's a lie!"), but I didn't see either one as winning or losing, much less being "destroyed" as you said elsewhere.
Pence, I saw him being destroyed by Harris AND I saw him being rude and childish (as if he were coached in interrupting regularly by his boss), but not Harris.
Harris may or may not be as eloquent or AS intelligent as the Obamas (clearly intelligent, though), but her lawyer skills and practice seem to serve her well in debates.
Trump said he COULD grab them, not that he ever did. HE was making a point about how many women fawned over him and wanted his attention. Dan's been told this a zillion times but he prefers to misrepresent the case. And we know Dan is so pure that he never looked at a young woman.
Dan,
You write, "disagreeing with YOUR OPINION is not lying," but you clearly believe that some statements qualify as lies, otherwise you would YOURSELF abstain from the accusation of lying. You don't hold yourself to the same standards that you demand for others.
Here, your assessment of Donald Trump is so ridiculously over-the-top that it's clear that you're more interested in painting him in the worst possible light than in the most accurate light.
These are just two reasons that I simply don't think you're an honest individual, but I won't belabor the point: I believe Craig is right, doing so would be a waste of time.
"Also, Craig, I DID re-watch the Gabbard-Harris debate. I did not see Harris being destroyed. I saw two strong women disagreeing with each other on some points and both being a bit over-the-top in their attacks on the other ("That's a lie!"), but I didn't see either one as winning or losing, much less being "destroyed" as you said elsewhere."
Of course you didn't because your prejudices wouldn't allow that. Watching Gabbard go to town on Harris' record as a prosecutor was impressive.
"Pence, I saw him being destroyed by Harris AND I saw him being rude and childish (as if he were coached in interrupting regularly by his boss), but not Harris."
Pence isn't running for anything.
"As the record shows, Craig, ANY time you all have charged me with lying, it's turned out not to be the case. It's been occasionally the case that I've been mistaken in good faith and more often than not, it's been the case that you were just factually wrong or, at best, not actually understanding my words."
I don't think "As the record shows." means what you think it does.
"If you could point to even one lie, in all these decades now, you would. You never have because I have no reason to lie in a simple online discussion. Why would I?"
I could, and have previously. I've never had you acknowledge lies, only offer excuses as you've preemptively done here. That's why it's pointless and a waste of my time. I still remember the time I precisely quoted your exact words, and you accused me of lying. I'm done playing your bullshit games with stuff. I'm also going to cut back on indulging your inevitable rush to change the subject.
"Is it the case that you fellas lie in these scenarios, so you suspect that I do, too? As a rational adult, I just see nothing to gain by lying and great embarrassment and shame if I DID lie. So, why?"
Nope. I don't know why you lie.
As an example, you've called Trump a "rapist" in the past, and accused him of "rapey" behavior here. Can you prove unequivocally that Trump has ever actually raped anyone? Do you have some secret evidence? You pivot to "rapey" an undefined, subjective, vague, imprecise term which seems to basically mean whatever you need it to mean, while conveying the accusation of rape without actually using the term.
If you call Trump a "rapist" without proof that he's actually raped someone is that not a lie?
"Do you fellas think Trump will actually debate Harris? He's said he will, but I'm very doubtful because she'd clearly beat him badly. AND I think he's afraid she'll beat him badly."
I don't know what'll happen. It's interesting that y'all have discarded the democratic process of primary voters voting for their preferred candidate, now you've just blithely accepted that Harris will be anointed without even the semi democratic process of an open convention. If they do debate, hopefully Trump can focus on her "record", on the false narratives that have come up, and stay away from the peripheral stuff.
"Do you fellas think there's a chance at all that Trump won't be beaten badly in a debate IF he debates her?"
There's obviously a chance, I don't see it as likely.
"I don't think his traditional approaches to bully, bluff (like) and bluster his way through debates would work with her and he'd only look like a senile bully."
I think that his Biden strategy works against Harris.
"We shall see."
Yes, we will. Right now I'm more interested in seeing whether on not the DFL totally abandons the last vestiges of the democratic process by avoiding an open convention.
"Seriously boys, there's no shame in the GOP saying, "You know, we have an unfit man running for president... we should replace him." Because everyone else BUT the maga crowd knows he's unfit for president. Learn from the Democrats. Maybe we could actually have a contest of ideas and ideals and not bully and bluster?"
Life in your fantasy world must be interesting. The majority of Biden's coherent debate responses and his speech last night was bluster with some big lies thrown in.
FYI, Biden himself said Harris was a DEI hire.
It seems clear that the P-BO faction of the DFL does not want Harris.
KJP just lied about the fact that Biden's quitting wasn't health related.
This is what you get with Demokrats, and what will only get worse if Kamala is elected.
https://gellerreport.com/2024/07/screaming-allahu-akbar-biden-harris-democrats-rampage-dc-brutally-attack-police-officers-burn-american-flags-destroy-monuments.html/?lctg=40029338
Glenn...
"Trump said he COULD grab them, not that he ever did. HE was making a point about how many women fawned don't even wait."
Y'all are dangerously gullible. Your misogynism is showing.
What Trump actually said...
"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
He is clearly speaking in an historic manner. He's referring to what he personally knows because he's DONE it. YOU CAN sexually assault them ("grab them by the pussy" your pig said, laughing). How does he know? Because he doesn't even wait. He just grabs.
He's not speaking theoretically and he's not speaking of one event. "THEY let you," he boasts like a rapist. This is the language of sexual predators.
Don't leave any women you know alone with pigs like this. He's telling you the sort of sexual deviant predator he is. Believe him.
Don't be naive.
Dan
Just a quick note while I stop by with no time to get down:
Dan said he can't read NYT articles. Yet, he provides links to them based on headlines which suggest to him solid evidence to support his lies and BS perceptions. As such, he's lying just by linking to them, which implies he's read them and found the evidence and arguments within them to be unassailable facts.
Dan's a liar of the highest order.
Dan,
The verb "can" is literally ONLY used in the present and future tenses. "Can" would never be used in the past tense. Could is the past tense of can. Therefore simple grammar tells us that Trump's use of "can" was not describing something in the past.
Your willingness to read things into the text, but here and in scripture, is getting concerning. That you place yourself in the position of determining what other people really mean raises serious questions.
The verb "can" is literally ONLY used in the present and future tenses.
You fail to understand grammar and I don't have time to educate you.
First of all, he is stating this as an imperative fact. Rich guys like me CAN get away with doing what is normally criminal (as his whole life demonstrates). HOW does one know if one can get away with entirely heinous actions UNLESS one has done it in the past?
You think he's speculating ("you know, I hear my buddies like Epstein get away with molesting children. So, you CAN sexually assault people and they LET you do it!!")? Is that what you think? Well, that's a fine GUESS, but it's not a given at all. AND given that Trump has 2 dozen sexual assault accusations against him, given his known misogynistic, objectifying, rapist-like language, you would be a FOOL to make that speculation.
Trump KNOWS he can get away with sexual assault because he's done it repeatedly... THAT is the most obvious conclusion moral, rational people can make about this clearly deviant misogynist. Yes, we COULD bend over backwards for Trump and try to defend him based on the long-shot that ALL of this evidence isn't just what it appears to be - a sexual predator - but why would any reasonable, moral people do that?
To give the benefit of the doubt to an established liar, hedonist and pig?
It defies reason. It's a statistically, rationally failed OPINION to hold. The data is not on your side.
Sometimes, a smoking gun in the hands of a known deviant standing over the body of a dead person MEANS that the deviant murdered the victim.
Good LORD, why do you all go so far to defend a known deviant while attacking relatively good and decent humans? It's just baffling.
https://languagetool.org/insights/post/can-could-grammar/#:~:text=Can%20and%20could%20are%20modal,used%20in%20the%20past%20tense.
You are right that CAN is used to express what's possible now. He knows he CAN get away with sexual assault NOW (when he was saying that... and still) because HE HAS.
IF he had wanted to speculate what he might have gotten away with (although he didn't know), he could have said, "I COULD get away with sexual assault because of my richness and fame. That is my theory." He didn't say that.
There is zero grammatical reason to hold a guess - against all the known data - that MAYBE Trump was speculating about engaging in sexual assault and getting away with it (STILL an atrocious evil thing to say and which would lose my vote - but not y'alls...)
Bubba:
If you call Trump a "rapist" without proof that he's actually raped someone is that not a lie?
1. I have not called Trump a rapist. I HAVE called him a sexual predator.
2. What I've consistently, rationally said (what YOU all would be saying if Trump were a Democrat - or really, you all would probably just call him a rapist, period) is:
a. Trump behaves in a misogynistic, vulgar manner regarding women.
b. Trump engages in using language common to sexual predators, language used by those who support a rape culture (look it up if you're not familiar with the research)
c. We can hear Trump in his own words not merely talking in a hypothetical manner, but boasting and laughing about what he clearly recognizes as sexual assault - You can grab them by the pussy! your pervert prince boasted ... IF you are rich and famous and powerful like me. AND he's using plural language, as if it's happened multiple times with multiple women. HOW does he know he can get away with it if he hasn't done it?
d. "at least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants." -wikipedia
e. that rapists often get away with it, in part, because the women are often not believed
f. That sometimes, rape allegations ARE false, but those are extremely rare. Thus, that someone has 20+ allegations of sexual assault against him AND his own words and attitudes speak of and glorify sexual assault is extremely damning
NOTE: a,b,c,d,e and f above are mostly demonstrable, objective facts - and certainly obvious - not merely opinions. And they're obvious facts to anyone familiar with the data around rapes and sexual assault of women and girls.
3. And thus, while I haven't called Trump a rapist, I've called him a sexual predator because the known data is overwhelming that this is true.
I have NOT called him a convicted rapist, because he's not. I've NOT said we should throw him in jail for deeds he hasn't been convicted for.
I suspect that you all read me saying something like, "Trump regularly uses the language and attitude of rapists" and think that's me saying he's a rapist. No, it's literally me noting the reality that HE USES THE LANGUAGE OF SEXUAL PREDATORS because he literally does. Look at the research. That isn't me then saying, "He uses that language, so he IS a rapist," nor is it me saying "Two dozen women have accused him of sexual assault, therefore it DID happen each and every time."
It's literally me saying that the evidence against Trump, including his own overtly perverse language and rape-y rages/boasts/jokes (AND YES, saying "you can get away with grabbing women by the pussy" IS RAPE-Y LANGUAGE. Literally. HOW do you all not know this?)... it's me saying that the evidence against Trump is overwhelming NOT to the point of arresting him, but certainly to the point of never offering him a job where he'd be around women or a job of privilege and power.
If Trump had struggled through college and actually got a helping degree like a teacher's degree and he was applying to work with kids, you all would NEVER hire him, knowing what we literally know... Knowing about the 20+ allegations, knowing about the sexual assault boast, knowing that he used his power to ogle half-dressed girls AND BOASTED AND LAUGHED about it on radio... You all surely are not so far depraved that you would even think for one SECOND about hiring him to work with children, would you?
Then why in the name of all that is holy would you consider him as fit for the presidency?
The eyes of the far right have been blinded and you all have been played for fools by a pervert conman.
https://inside.southernct.edu/sexual-misconduct/facts
https://www.unh.edu/sharpp/prevention/rape-culture
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/rape-culture
etc, etc.
"Don't you think people are tired of the whirling dervish of madness and chaos that surrounds the convict candidate? The unrelenting mean-ness, cruelty and idiocy of his words?"
What people are you referencing, Dan? The intelligent, America-loving people who don't blame Trump for that which your kind provokes and indulges, or other progressive morons who have no use or regard for the truth and facts? You lying asshats love that a kangaroo court convicted him of bullshit charges so you can refer to him as a "convict" or "felon"...which was a "that'll be good enough if it's all we can get" reason for putting him through those trials in the first place.
In the meantime, we have scores of video exposing Dem politicians and their unrelenting meanness, cruelty and idiotic falseness of their words. We have the summer of 2020 and looting, burning and murdering on up to the current pro-murder, Gazan-supporting protests and demonstrations...wherein assholes refer to Israel as "genocidal" for daring to defend against and destroy true genocidal assholes. THAT'S what honest and decent people reject more than mean tweet and calling Dem assholes disparaging names.
"Trump is clearly unfit, clearly amoral, clearly a convicted felon, clearly a deeply flawed and chaotic candidate."
Dan continues to make these claims without any evidence or basis. What was more chaotic than Biden's Afghan withdrawal or his open borders fiasco which has caused so much death and misery? Yet never has Dan deigned to speak of Trump's policies and argue against them. Shit...Craig and I have done that more than Dan because we aren't patsies for anyone, while you're a total shill, sucker and useful idiot...and a very eager and willing one, it seems...of the progressive/marxist/leftist/Democrat (same things) Party.
"I rather think that most any qualified Democrats would have a good chance to win against him."
Not honestly. Not fairly. Not legally. Not by virtue of intelligence or on the basis of sound policy.
"And I take your willingness to vote for Trump as a willingness to vote for Trump. IF he were the Democratic nominee, I would not vote for him. He is unqualified and unfit in too many ways."
Not that you've proven to be true. Your perverse obsession with his sexual behavior demonstrates an indictment of you more than of he, for he has not promoted that behavior in any way during his political career. But it's all you think about because it turns you on. Why else would it be such a point of focus for you, you pervert!?
July 24, 2024 at 11:08 AM
In reference to Dan's dishonest blatherings from the post on the above date and time, I think there are no other possibilities regarding the several times I linked, for Dan's edification, to the Billy Bush tape where the "crotch grab" comment was made than these two:
1. He never bothered to actually view the video because he knows it would crush his perversely embraced lie about Trump, and
2. He watched the tape and intentionally, willfully chooses with malice aforethought to continue lying about what Trump said.
Given both indicates lying, either one works. Dan's a liar. Dan's a hater. What Dan isn't is a Christian. That, too, is a pernicious lie.
Possibly more on that post later.
"You fail to understand grammar and I don't have time to educate you."
No, I understand grammar just fine. What I don't understand is your individual, random, self serving, manipulation of grammar to buttress your narrative.
"First of all, he is stating this as an imperative fact. Rich guys like me CAN get away with doing what is normally criminal (as his whole life demonstrates). HOW does one know if one can get away with entirely heinous actions UNLESS one has done it in the past?"
Well, that's quite the unproven assumption tainted with your hatred and bias. As such, worthless.
"You think he's speculating ("you know, I hear my buddies like Epstein get away with molesting children. So, you CAN sexually assault people and they LET you do it!!")? Is that what you think? Well, that's a fine GUESS, but it's not a given at all. AND given that Trump has 2 dozen sexual assault accusations against him, given his known misogynistic, objectifying, rapist-like language, you would be a FOOL to make that speculation."
Again with the unproven assumption tainted with your hatred and bias. Still worthless. I think, Mr grammar expert, that you are confused by the term "let". You fail to grasp that "let" suggests consent. I "let" you comment here, with virtually zero restrictions. Therefore I consent to you commenting even if most of it is bizarre bullshit.
"Trump KNOWS he can get away with sexual assault because he's done it repeatedly... THAT is the most obvious conclusion moral, rational people can make about this clearly deviant misogynist. Yes, we COULD bend over backwards for Trump and try to defend him based on the long-shot that ALL of this evidence isn't just what it appears to be - a sexual predator - but why would any reasonable, moral people do that?"
Look, more unproven assumptions (masquerading as factual assertions) tainted by your hate and bias. Still worthless.
"To give the benefit of the doubt to an established liar, hedonist and pig?"
In the legal system, it's called innocent until proven guilty. In real life, it's about not assuming someone has done something because they might have done something similar at some point in the past. This notion that you can presume Trump guilty of some specific actions (with no actual proof) based on your assumptions about what he may or may not have done in the past (again no proof), seems antithetical to your constant whining about justice. For someone who's constantly demanding "proof" from others, to make these wild accusation without a shred of proof, is inconsistent to say the least.
Pointing out the obvious, that there is no proof for your claims about what you presume Trump might have done, is not "defending" him for what he has done. It's expecting you to prove your wild claims and unjust accusations.
"It defies reason. It's a statistically, rationally failed OPINION to hold. The data is not on your side."
Coming from someone who's accusing someone of a very serious crime, with absolutely zero actual evidence of that crime even happening, this claim is beyong ridiculous.
Sometimes, a smoking gun in the hands of a known deviant standing over the body of a dead person MEANS that the deviant murdered the victim.
Good LORD, why do you all go so far to defend a known deviant while attacking relatively good and decent humans? It's just baffling.
"You are right that CAN is used to express what's possible now."
So, when you said "You fail to understand grammar" that was a lie. Or a false claim, or a mistake or whatever. So now you admit that you were wrong, yet offer no apology or acknowledgement of your lie. Classy. Just like Jesus.
"He knows he CAN get away with sexual assault NOW (when he was saying that... and still) because HE HAS.""
Back to unproven assumptions tainted by your hatred and bias.
"IF he had wanted to speculate what he might have gotten away with (although he didn't know), he could have said, "I COULD get away with sexual assault because of my richness and fame. That is my theory." He didn't say that."
Could is the past tense of can. One should not use "could" when speaking of what might happen in the presence or future. I guess we know who is grammar challenged.
Nonetheless, you're just piling speculation, on top of presumptions, on top of assumptions, with absolutely zero proof.
"There is zero grammatical reason to hold a guess - against all the known data - that MAYBE Trump was speculating about engaging in sexual assault and getting away with it (STILL an atrocious evil thing to say and which would lose my vote - but not y'alls...)"
By all means, provide one single bit of "known data" that can be empirically verified as True and specific evidence of a specific incident.
Your obsession with moving the conversation away from the topic of the post (the NYT finding that Harris is the least electable of the DFL options they considered) tell me that you probably believe that the NYT experts (revered journalists working for a revered news source) are correct. That you need to keep bashing Trump for imagined, unproven, actions far in the past as opposed to making a positive case for Harris.
"I have not called Trump a rapist. I HAVE called him a sexual predator."
So when you accuse us of defending a "rapist" who is the "rapist" we're accused of defending? IS not describing Trump's behavior as "rapey" simply another way to say or suggest "rapist"? Have you never, not eve once, referred to the result of the civil case against Trump as him "being convicted of rape"? Is someone who engages in multiple instances of consensual sexual relationship a "sexual predator"?
I get that you are very good at suggesting something, without actually saying it. That's not a trait I'd be proud of.
"HOW does one know if one can get away with entirely heinous actions UNLESS one has done it in the past?"
Gee...I dunno...maybe some gold digger told him he could do whatever he wants to her. One who embraces grace might want to consider that equally (if not more) likely possibility. And again, having been given consent to engage in sexual relations, there's no predatory behavior necessary. What's more, you also never stop to consider that women have sought him out as much or even possibly more than he sought them. No. For you, because you embrace grace, it absolutely must be that Trump is a "pervert" sexual predator. You NEED that to be true to both validate your hatred for him, as well as your dishonest desire to remove any scrutiny of your alternative choices who have no beneficial policies for America.
""THEY let you," he boasts like a rapist. This is the language of sexual predators."
It's also the language of those who are familiar with the people about whom they're speaking. I know islamists will rape or murder homosexuals. Does that mean I've done it, too? And I can express that belief in the same flippant, "between your and me" manner as Trump did with Billy Bush.
Your hatred of the man is perverse.
You also could be speaking as an actual expert on the subject of rape and sexual abuse, having done real research personally as well as treatment of both victim and abuser and you still could be totally wrong about presuming you can refer to one you don't personally know or have never interviewed or examined...whatever term you're trying to get away with applying to him. No Dan. You want him to be the worst kind of predator. You need him to be the worst kind of predator. You'll pervert everything, assume the worst first because it validates your perverse hatred. You're a far worse pervert than him.
I will take a minute just to be clear about another false assumption you all have about me. A lie, if you will.
I don't hate Trump.
Period.
Trump, the man, by all appearances seems to be a pathetic, emotionally ill, damaged and sickened by the probable abuse he had as a child. He is sort of the poster child of the poison of great wealth and hedonism. He has been undone by his upbringing and his hyper-consumption. It makes him pitiable, not someone to be hated.
I don't hate Trump, at all.
On the other hand, ANY time that someone abuses power, someone abuses women, takes advantage of others, "steals the workers wages" (as St James noted), that kind of behavior causes harm... great harm often. I am angry at a man who boasts about sexual assault. I HATE that sort of behavior. It's pathetic, it's dangerous, it's harmful, it's part of the culture of attacking, objectifying, belittling and destroying women.
I HATE that behavior.
As do all good and decent people.
There's a difference (as conservatives often point out poorly) between hating the sin and hating the sinner.
Trump is a corrupt lying hedonist who has abused his wealth and power to literally steal the workers' wages, to oppress others. I can hate that behavior without hating him.
Likewise, I do not hate the conservatives who irrationally support this vile, sick man. But I do hate the harm you all cause.
I have more than one friend (who can afford to do so) who are soon traveling overseas and if Trump should win, they probably won't return. The policies of the magagop is causing active harm to many people. Others would leave to escape the oppression if they could. They aren't making up the harm being done. Anyone can see it who isn't blinded by partisanship. It's a real world Thing that modern (and past) GOP policies are harming people. IF I'm to love and support these people harmed by oppression, I can't at the same time pretend the harm isn't happening.
No one should.
That isn't hatred. That's taking a stand against oppression and deliberate harm.
I invite you to join us.
"I don't hate Trump. Period."
When I compare this with the vitriolic, nasty, hateful things you say about him, I have a hard time believing this claim.
"Trump, the man, by all appearances seems to be a pathetic, emotionally ill, damaged and sickened by the probable abuse he had as a child. He is sort of the poster child of the poison of great wealth and hedonism. He has been undone by his upbringing and his hyper-consumption. It makes him pitiable, not someone to be hated."
Interesting psychoanalysis from someone who apparently magically became and expert in psychoanalysis of those he's never met. That's quite the feat. Maybe you should market this magical gift you have.
Strangely enough, absolutely nothing in that paragraph shows the tiniest bit of compassion, empathy, or grace. Given your vast amount of comments on Trump, it's strange that you blame him for things that he clearly couldn't control.
"On the other hand, ANY time that someone abuses power, someone abuses women, takes advantage of others, "steals the workers wages" (as St James noted), that kind of behavior causes harm... great harm often. I am angry at a man who boasts about sexual assault. I HATE that sort of behavior. It's pathetic, it's dangerous, it's harmful, it's part of the culture of attacking, objectifying, belittling and destroying women."
It's strange that your criticism and vitriol about those activities never extends to those on the "progressive" side of the aisle. Your own words, or more accurately silence, when it's not about Trump, Bush, or Regan tell a different story.
"Likewise, I do not hate the conservatives who irrationally support this vile, sick man. But I do hate the harm you all cause."
If you really believe that Trump is "sick", and that his "sickness" is caused by his upbringing, then how can you possibly refer to him as "vile". If his actions are the result of a "sickness" and out of his control, how can he possibly be "vile"?
Your empathy, grace, and humility really shine through.
"I have more than one friend (who can afford to do so) who are soon traveling overseas and if Trump should win, they probably won't return."
That's great, good riddance. I'll simply note that this "threat" has been leveled several times before and strangely enough they always end up staying. But you go ahead and support your rich friends who plan to take their money (and their tax contributions) away from the US.
It's strange that those "harmful" policies somehow managed to benefit all sorts of people, before COVID, and how those policies managed to end the COVID recession before Biden took office. Because who wants lower prices, more goods and services, and a better economy.
The problem is that "joining you" will result in a further deterioration of the US economy, higher deficits and debt, higher interest rates, and more abortions. I'll pass on joining you, I'll stick to opposing you.
Indeed. If what Dan says about Trump isn't "hate", then there's no such thing as "hate". Dan, like every Trump-hater, pretends to know details of Trump's personal life and business dealings about which he has no means of discovering. They like to believe Trump simply chooses not to pay people out of greed , or some such, without considering those complaining might have done shit work, or in some way didn't hold up their end of their contractual agreement. If Dan was the grace embracer he expects anyone to believe he is, he wouldn't so perversely assume allegations against Trump were true. Hate presumes guilt until innocence is proven, as Dan does with Trump.
Hate also speaks of harm and oppression from an administration where it hasn't manifested, and worse, do so without providing the least bit of evidence to support the charge. Did Trump open the borders to allow entry to millions of invaders without vetting? No. That was the "decent" man, Biden. Did Trump send big bucks to the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world? No. The "decent" men, Biden and Obama did. Did Trump leave billions of dollars worth of sophisticated military hardware in the hands of the Taliban, leaving also dead American soldiers, American civilians and Afghan allies behind? No. The "decent" man, Biden did. I could go on with more to contrast what Dan's idea of "decency " did to bring about harm and oppression the allegedly "emotionally damaged" far better president never did. Only an emotionaly damaged hater like Dan would fail to see the obvious. I can only imagine the abuse Dan had to have endured throughout his upbringing in a dysfunctional family to account for this obvious hatred he has for Trump.
--Art
"Indeed. If what Dan says about Trump isn't "hate", then there's no such thing as "hate". Dan, like every Trump-hater, pretends to know details of Trump's personal life and business dealings about which he has no means of discovering."
I'll say this, Dan has a very strange and vitriolic way of demonstrating grace and showing his concern for someone he things is mentally damaged and who he claims to pity. I've never encountered anyone who shows pity or grace quite like Dan.
"They like to believe Trump simply chooses not to pay people out of greed , or some such, without considering those complaining might have done shit work, or in some way didn't hold up their end of their contractual agreement. If Dan was the grace embracer he expects anyone to believe he is, he wouldn't so perversely assume allegations against Trump were true. Hate presumes guilt until innocence is proven, as Dan does with Trump."
Again, it's Dan choosing to only look at one side of the equation and to draw the worst possible conclusions based on only looking at and believing the worst.
"Hate also speaks of harm and oppression from an administration where it hasn't manifested, and worse, do so without providing the least bit of evidence to support the charge. Did Trump open the borders to allow entry to millions of invaders without vetting? No. That was the "decent" man, Biden. Did Trump send big bucks to the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world? No. The "decent" men, Biden and Obama did. Did Trump leave billions of dollars worth of sophisticated military hardware in the hands of the Taliban, leaving also dead American soldiers, American civilians and Afghan allies behind? No. The "decent" man, Biden did. I could go on with more to contrast what Dan's idea of "decency " did to bring about harm and oppression the allegedly "emotionally damaged" far better president never did. Only an emotionaly damaged hater like Dan would fail to see the obvious. I can only imagine the abuse Dan had to have endured throughout his upbringing in a dysfunctional family to account for this obvious hatred he has for Trump."
As I just said, that's what happens when you only consider the worst actions of someone, then view those actions in the worst possible light, using those conclusions to define someone without considering the whole picture. Likewise, when you only see the best possible things in those you blindly support, you convince yourself that the distorted picture you've painted is actually real.
Post a Comment