The Clinton vs. Trump Debates Talkback!


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 1,228 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Orfamay Quest wrote:
That said, I think the unwillingness of Swedish authorities to interview Assange at the embassy is pretty strong evidence that they are not, in fact, acting in good faith. This whole matter could have been resolved in 2010 when the warrant was first issued, or in 2012 when Assange received asylum in the first place.... and it's not Ecuadorean stubbornness that has kept it going. Both the Ecuadoreans and Assange were willing to host an interview years ago.

This.

Also, just because Bill Clinton used his power/position to have sexual escapades with legally-adult women doesn't mean those women were mentally-adult.

Which is to say, I want to hear what Wikileaks/Assange has to say not because I like the guy but because truth matters. Clinton is a practiced liar and Wikileaks may shed useful details. Trump is transparent because he's unashamed.

At any rate, I'm not voting for either. Bernie may have sold out in hopes of moving forward with some of his agenda but Clinton will shift middle once in office and let Bernie swing.


Yidhra, Goddess of Paradoxes wrote:

Aww, but losing your sanity is fun!

Some of us haven't lost our sanity. I know where mine is: in a fake can of chicken soup hidden among 99 decoys in the pantry.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ohmm.....

He will try to remain calm and presidential.

he will manage it longer this time

and then explode even worse than the last debacle.

I'm guessing this time he'll switch prescriptions to Dr. Bornstein's All-One Magic Downers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That said, I think the unwillingness of Swedish authorities to interview Assange at the embassy is pretty strong evidence that they are not, in fact, acting in good faith. This whole matter could have been resolved in 2010 when the warrant was first issued, or in 2012 when Assange received asylum in the first place.... and it's not Ecuadorean stubbornness that has kept it going. Both the Ecuadoreans and Assange were willing to host an interview years ago.

This.

Also, just because Bill Clinton used his power/position to have sexual escapades with legally-adult women doesn't mean those women were mentally-adult.

Which is to say, I want to hear what Wikileaks/Assange has to say not because I like the guy but because truth matters. Clinton is a practiced liar and Wikileaks may shed useful details. Trump is transparent because he's unashamed.

At any rate, I'm not voting for either. Bernie may have sold out in hopes of moving forward with some of his agenda but Clinton will shift middle once in office and let Bernie swing.

Because, as we know, whatever Assange reveals will be the Truth.


I don't know about that... but honestly? Assange is an a$&$*~@. Like trump, he is unashamed. What he has done is publish stuff he got hold of, and I am not aware that anyone said these things had been manipulated. So far, he has been pretty much truthful.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I actually like the idea of Wikileaks, but not the way Assange has managed it. Conversely, I can't stand Assange, but it seems clear to me that the charges against him are too weak to be sustained by anything other than political animus.

That said, again I doubt any further efforts on his part to disrupt the election will be successful. If he had anything which should really disqualify someone he would have released it by now. Thus, anything he might have is going to be unproven innuendo or otherwise short of damning and he is going to try to release it close enough to the election to sway some 'undecideds' during the brief period between the 'big revelation' and everyone forgetting about it... which will only work if most of the news media plays along with pretending it is a big deal.


CBDunkerson wrote:

I actually like the idea of Wikileaks, but not the way Assange has managed it. Conversely, I can't stand Assange, but it seems clear to me that the charges against him are too weak to be sustained by anything other than political animus.

That said, again I doubt any further efforts on his part to disrupt the election will be successful. If he had anything which should really disqualify someone he would have released it by now. Thus, anything he might have is going to be unproven innuendo or otherwise short of damning and he is going to try to release it close enough to the election to sway some 'undecideds' during the brief period between the 'big revelation' and everyone forgetting about it... which will only work if most of the news media plays along with pretending it is a big deal.

If it is true that Assange has thousands of pages of documents to sort through then I can see why he would wait until his ducks are in a row. I think the way he handled the release of the DNC documents, the ones showing a pervasive and juvenile hate of Bernie and his message, was spot on.

If he was just wanting to poke Clinton then he could throw his stones anytime.

At any rate it looks like his message will be revealed tomorrow in Berlin since he didn't feel safe from the balcony in London. We don't have long to wait.

thejeff wrote:
Because, as we know, whatever Assange reveals will be the Truth.

I get why you don't like the guy, and it's not like I want to meet him or get his autograph, but this level of sarcastic disbelief is very unusual for you. Almost always, when we disagree, your posts at least force me to reconsider my position. What gives?

Sissyl wrote:
I don't know about that... but honestly? Assange is an a$&#!!#. Like trump, he is unashamed. What he has done is publish stuff he got hold of, and I am not aware that anyone said these things had been manipulated. So far, he has been pretty much truthful.

I can agree with that.


Quark Blast wrote:

thejeff wrote:
Because, as we know, whatever Assange reveals will be the Truth.
I get why you don't like the guy, and it's not like I want to meet him or get his autograph, but this level of sarcastic disbelief is very unusual for you. Almost always, when we disagree, your posts at least force me to reconsider my position. What gives?

Mostly it's not Assange, so much as the yet another big reveal of a Clinton scandal. We've been promised for decades now that whatever the latest one is, it'll finish her.

Add to that the whole "I'm not safe giving a press conference from the embassy balcony" thing, which just plays to the worst of the Clinton conspiracy theorists.

I dunno. Maybe he's got hard evidence of the full Clinton murder spree, but I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Piggybacking off what thejeff said, the Clinton conspiracy effort is itself older than some of the people in the college classes I'm in. Despite a multi decade existence it had yet to produce anything substantive. Much like the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, those who claim to have proof of Clinton misdeeds now provoke a great deal of scepticism from me. Everytime a new "smoking gun" is proclaimed, then shown to be a dud, the whole thing looks less like an effort to find truth and more like a personal vendetta.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Maybe he's got hard evidence of the full Clinton murder spree, but I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe.

Wellll, it's not exactly a secret that she helped direct the killing of one of her enemies.


Scythia wrote:
Piggybacking off what thejeff said, the Clinton conspiracy effort is itself older than some of the people in the college classes I'm in. Despite a multi decade existence it had yet to produce anything substantive. Much like the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, those who claim to have proof of Clinton misdeeds now provoke a great deal of scepticism from me. Everytime a new "smoking gun" is proclaimed, then shown to be a dud, the whole thing looks less like an effort to find truth and more like a personal vendetta.

I wasn't aware that Assange was someone bent on taking down the Clintons at all costs.

I get why the wolf-crying would engender a YAWN after 3 decades.

Given the Wikileaks track record*, I don't get the spontaneous dismissal and irrelevant character assassination of Assange.

* Wikileaks seriously and rigorously vets the material given it. When they start faking data or withholding pertinent data I'll throw some shade their way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.


bugleyman wrote:
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.

My thought was that it could. For it certainly shows her willingness to put up with anything for a chance at power.

David Gergen had some well thought out and fair opinions on her relationship to power from his time in the White House in the 90's. See for example his fairly recent thoughts on the Clinton Emails.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.

My thought was that it could. For it certainly shows her willingness to put up with anything for a chance at power.

David Gergen had some well thought out and fair opinions on her relationship to power from his time in the White House in the 90's. See for example his fairly recent thoughts on the Clinton Emails.

I'm sorry, but choosing to stay with a husband who has cheated on you is not a power grab. That accusation is heinous.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Given the Wikileaks track record*, I don't get the spontaneous dismissal and irrelevant character assassination of Assange.

* Wikileaks seriously and rigorously vets the material given it. When they start faking data or withholding pertinent data I'll throw some shade their way.

Rigorously vets? Wow, no. I'd put them more on the side of indiscriminately dispersing anything and everything they can get their hands on.

They certainly don't "withhold pertinent data", but their gleeful distribution of impertinent data (e.g. names of Afghan civilians who had worked for the US, ninety-two thousand unredacted classified reports that Snowden foolishly relied upon them to vet first, names of teenaged rape victims and Saudi Arabian homosexuals, SSNs and credit cards of Democratic party donors, Alpha Sigma Tau sorority rituals... I mean WTF?) can be even more damaging.

Likewise, they may not fake data, but they have certainly misrepresented it as a matter of course. Recordings of US bombings that hit civilians clearly demonstrated that they were errors, the participants were discussing what they thought to be enemy combatants (e.g. mistaking a journalist's telephoto lens for a RPG launcher), but Assange claimed that they were proof of intentional targeting of civilians.

Wikileaks could be a great thing... if Assange weren't such a complete jackass.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.
My thought was that it could. For it certainly shows her willingness to put up with anything for a chance at power.

So... Hilary is unfit to be president because her husband cheated on her.

Yet Trump cheating on his multiple wives does not invalidate HIM from the office.

Yeah. Nothing sexist or hypocritical about that at all. If Trump really raises it at the next debate I'll be shocked if Clinton isn't waiting to shove it back down his throat.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Maybe he's got hard evidence of the full Clinton murder spree, but I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe.
Wellll, it's not exactly a secret that she helped direct the killing of one of her enemies.

I think my favorite part of that image is the one-star in the middle looking like a lieutenant having to run the slideshow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


If it is true that Assange has thousands of pages of documents to sort through then I can see why he would wait until his ducks are in a row.

Except any analysis of Assange's behavior tells us that he doesn't wait to sort through the documents. In fact, their method of operation is to release anything and everything, regardless of the type of document or who it will impact, and just let the media sort it out.

They've released documents that contains:

  • rape victim personal information
  • outed gays in countries that sometimes execute gay people
  • personal details of non-public individuals (ie, people who aren't politicians or celebrities or the heads of major corporations) including
  • medical records
  • financial records
  • contact information, including addresses

They've released information that puts people's lives at risk and for which there is no probative value at all for the public. It's information that has no value to the public discourse of anything and is only harmful to the individual who it is about. Wikileaks has no regard for any harm it might do to the individuals detailed in their documents.

If they have the information, the only reason they're waiting is because they want to time the moment of it's release. If the information were truly damning, there would be no reason not to release it now (or as soon as acquired). If the information were "suggestive" but not actually substantial, it would be valuable to release it closer to the election so that the release headlines will have time to spread through the news cycle, but without enough time for people to actually investigate it and verify the information contained within.

Sovereign Court

Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.

My thought was that it could. For it certainly shows her willingness to put up with anything for a chance at power.

David Gergen had some well thought out and fair opinions on her relationship to power from his time in the White House in the 90's. See for example his fairly recent thoughts on the Clinton Emails.

I'd take another look at Bill Clinton's speech from the DNC. Its pretty clear that he understands who she is and loves her. While he may not have respected their marriage, he respects who she is and that is something I would find difficult to let go of. I think there is a lot more to it than simple grab at power.


CBDunkerson wrote:

I actually like the idea of Wikileaks, but not the way Assange has managed it. Conversely, I can't stand Assange, but it seems clear to me that the charges against him are too weak to be sustained by anything other than political animus.

That said, again I doubt any further efforts on his part to disrupt the election will be successful. If he had anything which should really disqualify someone he would have released it by now. Thus, anything he might have is going to be unproven innuendo or otherwise short of damning and he is going to try to release it close enough to the election to sway some 'undecideds' during the brief period between the 'big revelation' and everyone forgetting about it... which will only work if most of the news media plays along with pretending it is a big deal.

Of course our media have never inflated a story for ratings purposes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wikileaks used to be a decent organization, but it's so transparently biased at this point, it's basically like any other political organization. As Moonrunner actually sort of alludes to, I choose to treat it like any other biased media outlet.


The amount of sarcasm in this thread is choking me.


Oh, great plan! I'm sure that bringing it up won't, oh, I dunno, summon Sarcasm Dragon to make things even worse! Nice one, buddy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah, that guy is a real problem.


Finally, someone else for a change.


Irontruth wrote:

<snip>

If they have the information, the only reason they're waiting is because they want to time the moment of it's release. If the information were truly damning, there would be no reason not to release it now (or as soon as acquired). If the information were "suggestive" but not actually substantial, it would be valuable to release it closer to the election so that the release headlines will have time to spread through the news cycle, but without enough time for people to actually investigate it and verify the information contained within.

That's pretty much what I said up-thread.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Given the Wikileaks track record*, I don't get the spontaneous dismissal and irrelevant character assassination of Assange.

* Wikileaks seriously and rigorously vets the material given it. When they start faking data or withholding pertinent data I'll throw some shade their way.

Rigorously vets? Wow, no. I'd put them more on the side of indiscriminately dispersing anything and everything they can get their hands on.

They certainly don't "withhold pertinent data", but their gleeful distribution of impertinent data (e.g. names of Afghan civilians who had worked for the US, ninety-two thousand unredacted classified reports that Snowden foolishly relied upon them to vet first, names of teenaged rape victims and Saudi Arabian homosexuals, SSNs and credit cards of Democratic party donors, Alpha Sigma Tau sorority rituals... I mean WTF?) can be even more damaging.

Likewise, they may not fake data, but they have certainly misrepresented it as a matter of course. Recordings of US bombings that hit civilians clearly demonstrated that they were errors, the participants were discussing what they thought to be enemy combatants (e.g. mistaking a journalist's telephoto lens for a RPG launcher), but Assange claimed that they were proof of intentional targeting of civilians.

Wikileaks could be a great thing... if Assange weren't such a complete jackass.

They vet it to make sure it's real. I didn't say (or imply) that they were responsible with it. Sheesh!


Caineach wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.

My thought was that it could. For it certainly shows her willingness to put up with anything for a chance at power.

David Gergen had some well thought out and fair opinions on her relationship to power from his time in the White House in the 90's. See for example his fairly recent thoughts on the Clinton Emails.

I'm sorry, but choosing to stay with a husband who has cheated on you is not a power grab. That accusation is heinous.

No not a "power grab". Never said that. Just hedging her bets. It's not like he cheated on her only once and got caught. What made her so mad about the Lewinsky episode is that it was exposed in lurid detail as a consequence of his carelessness. She had long since made her peace with his career-long habit of emulating JFK.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have...over the last few weeks..seen reference after reference to Hillary being power-hungry. Why is it no one ever labels Trump the same way? Oh that's right...ambition is only okay for dudes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I have...over the last few weeks..seen reference after reference to Hillary being power-hungry. Why is it no one ever labels Trump the same way? Oh that's right...ambition is only okay for dudes.

Easy.

From my POV Trump quite obviously has no filter due to a personality disorder (or two). Thus there is no better way to criticize him than sit back and let him talk*.

* That was the whole shtick behind the SNL Debate Spoof after all. Obviously they get it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think all the people with some form of neuroatypicality, neurodivergence, neurodisorders, and neurodisabilities would prefer the rest of the Internet would kindly quit armchair-DSM diagnosing Trump.

Trump has a specific known condition. He is an !sshole.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Man who stays with spouse who cheated? Laudable and noble.
Woman who does the same? Cynical power grab.

Got it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno about that - I saw an article about how somebody who teaches on mental diseases was recording footage of Trump to use in their lessons - for narcissism, I think it was? XD He isn't just being diagnosed, he's becoming the literal, actual textbook case of an issue.


bugleyman wrote:

Man who stays with spouse who cheated? Laudable and noble.

Woman who does the same? Cynical power grab.

Got it.

Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think we can all agree that "in it for other reason(s)" is particularly descriptive of Trump's marriages. There doesn't seem to be any commitment or willingness to work through problems with his current spouse before picking up a new mistress and eventually discarding the old mistress/wife for the new version.

There are open marriages, polygamous marriages, and traditional 'til-death-do-us-part' marriages. I don't think people who aren't part of the relationship could ever understand why some work and last a long time, and some don't.

Pretending that the only reason a marriage lasts is because a woman needs a powerful partner seems to be a very limited view of how relationships work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?

So there's an unfair double standard that a man can have 3 wives and 18 mistresses but a woman will be unelectable if you leave a husband for any reason, and thats her fault?


CrystalSeas wrote:

I think we can all agree that "in it for other reason(s)" is particularly descriptive of Trump's marriages. There doesn't seem to be any commitment or willingness to work through problems with his current spouse before picking up a new mistress and eventually discarding the old mistress/wife for the new version.

There are open marriages, polygamous marriages, and traditional 'til-death-do-us-part' marriages. I don't think people who aren't part of the relationship could ever understand why some work and last a long time, and some don't.

Pretending that the only reason a marriage lasts is because a woman needs a powerful partner seems to be a very limited view of how relationships work.

Sure, but you forgive someone for wronging you once. Maybe twice when it's the exact same wrong.

Infidelity isn't one of those things that "just happens". It takes planning for deception and collusion of at least one other individual (for Bill it involved the collusion of a number of people).

When it happens a dozen or more times you've passed over consideration for being "laudable" and gone on to "in it for other reasons".


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?

So there's an unfair double standard that a man can have 3 wives and 18 mistresses but a woman will be unelectable if you leave a husband for any reason, and thats her fault?

Missed this somehow.

Look when have I ever promoted Trump?

He is beyond the last person on the ballot that I'd vote for.

In fact, if I couldn't write-in a candidate, I wouldn't be voting here in November.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Sure, but you forgive someone for wronging you once. Maybe twice when it's the exact same wrong.

Again, that's your rule for ending a relationship. It does not necessarily apply to other people's relationships.

I've know a number of low-profile marriages, where the woman stays with the man, even though she is the main wage earner and he is a serial strayer. People forgive other people for all kinds of reasons. And some relationships are built on the understanding that affairs will happen, even be planned for.

You're applying a very narrow personal standard to someone else's relationship. There's no way you could possibly know what their definition of a 'strong marriage' is. Clearly it isn't your definition. But that doesn't mean yours applies to them


Quark Blast wrote:

.

In fact, if I couldn't write-in a candidate, I wouldn't be voting here in November.

So what IS dominick the christmas donkey going to do with the honor of coming in ahead of jill stein?

Please tell me you're not in a purple state.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Sure, but you forgive someone for wronging you once. Maybe twice when it's the exact same wrong.

Again, that's your rule for ending a relationship. It does not necessarily apply to other people's relationships.

I've know a number of low-profile marriages, where the woman stays with the man, even though she is the main wage earner and he is a serial strayer. People forgive other people for all kinds of reasons. And some relationships are built on the understanding that affairs will happen, even be planned for.

You're applying a very narrow personal standard to someone else's relationship. There's no way you could possibly know what their definition of a 'strong marriage' is. Clearly it isn't your definition. But that doesn't mean yours applies to them

Well, so far as I can tell, they self-identify as Southern Baptist.

And "twice" isn't a magical number but sometime before "a couple dozen" the forgiveness thing becomes an absurdity.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

.

In fact, if I couldn't write-in a candidate, I wouldn't be voting here in November.

So what IS dominick the christmas donkey going to do with the honor of coming in ahead of jill stein?

Please tell me you're not in a purple state.

Not sure. Voting for Bernie. And not sure.


Quark Blast wrote:

Well, so far as I can tell, they self-identify as Southern Baptist.

And "twice" isn't a magical number but sometime before "a couple dozen" the forgiveness thing becomes an absurdity.

Would you end your career for the rest of your life to divorce someone?

That's not a choice a male politician has to make.
That is a choice a female politician has to make.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Would you end your career for the rest of your life to divorce someone?

That's not a choice a male politician has to make.
That is a choice a female politician has to make.

Ronald Reagan was the first (and so far only) divorced US president. Until quite recently men were having to make the same decision.

Trump, as is his wont, is blowing that convention off the books. Pretty much any sexual behavior is now acceptable for a male candidate.


Quark Blast wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

.

In fact, if I couldn't write-in a candidate, I wouldn't be voting here in November.

So what IS dominick the christmas donkey going to do with the honor of coming in ahead of jill stein?

Please tell me you're not in a purple state.

Not sure. Voting for Bernie. And not sure.

Ah, throwing your vote away. Productive. Will you be wiping your nose with it as well?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Man who stays with spouse who cheated? Laudable and noble.

Woman who does the same? Cynical power grab.

Got it.

Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?

My mother stayed with my father despite decades of abuse. It's called coming from a culture where marriage isn't something you walk away from... PERIOD.

Fact of the matter is that you can't see the nature of the Clinton relationship just by looking at Bill's scandals. Bill's wandering eye does not by itself mark a failed marriage. Relationships are more complicated than that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Man who stays with spouse who cheated? Laudable and noble.

Woman who does the same? Cynical power grab.

Got it.

Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?

My mother stayed with my father despite decades of abuse. It's called coming from a culture where marriage isn't something you walk away from... PERIOD.

Fact of the matter is that you can't see the nature of the Clinton relationship just by looking at Bill's scandals. Bill's wandering eye does not by itself mark a failed marriage. Relationships are more complicated than that.

Exactly.

Besides, the only two people who know all the details of the Clintons' marriage is Bill and Hillary. Everyone else is conjecturing, projecting, speculating, and/or all of the above.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Man who stays with spouse who cheated? Laudable and noble.

Woman who does the same? Cynical power grab.

Got it.

Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?

My mother stayed with my father despite decades of abuse. It's called coming from a culture where marriage isn't something you walk away from... PERIOD.

Fact of the matter is that you can't see the nature of the Clinton relationship just by looking at Bill's scandals. Bill's wandering eye does not by itself mark a failed marriage. Relationships are more complicated than that.

Hillary was educated at Wellesley College and Yale Law School. She also had a year of post-graduate work and a professional high-paying career. She's not from a culture that would keep her trapped in such a relationship.

All we are left with is she was in it for other reasons.

And as for walking away from the marriage, Bill did that a few dozen times, then came back after an hour or two. He never changed his behavior, even after getting caught. I imagine aging has slowed him down somewhat now though.


thunderspirit wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Man who stays with spouse who cheated? Laudable and noble.

Woman who does the same? Cynical power grab.

Got it.

Is it still "Laudable and noble" after the second incident?

After the fifth?

Tenth?

At what point does "Laudable and noble" devolve into either "stooge" or "in it for other reason(s)"?

My mother stayed with my father despite decades of abuse. It's called coming from a culture where marriage isn't something you walk away from... PERIOD.

Fact of the matter is that you can't see the nature of the Clinton relationship just by looking at Bill's scandals. Bill's wandering eye does not by itself mark a failed marriage. Relationships are more complicated than that.

Exactly.

Besides, the only two people who know all the details of the Clintons' marriage is Bill and Hillary. Everyone else is conjecturing, projecting, speculating, and/or all of the above.

Like JFK's escapades, Bill's aren't as "secret" (at least a fair number of them) as you make out. A number of friends and staff members were colluding in his behavior in each instance. And later, the security detail when he was president.


Ryuko wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

.

In fact, if I couldn't write-in a candidate, I wouldn't be voting here in November.

So what IS dominick the christmas donkey going to do with the honor of coming in ahead of jill stein?

Please tell me you're not in a purple state.

Not sure. Voting for Bernie. And not sure.
Ah, throwing your vote away. Productive. Will you be wiping your nose with it as well?

The largest number of eligible voters won't vote.

Then the next largest group will be the ones who voted for a loser. Since they all lose, they're all in the same group.

Then nearly the smallest block will be those who voted for the winner (a good portion of whom will do so holding their nose). Winning candidate will then fail to uphold well more than half of the campaign promises.

Then comes people like me. One's who voted for someone they actually want to as consolation to the fact that we didn't back a winner (and never will).

TL/DR - We're all throwing out vote away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were to guess, Trump is a narcissist. Narcissistic Personality Disorder means you have poor empathy, always feel you deserve the best in anything, strive like someone possessed to get everything you can to prop up your nonexistent self-image, and you go into an incandescent rage if criticized even the slightest. If someone like that is intelligent enough (and it seems he is), they go very far indeed. They are, of course, among the most dangerous types of people to have in a position of power.

551 to 600 of 1,228 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Clinton vs. Trump Debates Talkback! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.