Donald vs Hillary

[msj]

5 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

 

It's funny, but other than me and Gosthacked, it seems everyone on this board is completely in denial of one candidate's sociopathic tendencies.

What a presumptuous and stupid thing to say.  

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, BC_chick said:

 

You're really no different than those you criticize.  You're equally dismissive of the terrible things Trump does.

It's funny, but other than me and Gosthacked, it seems everyone on this board is completely in denial of one candidate's sociopathic tendencies.

He hasn't actually done anything (that we know of) though, he has said a bunch of things that amount to inappropriate language or humour - though, and nothing that comes even close to sociopathic.  He's egotistical, and obviously shows strong signs of entitlement, but that's about the extent of it.   Hillary shows more signs of being sociopathic behaviour than Trump, based on her actions.

 

[BC_chick]

4 minutes ago, msj said:

What a presumptuous and stupid thing to say.  

Right, because being ok with a candidate who wants to 'off' political foes is not denying the sociopathic tendencies.

Edited October 9, 2016 by BC_chick

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, msj said:

What a presumptuous and stupid thing to say.  

Really.  Many on here have shown utter contempt for Trump.

It's not my fault if I also find the whole process entertaining in the extreme.

Edited October 9, 2016 by bcsapper

[msj]

9 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Right, because being ok with a candidate who wants to 'off' political foes is not denying the sociopathic tendencies.

I don't know. 

I do know it is presumptuous and stupid to make claims about what others think based on an absence of their commenting. 

You do not know what I think so  do not presume to think what I am in denial about and whether I find something acceptable or not. 

[BC_chick]

I'm just astounded that people who are spending so much of their time criticizing Trump's lewd word don't seem even a bit concerned about Clinton casually wanting to kill people. 

Sorry not sorry. Your absence of commentary is indeed indicative of your denial. 

[msj]

No it is not. 

The fact, for example,  that I have not seen you deny the Armenian genocide does not mean that you support it or that you think Turkey is just getting a bad rap. 

This is such a basic and fundamental point of discussion: focus on what a person has actually stated rather than what you presume is stated, or thought, otherwise you end up in straw man argument land.  

[Argus]

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

Are you seriously that dismissive about killing people who are political threats?

WTF?

First, he's not just a political threat. He and his organization are a security threat.

Second, I'm not suggesting he should be assassinated, just that I wouldn't shed any tears if he dropped dead.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Trump has said bad things about women, but Hillary has actually done bad things against women. 

Like what?

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

 

You're really no different than those you criticize.  You're equally dismissive of the terrible things Trump does.

It's funny, but other than me and Gosthacked, it seems everyone on this board is completely in denial of one candidate's sociopathic tendencies.

I'm still waiting for evidence Clinton is more than a typical high level politician who's been spotlighted a lot more than is the norm.

[Argus]

43 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Right, because being ok with a candidate who wants to 'off' political foes is not denying the sociopathic tendencies.

Any evidence she seriously suggested doing so?

I mean, all you've got is a story on a blog which quoted anonymous sources. And that's enough evidence for you?

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton asked, according to unidentified state department sources.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

42 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

He hasn't actually done anything (that we know of) though, he has said a bunch of things that amount to inappropriate language or humour - though, and nothing that comes even close to sociopathic.  He's egotistical, and obviously shows strong signs of entitlement, but that's about the extent of it.   Hillary shows more signs of being sociopathic behaviour than Trump, based on her actions.

 

Trump admitted to committing criminal acts on tape. It is a lot different from inappropriate language or humour. One could argue his offense is no worse than Hillary's violation of the official secrets act, however, one should not minimize the seriousness of Trump's admissions.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

First, he's not just a political threat. He and his organization are a security threat.

Second, I'm not suggesting he should be assassinated, just that I wouldn't shed any tears if he dropped dead.

 

Good point.  Trump talks about grabbing certain bits, but he's no Assange.  Assange goes ahead and grabs them.

What a bastard!

Still, if he can keep his head down until 2020, it'll go away.  Apparently.

At least he's not running for Prez.

[Hal 9000]

7 minutes ago, TimG said:

Trump admitted to committing criminal acts on tape. It is a lot different from inappropriate language or humour. One could argue his offense is no worse than Hillary's violation of the official secrets act, however, one should not minimize the seriousness of Trump's admissions.

Really, what exactly did he admit? Kissing women?

[bush_cheney2004]

If Trump gets elected, maybe he can get some pointers on legally assaulting women from Justin Trudeau.

[The_Squid]

12 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Really, what exactly did he admit? Kissing women?

Really Hal?  Are you actually this thick?

 

Groping their "pussies"....  what do you think of him doing that? 

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Really, what exactly did he admit? Kissing women?

That and grabbing genitals. Unwanted sexual contact is a criminal act. These advances are further aggravated by the fact that he picked victims that were unable to complain.

Again, you can argue that these crimes are no worse than what Bill Clinton was accused of, however, Clinton always had plausible deniability. Trump no longer does. If a similar tape emerged with Clinton saying such things he would have been impeached.

Edited October 9, 2016 by TimG

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Really Hal?  Are you actually this thick?

 

Groping their "pussies"....  what do you think of him doing that? 

I'm simply splitting hairs, no worse that what you people are doing for Hillary's indiscretions.  

He said "you can do anything, grab them by the pussy" , which is a lot different than "I've grabbed them by...".  He's clearly joking, clearly looking for the response from the other guys.  Is that OK, no...but it is what it is and really nothing more.  

Frankly, the embarrassment should be that he stood by the door and tapped the glass expecting someone to open the door for him - that's the part that amused me. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'm simply splitting hairs, no worse that what you people are doing for Hillary's indiscretions. 

 

Nice double entendre...that amused me !

[cybercoma]

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

I didn't say I condone it, in fact I don't condone jokingly threatening someone's life - as Hillary did.  It's inappropriate, but nothing more than bad humour and I give it the same weight as Hillary wanting to drone strike Assange - none.  This issue is that we have one person making poor taste jokes toward a man and the other against a woman.  

The second period starts tonight and Trump is down a couple goals, that's all we're seeing.

Hillary, Assange, etc. You're equivocating and trying to minimalize this. You can't just straight up denounce what Trump said on its own accord without trying to change the subject? Why can't you just call him out for his disgusting predatory behaviour and leave it at that?

[bush_cheney2004]

Trump was just practicing to be president....like Bill Clinton.  

[The_Squid]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

He said "you can do anything, grab them by the pussy" , which is a lot different than "I've grabbed them by...".  He's clearly joking, clearly looking for the response from the other guys.  Is that OK, no...but it is what it is and really nothing more.  

 

You think he was just talking in hypotheticals?

You certainly go to great lengths to defend deplorable behaviour.

[cybercoma]

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

I think it's messed up, personally.  I would never hold any woman accountable for my partner's faithfulness.

I get where you're coming from but if someone knows I'm married and still engages with my spouse I would be pretty pissed at them too. As pissed as I would be at my wife? No. But still mad as hell.

[cybercoma]

1 hour ago, BC_chick said:

Right, because being ok with a candidate who wants to 'off' political foes is not denying the sociopathic tendencies.

People can denounce Trump's scumbaggery and not be "okay with the other candidate." Why do people think you have lay out a ledger of both parties in order to denounce something on its own merits?

[Hal 9000]

7 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Hillary, Assange, etc. You're equivocating and trying to minimalize this. You can't just straight up denounce what Trump said on its own accord without trying to change the subject? Why can't you just call him out for his disgusting predatory behaviour and leave it at that?

I just can't find the outrage.  I can't pull off the Claude Reins "I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya" routine.  Yeah, it's bad, its inappropriate, rude, but predatory - c'mon!

I've got sisters that I've heard speak worse than that.