Trump says Hillary got "schlonged"

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

Well, I didn't understand

Tell us something new.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

Well, I didn't understand

Tell us something new.

I did

In your world

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

Well, at least David Duke (former KKK Grand Wizard) supports him, although he considers Trump a bit too extreme sometimes.

Ok, so to sum your overall case against Trump as seen on SC:

-If you vote for Trump, we'll all regret it but lean a valuable lesson. (appeal to the future)

-David Duke likes Trump. David Duke is Bad - Therefore Trump is Bad. (guilt by association - kinda sorta)

-If you dare point out Bill's fallacious arguments against Donald Trump, you defend Donald Trump!

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

aphid

***Now Trump said Bill Clinton has a problem with "sexism".

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says;

Definition of sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Definition of sexist
: based on or showing sexism

Simple Definition of dictionary
: a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc.

Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one?

Perhaps you've heard of the term "sexist pig." They often view the "social role" of women as being sex objects. Some even use their power to take advantage of young subordinates for sexual favors.

I can't say it amazes me that liberals who often pose as defenders of "women rights" often give Bill a pass simply because they lack the ability to grasp the nature of his offense.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[aphid 0]

Coreeece

******Now Trump said Bill Clinton has a problem with "sexism".

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says;

Definition of sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Definition of sexist
: based on or showing sexism

Simple Definition of dictionary
: a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc.

Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one?

Perhaps you've heard of the term "sexist pig."

Honestly no, I have not. Perhaps it is a unique phrase from your area.

Quote

They often view the "social role" of women as being sex objects. Some even use their power to take advantage of young subordinates for sexual favors.

Perhaps you mean, colloquially; a sexual pig. Possibly the simpler abbreviated form; a pig. Or, as in my neighborhood; a (derogatory, not honourific) f**king pig.

Quote

I can't say it amazes me that liberals who often pose as defenders of "women rights" often give Bill a pass simply because they lack the ability to grasp the nature of his offense.

How a connection was drawn from what I posted and your apparent concern about an ex-President's sexual activities escapes me.

I entered this thread simply to correct the wrongful application of a word.

(Full Disclosure: I don't give a nut that a politician of any stripe got a hummer/face in his/her office and is subsequently too embarrassed to publicly admit it. But that isn't remotely related to anything I posted.)

[Coreeece 2]

aphid

I entered this thread simply to correct the wrongful application of a word.

And I entered it to correct your wrongful correction with an example of why the application was correct.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 2,400]

>If you vote for Trump, we'll all regret it but lean a valuable lesson. (appeal to the future)

Not quite. If Trump wins, then we will regret electing him but will likely not do it again.

>David Duke likes Trump. David Duke is Bad - Therefore Trump is Bad.

Nope. David Duke thinks Trump is too extreme sometimes. It's like Martin Shkreli thinking you are too greedy, or Bill Clinton thinking you are too much of a womanizer.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>If you vote for Trump, we'll all regret it but lean a valuable lesson. (appeal to the future)

Not quite. If Trump wins, then we will regret electing him but will likely not do it again.

NO - If Trump wins - then both parties will establish focus groups to figure out what he did differently and then we'll get more offerings in the next election that have a lot of his style of marketing. If will be a more blatant and assholish version of what we already have - politicians dumbing it down on both sides to their most simple of constituents.

YAY - bumper sticker politics and caricatures and stereotypes win. But.....at least we get a choice - the idiotic, rude, and loud extremists on the right vs the idiotic, rude, and loud extremists on the left.

vote early - vote often

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>NO - If Trump wins - then both parties will establish focus groups to figure out
>what he did differently and then we'll get more offerings in the next election
>that have a lot of his style of marketing.

I really don't think so. The other party always predicts armageddon if the "other guy" wins and then spends the next four to eight years trying to prove it. But their hyperbolic predictions are never taken all that seriously. Obama really didn't grab all the guns or put everyone in FEMA camps. Bush really didn't suspend the Constitution. Heck, Hollywood stars didn't even flee the country when he was elected as promised (unfortunately.)

But Trump stands a good chance of delivering on his hyperbolic promises if he's elected. I could easily see him trying to use the Secret Service to keep Congress in session until they vote his way, or signing an executive order to ban all Muslims from the US. And if that happens, then whatever party uses his tactics (even if they are successful in this election) will be vulnerable to the "do you really want another Trump?" question.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>NO - If Trump wins - then both parties will establish focus groups to figure out
>what he did differently and then we'll get more offerings in the next election
>that have a lot of his style of marketing.

I really don't think so. The other party always predicts armageddon if the "other guy" wins and then spends the next four to eight years trying to prove it. But their hyperbolic predictions are never taken all that seriously. Obama really didn't grab all the guns or put everyone in FEMA camps. Bush really didn't suspend the Constitution. Heck, Hollywood stars didn't even flee the country when he was elected as promised (unfortunately.)

But Trump stands a good chance of delivering on his hyperbolic promises if he's elected. I could easily see him trying to use the Secret Service to keep Congress in session until they vote his way, or signing an executive order to ban all Muslims from the US. And if that happens, then whatever party uses his tactics (even if they are successful in this election) will be vulnerable to the "do you really want another Trump?" question.

"do you really want another (Bush, Obama, Trump)" - yeah, because that's never been used before (the 1700's)

So....what you are saying is - the other party always predicts Armegeddon if the other guy gets in and they will spend the next 4-8 years rationalizing they were right. But THIS time it's different and the DEMs really, really, REALLY, mean it about Trump (and the Reps about Hillary too right?) Before it was just fake and all about the PR aspect, but now it's really real.

I intended to focus on the PR/marketing/delivery style in campaigning. In that the following election candidates will still have the same tired and rehashed old divisive platforms, but will be rude and vulgar about it to pander to the voters. This playing on divisiveness to a level the Dems never dreamed was possible in their wettest dreams.

But you seem to have, not surprisingly, read my post as just his platform content and an opportunity to say "No, Armageddon is REALLY a possibility THIS time".

The fact that I agree with you is beside the point it's still funny (except for the fact that we raise another order of magnitude each time we elect a new guy in how horribly they ignore freedoms and constitutional process. Everyone before was a 1, Bush was a shocking 10, then Obama a 100, why should we be surprised when the next one goes to 1000 and the public allows it)

Again we are at risk of a big fundraising opportunity - 3 choices at voting time. Hillary, Donald, or 25 cents apiece for the suicide booth option. (referencing Futurama Graphic elsewhere)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>But THIS time it's different and the DEMs really, really, REALLY, mean it about Trump

One of the things that is very different this time is that this time dems AND many republicans agree. And that alone is unheard of.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>But THIS time it's different and the DEMs really, really, REALLY, mean it about Trump

One of the things that is very different this time is that this time dems AND many republicans agree. And that alone is unheard of.

that it's 'unheard of' is a sad enough story and a tribute to the success of government to foster divisiveness.

ironic that it takes someone to be SO divisive as to be a caricature of it to actually draw us together in the middle

It was bound to happen that the wacky left 10% and the wacky right 10% each grew big enough that eventually the middle would have to agree at some point that we start to overlap just for self preservation....

we are together on this one - so we need better choices - again. We've moved from choosing between candidates that are insidiously and covertly (sort of) divisive, to now just having blatant divisiveness thrown in our faces with a 'screw you, pick one'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>that it's 'unheard of' is a sad enough story and a tribute to the success of
>government to foster divisiveness.

And a lot of "credit" for that has to go to the parties. Trump (and to a lesser extent Clinton) are both lousy choices, and I have to think that the majority of both parties know it. But apply party logic to the question and they become the candidates, because . . .

"Well she's really unpleasant but all the matchups say she has the best chance of winning"

"Yeah OK he's nuts but have you seen his poll numbers? He's really tapping into the rage and hatred that is out there, and that's gotta be worth something."

"Bernie? Yeah, he's a better choice, but he's probably not going to win in the general, so . . . "

[rehmwa 2]

yes - exactly. And this has been a direct result of the way politics has been conducted over the last few decades.

Perhaps one of the more poignant examples of how supply and demand can result over the long term into unhealthy market choices.....(you know how hard that was for me to write...)

Have a good new year.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants