What's new

Trump’s Dividing of America

wahahahah, lololo chortle gafaw
Excuse me if I think OB's argument is ridiculous. He admits to believing that Clinton's abuse of women was his own business until suddenly, after Hillary was beaten, he and the rest of the Democratic Party had some sort of come to Jesus moment and the world supposedly changed. Suddenly it was absolutely unacceptable for a man to even have an allegation of sexual abuse made against him. The change in the party was so drastic that former hero Bill Clinton became a sudden pariah. And why? He claims it's because his party was the first to recognize that this sort of behavior cannot be tolerated. He seems to ignore the fact that 3 of the 4 examples he gave were Democrat, and the one Republican that he mentioned was certainly the least egregious of the bunch. Republicans had, prior to 2016, been far less tolerant of sexual scandal than the Dems and the media. The main thing it earned them was defeat. So they learned a lesson. Nobody cares about politician's sex lives. Republicans decided that it was more important to hold power than to fight this moral battle. How apt that the Dems and their best buddies in the media rush in to pretend to fill the void, to inform us that the world has now changed. Brilliant and hysterical.
 
A lie. Here is the actual question from the poll, directly from Rasmussen’s web site: “2* Is it racist for a white politician to criticize the political views of a politician of color?”

Why do trump followers just lie constantly?

Changing “white politician” to “white people” can be nothing other than a deliberate lie designed to meet trump’s racist agenda.
The title should have been more accurate, but it is still troubling that a white politician is not allowed to criticize the policies of a black politician without being supposedly racist. White people do not have a corner on the market of bad ideas. Just because an idea comes out of the mouth of a politician of color does not make it a good one.
 
The title should have been more accurate, but it is still troubling that a white politician is not allowed to criticize the policies of a black politician without being supposedly racist. White people do not have a corner on the market of bad ideas. Just because an idea comes out of the mouth of a politician of color does not make it a good one.
Agreed

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
The title should have been more accurate, but it is still troubling that a white politician is not allowed to criticize the policies of a black politician without being supposedly racist. White people do not have a corner on the market of bad ideas. Just because an idea comes out of the mouth of a politician of color does not make it a good one.

Not do they have the corner on the racist market. Plenty of racist across all ethnicities.
 
Excuse me if I think OB's argument is ridiculous. He admits to believing that Clinton's abuse of women was his own business until suddenly, after Hillary was beaten, he and the rest of the Democratic Party had some sort of come to Jesus moment and the world supposedly changed. Suddenly it was absolutely unacceptable for a man to even have an allegation of sexual abuse made against him. The change in the party was so drastic that former hero Bill Clinton became a sudden pariah. And why? He claims it's because his party was the first to recognize that this sort of behavior cannot be tolerated. He seems to ignore the fact that 3 of the 4 examples he gave were Democrat, and the one Republican that he mentioned was certainly the least egregious of the bunch. Republicans had, prior to 2016, been far less tolerant of sexual scandal than the Dems and the media. The main thing it earned them was defeat. So they learned a lesson. Nobody cares about politician's sex lives. Republicans decided that it was more important to hold power than to fight this moral battle. How apt that the Dems and their best buddies in the media rush in to pretend to fill the void, to inform us that the world has now changed. Brilliant and hysterical.

I don't for an instant.... not for a blink..... believe Dems have had any kind of "Come to Jesus" moment.

They have no actual beliefs in anything but their own advantage, and will never miss using any tactic they think can work for their advantage. The "Me Too" women were, as young tarts/starlets, as corrupt as any of the old men whom they serviced to their own advantage in getting any kind of career benefit. But hey, they're old bags now, and they just can't do that kind of business as lucratively.

It is only the known facts of Trump's immorality that has induced the Dems to take up issues of sexual morality. I have no illusions that any of the Dems have done any kind of real self-reflective moral re-direction of their private conduct.

Republicans, in Clinton's case, only damaged their own cause with making anyone's private conduct politically relevant. People like Mitt Romney and the modern Mormon folks who have such a distaste for Trump are only "going with the flow", following the Media hype, and posturing themselves in line with this politically fashionable prudery. Well, except for the ones who are out in the trenches fighting for what is right.....

and wow.... I've never had so many warning notifications on link as this.....

so I deleted that link. ESPN and the Mormon Church..... couldn't ask for a better "source".

The issue would have quietly submerged beneath the awesomeness of progress had Hillary won. And, in fact, the little "private islands" where the movers and shakers go to abuse the trafficked kids would have exploded exponentially, in number as well as in sheer abuse of human beings.....

(edit)

Of course, I really don't know the hearts of people exactly..... I am just absolutely overwhelmed by the realities I have seen, all my life, of political corruption.

Maybe the family I taught as an LDS missionary, the father of which has been a UN official from then til now, and the disclosures of his problems or activities at UN official gatherings..... has jaundiced my views. Some of his family now live in Berkeley, CA, where I still visit them once in a while. He still says he knows Mormonism is true, but still just can't get himself right.

As I gather it all in, The UN is little more than a sex trafficking serviced getaway to some resort or another.

So people like Mitt Romney and George Bush, even Republicans..... who think the UN is a model human institution, have absolutely no credibility with me.
 
Last edited:
OK, so I know Tim Ballard, not that he would know me.... but I've been there when he has spoken a few times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ballard

A very, very impressive man.

speaking as one who has been in some of the places where human trafficking is rampant. As one who knows the reality of "Mafia"-type local outfits in the business....
 
Last edited:
Question to everyone arguing that economic benefits overpower bigotry and immorality. Given the hypothetical choice between (a) policies that highly favor your personal prosperity and David Duke Presidency; and (b) Barack Obama, who would you vote for?

I will chip in by saying that, were I voting day, I would vote for Bob Dole over Bill Clinton (not GHW Bush though, he had his own problems with wandering hands).
 
Excuse me if I think OB's argument is ridiculous. He admits to believing that Clinton's abuse of women was his own business until suddenly, after Hillary was beaten, he and the rest of the Democratic Party had some sort of come to Jesus moment and the world supposedly changed. Suddenly it was absolutely unacceptable for a man to even have an allegation of sexual abuse made against him.

It requires more than an allegation, it requires substantiation, and the come-to-Jesus moment was #MeToo. It opened my eyes.

The change in the party was so drastic that former hero Bill Clinton became a sudden pariah. And why? He claims it's because his party was the first to recognize that this sort of behavior cannot be tolerated. He seems to ignore the fact that 3 of the 4 examples he gave were Democrat, and the one Republican that he mentioned was certainly the least egregious of the bunch.

I have to wonder that how far right you have to be when, upon seeing the list Eisenhower, Kennedy, Bush I, and Clinton, you think "three of them are Democrats". I'm also curious which one you think the least egregious? Would it be Kennedy, because all indications are that his indiscretions were consensual and not with subordinates? I'm guessing not.

Before #MeToo, Bill Clinton was a highly effective fund-raiser for the Democratic party. Now he is persona non-grata. So far in the past two years, the Democrats have given up a promising Senator and a powerful fund-raiser, as well as lesser luminaries. This is rather pathetic, frankly. However, whom have the Republicans tossed out, by comparison?

Republicans had, prior to 2016, been far less tolerant of sexual scandal than the Dems and the media.

For example?
 
I will chip in by saying that, were I voting day, I would vote for Bob Dole over Bill Clinton (not GHW Bush though, he had his own problems with wandering hands).

By many accounts GHWB was pretty senile when his moral regulation broke down. Not saying it is right, but the brain does break down.

I voted Bush and Dole. I’m a fiscal conservative, dislike the Dems, but there really is no choice as the Republican leaders are both stupid and amoral.
 
Would it be Kennedy, because all indications are that his indiscretions were consensual and not with subordinates? I'm guessing not.

.

Not with subordinates?

Mimi Alford was an intern. Fiddle and Faddle were secretaries who were there to skinny dip and service the prez.

Many hookers were hired. In addition to his Hollywood flings
 
Hey Thriller here is another example of Trump dividing America.
Friday, July 19, 2019

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.
Vote Trump!
 
. The "Me Too" women were, as young tarts/starlets, as corrupt as any of the old men whom they serviced to their own advantage in getting any kind of career benefit. But hey, they're old bags now, and they just can't do that kind of business as lucratively.

What a despicable take.
 
What a despicable take.
As if he's never listened to some of these accounts without thinking the women are flat out lying. All of them. Every last one.

If you've ever had a close personal but non-sexual relationship with a female you'd know that if you've known 5 women you've got 1 or 2 stories of outright sexual assault. Stuff that has an impact on them every day of their life. It is a reality, it's not a game. Men routinely assault women, sexually and physically.

Women assault men too, but I'll get up in arms about that some other time, because the severity and majority of times men are assaulting women.

This **** happens. It happens to our mothers, it happens to our sisters, it happens to our daughters, our nieces, our aunts, our cousins. This **** is happening. This isn't one big false allegation against men, this is an actual thing that WAY too many men either do or look the other way on.
 
1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted (not just harassed since we have all been harassed), but somehow all the men are innocent. It is really astounding mathematically.

2/9 justices of our Supreme Court hade been credibly accused of sexual assault. Our culture needs help.
 
Top