Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

On the rank of repugnant behavior, I think what Franken did (if a grown man takes a picture  pretending to cup a woman's breast, I don't think you can dust it off as a sophomoric joke) is more reprehensible than a rich man having an affair with a consenting porn star.  Even paying the porn star to keep things under wraps would be less disgusting than the above two. 

 

image.png.9e6d563a2f4bb5ad51f89d22f9ccff9b.png

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Predicto said:

 

 

Ummm... Slander?  Libel?  

 

Assuming of course that her story of the affair was false (as Cohen has repeatedly stated).

 

 

And the burden would be on Trump, not her 

Not much of a threat unless he could show she was lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

So is the "sophomoric joke" assessment.  We both could probably use a trip to the loo.

 

Did you see the photograph? How would you characterize what he did? 

Edited by Dan T.
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Did you see the photograph? How would you characterize what he did? 

You pretend to grope a person's breast who is volunteering for the USO while she's sleeping and take a picture?  That's sexual harassment, plain and simple.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bearrock said:

You pretend to grope a person's breast who is volunteering for the USO while she's sleeping and take a picture?  That's sexual harassment, plain and simple.

 

Again, your statement was that pretending to grope a woman is more egregious than having unprotected sex with a porn star while your wife is at home with your newborn son.

 

And as long as we're playing the old whataboutism game,  let's not forget the 18 women who claim, many with corroborating witnesses, that Donald Trump groped them or forcibly kissed them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a USO Comedy tour.  It’s absolutely obvious that the prank was for the chick to see the photo a couple weeks after the tour ended and have a laugh.  A staged joke by a professional comedian performed with the assistance of the crew.

 

To suggest otherwise is beyond idiotic and worthy of the type of ridicule frowned upon in this forum.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TryTheBeal! said:

It was a USO Comedy tour.  It’s absolutely obvious that the prank was for the chick to see the photo a couple weeks after the tour ended and have a laugh.  A staged joke by a professional comedian performed with the assistance of the crew.

 

To suggest otherwise is beyond idiotic and worthy of the type of ridicule frowned upon in this forum.

 

What was forcing the tongue in the mouth....situation comedy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

 

Again, your statement was that pretending to grope a woman is more egregious than having unprotected sex with a porn star while your wife is at home with your newborn son.

 

And as long as we're playing the old whataboutism game,  let's not forget the 18 women who claim, many with corroborating witnesses, that Donald Trump groped them or forcibly kissed them.

 

I view sexual harassment as more unbefitting a public official than an affair.  But I do concede that it is difficult to say which is worse (and ultimately unfruitful), and agreed with Tshile's assessment that they are both repugnant behaviors and not worth dissecting which is worse.

 

I have no problem agreeing that numerous allegations of sexual assault against Trump are likely true and they are much worse offenses than what Franken did.  I also have no problem agreeing that Trump is a despicable human being for many different reasons.  To me, however, his affair with a porn star is not surprising and would not crack the top 100 arguments on why he should not be POTUS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

It was a USO Comedy tour.  It’s absolutely obvious that the prank was for the chick to see the photo a couple weeks after the tour ended and have a laugh.  A staged joke by a professional comedian performed with the assistance of the crew.

 

To suggest otherwise is beyond idiotic and worthy of the type of ridicule frowned upon in this forum.

 

So if you are a professional comedian, you can use a woman as a prop in your prank without her consent and pass it off as a joke?  Seriously?

 

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Then why the qualifiers or “whataboutisms”?

 

Also Trump’s behavior mirrored what a Harvey Weinsten did. Did you do a “whataboutism” to Weinstein?

 

That was in the context of what Zoony brought up earlier in the thread.  We should not be ousting public officials over an affair (no matter how disgusting and salacious the details may be).  On the laundry list of things that makes Trump unfit for office, the affair itself is a sideshow.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bearrock said:

That was in the context of what Zoony brought up earlier in the thread.  We should not be ousting public officials over an affair (no matter how disgusting and salacious the details may be).  On the laundry list of things that makes Trump unfit for office, the affair itself is a sideshow.  

That’s actually fair. I agree.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That strange alien world where a joke can only exist with the consent of all parties.  It might be the most ridiculous assertion in the history of this board.  Go to any comedy show ever given in the history of mankind...if you can make it down from your ivory tower.

 

Makes thinwhiteduke’s assertions of personal intellectual superiority via lack of education seems downright Einstein-like.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TryTheBeal! said:

That strange alien world where a joke can only exist with the consent of all parties.

 

I know, I'm still laughing over his forced resignation.

 

:rofl89:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

That strange alien world where a joke can only exist with the consent of all parties.  It might be the most ridiculous assertion in the history of this board.  Go to any comedy show ever given in the history of mankind...if you can make it down from your ivory tower.

 

Makes thinwhiteduke’s assertions of personal intellectual superiority via lack of education seems downright Einstein-like.

 

You pull a prank on someone without their consent and that person gets (rightfully) offended, good luck passing it off as a joke.  Try a few at your workplace and see how long it takes before the hostile workplace complaint starts rolling in.  There is an obvious difference between traveling during a USO comedy tour and attending the comedy show as an audience.  Probably why we didn't see a mass of people defending Franken saying that Tweeden shouldn't have been offended.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bearrock said:

That was in the context of what Zoony brought up earlier in the thread.  We should not be ousting public officials over an affair (no matter how disgusting and salacious the details may be).  On the laundry list of things that makes Trump unfit for office, the affair itself is a sideshow. 

 

My personal feelings on politicians and sex scandals?  

 

At least in most cases (say, cheating on wife, sex with inappropriate consenting adults, things like that), I think that the proper response when it's done by political figures is for the press to expose them (figuratively), and let the voters decide the appropriate punishment.  

 

If the voters decide that they're cool with politicians abusing their power for sex, or similar things, then the problem isn't with the politician so much as it's with society.  

 

My problem with what was done to Bill Clinton (and what's being done in the Stormy Daniels case) is that what I see is people using what ought to be an embarrassing factor in a political opponent as an excuse to launch an "investigation" which consists entirely of looking to see if there's anything else we can embarrass him with.  And then, if they look hard enough, they eventually find something.  And then trying to claim that the fact that they eventually found something retroactively justifies the fishing expedition.  

 

I believe that, if you dig into any of us enough, you'll find something.  (I'm absolutely certain that you could, in my case.)  That doesn't justify just picking somebody (especially for political reasons) and then just digging to see if you can find something down the road to justify yourself.  

 

Edit:  Hopefully some further clarification.  

 

IMO, if you're going to launch this kind uf huge "investigation", you have to have a good enough reason to justify it, before you start.  

 

Monica?  Benghazi?  Stormy?  Not good enough reasons.  

 

Now, investigating Trump and Russia?  

 

IMO, if it turns out that all we find out from this investigation is that Trump's "fortune" comes from decades of profiting from Russian money laundering, growing into open (but maybe not clearly explicit) assistance of one of our country's greatest enemies?  I'm cool with that.  Because I think there was enough "probable cause" to justify an investigation.  

 

We have the military intelligence agency of the Russian government openly assisting a US Presidential candidate.  

 

We have said candidate's campaign performing favors for that same country.  

 

We have a pattern of the candidate himself openly courting that same enemy country.  

 

We have the POTUS actually ordering the head of the FBI to keep the President's friends out of his investigation into the above.  And then firing the director of the FBI for not promising to do so.  

 

Yeah, there's at least enough there, to justify the kind of deep-dive investigation that these things can be.  If it turns out that, while looking into these things, they actually find something else that's not quite as major?  (Say, maybe we find that Trump habitually cheats on his taxes?)  I'm cool with that.  

 

Edited by Larry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bearrock said:

It was in the context of what Zoony brought up earlier in the thread.  We should not be ousting public officials over an affair (no matter how disgusting and salacious the details may be).  On the laundry list of things that makes Trump unfit for office, the affair itself is a sideshow.  

 

If they are holding themselves out as some sort of "family values" person and are living a hypocritical life while trying to legislate morality for the rest of us they absolutely need to step down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

If they are holding themselves out as some sort of "family values" person and are living a hypocritical life while trying to legislate morality for the rest of us they absolutely need to step down.

 

I can see your point there.  For example, the anti-abortionist who suggested abortion to his mistress.  Case by case situation I guess, but hypocrisy would be a big issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, twa said:

 

And the burden would be on Trump, not her 

Not much of a threat unless he could show she was lying.

 

Bullcrap.  Its a huge threat.  You don't have to win to steamroll people and threaten to bankrupt them with legal fees.  Trump has been doing that crap since he was 30 years old and had Roy Cohn do it for him.  

Edited by Predicto
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...