Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

141,269 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

But she DID know he was a Federal Judge.  She says she mentioned to her therapist (or someone, I don't recall specifically) that she thought he was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

That's part of her claim.  I mean, I get your point in general, but with regard to this specific case, she knew.  Undisputedly.

Then maybe thats her line. That she wasnt going to indulge that pain if he was just a federal judge but she couldnt stand by and watch him go SCOTUS. 

I mean, the implied bad intentions to the contrary sort of suggests that she picked HIM as a preemptive target that she would spring on if and when he got nom'ed to the SCOTUS? 5+ years in advance? 

I guess its possible but it seems unlikely to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Obvious troll is obvious. 

And potentially self-incriminating. 

So if anybody posts a view that is not leftist, they are a Troll ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Then maybe thats her line. That she wasnt going to indulge that pain if he was just a federal judge but she couldnt stand by and watch him go SCOTUS. 

I mean, the implied bad intentions to the contrary sort of suggests that she picked HIM as a preemptive target that she would spring on if and when he got nom'ed to the SCOTUS? 5+ years in advance? 

I guess its possible but it seems unlikely to me. 

I'm not trying to imply bad intentions (unless she's lying).  My suggestion is since she knew, she'd have a better audience if she brought the allegations sooner than she did.

I get that maybe that's her line.  I'm just suggesting maybe part of getting us to a better place is encouraging women who have been wronged to walk the line back a fair amount. Not demand, again.  But encourage.  When they tell someone, that someone should say "you should go public with this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

 

 

14 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I wonder if MAGANS will like anonymous sources again since that's what the NYT Rosenstein story are based upon.

 

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HMFIC said:

So if anybody posts a view that is not leftist, they are a Troll ? 

 

Troll = somebody who refuses to answer specific questions about the the conspiracies that they promote...over and over and over. So yeah...troll.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thesouphead said:

1.) Which Russians, specifically?

 

2.) What went wrong in the plot to steal the election?  (asking because you and only you know the facts)

I have not seen which exact Russian s were named, but they were named.

The plot to steal the eletion was foiled because Hillary was a lazy incompetent campaigner.

Now, see, I answer your questions, but you won't /Can't answer mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I went a nice panel discussion with Noam a couple years ago when that documentary came out. Fascinating dude. Said this exact same thing....and specifically said to go to the back pages of the front section for the real news. I think hes probably a bit over the top with the extent to which he thinks the NYT is "hiding" things in a highly deliberate fashion, but hes not wrong in challenging the inherent Allegory of the Cave nature of American political life. 

I'm jealous; I haven't heard him speak in person. I should make more of an effort to do that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

 

Troll = somebody who refuses to answer specific questions about the the conspiracies that they promote...over and over and over. So yeah...troll.  

You are talking about your self I guess, you STILL haven't answered my questions about Hillary and the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

I'm not trying to imply bad intentions (unless she's lying).  My suggestion is since she knew, she'd have a better audience if she brought the allegations sooner than she did.

I get that maybe that's her line.  I'm just suggesting maybe part of getting us to a better place is encouraging women who have been wronged to walk the line back a fair amount. Not demand, again.  But encourage.  When they tell someone, that someone should say "you should go public with this."

I wholeheartedly agree with your last series of thoughts. I think the problem is that when they do, approximately half (give or take) of people attack them and accuse them of convenience attacks, etc. So it ends up being a feedback loop. 

I think many folks have spent decades trying to raise awareness of these sorts of incidents and have worked tirelessly to change the culture surrounding them. And to some extent its worked. But clearly not for everyone. Particularly the aggrieved white males who find such a safe haven on the right. From the "MRA movement" right on down the line to the old school "well, you know....he was just a little drunk and trying to tell you he liked you" old dudes. 

At some point for many women, "going public" even if its just to friends, simply isnt worth the effort and pain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I wholeheartedly agree with your last series of thoughts. I think the problem is that when they do, approximately half (give or take) of people attack them and accuse them of convenience attacks, etc. So it ends up being a feedback loop. 

I think many folks have spent decades trying to raise awareness of these sorts of incidents and have worked tirelessly to change the culture surrounding them. And to some extent its worked. But clearly not for everyone. Particularly the aggrieved white males who find such a safe haven on the right. From the "MRA movement" right on down the line to the old school "well, you know....he was just a little drunk and trying to tell you he liked you" old dudes. 

At some point for many women, "going public" even if its just to friends, simply isnt worth the effort and pain. 

Right.  We have to be better.  That's one reason I think de-fanging the snake is a solid option here.  Make those defenses so unpalatable that people think twice before making them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

I'm jealous; I haven't heard him speak in person. I should make more of an effort to do that.

 

 

With all due respect to the learned doctor, he's old as balls. Might want to get on that. 

If you havent watched it, watch Requiem for an American Dream. Its well worn territory but a decent enough way to spend a couple hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HMFIC said:

I have not seen which exact Russian s were named, but they were named.

The plot to steal the eletion was foiled because Hillary was a lazy incompetent campaigner.

Now, see, I answer your questions, but you won't /Can't answer mine.

T R O L L

 

You are the one claiming that none of us know the facts, but when we ask you for the facts you cannot produce them.

You know Hillary colluded with Russians, but can't name any of them.  You know that Hillary tried to steal the election, but ca't say what went wrong. 

 

How do you know these things if you have no facts??    its ******* dumb.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HMFIC said:

You are talking about your self I guess, you STILL haven't answered my questions about Hillary and the DNC.

If my answers frighten you, HMFIC, then you should cease asking scary questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Right.  We have to be better.  That's one reason I think de-fanging the snake is a solid option here.  Make those defenses so unpalatable that people think twice before making them.

We can only hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HMFIC said:

I have not seen which exact Russian s were named, but they were named.

The plot to steal the eletion was foiled because Hillary was a lazy incompetent campaigner.

Now, see, I answer your questions, but you won't /Can't answer mine.

lol

Candidate A *enacts a wide-ranging conspiracy to "steal" an election in which the Candidate is favored*
Candidate A *sleeps in on election day, misses the bus, and is too lazy to take advantage of Candidate's own conspiracy*

Like I said.....obvious troll is obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

 

 

I mean....to his credit, its probably true that "many anonymous sources dont exist"

Theoretically, a near infinite number of anonymous sources do not exist. Although.....can we really talk about something which does not exist? 

#metaphysics 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.