Jump to content

Debate PEDs? Cancelling SNL? [A politics thread]


mde2001

Recommended Posts

I've always really disliked Trump, but over the last few weeks he's concerned me more and more. There's all of the sexual abuse stuff, which disgusts me, but I'm not going to go into detail of it here as I don't want to get into anything past the acceptable line of content for the forum at large.

There are two more recent things that are really concerning to me and I don't feel like either of them are being treated as seriously as they are. First we have the drug test thing in combination with the election rigging. Trump realises he's losing and he's desperate to rally support, but he's doing it in a dangerous way. The "If I don't win the opposition cheated logic," is petty when its used by primary school students but its even worse from a Presidential candidate. First off, debate performance enhancing drugs don't exist. Even some of his supporters realise this and told him that, so he began to shy away from it, but the issue of accusing Hillary of cheating is a dangerous one.

Democracy relies on both candidates and their supporters accepting the result of the election. The more Trump spreads around his fraud conspiracy theories the more dangerous the possible outcome is. If a large enough percentage of his supporters refuse to accept the result of the election America could be in real strife. Trump supporters, particularly the group that is so dedicated they'll believe that electoral fraud, which has been proven to not be a factor, is to blame for their loss, have proven themselves to be prepared to use violence against those who they oppose. Now I'm not saying an armed militia will rise and attempt to take over the white house, but I think there will undoubtedly be a subset of crazy people who want to show their displeasure violently. While Trump won't endorse any of this, he will have created an environment where people find it acceptable.

There are always going to be some people who are opposed to the result of the election, but when he is actively telling his supporters that Clinton is going to cheat (as well as telling them to illegally monitor polling stations) he's creating a really dangerous culture that isn't healthy for democracy.

Secondly, we have his assertion that SNL should be cancelled. I'm a huge SNL fan, but the reason this upsets me isn't because I love the show, its because of the precedent it sets. The whole thing was caused by the series of hilarious debate sketches. They critisised both candidates, but it is fair to say that Trump comes out looking like the worse candidate. I'm not saying he should like the sketches, but campaigning to cancel the show over them is dangerous.

Media freedom is incredibly important in a democracy. The idea that a show should be taken off the air because it critisised you is a really dangerous concept. It's the language of dictators not democratically elected leaders. SNL is a show that has poked fun at so many major political figures, including Hillary Clinton. They are not a news outlet, they don't receive taxpayer funding and there is absolutely nothing that says they have to be completely neutral. Trump is being completely pathetic by arguing that the show should have to die because it was mean to him. He's running for President. If he gets in, people are going to critisise him including foreign leaders and probably the UN. If his response to a comedy TV show critisising him is to take it off the air, I'd hate to see how he'd respond to the UNHCR or something like that.

I couldn't stand Sarah Palin, but even when she was being criticised more reguarly on SNL than pretty much anyone else in history, she didn't ask for the show to be cancelled. She probably didn't enjoy the skits but she recognised it was comedy and they had a right to say the things they were saying. Trump, despite his condemnation of people who get offended at everything, got upset over a sketch and his response was media suppression.

Trump is so obsessed with pandering to the NRA about the second amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the first. The media has a right to be independent and satire shows shouldn't be threatened if they chose to satirise a figure of authority. I honestly believe that to be true. Fox News disgusts me and I can't stand their content, but I think they shouldn't be taken off the air. You can disagree with something without shamelessly violating media freedoms.

Anyway, at this point I'm just ranting. I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts. Please try to keep it civil guys! I know these topics are kind of sensitive but they deserve discussion and I'd hate to see another political discussion thread be derailed into insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I'm not that familiar with US voting protocols and the history of cheating in the US is not known to me. The fact that Trump suggets cheating may be plausible or not depending on the protocol. Trump has litterally no support in any of the major political parties and the voting protocols may be used against him, legal or not. That's my 2 cents on this particular matter.

Media and politics, a cocktail of disaster. At one point you could say that media has the right to publish what they want. On the other hand the media is a very big factor in elections. Elections is where politicians try to convince the masses of his/her views on morals,taxes, priorities,... . Media in all formats is a way very influential way to reach said masses. This means that media can shape the opinion of the masses nad thus influence the results of the elections. With great power comes great responsability, they say. In a perfect world this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that media have interests in the results of the elections. Private ownership or owned by the government it doesn't matter they have advantage in the result of the elections. They then can use their influence to manipulate the result. They can skew the perception on candidates with lies and half-trues. In fact it is even done today. In great Britatin the anti-establishment, left wing, Labour politician Jeremy Corbyn does not receive a fair chance from the media to become leader of his party (http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf). The fact that this can happen means that media freedom is not all that rainbow and sunshine. So yeah Trump can demand a show (or at least episodes during important electorial events) to be taken down because it does not give him a fair chance is perfectly reasonable. I doubt he does it for the right reasons but it is not necessairly anti-democratic.

The fact that the media is non news outlet does not matter due to the power it has to shape views. The opinion that media should not be neutral is an equally dangerous precedent for democracy as the lack of media freedom. The power of media is not to be underestimated and can shape opinions on a global scale. Regulating media is just as much important to democracy as it is to allow the freedom of it.

Edited by FairFamily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Drumpf is just trying to stir up controversy at this point. He realizes that his bid is growing smaller and smaller by the day, so his only goal right now is to keep himself in the spot light. His entire campaign has been made of lies and false promises, like making Mexico pay for the wall or how President Obama founded Isis. Him saying that the system is rigged is just a way to put his supporters into an uproar and focus more attention on himself. Had he been quiet, he probably would not have made it past the primaries. For him, all press is good press.

As for SNL, most of what I've said applies. He's trying to generate hype and stir up controversy since he knows that the only way for him to have a snowballs chance in hell. I wouldn't say the show is in any danger though. Drumpf is a loud mouth, but the chances of the show closing down is pretty low. Plus, consider what many other shows have said about him. I'd like to see his opinion of South Park's sketch, which I won't divulge since that was one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen.

Drumpf is like a wounded animal at this point. He's still dangerous, and he's making a lot of noise.

(Please note that this is all my opinion. I've already cast my vote and will not be changing my mind, but I wanted to put my two cents in.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically my perspective on all this, politics is borked. This is literally an election between two candidates the majority of Americans view as poor choices, but even then, these are the two choices that are possible to win. Why? Because there are only two major parties, and until one party dies, another ideology cannot take root in the political system.

Besides the drawbacks to the two-party system, the mainstream media fails to represent an unbiased, neutral stance when deliberating over politics. There's hardly any mainstream media coverage of Hillary's horrendous record on Benghazi, the Wikileaks emails related to her/her campaign/her policies, and of course the scandal that is her email server. To actually hear anything about this, you'd have to go to Fox News or another Right-wing news source, and if you do, your opinion on any of these matters is mute since it comes from "crack-pot" sources and "conspiracy theorists." Meanwhile, a video of Donald Trump talking for 2 minutes in a trailer 11 years ago ires the entire populace, causes his supporters to back out, and all the media says the election is over after a private recording of TWO MINUTES of his whole life? THIS IS MESSED UP AND COMPLETELY UNFAIR. What he said wasn't okay, but the impact this had was probably planned, coordinated, and absolutely unjustified. This dominance of mainstream media shuts down any opposing views and represses anything that doesn't fit into its agenda, and this is more dangerous than a few sexist comments by Donald Trump. Media freedom is basically a joke, since you either write something positive and conforming to the establishment or will almost never have a story.

On SNL really quick, I don't think it should be canceled. It's satire/comedy, and though it may influence views, it brings people happiness. Should it not be as political, maybe? Still, they have the freedom to express their views and the viewers have the freedom to either accept or reject the views.

Honestly, I'd really like to see Trump win this election. I may not like his personality, nor do I believe all of his statements or views are appropriate, but for one, I don't believe he's controlled by a party. He's not a puppet of an ideology; he's an actual person. This means he can work with both parties and accomplish goals because he's technically got no strings attached (Especially after his party almost dumped him). Moreover, from my perspective, he's fighting against an entirely corrupt system and is promising to change that system. He's worked within it economically, and so he'd hypothetically be able to fix at as an "expert." Yes, this could backfire completely and he rigs it to benefit the wrong people, but it's unlikely since Congress has the wonderful ability of veto/impeachment if he's abusing power. But if he wins, it shows that it's entirely possible for someone who is not a politician to lead this country, and that is a real victory for democracy in my view.

Also, I wanna know Mde if you read an article recently on the subject of the losing party having to be gracious losers as long as it was a fair race? Recently I read something like this, and while I agree with the premise that you should be gracious in a fair election; I don't believe and the article briefly states that if it were rigged, public complacency isn't necessarily good. Anyways, just wondering if that's party of where you got this post from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FairFamily- I don't think it is reasonable for Trump to ask an independent satire show to be taken down during an election campaign. No-one watching the show thinks its Trump, nor do they think its a news show. People watch it for entertainment, and if Trump honestly believes its SNL that is costing him the election, he's kidding himself. People are not going to vote based on an SNL sketch, they're going to vote on who Trump is himself, and honestly he's pretty similar to the character they portray him as. People aren't turning away from him because his SNL character is a sleazy bully, they're turning away from him because he is a sleazy bully. Even if the show itself was costing him votes, he still doesn't have the right to shut it down, and same goes for Clinton. Media, especially when it isn't government funded, should never be controlled by what political figures want. They aren't rigging the election they're representing it in a comical light, and if that's portraying Donald Trump badly, that's his problem.

Oh, I haven't really been reading many articles on it- most of this comes from my head. However I have been reading stuff on the effects of voter fraud and multiple studies have shown it really is a non-issue and won't effect an election (see here for an example on such an article).

I really don't think Trump could work with both sides of politics based on him being a real person. He's so bad at controlling his tongue that his own party leadership is beginning to dis-endorse him and he disgusts most democrats. Realistically the only people he'd have backing him in Congress are the Tea Party Candidates. In comparison, Clinton has years and years of experience working on bipartisan deals, and she is much more appealing to central Republicans than Trump is to central democrats. Also I think people are too excited about someone whose not a politician being President. Being President is a political job, and important one, but in the end they are going to have to make difficult political decisions. Politics seems to be the one job where being unqualified and inexperienced earns you the approval of some people. Also, even if we want to go with, we want a man/woman of the people, Trump doesn't fit the bill unless if the people are real estate magnates who live in giant towers with their name written on them and have a house made out of gold.

The right doesn't have very many credible news outlets, which is a problem for them I think. Fox News isn't a news sight, its a conspiracy show where they blatantly make up things constantly. In Australia we have newspapers that people respect on both sides of politics and that does render the debate over things more even. However, that being said, people not taking fox news seriously isn't media freedom, and honestly I think you'd like to see a country that doesn't have it if you think yours is non existent. There are countries where every story from every form of media is shown to government officers, who remove anything that doesn't suit their agenda. Anyone who tries to speak out against this are arrested or killed. Countries like that would kill to have Americas level of media freedom, so really I don't think that just because the left dominates it it is a complete joke.

And let's be clear about the 2 minutes of his life that as recorded. It showed him not only being sexist, but showing off about sexual abuse. I'm not a fan of sexism, but its nowhere near as damaging as groping random women. Especially given it was not just talk and a plethora of women have said he abused them in these very ways. There was a lot of reporting on Clinton's stuff when it was relevant. However she has been found to have committed no crimes with her email server and Benghazi and, while the wikileaks scandal wasn't great it got its run time and became largely irrelevant once Bernie endorsed her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....You done steppin' into my domain Dedenne...

Essentially this "election is rigged" hoopla is Trump trying to save face. He doesn't care about the ramifications (like voter intimidation likely rising in certain precincts) and instead cares about protecting his image as a winner.

Someone must of told him he was un-electable, and this is his special way of conceding the race. Hillary wins, but I'm not a loser, I just got cheated out of the job. Please come enjoy my hotels and golf courses!

This is the biggest travesty for conservatives - because if they had a real candidate opposite Clinton this race would be split down the middle, the campaign would only go so low as Hillary's e-mail scandal (because even Democrats know she was ignorant of procedure at the very least) and those who believe in rightward principles would have a reason to hope in America just like the left does.

---

The media though, at least in America, is not REALLY "independent." - if you're not Fox News, but are a television broadcast company similar to it, there's a high chance that you are a center-left to very left news outlet. Conservatism's strongest outlets are radio stations - a quickly dying media outlet - and the internet (where most of Trump's supporters REALLY get their news from.)

While I too love me some good SNL sketches and respect their origins, Republicans in general make for prime targets on the show and it certainly happens more often to righties than lefties when it comes to the media smackdown.

It doesn't take a conservative to craft a conspiracy theory on that one. Media in America chooses to be left because it appeals to wider audiences.

All that to say though, that I agree with you here on Trump. What conservatives need to do is make conservatism "cool" again. Find a conservative (or hell, even a moderate) to run something like 'The Daily Show'. Jon Stewart roasted conservatives on the reg, but even some righties (me included) think the guy is incredibly funny and someone to emulate their political discourse after.

Threatening to close down the show - along with other forms of predictable bellyaching - only pushes more and more people away from the GOP and from the right.

---

Ironically enough, the biggest losers aren't Trump - but his supporters. The people that -really- thought Donald Trump was going to be the Messiah president got punked.

One of the things Trump has done as a businessman is provide lots of money to whoever he wants. Many of those? Democratic politicians....

Including Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And let's be clear about the 2 minutes of his life that as recorded. It showed him not only being sexist, but showing off about sexual abuse. I'm not a fan of sexism, but its nowhere near as damaging as groping random women. Especially given it was not just talk and a plethora of women have said he abused them in these very ways. There was a lot of reporting on Clinton's stuff when it was relevant. However she has been found to have committed no crimes with her email server and Benghazi and, while the wikileaks scandal wasn't great it got its run time and became largely irrelevant once Bernie endorsed her. "

Why are these allegations coming out now after 11+ years of silence? Why are some of these allegations also coming from people with connections to Hillary's campaign and the DNC? Why are some of these allegations in complete contrast to other witness accounts?

When you think about why these are all coming out now, it's mostly likely just part of a smear campaign by the left. That's not "going high when they go low" to put it in certain words of a certain presidential candidate.

And in reference to the Server specifically, why did the FBI not decide to persecute her when the investigative team apparently wanted to see the details brought before a grand jury at the very least (from a recent article). Why did she need to give her aides immunity from prosecution if what she did was innocent? Why is she excused from jeopardizing sensitive government documents because she "forgot protocol?" Why did the FBI consider changing their stance on what counts as mishandling government information months before Hillary's case got brought up? Why is she allowed to literally jeopardize country security and walk away without a mark on her record and then become PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? A person who literally hid 30,000 emails about "yoga and her daughter Chelsea" after being issued a subpeona by the Government and who had boxes of documented emails (physical copies from PO box iirc, sorry don't remember exactly where) literally disappear in transit to the government. It doesn't make any sense how she has support except that the Media is completely on her side and the election is rigged to prevent anyone who wasn't her from winning, even after she's had a horrible record RECENTLY of being a poor politician and leader. And that's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you have any idea how dealing with sexual assault can work. It can take years for survivors to come forward. Especially with such a well known assault we. They can get scared that their voices won't be heard and they will be belittled just as you are doing. Also many witnesses of at least one of the cases of assault are coming forward to corroborate the survivors story.

Also, I think you might be misunderstanding the email "scandal" at least the way you phrase it. Anyone who actually looks at the case can see why it didn't go to trial and that there was no case for indictment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satire is humor with critisim. That's its nature,thus the show gives by defenition critiscim on the candidates.Exagerated and comical? yes but still criticism. And people may watch it for the humor but they might think " they got a point there". And if you think a comical figure for enternmaint can't have no negative infuence. Well "Black Pete" is the center of a debate that rages on the racist nature of Black Pete the servant of the dutch and belgium variant of santa claus. Pure comical character for the fun of children, a whole controverse. People claim that Black Pete has a negative/racist influence. So yeah just some fun. The fact that the show is indpendant doesn't matter is moot because it doesn't matter if it is state sponsored or not, the election result can have influence on the show, channel or production house and someone might want to influence said result to their hand. You say also that media shouldn't be controlled by politcal figures but I challenge that: If media is not allowed to be controlled by the government then what gives us the guarantuee they do a good/fair job? They have power and they are using it. If the government does not step in when they abuse their power then who guarntuees that elections are going to be fair? For that reason we need a balance between control and freedom. Trump not loosing to it might be true but still everyone should receive a fair chance. Trump deserves one and if the media does not does this then there should be consequences.

Also I read the fraud article and I find it hilarious you don't even have to bring your id.

Also about the benghazi mail scandal, there are no charges because a "lack of proof of intent". Official statement. She did things she shouldn't but since she was "unaware" of it she doesn't get charges. That's just a pile of crap. The entire investigation also has a lot of irregularities. She also right out lied about it. She's either super incompetent or a big fraud and I'm more inclined towards the latter. I don't like Trump but I wouldn't trust Hillary for a split second.

Edited by FairFamily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you have any idea how dealing with sexual assault can work. It can take years for survivors to come forward. Especially with such a well known assault we. They can get scared that their voices won't be heard and they will be belittled just as you are doing. Also many witnesses of at least one of the cases of assault are coming forward to corroborate the survivors story.

Also, I think you might be misunderstanding the email "scandal" at least the way you phrase it. Anyone who actually looks at the case can see why it didn't go to trial and that there was no case for indictment.

Turtle, I must respectfully disagree with your points, and I am saddened you imply I don't know what I am talking.

I understand that sexual assault is traumatic. It's horrible for it to happen to anyone and shouldn't be tolerated. It's belittles the recipient while the perpetrator feels empowered in their action. It's not right in any circumstance. But, there's a point afterwards where you've hopefully come to terms with being a survivor of any traumatic event. That's why there are support groups and communities to help deal with any sort of event like this.

Now, I don't understand why these women are coming forward after years of struggling to come to terms with their situation. I don't believe they were sitting there for years plotting and scheming of destroying Trump, in this situation, during the years afterwards. I don't believe they would ever made it into the media if Trump wasn't in this political race. So why did they come forward now, and why are their stories broadcasted nationwide be all these media outlets? Shouldn't these women be seeking help to deal with their problem instead of going public at this critical time in a campaign if they've been struggling with it for that many years? Shouldn't they not be sharing their stories on a national level to prevent millions of people from labeling them as this victim, so they don't have to walk down the street as the woman who Trump assaulted or the woman who claimed Trump assaulted her? I can understand these victims might still struggle with the assault if it did happen years ago, but being a national news story on mainstream media to prevent a person from candidacy is NOT APPROPRIATE for any media to do. I'd rather know these women are getting support for themselves than have them be news fodder for a political agenda.

The email scandal is from my perspective on the issue. For one, I wonder how do you get 30,000 emails about Yoga and your daughter in the first place on a psuedo-personal/government email? Unless she's spending all of her time at the gym or with her daughter instead of campaigning, how did she gather that many emails about those two subjects alone? Also, if those deleted emails were only about that, then why go through the effort of deleting them all? Her story on the issue doesn't make a shred of sense, and I don't see the left media discussing it while the right talks about the same details and further details every time, so I gather that the people supporting her are trying to down play the matter while the people opposed to her are actually concerned about this issue, since she's about to take an office with much higher responsibility than before if she's victorious.

I mean, here's an article that supports the recommendation was done against in the investigation team's request: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html)

Now, you may dismiss Fox News as a bad news outlet, but honestly try to put aside any bias and just read what they have to say. Looking at both sides of the argument is needed to make the best decision. That's why I try my best to listen to town hall meetings and campaign events and articles from both sides of the political spectrum and conclude from there. I want to make a good decision here since who knows how many more elections we'll actually have, and if this one will be the critical election that spirals the global scene out of balance. I also want people to think more than what any media tells them and think about why/how/where and for whom they tell them "the news." That's my 2 (more) cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they would've come forward if trump hadn't bragged about sexually assaulting women. He said that it was just "locker room talk" and they came forward to prove it wasn't just words. I don't understand how you can conflate not tolerating sexual assault and then questioning why/when they came forward.

I understand that's your perspective on the email story. It also shows a lot of misunderstandings about the emails that were deleted, and the issues of the case against her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they would've come forward if trump hadn't bragged about sexually assaulting women. He said that it was just "locker room talk" and they came forward to prove it wasn't just words. I don't understand how you can conflate not tolerating sexual assault and then questioning why/when they came forward.

I understand that's your perspective on the email story. It also shows a lot of misunderstandings about the emails that were deleted, and the issues of the case against her.

If you could cite me your sources on the email scandal, please give me one or two to read. I'd like to understand how you think I'm misunderstanding her email scandal.

Also, are you referring to her "lacking intent" as to the lack of recommendation?

Did you read the article that I linked for you to read?

I also don't believe victims should remain victims. After you survive trauma of any sort, you have a choice to make afterwards. You can choose to let the event define who you are, or you can accept it and grow as a stronger person afterwards. You do not need to come to terms with it on your own; you can receive help from your community, friends, family, or other groups to overcome this trauma. And eventually, the hope is to be free from this for the remainder of life. So, seeing these women suddenly calling out allegations of sexual abuse is quite frankly in contrast with this ideal. I don't know if they're right or if they're only saying this for attention, but I believe that they've yet to come to terms with their experience. Public outcry to destroy a person's political career does not grant your peace or settle your conscious on what happened, so why would these women do this?

Are they truly this traumatized? If so, I believe they should find someone to help them overcome their issues rather than having them used by the media for a political agenda. I want these women to have lives that are not defined by sexual assault, whether it happened or not. Shame on the Media for using their horrible experiences to further agenda, and probably setting them back on any sort of progress they've done to come to terms with themselves.

Are they doing this for publicity or as part of the media? Shame on them for using sexual assault as a political tool. It's not right to take something so serious and publicize it for the sake of political agenda.

I don't know what you don't understand about what I am saying, but it's likely that we'll never agree on these matters. And that's the great thing about freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We probably won't agree, that is true. It really sounds like you are there saying that they aren't allowed to then come forward about their experiences. They reached out to the media about their stories. It's really shame on Trump if he sexually assaulted them.

I will 100% say that I agree that Clinton's email decision is a mistake. However, anyone who says that she should've been indicted clearly does not understand the details of the case. I read your link. It just doesn't explain the truth. We can disagree on the level of mistake it was, but as it stands, there was no case for indictment. That is my main problem.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/comey-clinton-fbi-memo-227852

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-is-out-of-control/2016/09/08/692947d0-75fc-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.294dc3bf40e7

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-why-james-comey-didnt-recommend-prosecution-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh fun.

For one, you don't get to decide when, where and how someone comes to terms with sexual assault. There is not a time limit. Yes, there are many many facilities are support groups of which one can get counselling on their traumatic event. But saying because those things exist is like saying "Because calculators exist, everyone should make an A on the math test". Also, do you follow American football news? Any at all? Well at least once a year there's a sexual assault/rape allegation against one of the players. Usually some college girl final piping up to the news station, years after a shady night at a college party. No one seems to hesitate to both investigate and believe the victim. We're all familiar with Bill Cosby, and no sooner did those allegations come out did the memes start appearing and his name was thoroughly raked through the mud with fearless abandon. Now lets side over to our good ol' buddy Trump. The guy has faced a handful of other sexual harassment lawsuits before, so I wouldn't but assault past him. http://www.vox.com/2016/10/12/13234224/donald-trump-jill-harth-sexual-assault It's not a discussion of how long he talked about or even about what acts he was depicting, it's a discussion of basic human decency. But I guess that's what the new norm should be. Children looking to their fathers and thinking "I guess that's what he does to mommy".

Let me explain you a thing: this is no longer an election. This is a battle. A grand, desperate fight in the American political Colosseum where not a dirty punch is spared. Yes, you are definitely correct that the releasing of these videos was timed and calculated. Oh you can bet they were. It's not like the other side wouldn't do the same though. Only 2 minutes? Oh no no not just two minutes of inappropriate "locker room talk". This man was vividly describing to his audience as to how he flexes his wealthy muscles to "woo" females into submission. But there's nothing wrong with that, obviously. If its not laid out in the format of unsupported emails distributed by Wikileaks then no one wants to hear it.

And if you wanna talk about shame just look through Donald's tweets concerning the Pulse shooting. Such an explosive topic that I'm surprised hasn't been touched, not even by Pence, but I shouldn't be surprised. This is a dude who used the largest shooting in history as a second amendment pivot so could get one of his biggest donors, the NRA, to buddy up to him. There was that whole fiasco about Obama not being an American citizen but people nowadays like to pretend that never happened. Let's also flashback to the first debate where Hillary says that Trump leeched off the misfortunes of the housing market crash, but as he said, that's called business. Jump back to the second debate when he's asked about that recorded 2 minutes. His explanation was just great, as he explained how his "locker room talk" wasn't anywhere near as bad as what ISIS does, hence it shouldn't even be an issue. Mexican immigrants bringing crime to the U.S.? Well I wouldn't doubt that a few of them got into some illegal action but is it really so much crime that we can simply turn our heads from the domestic violence and shootings we already have? Or is that Mexico's fault too? Speaking of domestic issues, let's talk about what he said about African Americans and how they live. How ignorant, rich, and self-centered do you have to be to not realize that black people do everything they can with everything they can to help their community and fellow African American? Or, also in the second debate, explaining American Muslim terrorists get away with what they do because other Muslims won't report them. Because of course all Muslim people know each other and a wife can totally overpower her disgruntled, armed-to-the-teeth husband.

But I think the most aggravating thing I've found in all of this is the "the agenda". All of the sudden, when the media portrays something somebody doesn't want to see, there is now an "agenda". Well there has always been an agenda. There will never not be an agenda of some kind. Whether it's supporting girls to play with barbies or to vote democrat, there is always an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Global Mods

Re: why did it take them so long to come out about it, it's actually not uncommon for it to take years to come out about sexual assault, and some people never do. Many don't come forward immediately out of shame or fear. People might say it was their fault, ask how they could "let" it happen, or ask what they were wearing, etc. Especially if it's a celebrity, where people who are fans of that celebrity will think it was a lie to get attention or money.

Re: Benghazi. I actually don't know what Benghazi is (as in I don't know if it's a place or a person or a political event etc), but from what I've read (albeit on a One Piece forum) it's actually a completely fabricated issue that originally Mitt Romney was blamed for. I tried to find the specific posts that go into detail about it, but the thread is over 400 pages and the search function isn't very good (you can't search within a topic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without derailing too much... what is referred to as Benghazi was an attack at a US diplomatic compound in Libya when Clinton was Secretary. Since then, there has been an admitted witch hunt to try to hold her responsible for the attacks. The 11 hours of hearings found that she was not responsible.

http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/28/comprehensive-guide-benghazi-myths-and-facts/211240

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/benghazi-explained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BlueWolf - I don't follow football or sports. It's not interesting to me.

"For one, you don't get to decide when, where and how someone comes to terms with sexual assault. There is not a time limit. Yes, there are many many facilities are support groups of which one can get counselling on their traumatic event. But saying because those things exist is like saying "Because calculators exist, everyone should make an A on the math test"

In my opinion, there is a time limit to justifying your trauma. It's not a hard limit, everyone needs time to cope with loss/trauma etc, but at some point there needs to be momentum to move forward instead of dwelling on it perpetually and allowing bitterness to control your life. You can't allow yourself to remain a victim, or else you'll remain the victim and be miserable for the remainder of your life. I don't want to really discuss this point more, since I'm not personally going to change it and it's more about my personal beliefs than the original topic.

And I agree with Trump, his "locker room talk" isn't as bad as murder. Do you think his "locker room talk" is worse than what ISIS is doing? Yes, it's a diversion from the original topic on his part, but ISIS really is a more important issue than a 2 minute recording of language most people have fantasized worse about.

I don't care about Tweets. If we're judged on tweets, facebook chats, and anything else on the internet, than everyone should likely be in jail.

Yes it's a battle, and I don't like how the left is levering sexual assault victims and private footage from a trailer said 11 years ago for their political agenda. Couldn't they have won without having to go to such lengths?

@ICSW, Benghazi is a location where the United States Embassy was under attack by foreign forces. I never bothered to look into the specific details of the event, but it was during the Obama administration when Clinton was still Secretary of State. The incident was originally downplayed as less serious than it actually was iirc, but again, I didn't investigate into all the details so this is all I really know. It wasn't a shining moment for America.

@TurtleCat

Thanks for the articles. Will give a read through, but at least from the first one. My interpretation can be completely valid from the facts given. Also, I really hope you know the biases of whatever site your reading from. I'd like to maybe give counter articles, but probably another time since I have to get back to doing things.

Edited by Cyanna Cyril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyanna, Politifact is genuinely claimed to be "unbiased", but we know there's really no such thing. For what it's worth though, they do catch leftists as well as righties in the act of lying.

Conservatives either just really suck at lying, or Liberals have a tendency to be truthful in comparison.

---

The thing that I've learned when dealing with real, genuine, assault victims is this. Sometimes they don't come forward until an event happens that strengthens them. That's very common and not just specific to Donald Trump.

Does it seem rather "convenient" that it was dropped? Absolutely. As I said, most non-Fox affiliated news sites are NOT independent sources and they would wait until a prime time to drop that hot mic clip for maximum damage. Women absolutely heckle rich men for a piece of their savings.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean these women's claims are unsubstantiated and to be cast out because they come at such a convenient time. It's entirely feasible Trump "meant it" in that video and these women finally had what they needed to come out of the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyanna, Politifact is genuinely claimed to be "unbiased", but we know there's really no such thing. For what it's worth though, they do catch leftists as well as righties in the act of lying.

Conservatives either just really suck at lying, or Liberals have a tendency to be truthful in comparison.

Or they are looking for as many misinterpretations as possible for Conservatives and are very lenient with Liberals? That's possible right?

I don't think half the nation is more likely to lie based on their political beliefs. That doesn't make sense. So when the data displays that, likely sources might have bias, might misinterpretation information, might communicate information poorly, or they might have invalid information to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to take a big step into this, but I just wanted to provide my opinion. Warning, I'm not a college student or a qualified conspiracy theorist, so don't take my word as a prophet's word. Regarding the email scandal, I believe absolutely that there should have been a major consequence. She was issued a subpoena in the beginning of the month, and suddenly, by the end of the month, 33,000 emails just so happened to be bleached from existence, those who did the act of destroying the evidence would answer no questions, and just so happened to be granted a complete immunity. I AM 15 AND I CAN SMELL SOMETHING FISHY!!

Subpoena issued March 5th, 2015!

Emails deleted and BLEACHED March 25th-31st 2015!

That is illegal guys. When you get a subpoena, you can't play that game. I won't be able to believe my eyes if she doesn't get in trouble for this sooner or later big time. I believe it's 3 years for every confidential email, oh boy Hillary, talk about rotting in jail.

As for trump, Jesus Christ man focus on the message!! While he is absolutely correct about media bias, (if you don't see it, you haven't been paying much attention) he keeps saying that it will be rigged instead of fighting to win. He is playing in the dirt while Hillary barely takes up that lead that she needs to form a win. If he does not smack her down hard at this debate, it won't be pretty.

Regarding the sexual assaults, once again, I am no professional, but hear me out.

When these women all suddenly come forward at the same time, all with stories of sexual assault, and just so happen to be coming out shortly before the debates, I sense some major bull. Not only that, but in fact, I found it a bit strange when I did some research and found out that lady who claimed that Trump "was all over her like an octopus", had ripped the line WORD FOR WORD FROM ANOTHER SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE IN THE UK!!

https://conservativedailypost.com/trump-accuser-on-airplane-proven-guilty-airplane-details-show-blatant-lie/

When all of the these women come forward in the same day, around the same time, against the same person, with some pretty damn sketchy stories... I think I'll rely on my own thoughts and research over what the media rants about.

You know it's bad when their families and witnesses are coming forward and calling their crap on it. I can't believe some women could do such a thing. Why? What do you seek to gain other than ridicule when you're exposed? Besides the fact records show more than 50% of rape allegations are proven false...

And.. 35 years, ok? You can't be ok with it for so many years, never coming forward, and then sudddnly along with a perfect half dozen other women all come forward at the same time. It just doesn't add up in the slightest. This election, is honestly and without a doubt, deplorable. The media is blatantly caught in Wikileaks to be lying to us all and doing select cut style reporting from certain outlets, (Washington post etc etc) and now they expect us to trust them? I cannot believe my eyes, I may not know policy down to a T, but even I can tell this is ridiculous.

Thanks for reading! Any feedback is appreciated as long as it's not personal attacks (please guys, I get all trump style pissed!)

If I had to vote right now, it would certainly be for Trump. At least he can name our enemy and not use Benghazi as a political distraction.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-campaign-used-benghazi-as-distraction-from-email-scandal/article/2604251

As well as the fact that he will actually advocate change instead of continuing obama'a FAILURES as he has doubled our debt, left us with the time bomb of Obamacare, and has quite literally been the single most girly president I have ever seen. His political correctness makes me want to stab myself just to remind myself what the real world feels like... I just hope it won't be a repeat of what wasted my father's life in Iraq by pulling the troops out after all of their hard fought efforts just to allow another regime to rise (and Hillary and Obama decided to feed the beast)

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/

But I'll just go ahead and leaves the politics to the grown ups now, I suppose. Sure hope that subpoena case comes to bite Hillary.

Idea to discuss of my own, what should come first in society, law or liberty? I put my money on liberty without a second thought, but I wonder what others might say.

Edited by Absol-lutelty awesome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Obama] has quite literally been the single most girly president I have ever seen.

There's nothing wrong with being a girl or effeminate. Please don't hold something like that against Obama or any male really. Just wanted to point this out nicely since you can get into or cause a lot of trouble for saying something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”


PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clinton’s release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline:


On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attacks in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days.


On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya. Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an “oh s—” moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files."


That's at least taken from the fact check from the second debate. I linked to the politifact timeline in an earlier post


Also, is there a trademark on ways to sexually assault people? If not I fail to see how similar phrasing really excuses it.


I'll leave it to what cyanna said regarding complaining that Obama is "girly"



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The message. Oh yes. That beautiful, righteous, empowering message.

If I can't win, the game was unfair.

Yes, preach. Because whining DEFINITELY isn't something that many conservatives like to charge millennials with doing.

And is nobody gonna talk about the previous Secretaries of State? Nobodies gonna ask, well what did they do with their emails? As if those previous secretaries hadn't done the same thing? She was probably just following protocol that was given to her than the others before her did. After all, the use of emails and other technological communications is a fairly new world concept, especially for someone as old as Clinton. Moreover, she's discussed, refuted, and answered this "email scandal" for the entirety of her campaign. So don't go saying that the media doesn't portray because they just looove to blast her for it. Even after she apologized and said what she did was wrong and that she mishandled them. And people have the gal to scream "lock her up" because ignorance is a sacred way of life that dare not be obstructed. A subpoena, for those of you who don't know, is a court summons. It's not a conviction. It's not a charge. It was declared that her actions were definitely a mistake, but definitely not indictment worthy, and that's something that needs to that has been disputed and concluded. Fin.

And nothing about the Pulse shooting tweet? Nothing about Blacks living in hell, Latinos and Mexicans being foreign gangbangers, rapists, and job theifs, nothing about a large group of his supporters starting the hashtag #Repealthe19th so women can't vote and Trump can win by a landslide? "Yeah Trump has said stuff but look what Hillary has done" yeah she's done stuff but an entire world of good for the people of this country. Everything she's done with education, women's health and veterans, all absent from the news. "Trump creates jobs" yeah tell that to all of those workers he didn't pay. "He's a businessman" well everyone praises Andrew Jackson as one of the greatest presidents because he had no national debt, but because he was too dumb and shortsighted to fix all of his inflation, he implemented the Species Circular and throwing the country into another depression right before jumping out of office and leaving it to his faithful secretary of state to clean up and take the blame for.

But it doesn't matter. Its too late in the game. His words are the death rattle of a foolish soldier who thought it wise to rush head on into enemy fire, now lying in the dirt with one hand, no legs and a chest full of bullets, making unintelligible curses through a throat clogged with blood. He is finished. This election was decided when the candidates started running. Now all that's left is to sit back and watch the fireworks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Clintons staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBIs August 2016 report. Moreover, theres no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agencys investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.

PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clintons release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline:

On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attacks in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazis investigation. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days.

On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya. Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an oh s moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files."

That's at least taken from the fact check from the second debate. I linked to the politifact timeline in an earlier post

Also, is there a trademark on ways to sexually assault people? If not I fail to see how similar phrasing really excuses it.

I'll leave it to what cyanna said regarding complaining that Obama is "girly"

But when there are internal emails exposed that show the dates of the deletions to be POST subpoena, as well as the dates the IT works came to perform the work, I refuse to believe that. Especially after they caught that move to reduce the email classification to unclassified by a bribe from the Clinton camp.

https://www.gop.com/fact-check-clinton-lies-on-email-deletion-timeline/

Luckily, I have my little fact checkers too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/i-need-a-favor-fbi-official-at-center-of-alleged-clinton-email-quid-pro-quo-speaks-out/2016/10/18/dd872948-9538-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49_story.html?client=safari

This concerns the obvious "this for that" play.

When you delete emails after receiving a subpoena to return ALL of them, then you just earned yourself a jail ticket. They were KNOWN to be deleted on March 25-31st without confirmation from the campaign due to what was analyzed by the FBI and leaked from Wikileaks. She is in very big trouble if this is further investigated, you can't play these games with a subpoena.

If you don't care about how this sexual assault "thing" happened, you are in clear denial. These women all so perfectly happened to come forward at the SAME TIME, on the same day, against the same person, and stole lines DIRECTLY from other sexual assault cases. WITNESSES say they are a bunch of liars! Yes, the people that were there, as well as the "victim' " families!

And concerning Obama, sure, ignore everything else I said. I can redact the girliness comment, and the impact is the same. His political correctness is so pathetic that every time I witness it, i feel I might need to stab myself to be sure I'm still sure of what the real world is. We have an enemy, and if this is how he treats our enemies, I don't want Clinton, his successor in her own words, to be anywhere near ANY of our center of command. Our troops don't need their lives wasted.

Regardless of Cyanna's (noted in my book) warning, I don't feel my opinion on him changing. He is a president that should never be modeled, and Hilary does just that in her own words, however her actions show she is exactly like him. Say one thing, do another.

After the FBI is up in arms against the director, I don't know if I should trust the whole case file too much just yet. Especially when there is reason to believe bribery is involved.

Did I miss anything? I hope you see my view here.

Let me note, once again, I'm no college student or certified reliable theorist or analyst, but I feel as though my voice should not be discredited.

Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it.

To you Bluewolf, I agree with what you are stating! It all is sensible, and still adds in well. I agreed in my post that trump has been playing in the dirt for WAY too long, but there is so much more to address in this thread. Wikileaks shows a bit of deplorability in that little campaign that Clinton has there. There is evidence in Wikileaks of media colusion, and coverage on Wikileaks is almost 30 seconds to nonexistent. There is media bias. They will cover Trump almost exclusively on every channel I visit save Fox and its branches, and yet, we know why. Trump resonates more than she does, ergo more coverage. (Save his latest messages, come on man this is sad) however, while Wikileaks was literally dumping Podesta emails by the THOUSANDS, the media was STILL covering the Locker Room Talk junk.

In regards to the portion referring to the subpoena and taking responsibility, if she took responsibility she would face jail time for obstruction, and perjury. She said she neither sent or received classified information, and they DID find that there was classified information sent.

Then the deletion AFTER a subpoena was issued (she made a major goof)

Too much dirt to ignore on her.

The podesta and aide emails are bad enough

"We already know she hates everyday Americans"

"Needy latinos"

It just goes on and on with the Clintons.

Her aides and service all call her a liar and hate her, but she has money. Look at the books her agents have wrote about her.

And back to you Blue, let me get you there. The message is #maga ;)

(That is if he could focus on it sometime like now!)

Edited by Absol-lutelty awesome!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And nothing about the Pulse shooting tweet? Nothing about Blacks living in hell, Latinos and Mexicans being foreign gangbangers, rapists, and job theifs, nothing about a large group of his supporters starting the hashtag #Repealthe19th so women can't vote and Trump can win by a landslide? "Yeah Trump has said stuff but look what Hillary has done" yeah she's done stuff but an entire world of good for the people of this country. Everything she's done with education, women's health and veterans, all absent from the news. "Trump creates jobs" yeah tell that to all of those workers he didn't pay. "He's a businessman" well everyone praises Andrew Jackson as one of the greatest presidents because he had no national debt, but because he was too dumb and shortsighted to fix all of his inflation, he implemented the Species Circular and throwing the country into another depression right before jumping out of office and leaving it to his faithful secretary of state to clean up and take the blame for."

@ Blue: I don't argue about things I haven't looked into, nor do I argue about things that I feel have no meaningful value, such as the #Repealthe19th which was taken completely out of context and is a Twitter hashtag. That's never going to happen in this country, and it's not worth talking about.

And I'm sorry that the government has failed to protect its people, especially the minorities in inner cities and elsewhere.

One thing I wonder about is these minorities generally vote for the democrats (e.g. Chicago is a Democrat controlled city with major violence), so if nothing is changing for them, shouldn't they vote for a republican instead in hope for change?

"Also, is there a trademark on ways to sexually assault people? If not I fail to see how similar phrasing really excuses it."

@Cat: No, there's no trademark way. None of it is good, but it's too much to expect people to be perfect. Decent human beings yes, but absolutely perfect with no flaws, no. People have hormones and random urges to do or say really stupid or insensitive things (and sometimes is funny e.g. CAH). Anyways, this is probably more appropriate for a political correctness thread than this thread, but continue if you feel the need.

Edited by Cyanna Cyril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...