• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump is actually doing what he and his

humbolt said:
You offered no substance from the start. The Clintons aren't guilty of anything because their actions haven't been adjudicated - that's your view. Trump hasn't been to court either. As I said, your double standard is showing. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I know you'll try anything to get the subject off the OP but it's not going to work with me. Trump is doing exactly what he accused Hillary of doing and she never did it. I also suspect using a fancy (but irrelevant) term like "adjudicated" makes you feel like you've hit on a good line but you haven't. Adjudication has nothing to do with this.
 
digitusmedius said:
I know you'll try anything to get the subject off the OP but it's not going to work with me. Trump is doing exactly what he accused Hillary of doing and she never did it. I also suspect using a fancy (but irrelevant) term like "adjudicated" makes you feel like you've hit on a good line but you haven't. Adjudication has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

If adjudication has nothing to do with it, then why would you claim that the Clintons are innocent because they haven't been to court, but Trump is guilty? You did make that claim. Adjudication isn't a fancy term. It's a common one. Now, when you can explain your use of a double standard, I'll entertain other aspects of your arguments. Until then, you're just a super partisan hack in my view.
 
humbolt said:
If adjudication has nothing to do with it, then why would you claim that the Clintons are innocent because they haven't been to court, but Trump is guilty? You did make that claim.
Click to expand...
No, I did not. But keep trying to change the OP. It's fun watching you flop around.
 
digitusmedius said:
No, I did not. But keep trying to change the OP. It's fun watching you flop around.
Click to expand...

Sure you did. Re-read post #11. There is plenty of evidence that Bill attacked women and that Hillary arranged a cover up and attacked and smeared the women Bill attacked. You claim it never happened, and I'm assuming that because charges were never filed, you think that's a sufficient reason to clear them. It isn't. Why are you so desperate to attempt to make Trump look as bad as the Clintons? Could it be that the Clintons are sooooo ****ing dirty you have no defense for 'em? Sure looks that way. If you had a legitimate argument, I assume you'd have already made it. You haven't, and you don't. There's plenty to attack Trump on. Why don't you tax your brain a little and try to come up with some of those things and spare the rest of us your faux indignation. You're gonna have to take a placebo just to calm down.
 
Fletch said:
Unlike you, I actually lived through the 90's. The Clintonites, of which she was one, were constantly belittling these women and their accusations. Her and Bill's surrogates worked overtime to handle what they, themselves, called 'bimbo eruptions.' Do you approve of women being called bimbos? Seems you do.
Click to expand...


I suspect it may be with the word "attacked". There was nothing physical, but "feminist" Hilary went out of her way, using the power of her office to destroy the reputation of Lewinski.

Because of that she is despised by women in Canada. It's too bad American women aren't liberated, she would have never been senator.
 
Fishking said:
So, again, you're complaining about Trump using the court system, as is the right of everyone. Glad you doubled-down to make that point clear.
Click to expand...



I suggest that a case can be made that Mr. Trump, with 3500 lawsuits to his name has been both a questionable businessman, and a judicial bully. The women he sexually assault all said they were afraid to come forward for fears that Trump would bankrupt them with petty lawsuits.

He's allegedly worth billions, that's power both on the street and in the courts.

How many people are there in the US not in laws who have had 3500 lawsuits?

I just love the twisting and turning, pretzel logic to make this huge turd look like a human being, every one of you are doing the EXACT same things the Obamabots did. But having been through it once it's somehow more ugly on Trump's bots.

This is what's called "grain of truth" propaganda.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I suggest that a case can be made that Mr. Trump, with 3500 lawsuits to his name has been both a questionable businessman, and a judicial bully. The women he sexually assault all said they were afraid to come forward for fears that Trump would bankrupt them with petty lawsuits.

He's allegedly worth billions, that's power both on the street and in the courts.

How many people are there in the US not in laws who have had 3500 lawsuits?

I just love the twisting and turning, pretzel logic to make this huge turd look like a human being, every one of you are doing the EXACT same things the Obamabots did. But having been through it once it's somehow more ugly on Trump's bots.

This is what's called "grain of truth" propaganda.
Click to expand...

1. I don't like Trump and will not be voting for him

2. If there isn't a case then the judge is there to throw it out.

3. A right is a right, no matter how many times it is exercised. Someone owning a hundred guns isn't abusing the 2A any more or less than someone owning two or none.
 
humbolt said:
Sure you did. Re-read post #11. There is plenty of evidence that Bill attacked women and that Hillary arranged a cover up and attacked and smeared the women Bill attacked. (1) You claim it never happened, and I'm assuming that because charges were never filed(2), you think that's a sufficient reason to clear them. It isn't. Why are you so desperate to attempt to make Trump look as bad as the Clintons? Could it be that the Clintons are sooooo ****ing dirty you have no defense for 'em? Sure looks that way. If you had a legitimate argument, I assume you'd have already made it.(3) You haven't, and you don't. There's plenty to attack Trump on. Why don't you tax your brain a little and try to come up with some of those things and spare the rest of us your faux indignation. You're gonna have to take a placebo just to calm down.
Click to expand...
(1) No, there isn't and you just claiming there is doesn't make it so.
(2)So, YOU assume something and then project that on me. Well, thank you so very much for demonstrating your dishonesty so, well, honestly.
(3) I don't need to defend the Clintons. I have the facts, which are: Hillary never smeared any accuser and Trump is smearing the hell out of all of his accuser AND threatening THEM with retaliatory intimidation to boot. He's not just dirty; he's as filthy, stinkin' rotten a sonofabitch as ever sullied a presidential campaign. And you're the one defending that sack of garbage.
 
digitusmedius said:
(1) No, there isn't and you just claiming there is doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one claiming it. His victims are.

(2)So, YOU assume something and then project that on me. Well, thank you so very much for demonstrating your dishonesty so, well, honestly.
Click to expand...

You are the one who claimed it in number one above. Face it, unless Bill was convicted and in prison you wouldn't consider anything he has done as possibly beyond the pale. You know it, and so does everyone else reading this.

(3) I don't need to defend the Clintons. I have the facts, which are: Hillary never smeared any accuser and Trump is smearing the hell out of all of his accuser AND threatening THEM with retaliatory intimidation to boot. He's not just dirty; he's as filthy, stinkin' rotten a sonofabitch as ever sullied a presidential campaign. And you're the one defending that sack of garbage.
Click to expand...

Yet you are defending the Clintons from accusations which appear to have a basis in fact. Personally, because I defend Trump from people like you doesn't mean I support Trump. It means I have higher standards than you do, and all this horse **** you posted above proves it.
 
digitusmedius said:
I do admire grudgingly how tightly this side will cling to its lies while denying completely the truth about themselves. It's a psychological phenomenon of great power over them.
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about Hillary.
 
Fishking said:
1. I don't like Trump and will not be voting for him

2. If there isn't a case then the judge is there to throw it out.

3. A right is a right, no matter how many times it is exercised. Someone owning a hundred guns isn't abusing the 2A any more or less than someone owning two or none.
Click to expand...


How many legitimate business people do you know that had been in 3500 lawsuits?

Two, I never said he had no right, I said he was dishonest and used the courts for bullying.

Type Trump, court you'll see what I mean. It's how the rich and powerful get away with what they get away with.
 
Fearandloathing said:
How many legitimate business people do you know that had been in 3500 lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Since I'm unaware of him having his business license revoked, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Two, I never said he had no right, I said he was dishonest and used the courts for bullying.

Type Trump, court you'll see what I mean. It's how the rich and powerful get away with what they get away with.
Click to expand...

You don't say he has "no right" but you complain about him using it. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
 
Fishking said:
Since I'm unaware of him having his business license revoked, I'm not sure what you're referring to.



You don't say he has "no right" but you complain about him using it. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...



This is the last time we will speak.

One, I never suggested he has ever had his business license revoked.

You see to add a lot of what isn't there to shore up your candidate, inventing things not said so we will now part.

good bye
 
Fearandloathing said:
This is the last time we will speak.

One, I never suggested he has ever had his business license revoked.
Click to expand...

You said:

Fearandloathing said:
How many legitimate business people do you know that had been in 3500 lawsuits?
Click to expand...

The implication being that a legitimate business person does not have 3500 lawsuits. The only way to not be a legitimate business person is to be operating a business without a license.

You see to add a lot of what isn't there to shore up your candidate, inventing things not said so we will now part.

good bye
Click to expand...

So know you are upset because your own poor choice of words? OK.
 
Fishking said:
You said:



The implication being that a legitimate business person does not have 3500 lawsuits. The only way to not be a legitimate business person is to be operating a business without a license.



So know you are upset because your own poor choice of words? OK.
Click to expand...



Last time, stop adding **** to what I say and learn how to debate.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Last time, stop adding **** to what I say and learn how to debate.
Click to expand...

I'm quite good at it, thank you. Maybe you could clarify how Trump is not a legitimate business person. As far as adding, or assuming things, by saying "your candidate" when I've clearly stated he's not my candidate.

My interest in the matter is purely to expose lying or false narratives because the reality of the matter is that it wouldn't matter who the Republicans nominated, the news would turn him/her into a giant Nazi regardless. The coverage of Trump has simply given many opportunities to point out all the lies and false narratives.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
...and to think...if the left-wing lunatic fringe hadn't propped up the World's Most Corrupt Politician Ever, perhaps Trump wouldn't even be close to her in the polls.
Click to expand...

In other words, if Trump was considered to be a politician, Hillary would only be the second most corrupt politician?

How can the wrong wing even use the word "corrupt" with a straight face when Dick ****ing Cheney was their guy? How could the words "stupid" or "elitist" ever be used by them, except ironically, given the long string of half-witted blue bloods they've supported?

I'm constantly amazed at the low standards conservatives have for their own candidates while employing the most hyperbolic judgements of those on the left.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
...and to think...if the left-wing lunatic fringe hadn't propped up the World's Most Corrupt Politician Ever, perhaps Trump wouldn't even be close to her in the polls.
Click to expand...

And to think... if the alt-right didn't nominate Trump, the GOP would be crushing Clinton right now in the polls.
 
D_NATURED said:
In other words, if Trump was considered to be a politician, Hillary would only be the second most corrupt politician?

How can the wrong wing even use the word "corrupt" with a straight face when Dick ****ing Cheney was their guy? How could the words "stupid" or "elitist" ever be used by them, except ironically, given the long string of half-witted blue bloods they've supported?

I'm constantly amazed at the low standards conservatives have for their own candidates while employing the most hyperbolic judgements of those on the left.
Click to expand...
I'm constantly amazed how sensitive democrat sheep are to any criticism of their candidate. It's almost like a religion (which is ironic in of itself). ...and I'm NOT pro-Trump. Not at all. I'm anti-Hillary, because even if you can't say she's crooked, I certainly can.


Geoist said:
And to think... if the alt-right didn't nominate Trump, the GOP would be crushing Clinton right now in the polls.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
I'm constantly amazed how sensitive democrat sheep are to any criticism of their candidate. It's almost like a religion (which is ironic in of itself). ...and I'm NOT pro-Trump. Not at all. I'm anti-Hillary, because even if you can't say she's crooked, I certainly can.
Click to expand...

No, dude, I'm really tired of the constant accusation that she is the "most corrupt politician in history", or whatever it is I keep hearing. Based upon what? Where is the appreciation for Reagan's corruption? How many Central American village children lost their lives in Hillary's email scandal? Where is the comparison to Nixon's famous BS as opposed to the "constant lies" that conservatives like to say she tells obsessively? Given just these two examples, it's clear that as long as History remains un-sanitized by the right wing, as long as I remember, you can't get away with making a claim like that.

I mentioned Cheney already because to compare Hillary and anyone else includes he. Are you old enough to remember the W administration? If so, how can you honestly continue on in this display of willful ignorance. Hillary may have skeletons in her closet but the GOP funhouse has entire cemeteries full.

If she's too connected and phony for you, fine, I get that. However, there have been a lot of politicians in this country's sordid history and there have been some characters who were extremely poor examples of public service. So, unless you're claiming that decades of working for the benefit of children was a ruse to get enough positive name recognition to begin her campaign of totalitarian socialist authoritarianism, I'd say you're more dumb than crazy.

Our crookedness is not relative to how much we're attacked. Unless you have some concrete examples of her misdeeds that scratches the surface of what has been done in the name of conservative values, you are encouraged to list them or be called out for riding the GOP short bus.
 
D_NATURED said:
No, dude, I'm really tired of the constant accusation that she is the "most corrupt politician in history", or whatever it is I keep hearing. Based upon what? Where is the appreciation for Reagan's corruption? How many Central American village children lost their lives in Hillary's email scandal? Where is the comparison to Nixon's famous BS as opposed to the "constant lies" that conservatives like to say she tells obsessively? Given just these two examples, it's clear that as long as History remains un-sanitized by the right wing, as long as I remember, you can't get away with making a claim like that.

I mentioned Cheney already because to compare Hillary and anyone else includes he. Are you old enough to remember the W administration? If so, how can you honestly continue on in this display of willful ignorance. Hillary may have skeletons in her closet but the GOP funhouse has entire cemeteries full.

If she's too connected and phony for you, fine, I get that. However, there have been a lot of politicians in this country's sordid history and there have been some characters who were extremely poor examples of public service. So, unless you're claiming that decades of working for the benefit of children was a ruse to get enough positive name recognition to begin her campaign of totalitarian socialist authoritarianism, I'd say you're more dumb than crazy.

Our crookedness is not relative to how much we're attacked. Unless you have some concrete examples of her misdeeds that scratches the surface of what has been done in the name of conservative values, you are encouraged to list them or be called out for riding the GOP short bus.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of butt-hurt for a candidate that has so many scandals attached to her name. Sorry...I know it's hard for you to understand, but when someone has THAT MANY attached, non-sycophantic people take notice. Get used to it.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
That's a lot of butt-hurt for a candidate that has so many scandals attached to her name. Sorry...I know it's hard for you to understand, but when someone has THAT MANY attached, non-sycophantic people take notice. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

LOL. And here I was, holding out for an intelligent response. I think you prove my point that right wing morons are satisfied to react with hysteria over accusations toward Hillary and shrug at the crimes of past, and present, conservatives. Can you list all of the "crooked" behaviors that have earned Hillary so much vitriol? Can you explain why she is so much more crooked than not just Donald Trump but other politicians throughout history who have, inarguably, done worse things than she is accused of?

Don't bother responding, just get your tin foil helmet on and get on the bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom