• 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 Hotels Suffering

MrT said:
How about the fact that economists have analyzed his inheritance/loans and noted that he would have ended up better if he had just left the money in an index fund.
Click to expand...

If this is true, and I am not saying that it is, had Trump done that we would not think enough of him to seriously consider him for leader of the free world as we are now, so I say Trump made the right call to try to hustle his way to success.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
If this is true, and I am not saying that it is, had Trump done that we would not think enough of him to seriously consider him for leader of the free world as we are now, so I say Trump made the right call to try to hustle his way to success.
Click to expand...

And if Trump had murdered someone in the street, you would probably still say that he made the right call.
 
MrT said:
And if Trump had murdered someone in the street, you would probably still say that he made the right call.
Click to expand...

He was exaggerating to make a point and to entertain us, WWE style. But make no mistake, my support of Trump is both reasonable and rational. It is also a direct result of the long running immorality and incompetence of the coastal elite.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
He was exaggerating to make a point and to entertain us, WWE style. But make no mistake, my support of Trump is both reasonable and rational. It is also a direct result of the long running immorality and incompetence of the coastal elite.
Click to expand...

What policies do you actually believe he will pursue as President? He has shifted on taxes, immigration, the minimum wage, abortion, and releasing his taxes. All of those occuring during this campaign. Heck, to even claim that his positions are "policies" is to render the term meaningless.

So, if your support for the man is reasonable and rational, please explain to me your understanding of the policies that he will pursue? (Please avoid the generic and undefined standard of "putting America first" or "doing what is best for America" or "what will make X great."
 
MrT said:
What policies do you actually believe he will pursue as President? He has shifted on taxes, immigration, the minimum wage, abortion, and releasing his taxes. All of those occuring during this campaign. Heck, to even claim that his positions are "policies" is to render the term meaningless.

So, if your support for the man is reasonable and rational, please explain to me your understanding of the policies that he will pursue? (Please avoid the generic and undefined standard of "putting America first" or "doing what is best for America" or "what will make X great."
Click to expand...

I was watching West Wing last night where Santos has a whole book on what he wants to do (ala JEB!) and he is all dejected because Josh has popped his bubble and told him that he only gets 18 months to put anything in place. Santos sarcastically asks Josh if he is telling him that he will only get 7 or 8 pages into his book of policy ideas. Josh says no, that he might as well throw away all but the first page.

Trump has the first page, it starts with "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". That is all I need to know, we will deal with the rest when we come to it. Unlike some around here I believe in the system of government that our forefathers set up. So does Don.The President is not our king no matter what Obama thinks. I also point out that almost all Washington can get done now is jump from crisis to crisis, usually handling them poorly. Your complaint about Trump lacks connection to reality.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
I was watching West Wing last night where Santos has a whole book on what he wants to do (ala JEB!) and he is all dejected because Josh has popped his bubble and told him that he only gets 18 months to put anything in place. Santos sarcastically asks Josh if he is telling him that he will only get 7 or 8 pages into his book of policy ideas. Josh says no, that he might as well throw away all but the first page.

Trump has the first page, it starts with "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". That is all I need to know, we will deal with the rest when we come to it. Unlike some around here I believe in the system of government that our forefathers set up. So does Don.The President is not our king no matter what Obama thinks. I also point out that almost all Washington can get done now is jump from crisis to crisis, usually handling them poorly. Your complaint about Trump lacks connection to reality.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You are solely buying into Trump because of one four letter phrase? That's all it takes? You don't care about any other facts or policies or temperament or the fact that he is a serial liar and isn't willing to stand by any of his campaign promises as far as I can tell.


I would echo the same back to you. Donald Trump has spent his entire career as a CEO where his word IS the policy enacted by his various companies. And you believe that he will adjust his method of "governing" to one that relies upon multiple committees and legislative bodies instead of just using his executive authority? Hell, he hasn't even shown a willingness to listen or abide by the recommendations of his advisory staff during this campaign.

As for your reference to Obama believing himself King - again you are divorced from reality. Obama has enacted fewer executive orders, per year, than any President since the first term of Grover ****ing Cleveland.
 
Last edited:
MrT said:
Seriously? You are solely buying into Trump because of one four letter phrase? That's all it takes? You don't care about any other facts or policies or temperament or the fact that he is a serial liar and isn't willing to stand by any of his campaign promises as far as I can tell.


I would echo the same back to you. Donald Trump has spent his entire career as a CEO where his word IS the policy enacted by his various companies. And you believe that he will adjust his method of "governing" to one that relies upon multiple committees and legislative bodies instead of just using his executive authority? Hell, he hasn't even shown a willingness to listen or abide by the recommendations of his advisory staff during this campaign.

As for your reference to Obama believing himself King - again you are divorced from reality. Obama has enacted fewer executive orders, per year, than any President since the first term of Grover ****ing Cleveland.
Click to expand...

Given the failure of the establishment to keep DC functioning, given the failing of America, given the loss of freedom that I have endured over my lifetime, given the failure of the world economy, given the failure of our foreign policy, given all the lies the elite have told the little people..... yes this is all it takes to get me to support something else...AKA TRUMP. I wish some members of the elite better able to run the Executive branch had smelled the coffee and run on something like Trumps argument, but none did, over a period of many years. We take what we can get.

I have talked at length about whether Trump will listen to subject matter experts, my conclusion is that he likely will.

Previous presidents have tended to use executive orders to further the goals of the majority in consultation with Congress, Obama furthers his personal will with very little working with or even talking with anyone, which makes his executive orders a whole nother kettle of fish.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
Given the failure of the establishment to keep DC functioning, given the failing of America, given the loss of freedom that I have endured over my lifetime, given the failure of the world economy, given the failure of our foreign policy, given all the lies the elite have told the little people..... yes this is all it takes to get me to support something else...AKA TRUMP. I wish some members of the elite better able to run the Executive branch had smelled the coffee and run on something like Trumps argument, but none did, over a period of many years. We take what we can get.
Click to expand...

I just do not see the failures that you see. A large number (if not the overwhelming majority) of economic, social, and cultural indicators - both domestic and international - show that this time period is one of, if not the most, prosperous and peaceful times in human history. And that applies ESPECIALLY for the most powerful nation on Earth.

Hawkeye10 said:
I have talked at length about whether Trump will listen to subject matter experts, my conclusion is that he likely will.
Click to expand...

That was not my criticism. I want to know what leads you to believe Trump would have the patience or willpower to engage in a legislative process (after all, you said you believe that Trump respects our system of government) rather than the authoritarian and dictatorial process that he has used his entire career.

Hawkeye10 said:
Previous presidents have tended to use executive orders to further the goals of the majority in consultation with Congress, Obama furthers his personal will with very little working with or even talking with anyone, which makes his executive orders a whole nother kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

A) That is an extreme example of confirmation bias because I could list a thousand executive orders from previous Presidents that were not used to further "the goals of the majority in consultation with Congress." Seriously - almost by definition - executive orders are used because the President is unable to get the majority of Congress to agree and enact something.

B) Regardless of whether you want to change the qualification to some vague notion of the "substance" of his executive orders, the fact remains that President Obama used his status as "king" fewer times than any President since 1884.
 
I just do not see the failures that you see. A large number (if not the overwhelming majority) of economic, social, and cultural indicators - both domestic and international - show that this time period is one of, if not the most, prosperous and peaceful times in human history. And that applies ESPECIALLY for the most powerful nation on Earth. I have been gloom and doom for a lot of years, I was known as chicken little on my last stop. The failure of Europe, the Great Recession, and Obama almost completely failing to do what we sent him to Washington to do were on the long list of evidence that my outlook is reasonable.



That was not my criticism. I want to know what leads you to believe Trump would have the patience or willpower to engage in a legislative process (after all, you said you believe that Trump respects our system of government) rather than the authoritarian and dictatorial process that he has used his entire career. I think Trump has tons of patience when he has not made up his mind, but like all great leaders once he gets to this point he does not have patience unless he gets the idea that he might be wrong, which will normally happen because he fails and does not know why. You try to use it as a slam, but my take away is that this is one of the reasons I love the guy, and think we need him in the POTUS chair



A) That is an extreme example of confirmation bias because I could list a thousand executive orders from previous Presidents that were not used to further "the goals of the majority in consultation with Congress." Seriously - almost by definition - executive orders are used because the President is unable to get the majority of Congress to agree and enact something. Hopefully you are sloppy here, that you actually you know that more than a majority is needed because of how the rules of the bodies work. Past presidents have tended to use executive orders only when they have good reason to believe that the majority of AMERICANS support the action being taken, King Obama has never given a damn about that.

B) Regardless of whether you want to change the qualification to some vague notion of the "substance" of his executive orders, the fact remains that President Obama used his status as "king" fewer times than any President since 1884. I get that you are hung up on the number of events but that is only a fraction of the magnitude of how badly Presidents piss of the American people by handing out orders for the nation to follow, orders that I remind you are backed by the full force of the American Government.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
Trump has the first page, it starts with "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". That is all I need to know, we will deal with the rest when we come to it.
Click to expand...

So, you prefer catch phrases rather than actual substance?

Congrats on admitting just how shallow you are when it comes to electing a president.

That answer just makes you a stereotype, like someone that would say this: "He said he was gunna make 'murica grate again..that's all I need...none of them there plans or specifics....tell you whut"
 
beefheart said:
So, you prefer catch phrases rather than actual substance?

Congrats on admitting just how shallow you are when it comes to electing a president.

That answer just makes you a stereotype, like someone that would say this: "He said he was gunna make 'murica grate again..that's all I need...none of them there plans or specifics....tell you whut"
Click to expand...

Now compare your response to MrT's.

One I take seriously, one I dont.

Seriously.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Now compare your response to MrT's.

One I take seriously, one I dont.

Seriously.
Click to expand...

You are the one who said "make America great" is all you need.

If all you need is a slogan, then bless your heart....
 
beefheart said:
You are the one who said "make America great" is all you need.

If all you need is a slogan, then bless your heart....
Click to expand...

I said one page with the lead " Make America Great Again". If I want to have Idea what Don will do I read his books, I dont take literally this show called the POTUS Nomination Process, because Don has made it clear over and over again that what he says in his books is what he is all about. BTW I never said what else is on the page other than those four words, but you assumed on your old because you dont like Trump or the people who like trump that those four words are all he has on that page. Because we are stupid like that, according to you. You are so predictable, and small.

If I dont respond to you in the future it is because I decided that talking to you is not a good use of my time. I need to get what I want, which is new ideas, ideas well argued, and interesting people, which most of the time ends up being people not like me, because long ago I got acclimated to diversity and decided that I like it. You dont make the grade I am afraid.

Sorry.
 
MrT said:
It does have a bearing on whether you view my statements as honest. It is called confirmation bias.

The same applies to the "fear mongering" from my AGW threads.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. My position on Trump is irrelevant. YOU accused him of certain things, that means it is up to you to prove your accusations. You wont, of course, because you seem to have come down with that debilitating affliction that infects every liberal: Truthophobia. Now, you can be as dishonest as you like and I am equally free to point it out. But whether you are lying about Trump or lying about AGW only damages your credibility. Give honesty a shot once in a while. Itll be rough on you at first, but benefits will be well worth it.
 
MrT said:
What political argument is being made? This is a story about the economic impact of Trump's candidacy on his hotels.

And yes, the data is limited and subject to caveats like the one in the OP. And if contradictory evidence is put forth from a different source, then we will have reason to be skeptical of the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Love the concern by the Trump-haters, who are concerned for his business. Thanks, man. :lamo
 
Fletch said:
Wrong again. My position on Trump is irrelevant. YOU accused him of certain things, that means it is up to you to prove your accusations. You wont, of course, because you seem to have come down with that debilitating affliction that infects every liberal: Truthophobia. Now, you can be as dishonest as you like and I am equally free to point it out. But whether you are lying about Trump or lying about AGW only damages your credibility. Give honesty a shot once in a while. Itll be rough on you at first, but benefits will be well worth it.
Click to expand...

You do realize that my signature line carries the proof right? Each one of those accusations is a link that goes to a website where you can read, in detail, why I (and several others) have reached that conclusion.

But let me know if it's not enough and I'll find some more research for your education (or lack thereof).
 
Fletch said:
The lying is being done by people like you who continue to falsely claim that Trump engages in racism, sexism and xenophobia. Perhaps you might stick to the fearmongering falsehoods you peddle in the AGW threads
Click to expand...



Whoa, that's far too much of a reach. It is NOT lying to make not of the fact he is divisive and protagonistic toward Mexicans. You cannot deny he is a seriously deranged sexist.

Your use of "fear mongering" is so far from the real one might be tempted to worry about the speaker, but if ANYONE is FEAR MONGERING it's your buddy Donald, who intends to ban immigration for people's he hates.

So you calling a poster who has documented his claims a FEAR MONGER shows just how bigoted and dishonest are his followers as well as himself.

As for your suggestions on what other posters do, you can cram that where the sun never shines and face the truth. Donald Trump is a small person who needs to put down others in order to feel big.

But thanks for the post, it shows how shallow is the entire ****ing rolling clown show that is the Trump campaign.

"Get him outta here. Punch him out....I'll pay your legal bills!" Donald Trump - April 2016

That's the man you want to give the nuclear code.....
 
MrT said:
You do realize that my signature line carries the proof right? Each one of those accusations is a link that goes to a website where you can read, in detail, why I (and several others) have reached that conclusion.

But let me know if it's not enough and I'll find some more research for your education (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

You link to Huffpo, lol, didn't see that one coming. Perhaps you are confused as to where you are. This is a debate site. The competent dont let links do their arguing for them, but since that's all you got, we might as well go there. But please try to respond in your own words to what I write and if you cant, perhaps someone else can step in for you and you can go powder your nose.

Lets take the misogyny charge first. It seems to boil down to his spat with Megan Kelly. Apparently, he tweeted that she was a 'bimbo' and had some comment about 'blood coming out of wherever.' THIS is your evidence of Trumps "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women?" LOL Id say you cant be serious, but I know that you are. The word 'bimbo' is a sign of misogyny now? Really? So who was the misogynist in the Clinton White House who coined the term 'bimbo eruptions' to handle the women who came out to accuse philandering Willy? Was it misogynist when James Carville talked of dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park? And please, use the search function and go back a review any Palin thread and see the hatred and misogyny thrown at her by women loving leftists here at DP.

Here is the point: your links are dishonest liberal BS. Trump is many things; many of them bad, but your accusations against him are lies. I am sure I could go through and trash the rest of your links, but I don't feel like it. Your credibility on the issue is already garbage so there would be no point. BUt go ahead and cobble together the best reply you can and I will continue your education.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Whoa, that's far too much of a reach. It is NOT lying to make not of the fact he is divisive and protagonistic toward Mexicans. You cannot deny he is a seriously deranged sexist.
Click to expand...
I can deny it and will continue to do so until someone proves otherwise. You, like every other non-thinking liberal before you, simply posts the accusation as if its fact without posting the facts.

Your use of "fear mongering" is so far from the real one might be tempted to worry about the speaker, but if ANYONE is FEAR MONGERING it's your buddy Donald, who intends to ban immigration for people's he hates.
Click to expand...
Right. I used the term 'fear mongering' to describe his behavior on AGW threads, not this one. On this one, he is just peddling falsehoods. As are you.

So you calling a poster who has documented his claims a FEAR MONGER shows just how bigoted and dishonest are his followers as well as himself.
Click to expand...
See above.

As for your suggestions on what other posters do, you can cram that where the sun never shines and face the truth. Donald Trump is a small person who needs to put down others in order to feel big.
Click to expand...
I have not once argued otherwise. Perhaps you might actually know what you are talking about before typing.

But thanks for the post, it shows how shallow is the entire ****ing rolling clown show that is the Trump campaign.

"Get him outta here. Punch him out....I'll pay your legal bills!" Donald Trump - April 2016

That's the man you want to give the nuclear code.....
Click to expand...
I did not say I would vote for him, nor have I said he would make a good president. You are reading my objections to lies about him as support for him. There are plenty of legitimate reason to oppose the guy, but liberals would rather smear him with false accusations. That's how they operate on virtually every issue and I am just pointing it out.
 
Fletch said:
Here is the point: your links are dishonest liberal BS. Trump is many things; many of them bad, but your accusations against him are lies. I am sure I could go through and trash the rest of your links, but I don't feel like it. Your credibility on the issue is already garbage so there would be no point. BUt go ahead and cobble together the best reply you can and I will continue your education.
Click to expand...

Let's go ahead and address the difference between subjective and objective opinion considering that your claim of dishonesty requires that both have the exact same meaning. Subjective refers to a personal opinion of a particular topic that does not require, but can rely upon, empirical evidence. Objective refers to a statement that completely agrees with the empirical evidence. When an argument is made about something like misogyny or racism, then it - by definition - requires some subjective interpretation. So unless I am lying about my belief that he is misogynistic (and I am not), then to claim that the argument is dishonest is absolutely absurd.

Fletch said:
Lets take the misogyny charge first. It seems to boil down to his spat with Megan Kelly. Apparently, he tweeted that she was a 'bimbo' and had some comment about 'blood coming out of wherever.' THIS is your evidence of Trumps "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women?" LOL Id say you cant be serious, but I know that you are. The word 'bimbo' is a sign of misogyny now? Really? So who was the misogynist in the Clinton White House who coined the term 'bimbo eruptions' to handle the women who came out to accuse philandering Willy? Was it misogynist when James Carville talked of dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park? And please, use the search function and go back a review any Palin thread and see the hatred and misogyny thrown at her by women loving leftists here at DP.
Click to expand...

And now, let's address the objective side of the equation. The statements that you referenced were objectively stated by Trump, correct? You don't seem to attack the veracity of whether these statements were made - instead you try to dismiss the evidence because you disagree with the classification of the term "bimbo" from that context as misogynistic. That is a subjective interpretation and it is not one shared by a significant percentage of individuals. Trump's historically high unfavorability ratings with women should be at least some persuasive evidence of that fact.

And the other reason that you disagree with the label of misogyny is because of what? Some vague justification that others on the left have used misogynistic language? Yes, the term bimbo was misogynistic when it was used twenty ****ing years ago during the Clinton administration. And yes, James Carville was probably misogynistic when he talked of dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park (I have no ****ing idea because I don't remember the quote or its context). And yes, statements made against Sarah Palin were filled with hatred and misogyny. Who the **** cares? How in the hell is that a valid argument for why Trump's statements are not misogynistic. Are you really trying to rely on some notion that the usage is so part of the popular culture as to have lost its meaning when it is applied in a derogatory method against a journalist specifically because she is female and he wants to imply that she doesn't know how to perform her job?

Fletch said:
You link to Huffpo, lol, didn't see that one coming. Perhaps you are confused as to where you are. This is a debate site. The competent dont let links do their arguing for them, but since that's all you got, we might as well go there. But please try to respond in your own words to what I write and if you cant, perhaps someone else can step in for you and you can go powder your nose.
Click to expand...

The competent actually do use sources to back up their claims and opinions. But if you want me to cite to some other examples of Trump acting misogynistic, then here are a couple that come from the top of my head - as is, the entirety of my post.

Trump told a reporter that she only got her job because she was pretty.

Trump told a female contestant on The Apprentice that it would be a pretty sight to see her on her knees.

Trump said that he didn't want to give his wife certain items because that would qualify as assets for the woman.

Trump said that it is very difficult for a flat chested woman to be a 10.

Trump had beauty contestants line up - after they were booked for the competition and before they were judged by the actual judges - so that he could personally separate them into a hot and not group.

But please, go ahead and tell me why my interpretation of those statements and actions as "misogynistic" is "dishonest liberal bs."
 
Last edited:
MrT said:
Let's go ahead and address the difference between subjective and objective opinion considering that your claim of dishonesty requires that both have the exact same meaning. Subjective refers to a personal opinion of a particular topic that does not require, but can rely upon, empirical evidence. Objective refers to a statement that completely agrees with the empirical evidence. When an argument is made about something like misogyny or racism, then it - by definition - requires some subjective interpretation. So unless I am lying about my belief that he is misogynistic (and I am not), then to claim that the argument is dishonest is absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...
False. Misogyny has an objective definition not a subjective one. The objective definition is: a hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women. Nothing you have presented about Trump fits that objective definition. So, rather than take the honest approach and declare that no evidence of misogyny on Trumps part exists, you pretend that what is and is not misogyny now falls into the realm of the subjective. That's BS and if you don't know it, you should. I suspect you do which is why I refer to your position as dishonest. You cannot prove he is a misogynist, so you leave the realm of the objective and slither away into the land of the subjective where your lies and smears can flourish. Nice try.



And now, let's address the objective side of the equation. The statements that you referenced were objectively stated by Trump, correct? You don't seem to attack the veracity of whether these statements were made - instead you try to dismiss the evidence because you disagree with the classification of the term "bimbo" from that context as misogynistic. That is a subjective interpretation and it is not one shared by a significant percentage of individuals. .
Click to expand...
Here we enter the land of liberal make believe, where liberals make believe they have never uttered a word so horrible as 'bimbo.' Let me let you in on a little secret: referring to one woman as a bimbo =/= believing all women are bimbos. Yes he called someone a fat pig; yes he called someone a bimbo. Oh noes!!! He must hate all women. That conclusion--you know, the one you are drawing--is either incredibly stupid or dishonest. I think you are being dishonest, but the more you talk, the more the former becomes a distinct possibility.

Yes, the term bimbo was misogynistic when it was used twenty ****ing years ago during the Clinton administration. And yes, James Carville was probably misogynistic when he talked of dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park (I have no ****ing idea because I don't remember the quote or its context). And yes, statements made against Sarah Palin were filled with hatred and misogyny. . Are you really trying to rely on some notion that the usage is so part of the popular culture as to have lost its meaning when it is applied in a derogatory method against a journalist specifically because she is female and he wants to imply that she doesn't know how to perform her job?
Click to expand...
No one ever referred to any of those as misogynistic before. Why? Because they weren't. Leftist pigs said hateful things about Palin because they are hate filled leftist pigs, not because they are misogynists. They hated HER, not all women.
 
Trump told a reporter that she only got her job because she was pretty.
Click to expand...
He was being insulting. Maybe you are to busy hiding under your bed in fear of AGW to pay attention to what is going on, but Trump attacks personally anyone who disagrees with him. He attacked Rubio for being short and sweating too much. Does he hate men? No. He attacked Rand Paul for his looks. Does he hate men? NO. He attacked Kasich for the way he eats. Does he hate men? No. He called Megan Kelly a bimbo. AHA!! cries the ignorant liberal--Trump hates women. Trump, if you actually stopped for a moment to think about it, is an equal opportunity offender. He treats women as liberals always say men should treat women, as equals. He is every bit as harsh to women as he is to men and liberals whine. Go figure.

Trump told a female contestant on The Apprentice that it would be a pretty sight to see her on her knees.
Click to expand...
I saw that episode. It was a joke. But you go right ahead and pretend you have never said or thought such a thing, then tell me again how honest you are.

Trump said that he didn't want to give his wife certain items because that would qualify as assets for the woman.
Click to expand...
I don't know what that means.

Trump said that it is very difficult for a flat chested woman to be a 10.
Click to expand...
Hes right. Am I a misogynist too now? Or are you just not getting it? What is a 10? What is a 10 a measurement of? Let me answer for you since you clearly don't know--it is a measure of physical perfection. A 10 would have a perfect figure. A flat chest on a woman is not a perfect figure, so Trump is right and any thinking human being knows he is right. Which probably explains why liberals don't get it.

Trump had beauty contestants line up - after they were booked for the competition and before they were judged by the actual judges - so that he could personally separate them into a hot and not group.
Click to expand...
So what? Is he not allowed to judge? When you watch a beauty contest do you not do the same thing as the women of the fifty states are shown? Seriously dude, whats wrong with you?
 
Fletch said:
False. Misogyny has an objective definition not a subjective one. The objective definition is: a hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women. Nothing you have presented about Trump fits that objective definition. So, rather than take the honest approach and declare that no evidence of misogyny on Trumps part exists, you pretend that what is and is not misogyny now falls into the realm of the subjective. That's BS and if you don't know it, you should. I suspect you do which is why I refer to your position as dishonest. You cannot prove he is a misogynist, so you leave the realm of the objective and slither away into the land of the subjective where your lies and smears can flourish. Nice try.

Let me let you in on a little secret: referring to one woman as a bimbo =/= believing all women are bimbos. Yes he called someone a fat pig; yes he called someone a bimbo. Oh noes!!! He must hate all women.
Click to expand...

Misogyny has an objective definition, but deciding that someone has a hatred, dislike or mistrust of a demographic group does require a subjective interpretation. You are correct to note that I cannot prove that he is a misogynist. And that is because I am not Donald Trump. I am left to interpret his words and deeds. And when your words and deeds are directed against enough individuals of a particular demographic for reasons that go beyond a mere description of who they and their particular characteristics, then you raise yourself to the level of the label.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. You would probably agree that Hillary is corrupt or a liar, right? But what if I responded by saying that the instances you cite as examples for why Hillary is corrupt and/or a liar are singular instances that applied to that particular situation. And thus, because you are unable to prove that she applies the same to all situations, you have not proven Hillary to be corrupt and/or a liar.

I really don't understand this defense. You are presented with multiple instances of someone acting in a misogynistic manner, but because he didn't apply those statements or actions to all females, you believe it is inaccurate to call him a misogynist? Would you feel better if I left the accusation as he is making statements and performing deeds that are misogynistic in nature?

Fletch said:
Here we enter the land of liberal make believe, where liberals make believe they have never uttered a word so horrible as 'bimbo.' No one ever referred to any of those as misogynistic before. Why? Because they weren't. Leftist pigs said hateful things about Palin because they are hate filled leftist pigs, not because they are misogynists. They hated HER, not all women.
Click to expand...

First, I explicitly agreed with you that leftist have uttered a word so horrible as "bimbo" and that they were misogynistic for making that statement. Second, you are absolutely wrong to believe that no one believed those uses were misogynistic. I would go ahead and try to find a particular citation, but you are just as likely to dismiss the evidence as evidence of more "liberal dishonesty." Let me know if I am wrong in that assumption and I will go ahead and present evidence of someone fighting back against those attacks as misogynistic.

But before I do, let me ask you this: You brought up those examples of leftists because of what? Did you really and truly just ask them as an ironic example of where someone could have accused them of misogyny (but would have been wrong to do so) or did you bring them up because you wanted to illustrate hypocrisy?
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
He was being insulting. Maybe you are to busy hiding under your bed in fear of AGW to pay attention to what is going on, but Trump attacks personally anyone who disagrees with him. He attacked Rubio for being short and sweating too much. Does he hate men? No. He attacked Rand Paul for his looks. Does he hate men? NO. He attacked Kasich for the way he eats. Does he hate men? No. He called Megan Kelly a bimbo. AHA!! cries the ignorant liberal--Trump hates women. Trump, if you actually stopped for a moment to think about it, is an equal opportunity offender. He treats women as liberals always say men should treat women, as equals. He is every bit as harsh to women as he is to men and liberals whine. Go figure.

I saw that episode. It was a joke. But you go right ahead and pretend you have never said or thought such a thing, then tell me again how honest you are.

I don't know what that means.

Hes right. Am I a misogynist too now? Or are you just not getting it? What is a 10? What is a 10 a measurement of? Let me answer for you since you clearly don't know--it is a measure of physical perfection. A 10 would have a perfect figure. A flat chest on a woman is not a perfect figure, so Trump is right and any thinking human being knows he is right. Which probably explains why liberals don't get it.

So what? Is he not allowed to judge? When you watch a beauty contest do you not do the same thing as the women of the fifty states are shown? Seriously dude, whats wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing Christ. The amount of rationalization and normalization going on here.

Seriously dude, what is wrong with you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom