• 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!

[W:141]George Conway: Trump is a cancer on the presidency. Congress should remove him.

ocean515 said:
Have I considered they have a strong marriage? Of course. They appear to still be together.

But you seem to really be needing to miss the point and excuse the action by this gelded little man.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

You mean the point that you seem to think her husband should sit down and shut up because you feel like poor KAC is being victimized? IMO the woman is strong enough to tow her own line without your condolences. And her husband has a right to voice his opinion about the POTUS. As someone said earlier they probably both laugh their way to the bank because they know their marriage far better than you or I do.
 
cabse5 said:
Conway is a true Conservative. A true neocon. A true Never-Trumper. He isn't a true conservative.
Click to expand...

George Conway's tweets are reverberating in a way that has not much at all to do with his wife and are seen as rebuking the silence of his fellow Federalist Society members—the elite, conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give Trump a pass on his breaches of long-cherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The Federalist Society has signed a deal with the devil. They let Trump get away with too much on the rule-of-law front. Having some big-name conservative lawyers rebuking Trump could have made a difference. But they haven't and their silence is being taken as acquiescence.
 
HumblePi said:
George Conway's tweets are reverberating in a way that has not much at all to do with his wife and are seen as rebuking the silence of his fellow Federalist Society members—the elite, conservative lawyers who have generally chosen to give Trump a pass on his breaches of long-cherished legal norms and traditions in exchange for the gift of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The Federalist Society has signed a deal with the devil. They let Trump get away with too much on the rule-of-law front. Having some big-name conservative lawyers rebuking Trump could have made a difference. But they haven't and their silence is being taken as acquiescence.
Click to expand...

Exactly so.
 
SkyFox76 said:
You mean the point that you seem to think her husband should sit down and shut up because you feel like poor KAC is being victimized? IMO the woman is strong enough to tow her own line without your condolences. And her husband has a right to voice his opinion about the POTUS. As someone said earlier they probably both laugh their way to the bank because they know their marriage far better than you or I do.
Click to expand...

Nice fail.

I don't think KAC is a victim. I get radical liberals don't believe they exist, but strong, successful women are not the victim type.

I think her gelded man child husband is a misogynist ass. I think the fact liberals think KAC should get permission from her husband on who to work for, or suffer the consequences, is all rational people need to know to understand about Progressivism and the people inside it's tentacles.
 
ashurbanipal said:
So, where did liberals say that?
Click to expand...

Implied in this thread. One of the misogynists applauding the gelded man child wrote that KAC should show have shown more respect for her husband when accepting the job. Of course, the same types have also commented on her looks.

Anything else? I think it's been firmly established here that liberals see unapproved female humans as fair game for attack, and that husbands who insult and disrespect these type of women are justified in doing so.
 
ocean515 said:
Implied in this thread. One of the misogynists applauding the gelded man child wrote that KAC should show have shown more respect for her husband when accepting the job.
Click to expand...

The only person saying anything remotely like that in this thread began with "as a professed Christian..." and then alluded to (presumably) Ephesians 5:23. Hardly a liberal or progressive move--that is, you won't see very many liberals justifying some ethical rule on the basis of the Bible. That said, the poster made an interesting point, which is that the professed moral code of Christians implies that KellyAnne should have sought such permission, and as a Christian herself, KellyAnne seems to be in violation of her own code--a code that liberals themselves do not support.

I've read the entire thread. I don't see a single liberal or progressive saying that KellyAnne should have sought her husband's permission before working for Trump.

Feel free to at least give us a post number if you think otherwise; until then, there is no reason to believe your claim here, and hence no reason to think you're right about anything (not that such was ever in much doubt).

ocean515 said:
Of course, the same types have also commented on her looks.
Click to expand...

I saw that post; you have missed its point, which is that doing work that is morally corrupting usually ages a person prematurely. The claim was that such is the case with KellyAnne.


ocean515 said:
Anything else?
Click to expand...

Tons, but you need to clear this hurdle first: show us where a liberal has said that KellyAnne had to seek permission for her husband before accepting her current job, or alternately, the general principle that a woman must seek permission from her husband before seeking any job.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The only person saying anything remotely like that in this thread began with "as a professed Christian..." and then alluded to (presumably) Ephesians 5:23. Hardly a liberal or progressive move. I've read the entire thread. I don't see a single liberal or progressive saying that KellyAnne should have sought her husband's permission before working for Trump.

Feel free to at least give us a post number if you think otherwise; until then, there is no reason to believe your claim here, and hence no reason to think you're right about anything (not that such was ever in much doubt).



I saw that post; you have missed its point, which is that doing work that is morally corrupting usually ages a person prematurely. The claim was that such is the case with KellyAnne.




Tons, but you need to clear this hurdle first: show us where a liberal has said that KellyAnne had to seek permission for her husband before accepting her current job, or alternately, the general principle that a woman must seek permission from her husband before seeking any job.
Click to expand...

Already did.

Anything else? You understand I couldn't care less about hurdles put up by people who think it's ok to attack and insult women?
 
ocean515 said:
Already did.
Click to expand...

No, you did not. To do so, you'd need to at least provide a post number in which your claim is supported. You instead wrote:

Implied in this thread. One of the misogynists applauding the gelded man child wrote that KAC should show have shown more respect for her husband when accepting the job.
Click to expand...

No post number. No evidence whatsoever that a liberal wrote anything like what you're claiming.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, you did not. To do so, you'd need to at least provide a post number in which your claim is supported. You instead wrote:



No post number. No evidence whatsoever that a liberal wrote anything like what you're claiming.
Click to expand...

And no evidence from you that they didn't. This thread is peppered with responses from Progressives who have freaked out because they have been called out for their hypocrisy and support of the gelded little man's statements.

A women went out of her way to thank me for what I have been writing.

In the end, what would motivate me to spend any time and effort to meet the demands of people who support the blatant disrespect Progressives have for women they see as unapproved humans because they don't bow to the Progressive agenda?

But because I am an honest and sympathetic person, I will post a couple of examples.


"there's no reason he should blindly and meekly support her politics just because they are married-" Post #121

"Rubbish; the man clearly has a mind of his own and isn't shirking from expressing himself. If he thinks his wife's boss is a cretin, he has every right to say so. If his wife insists on committing long-term career suicide that's entirely on her" Post #112

"Maybe she's just been a giant embarrassment to him with her blatant lies for two years. It seems that at least one lawyer in the family has some integrity, and it's not Kellyanne." Post #20​


There are many more examples, but it's not worth spending any more time posting them.

I really have little respect for those applauding the gelded little mans actions and complete disrespect for his wife specifically, and the choices successful independent capable women in general make for themselves, so the motivation to do more is nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
Here are the two claims I asked you to support, and which the examples you posted are supposed to support:

ocean515 said:
I think the fact liberals think KAC should get permission from her husband on who to work for, or suffer the consequences
Click to expand...

ocean515 said:
One of the misogynists applauding the gelded man child wrote that KAC should show have shown more respect for her husband when accepting the job.
Click to expand...

Here are the examples you use to support those claims:

ocean515 said:
1. "there's no reason he should blindly and meekly support her politics just because they are married-" Post #121

2. "Rubbish; the man clearly has a mind of his own and isn't shirking from expressing himself. If he thinks his wife's boss is a cretin, he has every right to say so. If his wife insists on committing long-term career suicide that's entirely on her" Post #112

3. "Maybe she's just been a giant embarrassment to him with her blatant lies for two years. It seems that at least one lawyer in the family has some integrity, and it's not Kellyanne." Post #20
Click to expand...

None of those examples support either of your claims. Each of these three examples is logically consistent with the claim that (A) KellyAnne is under no obligation to seek her husband's approval before accepting a job. Each of these three examples is logically consistent with the claim that (B) George Conway respects his wife. Each of these three examples is logically consistent with the claim that (C) George Conway is not a misogynist, is not envious of his wife's success, etc. etc. That is, a person may logically believe any of 1-3, and any of A-C.

ocean515 said:
And no evidence from you that they didn't.
Click to expand...

Two points:

1. It's not up to me to show that the negation of your claims are true. It's up to you to establish your claims. The burden of evidence is on you. Standard rules of debate places it there.

2. The entire thread is evidence that they didn't.

ocean515 said:
In the end, what would motivate me to spend any time and effort to meet the demands of people who support the blatant disrespect Progressives have for women they see as unapproved humans because they don't bow to the Progressive agenda?
Click to expand...

What should motivate you are the simple rules of debate--you have to support your premises, and if you cannot (or just don't) no one should believe what you have to say.

ocean515 said:
I really have little respect for those applauding the gelded little mans actions and complete disrespect for his wife specifically, and the choices successful independent capable women in general make for themselves, so the motivation to do more is nonexistent.
Click to expand...

Your lack of respect is obvious; the question is whether such lack of respect is warranted. It clearly is not warranted.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Here are the two claims I asked you to support, and which the examples you posted are supposed to support:





Here are the examples you use to support those claims:



None of those examples support either of your claims. Each of these three examples is logically consistent with the claim that (A) KellyAnne is under no obligation to seek her husband's approval before accepting a job. Each of these three examples is logically consistent with the claim that (B) George Conway respects his wife. Each of these three examples is logically consistent with the claim that (C) George Conway is not a misogynist, is not envious of his wife's success, etc. etc. That is, a person may logically believe any of 1-3, and any of A-C.



Two points:

1. It's not up to me to show that the negation of your claims are true. It's up to you to establish your claims. The burden of evidence is on you. Standard rules of debate places it there.

2. The entire thread is evidence that they didn't.



What should motivate you are the simple rules of debate--you have to support your premises, and if you cannot (or just don't) no one should believe what you have to say.



Your lack of respect is obvious; the question is whether such lack of respect is warranted. It clearly is not warranted.
Click to expand...


I appear to have triggered you with facts and my opinion. I couldn't care less about your opinion about whether I've shown respect or not.

The gelded little man is a good example of the misogynistic attitudes that are so prevalent on the left. Toe the line, or be destroyed.
 
ocean515 said:
I appear to have triggered you with facts and my opinion. I couldn't care less about your opinion about whether I've shown respect or not.

The gelded little man is a good example of the misogynistic attitudes that are so prevalent on the left. Toe the line, or be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Now you're merely dodging, or attempting to dodge, your epistemic responsibilities. Your claims are nonsense, and you know it. Feel free, as I have remarked many times before, to actually start debating, rather than tossing off a bunch of insults and insisting that anyone who disagrees with you must be similarly worthy of insults. Until you can muster even the most basic of cognitive powers, your views are clearly incoherent, unwarranted, and insulting. Frankly, I don't think you're capable of debating...but again, feel free to prove me wrong.
 
ocean515 said:
Nice fail.

I don't think KAC is a victim. I get radical liberals don't believe they exist, but strong, successful women are not the victim type.

I think her gelded man child husband is a misogynist ass. I think the fact liberals think KAC should get permission from her husband on who to work for, or suffer the consequences, is all rational people need to know to understand about Progressivism and the people inside it's tentacles.
Click to expand...

Talk about "nice fail".

Let me say for a third time KAC appears to be a strong woman who can handle her own situations. Nowhere have I seen anyone (liberal or otherwise) suggest she needs permission to work under DJT or suffer the consequences. There are couples all around this country who's jobs aren't a bed of roses but they see the salary far outweighing any negatives. It just so happens this couple is under a spotlight where others aren't.

I was reading last night they live in a 8 million dollar home. That's a lot of house to laugh in at the end of the day. And I think at this point it's pretty clear who would kick her to the curb if she stopped singing alternative facts. And it's not her husband. ;)

Send her a sympathy card and brighten her miserable day!
 
ocean515 said:
And no evidence from you that they didn't. This thread is peppered with responses from Progressives who have freaked out because they have been called out for their hypocrisy and support of the gelded little man's statements.

A women went out of her way to thank me for what I have been writing.

In the end, what would motivate me to spend any time and effort to meet the demands of people who support the blatant disrespect Progressives have for women they see as unapproved humans because they don't bow to the Progressive agenda?

But because I am an honest and sympathetic person, I will post a couple of examples.


"there's no reason he should blindly and meekly support her politics just because they are married-" Post #121

"Rubbish; the man clearly has a mind of his own and isn't shirking from expressing himself. If he thinks his wife's boss is a cretin, he has every right to say so. If his wife insists on committing long-term career suicide that's entirely on her" Post #112

"Maybe she's just been a giant embarrassment to him with her blatant lies for two years. It seems that at least one lawyer in the family has some integrity, and it's not Kellyanne." Post #20​


There are many more examples, but it's not worth spending any more time posting them.

I really have little respect for those applauding the gelded little mans actions and complete disrespect for his wife specifically, and the choices successful independent capable women in general make for themselves, so the motivation to do more is nonexistent.
Click to expand...

It's not up to him to prove your claims don't exist.

And your examples here don't support your claims. I agree he shouldn't have to sit down and shut up because of his wife's employment. And as far as career suicide? That's been said about many working for this administration. They have all made the choice, where it lands them down the road time will tell. Your last example says nothing in the way of your claim. Heck, even I was embarrassed by her alternative facts statement and I was a supporter at the time.

I'll also add here that yes, in recent pictures and interviews she's looking worn out. I said the same thing about Spicey shortly before he packed his bags. SHS seems to be holding her own, but her time could catch up as well. People tend to age quicker under extreme stress, but again that's their choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom