The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
Ah.... The Federalist. More garbage from the folks who brought us Tully Borland's impassioned defense of Roy Moore's right to molest children. Of course you are a subscriber!
Apparently someone likes to lump folks into narrow stereotypes like any run of the mill racist.
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.
Putting aside, for the moment, her spiritual hygiene apocalypse on the Pope Francis thread, by supporting Donald Trump mtierney is LITERALLY supporting a man with dozens of credible sexual harassment accusations, a man who bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, a man who cruised the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants perving on underage bare breasts. It doesn't get any simpler or more plain than that.
Klinker said:lord_pabulum said:Klinker said:
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.
Putting aside, for the moment, her spiritual hygiene apocalypse on the Pope Francis thread, by supporting Donald Trump mtierney is LITERALLY supporting a man with dozens of credible sexual harassment accusations, a man who bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, a man who cruised the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants perving on underage bare breasts. It doesn't get any simpler or more plain than that.
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
lord_pabulum said:
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
Not the strongest defense of people who support Trump and Moore and predatory priests--like mtierney--but if it's the best you can do...
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
Not the strongest defense of people who support Trump and Moore and predatory priests--like mtierney--but if it's the best you can do...
I think being pro-slavery is pretty bad
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
Not the strongest defense of people who support Trump and Moore and predatory priests--like mtierney--but if it's the best you can do...
I think being pro-slavery is pretty bad
Golly, that's a good point!
That's a self-refuting argument.
Klinker argues "Trump IS ..."
Your attempt to find fault argues, "The Democratic Party WAS ..."
That's not analogous, so your argument is refuted as written.
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.
Putting aside, for the moment, her spiritual hygiene apocalypse on the Pope Francis thread, by supporting Donald Trump mtierney is LITERALLY supporting a man with dozens of credible sexual harassment accusations, a man who bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, a man who cruised the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants perving on underage bare breasts. It doesn't get any simpler or more plain than that.
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
South_Mountaineer said:
That's a self-refuting argument.
Klinker argues "Trump IS ..."
Your attempt to find fault argues, "The Democratic Party WAS ..."
That's not analogous, so your argument is refuted as written.
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.
Putting aside, for the moment, her spiritual hygiene apocalypse on the Pope Francis thread, by supporting Donald Trump mtierney is LITERALLY supporting a man with dozens of credible sexual harassment accusations, a man who bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, a man who cruised the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants perving on underage bare breasts. It doesn't get any simpler or more plain than that.
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
I haven't seen Trump is, but I don't disagree Trump was
No, he's same as he ever was, unless you have some info that doesn't make your reply seem lame.
lord_pabulum said:
South_Mountaineer said:
That's a self-refuting argument.
Klinker argues "Trump IS ..."
Your attempt to find fault argues, "The Democratic Party WAS ..."
That's not analogous, so your argument is refuted as written.
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.
Putting aside, for the moment, her spiritual hygiene apocalypse on the Pope Francis thread, by supporting Donald Trump mtierney is LITERALLY supporting a man with dozens of credible sexual harassment accusations, a man who bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, a man who cruised the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants perving on underage bare breasts. It doesn't get any simpler or more plain than that.
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
I haven't seen Trump is, but I don't disagree Trump was
I believe you are the one making the claim - it is you who needs to provide some info.
South_Mountaineer said:
No, he's same as he ever was, unless you have some info that doesn't make your reply seem lame.
lord_pabulum said:
South_Mountaineer said:
That's a self-refuting argument.
Klinker argues "Trump IS ..."
Your attempt to find fault argues, "The Democratic Party WAS ..."
That's not analogous, so your argument is refuted as written.
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
lord_pabulum said:
Klinker said:
Nope. Just don't like sexual predators and the folks that support them. Surely this is cause we around which we can all rally.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.
Putting aside, for the moment, her spiritual hygiene apocalypse on the Pope Francis thread, by supporting Donald Trump mtierney is LITERALLY supporting a man with dozens of credible sexual harassment accusations, a man who bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, a man who cruised the dressing rooms of his teen beauty pageants perving on underage bare breasts. It doesn't get any simpler or more plain than that.
Ok, and the Democratic party was pro-slavery so anybody who supports the Democratic party is pro-slavery
I haven't seen Trump is, but I don't disagree Trump was
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
I would consider his obscene remarks toward Mika Brzezinski and the Irish reporter--to name two that come immediately to mind--as harassment.
But I imagine we have different standards of conduct.
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
I would consider his obscene remarks toward Mika Brzezinski and the Irish reporter--to name two that come immediately to mind--as harassment.
But I imagine we have different standards of conduct.
If you are talking about Trump's tweets about Mika from June 29th I don't consider it harassment. Juvenile yes.
He was a sexual harrasser, but mirabile dictu he no longer is.
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
meanwhile, a break from English class...
Lord Pablum stole his rhetorical cookbook from some drunken Holocaust denier. Ethical nihilism may be your beverage of choice but don't expect people to respect you when you barf it up all over the thread.
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
South_Mountaineer said:
He was a sexual harrasser, but mirabile dictu he no longer is.
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
lord_pabulum said:
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
South_Mountaineer said:
He was a sexual harrasser, but mirabile dictu he no longer is.
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
This line of argument exists only on the juggalo plane.
lord_pabulum said:
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
There's a fine line between clever and stupid.
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
There's a fine line between clever and stupid.
Yes, in Klinker's opinion all Republicans support sexual predators. A fine line between clever and stupid indeed.
lord_pabulum said:
Yes, in Klinker's opinion all Republicans support sexual predators. A fine line between clever and stupid indeed.
Meanwhile, they are sticking by Steve Wynn so far.
Except for added facts like a bloody Civil War, some Constitutional amendments, and the passing of over 100 years, it's just like how Trump "used to be" a sexual harrasser.
lord_pabulum said:
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
South_Mountaineer said:
He was a sexual harrasser, but mirabile dictu he no longer is.
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
Yes, and posters will continue to think all Republicans support sexual predators because Trump "used to be" a sexual harrasser. Yet I haven't seen any posts from folks who believe all Democrats are pro-slavery. Both opinions are naive.
South_Mountaineer said:
Except for added facts like a bloody Civil War, some Constitutional amendments, and the passing of over 100 years, it's just like how Trump "used to be" a sexual harrasser.
lord_pabulum said:
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
South_Mountaineer said:
He was a sexual harrasser, but mirabile dictu he no longer is.
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:
LP is arguing that Trump is no longer sexist?
Does being sexist equate to being a sexual harasser?
Not necessarily. So you are arguing that he's no longer a sexual harasser?
Yes - until I see evidence to the contrary
lord_pabulum said:
Democrats were pro-slavery, now the're not
Your argument would carry more weight if those were living Democrat's that you were talking about.
The current Dem's are no more the party of Jefferson than the current Repuglicans are the party of Lincoln.
lord_pabulum said:
Yes, and posters will continue to think all Republicans support sexual predators because Trump "used to be" a sexual harrasser. Yet I haven't seen any posts from folks who believe all Democrats are pro-slavery. Both opinions are naive.
I no several Republicans who do not support Trump. Those who do support Trump are, again, LITERALLY supporting a sexual predator.
Yes indeed. I don't think mtierney supports sexual predators just by being a Republican though.