Stormy Sues Trump

 oh oh I like people who despise Trump more than stereotyping.



RealityForAll said:

Sounds like your version of "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."   IMHO, this comfort/afflicted phrase is part of the left's stereotype portraying rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis).   I have included a link from Reason magazine which shows an example of the other side of story.  See http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/29/myth-of-the-evil-rich  The focus of this article seems much more praiseworthy than Trump. 


Not at all.  I just find it objectionable when people call Stormy Daniels a gold digger.  If she is a gold digger, then I don't have the words to describe Trump.


Hey now!


dave23 said:



RealityForAll said:

PPS I despise DJT but I despise stereotyping even more.


Sure you do.
RealityForAll said:

 IMHO, this comfort/afflicted phrase is part of the left's stereotype portraying rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis).  




RealityForAll said:

Sounds like your version of "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."   IMHO, this comfort/afflicted phrase is part of the left's stereotype portraying rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis).  

I believe there was a time when this was a Christian view.  I haven't been keeping up. Is the Left now Christian?



dave23 said:



RealityForAll said:

PPS I despise DJT but I despise stereotyping even more.


Sure you do.
RealityForAll said:

 IMHO, this comfort/afflicted phrase is part of the left's stereotype portraying rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis).  

Thank goodness the rich finally have an advocate.  Their suffering is so often overlooked.


Trump will deny this forever - what is holding Stormy's team back from revealing their evidence?  What is on the DVD?


hmm, I'd like to hear your argument that this isn't true.


RealityForAll said:

Sounds like your version of "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."   IMHO, this comfort/afflicted phrase is part of the left's stereotype portraying rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis).  


back to topic, I think Trump is afraid that Stormy will let the nation know about the size of Trump's, um, hands.


DB, are you asking for an argument from me regarding my view that the: 

"left's stereotype portray[s] . . . rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis)."

I am happy to oblige if that is what you are after.

drummerboy said:

hmm, I'd like to hear your argument that this isn't true.


RealityForAll said:

Sounds like your version of "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."   IMHO, this comfort/afflicted phrase is part of the left's stereotype portraying rich people as parasites who take from other people (zero sum game analysis).  



You despise stereotyping, except when you stereotype "the left."


If you were a Trump fan, you've seen what we've all seen for the last 1+ year.
Check which you would do:

__ Admit you were wrong to vote for a raving idiot, who's being investigated for treason w/Russia, while not keeping any of his campaign promises, as he's getting outsmarted by a porn star and her lawyer after cheating on his wife and newborn son, while a solid majority of your fellow citizens [Dems + Independents] mock, sneer, and laugh at him -- and at you.

__ Double down and refuse to admit you were wrong [until he resigns in disgrace, when you pretend you never voted for him]


Most people find it hard to admit that they were snookered and even harder when they are being ridiculed because they were snookered.

Having said that, social conservatives are happy because they have a President who will appoint judges selected by Mike Pence.

White supremacists are happy because the White House is now the White Supremacy House.

Nevertheless, if Democrats are moderately pragmatic and do things like return to their blue collar roots, they stand to do very well in November. 


Trump supporters are happy that taxes have been lowered, regulations repealed and "conservative" Judges appointed. 

We "on the left" should ask ourselves if a President as personally despicable as Trump pushed through universal health insurance, promulgated regulations to seriously reduce global warming and replaced Scalia with a "liberal" Judge what would be our reaction?



LOST said:

Trump supporters are happy that taxes have been lowered, regulations repealed and "conservative" Judges appointed. 

We "on the left" should ask ourselves if a President as personally despicable as Trump pushed through universal health insurance, promulgated regulations to seriously reduce global warming and replaced Scalia with a "liberal" Judge what would be our reaction?



It’s not quite that simple. He (Trump or your hypothetical lefty equivalent) could do something(s) I like and still be a despicable pig. I’ve said from the very start that if Trump would somehow manage to get a meaningful infrastructure package pushed through, as he’s claimed he would, I could get behind that 100%. But it still wouldn’t change my view that he’s unfit for the office of the President and an embarrassment to our nation. 


To me, character "trumps" ideology so I would be a neverTrump even if he tried to get the Democratic nomination.  I just don't don't think the Democratic vibe appeals to mean narcissists like Trump so its a less likely scenario.

If Trump accomplishes something with North Korea and/or wins significant concessions from China re trade, credit will have to be given.

  

BrickPig said:




LOST said:

Trump supporters are happy that taxes have been lowered, regulations repealed and "conservative" Judges appointed. 

We "on the left" should ask ourselves if a President as personally despicable as Trump pushed through universal health insurance, promulgated regulations to seriously reduce global warming and replaced Scalia with a "liberal" Judge what would be our reaction?







It’s not quite that simple. He (Trump or your hypothetical lefty equivalent) could do something(s) I like and still be a despicable pig. I’ve said from the very start that if Trump would somehow manage to get a meaningful infrastructure package pushed through, as he’s claimed he would, I could get behind that 100%. But it still wouldn’t change my view that he’s unfit for the office of the President and an embarrassment to our nation. 




tjohn said:

 I just find it objectionable when people call Stormy Daniels a gold digger.  If she is a gold digger, then I don't have the words to describe Trump.

All the gold in the world wouldn't have been worth it.   grrr 


well, that presupposes that a person as despicable as Trump who pushed progressive ideas would ever get elected. You'd be dealing with a very different pool of voters, and I freaking hope that their progressive outlook is sufficient to prevent them from voting for a Trump, regardless of his stand on the issues.





LOST said:

Trump supporters are happy that taxes have been lowered, regulations repealed and "conservative" Judges appointed. 

We "on the left" should ask ourselves if a President as personally despicable as Trump pushed through universal health insurance, promulgated regulations to seriously reduce global warming and replaced Scalia with a "liberal" Judge what would be our reaction?



drummerboy said:

well, that presupposes that a person as despicable as Trump who pushed progressive ideas would ever get elected. You'd be dealing with a very different pool of voters, and I freaking hope that their progressive outlook is sufficient to prevent them from voting for a Trump, regardless of his stand on the issues.











LOST said:

Trump supporters are happy that taxes have been lowered, regulations repealed and "conservative" Judges appointed. 

We "on the left" should ask ourselves if a President as personally despicable as Trump pushed through universal health insurance, promulgated regulations to seriously reduce global warming and replaced Scalia with a "liberal" Judge what would be our reaction?

The right already had that president and it was Obama.

President Hillary Clinton would be multiple times worse.


My question was not directed to the Right. Their view of Obama or Clinton is not relevant.



Who would support the candidacy of Anthony Weiner if the only other choice was a personally decent person with a "conservative" point of view?


Actually, Trump won by defeating the political establishment.  If he was able to articulate and implement a coherent populist vision, he would be mopping the floor with Democrats and Republicans alike and a strong majority wouldn't pay any attention to his personal failings.


again, I must point out that Trump "won" because of the electoral college. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.

tjohn said:

Actually, Trump won by defeating the political establishment.  If he was able to articulate and implement a coherent populist vision, he would be mopping the floor with Democrats and Republicans alike and a strong majority wouldn't pay any attention to his personal failings.




drummerboy said:

again, I must point out that Trump "won" because of the electoral college. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.

It's still worthwhile figuring out how he got as many votes as he got.



well, maybe, but I think, on one level, it's pretty simple.

His nuttiness made him stand out among in the Republican primaries, and with 15 opponents who all looked the same, it was not remarkable that he won the primaries. Unexpected perhaps, but not remarkable.

After the nomination (which, if you ask me, was a far more important result than the general election), it's a crapshoot. Every Dem and Rep candidate starts with 45%. The fight is for the morons in the middle (sorry. I can't think of those voters as anything other than the most uninformed voters in the country, which they are.)

So, if you're going analyze the voting behavior in the 2016 election, you'd do best to focus on this middle group of voters - though I think it's sort of a lost cause. E.g.,When you're faced with an Obama-to-Trump voter, I defy anyone to come up with the logic that leads from O to T.

Everyone likes to have a pat answer for how Trump won, so they glom on to whatever one floats their boat.  (Even me I guess, though I think my argument stands up to scrutiny since it's pretty basic.) The fact is, it will take years of study to figure out what happened and why.

But the proximate reasons why he won are a) Jim Comey and 2) the E.C. Couldn't do one without the other. Every other explanation pretends to knowledge that it doesn't have.



Tom_Reingold said:



drummerboy said:

again, I must point out that Trump "won" because of the electoral college. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.


It's still worthwhile figuring out how he got as many votes as he got.




drummerboy said:

again, I must point out that Trump "won" because of the electoral college. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.

tjohn said:

Actually, Trump won by defeating the political establishment.  If he was able to articulate and implement a coherent populist vision, he would be mopping the floor with Democrats and Republicans alike and a strong majority wouldn't pay any attention to his personal failings.

Our electoral system is what it is.  Clinton lost because she sucks as a candidate.  She is smug, condescending and elitist.  She needs to ride off into the sunset NOW so as to avoid causing further damage to the Democratic Party.

I could think of a lot of ways in which she could have won.  The Democratic Party could have paid more attention to blue collar voters.  The Clinton Foundation could have hired an ethics/appearances attorney and listened to same to keep themselves out of a lot of bad situations included the email business.


I think your analysis ignores the makeup of the electorate. Sane Republicans who would normally vote might have stayed home. The insane ones who voted for him may have voted in greater numbers than usual. Your 45 to 45, middle argument ignores the fact that sometimes people just aren’t excited and don’t vote, or waste their vote on a third party candidate.


It is not as simple as you make it out to be.


drummerboy said:

well, maybe, but I think, on one level, it's pretty simple.

His nuttiness made him stand out among in the Republican primaries, and with 15 opponents who all looked the same, it was not remarkable that he won the primaries. Unexpected perhaps, but not remarkable.


After the nomination (which, if you ask me, was a far more important result than the general election), it's a crapshoot. Every Dem and Rep candidate starts with 45%. The fight is for the morons in the middle (sorry. I can't think of those voters as anything other than the most uninformed voters in the country, which they are.)

So, if you're going analyze the voting behavior in the 2016 election, you'd do best to focus on this middle group of voters - though I think it's sort of a lost cause. E.g.,When you're faced with an Obama-to-Trump voter, I defy anyone to come up with the logic that leads from O to T.

Everyone likes to have a pat answer for how Trump won, so they glom on to whatever one floats their boat.  (Even me I guess, though I think my argument stands up to scrutiny since it's pretty basic.) The fact is, it will take years of study to figure out what happened and why.

But the proximate reasons why he won are a) Jim Comey and 2) the E.C. Couldn't do one without the other. Every other explanation pretends to knowledge that it doesn't have.






Tom_Reingold said:



drummerboy said:

again, I must point out that Trump "won" because of the electoral college. Don't pretend it's anything other than that.


It's still worthwhile figuring out how he got as many votes as he got.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.