Do you defend Trump's infidelity?

[Teallaura]

Now I see it.

Even with magnification it doesn't look much different from the other text on the screen. Maybe a color that contrasts better, or something would make it a little more obvious.

NR is showing on the No section - maybe someone fixed it for him?

[Zymologist]

In all seriousness, your only problem with sneering superiority is that I'm better at it:













It's not principle when it's only applied to your own advantage.

It's so nice to be told what my problem actually is.

Don't come back if you're going to post like this again.

[JimL]

It's so nice to be told what my problem actually is.

Don't come back if you're going to post like this again.

Now there's a snowflake for ya!

[Mountain Man]

Turn about is fair play. lao tzu demands strict civility in his own threads but is apparently unwilling to extend that same courtesy to others.

[Zymologist]

Now there's a snowflake for ya!

Snowflake? Maybe. I find brazenly hypocritical arrogance particularly annoying, so color me guilty.

[JimL]

Snowflake? Maybe. I find brazenly hypocritical arrogance particularly annoying, so color me guilty.

It's not hypocrisy Zy, if you read lao's posts he doesn't go around calling everyone stupid, lamebrain, dumbass, moron etc etc. like so many of us here have a tendency to do. That's all he's asking people not do in his threads. You're taking his request for civility to the extreme and then criticizing him for hypocrisy.

[One Bad Pig]

Because "no idea what she's covering up, but sure she must be, doesn't cut it."

Lemme know when you're interested in what I actually believe, k? Facts interest me. Gross mischaracterizations of my position arising from what you blithely assume I believe make me contemplate leaving you to your smug ignorance.

Lose the handwave.

What purported reason for the attack, and what real reason, because if you're just repeating the endless and recklessly contrafactual right-wing fringe refrain that HRC was responsible for the CIA talking points about the instigation of the video....

You tell me to lose the handwave, proceed to make an extreme right-wing characterization of my views based on what you assume I believe - which you already know is wrong because I placed the blame for that on her boss upthread - and then handwave that away? Awesome.

You're losing credibility here. I respect your intelligence, but not your vigorous immolation of strawmen.

[Teallaura]

It's not hypocrisy Zy, if you read lao's posts he doesn't go around calling everyone stupid, lamebrain, dumbass, moron etc etc. like so many of us here have a tendency to do. That's all he's asking people not do in his threads. You're taking his request for civility to the extreme and then criticizing him for hypocrisy.

Yeah, it is. He's taking the backdoor but he's definitely not being truly civil. It becomes hypocrisy not because he's imperfect but because he is so strict in his own threads and shows no latitude there.

Think about it - have you ever seen Zym do that before? I can't recall him ever requesting a poster to leave - so he's hardly a snowflake.



Maybe a corn flake, but who isn't?

[Tassman]

I wonder if any liberals will tell us that it's only sex and therefore nobody's business

The sex is not the problem, other than nominally for the ironically termed 'Family Values' party. The problem is the hush money and the dubious means of paying it. As always, it's the 'cover-up' that will get Trump into trouble.

[rogue06]

The sex is not the problem, other than nominally for the ironically termed 'Family Values' party. The problem is the hush money and the dubious means of paying it. As always, it's the 'cover-up' that will get Trump into trouble.

Maybe he should have formulated a "Nuts and Sluts" War Room with the express purpose of intimidating any women into silence and if they spoke up, doing their level best to destroy them. I understand that the last person to head up such a group was unemployed and available.

[guacamole]

The sex is not the problem, other than nominally for the ironically termed 'Family Values' party. The problem is the hush money and the dubious means of paying it. As always, it's the 'cover-up' that will get Trump into trouble.

The sex is a problem. It has lead to messy circumstances--including possibly compromising national security--for a number of these powerful men. We, conservatives and liberals alike, ignore more strict sexual mores at our own peril, especially for leaders vested with extraordinary powers. It's never just sex. The hypocrisy of the Republican leadership is not surprising--they are amoral opportunists. The hypocrisy of the evangelical leadership who support Trump--the "Family Values" party--is especially odious, and if scripture be true, they will be judged.

[Mountain Man]

The sex is a problem. It has lead to messy circumstances--including possibly compromising national security--for a number of these powerful men. We, conservatives and liberals alike, ignore more strict sexual mores at our own peril, especially for leaders vested with extraordinary powers. It's never just sex. The hypocrisy of the Republican leadership is not surprising--they are amoral opportunists. The hypocrisy of the evangelical leadership who support Trump--the "Family Values" party--is especially odious, and if scripture be true, they will be judged.

Could you elaborate on your scriptural argument? For one thing, I'm curious what you mean by "support", because supporting and defending Trump's political policy does mean that one supports or even approves of his unrelated moral failings. What about Christians who supported Hillary in the last election? Would you assert that they, too, are in danger of being judged? Because just based on what you've written here, it would be almost impossible for Christians to support any politician without being judged in one way or another, and that doesn't seem correct to me.

[JimL]

Maybe he should have formulated a "Nuts and Sluts" War Room with the express purpose of intimidating any women into silence and if they spoke up, doing their level best to destroy them. I understand that the last person to head up such a group was unemployed and available.

He has done exactly that, or perhaps you haven't heard of Michael Cohen, a.k.a. the fixer.

[Tassman]

The sex is a problem. It has lead to messy circumstances--including possibly compromising national security--for a number of these powerful men. We, conservatives and liberals alike, ignore more strict sexual mores at our own peril, especially for leaders vested with extraordinary powers. It's never just sex. The hypocrisy of the Republican leadership is not surprising--they are amoral opportunists. The hypocrisy of the evangelical leadership who support Trump--the "Family Values" party--is especially odious, and if scripture be true, they will be judged.

I agree with all of that except as an atheist, for the divine judgement bit. I was thinking of the legalities of Trump‘s situation rather than the sex per se. But you’re right about the political compromises Trump may be forced to make, against the national interest, because of Russian ‘kompromat’ on Trump. There’s got to be a reason he’s so reluctant to criticise Putin or impose sanctions. Even his expelling of Russian diplomats was done reluctantly.

[Tassman]

He has done exactly that, or perhaps you haven't heard of Michael Cohen, a.k.a. the fixer.

Chortle!