Bay 12 Games Forum

... we're still dealing with harm from bush's era, fol. Arguably either of them, but very definitely the second. I'd call it pretty lasting.

Y'know, what I've been saying. I've been in garages and on building yards before -- not often for the latter, but I've family that's been in construction at various points -- as well as offices. Buncha' other places besides, even. I have very, very rarely heard worse than someone saying they abused their power and/or authority to take sexual advantage of other people. If you're running in circles where that kind of abuse is a common subject there is something seriously wrong with the circles you're running in.

Vulgarity and lewdness and all that sort of stuff is common, sure. What's not is the format trump expressed it in. It'd be really nice if we didn't try to normalize this shit when it's really not bloody normal.

Sorry, I wasn't all that clear; I meant for a Congressperson, where enacting legislature is probably the biggest part of their job.

It's even more important for a congresscritter, really. They've got a lot less leverage to push poorly supported material through -- which means they have to have character and capability even more than ideological consistency, in order to get other people to work with them. All the platform consistency and whatnot in the world means jack-all if everyone else in the joint hates you, doubly so when it's for good reason. You want both, obviously enough, but the weaker the position the more important context becomes.

And if you're looking for plenty of examples of conservatives going full dismissive superiority, graftminer, you'll have an easy time finding them if you idle around twitter or stuff like news comments. I intentionally try to avoid paying attention to that stuff and it's still something I see constantly. Pretty sure I've talked about in-person stuff before, too. Y'all should thank whatever fucking gods you're comfortable with you're in an area where you get civility instead of an increased chance of broken limbs.

I'm in favor of keeping things in context. Some empty words about questionable sexual practices have relatively little bearing on Trump's capacity to serve as president when weighed against the many other things he has said and done.

... yeah, they're not empty. We've got it right out of the guy's own damn mouth he does stuff like he said -- see his commentary on beauty pageants and "inspections", ferex, and then try to tell me sexual assault isn't right up his alley. Never mind all the people that's come out over the years, as well as recently, saying stuff that makes it abundantly clear he wasn't talking about something out of character for him. Or all the time he's spent over the last months showing just how little respect he has for the people he was talking about assaulting.

You're not keeping things in context, fol. You're trying to isolate a specific statement and call it the totality of context. It's not. And for all much of the other shit he's said and done is indeed worse, this is not a subject of little bearing to his capacity to serve as president.

... well, complete bullshit with swaths of it being outright and blatant lies. Some of which change from day to day.

Shit, a good chunk of the reason there's zero chance I'm voting trump is because there's fuckall genuine indication of what he would do in office. You can make guesses based on previous actions (which ends up with very little good things to say), but the guy makes not the least attempt to cleave to any sort of consistency or integrity.

On the other hand, belief in it or not (though I'd say you have to be pretty willfully blind to say you have no idea what she's do or what she believes), clinton has one of the more consistent political histories we've seen and at least makes a token effort (mind, it's more than token, but whatev') at matching her actions to her words. Unfathomable horror from the deep she ain't.

It's not like there's not stuff to criticize her on, but that's line of thought is just not one of them.

More like an inheritance at least ten times that (and I'm pretty sure that's my memory significantly lowballing it), and still needed his father's connections and repeated bailing out over the years :V

... yeah, the problem for trump is that the trump people are already trumping. What these things are trying to do are draw in the folks that are undecided (or, in the case of trump, draw back the conservatives his latest shit has been running off), and they're notably more sensitive to stuff like those lowest standards. Trump needed a lot of stuff he didn't provide to win those folks over, at least so far as the debate goes. Had some sound bites that will play well with some of his core, but they're already voting for him and on everything else he didn't exactly do well. Better than the first debate, maybe, but that's not exactly a high bar to pass.

Though damn. Noticed it meandering around elsewhere, though I've no clue who the vogel guy is.

Looking for precedent for Trump's promise to put Hillary in jail if he wins? Yanukovych (a past @PaulManafort client) did it to Tymoshenko.

... so as a trump supporter, how do you rationalize stuff like the hour and a half he just spent pretty much constantly lying, anyway? That's probably the major thing really puzzling me after that debate (mostly because I haven't really thought about it much beforehand, but *shrugs*). Like, most politicians at least give you some kind of room to deny or rationalize or reframe or whatever their integrity and honesty and whatnot. Trump... doesn't. And most people seem to think that sort of thing matters.

What's up with that?