Trump

[jdshock]

I just think ee already accepted this behavior when we accepted it from Bill Clinton. Yes, there was controversy, but in the end, it was fine that he used his power to have sexual relations with a subordinate. As a society, we discussed Clinton's behavior, we argued over it, he was impeached over it, but in the end, it was decided that the behavior was acceptable of our president. We have set the precident.

As far as Donald's transgressions, none of these allegations are recent. If someone makes unwanted advances, does that disqualify them from being president forever? If someone makes lewd remarks, are they forever barred from being president? Is there no time in which we overlook some past discretions- or is that reserved for Bill Clinton and JFK? Totally hypocritical.

Criticize Trump for being boorish. Criticize him for lacking any government experience and lacking diplomacy. Criticize him for being a self absorbed narcissist. Criticize him for his platform and lack of knowledge on international issues, for God's sake, these are legitimate and terrifying concerns. We are past being off put by sex scandals, that ended with Bill Clinton. Instead, argue against Trump for reasons that really matter, this ass and boob grabbing scandal is a decade old smoke screen.

Completely different argument than saying someone can't enjoy rap and also not support Donald Trump. That is the analogy I took issue with.

[Play Angry]

Not so fast @Play Angry.

MVJ's biggest point, by far, has been that both sides are hypocrites because they accuse their enemies and defend their friends on the same behavior. He's calling out both sides here on their hypocrisy. I'm not comfortable tallying lifetime post counts and saying, "you didn't post enough 5 years ago about X, therefore you can't now post about Y".

If he were defending Clinton now, it would be different. But he isn't.

Ya got this in 1 minute before I closed the loop :)

[MoValley John]

Too many people are indeed past such things. I, personally, am not. I would encourage others to do the same. Being surrounded by unethical fools doesn't mean I should give in and become one too.

This is more of a moral, not ethical issue. The revelations from the Clinton emails are more of an ethical issue.

The terms are closely associated, but it's a message board so I'm being obstinate and nitpicking.

[Play Angry]

I just think ee already accepted this behavior when we accepted it from Bill Clinton. Yes, there was controversy, but in the end, it was fine that he used his power to have sexual relations with a subordinate. As a society, we discussed Clinton's behavior, we argued over it, he was impeached over it, but in the end, it was decided that the behavior was acceptable of our president. We have set the precident.

As far as Donald's transgressions, none of these allegations are recent. If someone makes unwanted advances, does that disqualify them from being president forever? If someone makes lewd remarks, are they forever barred from being president? Is there no time in which we overlook some past discretions- or is that reserved for Bill Clinton and JFK? Totally hypocritical.

Criticize Trump for being boorish. Criticize him for lacking any government experience and lacking diplomacy. Criticize him for being a self absorbed narcissist. Criticize him for his platform and lack of knowledge on international issues, for God's sake, these are legitimate and terrifying concerns. We are past being off put by sex scandals, that ended with Bill Clinton. Instead, argue against Trump for reasons that really matter, this ass and boob grabbing scandal is a decade old smoke screen.

Ah, so if a person was critical of JFK and Bill, it seems they have a right to be critical of Donald too, no? You have argued otherwise in this thread on the basis that such behavior simply reflects the values of that society at large, but it seems you may be backtracking now.

You believe infidelities and such are no longer a valid criticism when considering the candidacy of Presidential nominee. That is totally fine. You have also asserted that it is hypocritical of someone to disagree with you and consider those as factors in either endorsing or opposing a candidate. That's where the problem is.

I have not seen a single person ITT either (a) actively attack Donald's infidelities and defend Bill's, or (b) actively attack Bill's infidelities while defending Donald's. I realize partisans in the media are doing plenty of both, but the attacks of hypocrisy ITT have not been aimed at Paul Begala or Kayleigh McEnany, but rather at any poster critical of such marital extracurriculars.

You cast your net too wide.

[im4wsu]

50 Cent isn't running for President.

There is a difference between lyrics in a song and telling someone how you can assault women if you're a star.

Yes, one says it to millions of listeners and the other to a supposed friend/acquaintance believed to be in private.

Come on, really, if men didn't talk locker room talk, the human race would become extinct.

[jdshock]

Come on, really, if men didn't talk locker room talk, the human race would become extinct.

You have bragged about sexually assaulting women before? If you haven't, I assume you have not reproduced, per your logic.

[MoValley John]

Ah, so if a person was critical of JFK and Bill, it seems they have a right to be critical of Donald too, no? You have argued otherwise in this thread on the basis that such behavior simply reflects the values of that society at large, but it seems you may be backtracking now.

You believe infidelities and such are no longer a valid criticism when considering the candidacy of Presidential nominee. That is totally fine. You have also asserted that it is hypocritical of someone to disagree with you and consider those as factors in either endorsing or opposing a candidate. That's where the problem is.

I have not seen a single person ITT either (a) actively attack Donald's infidelities and defend Bill's, or (b) actively attack Bill's infidelities while defending Donald's. I realize partisans in the media are doing plenty of both, but the attacks of hypocrisy ITT have not been aimed at Paul Begala or Kayleigh McEnany, but rather at any poster critical of such marital extracurriculars.

You cast your net too wide.

I have talked to blue dogs that do indeed say what Bill Clinton did was fine but are deeply offended by Trump. It blows my mind. I will find it sad, yet comical when a republican president uses the IRS to combat political opponents, but that is what we as Americans now accept. At least that is what democrats accept from fellow democrats.

It would be great if we weren't having this discussion, it would be great if morals and ethics ruled the day! We had several moral and ethical republicans running, we rejected them. We had a moral and ethical Bernie Sanders running as a democrat. We rejected him as well. We get what we deserve, quit feigning offense at the Donald when society accepted it from Bill.

[SHOCKvalue]

With rap, the listeners are mostly feeling the beat and the cadence of the lyrics within the rhythmic structures. Every once in a while a listener will pick up the words that rhyme. Most of the vocals are just another instrument that happens to be using words instead of just musical tones. That's a lot different than telling a media guy, while being recorded, about what you can get away with because you're a star.

I rate you five stars on this amazing intellectual somersault.

[Play Angry]

This morning's RCP polling average places Trump down 7 points, the race's widest margin since May 1. Oddsmakers place his chances at 15%.

Betting markets also place Democrats as more than twice as likely to take the Senate (versus the Republicans' odds of holding control).

The GOP remains the overwhelming favorite to retain control of the House, however (~5x more likely to control the House after election day than the blue team).

[Play Angry]

I have talked to blue dogs that do indeed say what Bill Clinton did was fine but are deeply offended by Trump. It blows my mind. I will find it sad, yet comical when a republican president uses the IRS to combat political opponents, but that is what we as Americans now accept. At least that is what democrats accept from fellow democrats.

Seems like you should call them hypocrites, then, and not the folks who have had a uniform approach to those fellas' infidelities all along. Unless I am missing such behavior in this thread - please point it out if so. Otherwise, your anecdotes are inapplicable although they do make for nice strawman material.

quit feigning offense at the Donald when society accepted it from Bill.

Because "society" accepted it from Bill (a huge portion of it did not), a person has no right to continue to condemn this behavior.

That is a really bad argument and I suspect you know it.

[SB Shock]

This morning's RCP polling average places Trump down 7 points, the race's widest margin since May 1. Oddsmakers place his chances at 15%.

Betting markets also place Democrats as more than twice as likely to take the Senate (versus the Republicans' odds of holding control).

The GOP remains the overwhelming favorite to retain control of the House, however (~5x more likely to control the House after election day than the blue team).

What do u make of the LA times tracking poll showing trump up 1.6% (with Hillary ground game I would assume correct to slight Hillary favorite). This is obvious outlier, but I wouldn't expect the LA times to be an outlier for trump. It still feels like their is still some error in how they are reporting since it 57% Hillary to 38% Trump on who they think will win in results.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Yes, one says it to millions of listeners and the other to a supposed friend/acquaintance believed to be in private.

Come on, really, if men didn't talk locker room talk, the human race would become extinct.

Bragging of consensual stuff is locker room talk.
Bragging of criminal sexual assault is on a whole other level.

The question becomes, has Trump turned previously decent people into scumbags, or merely exposed them as the scumbags they always were?

[Play Angry]

What do u make of the LA times tracking poll showing trump up 1.6% (with Hillary ground game I would assume correct to slight Hillary favorite). This is obvious outlier, but I wouldn't expect the LA times to be an outlier for trump. It still feels like their is still some error in how they are reporting since it 57% Hillary to 38% Trump on who they think will win in results.

Their methodology and weighting has had some interesting discussion. Will be interesting to see which forecasters do the best job this cycle since there are some novel factors in the mix.

[wsushox1]

What do u make of the LA times tracking poll showing trump up 1.6% (with Hillary ground game I would assume correct to slight Hillary favorite). This is obvious outlier, but I wouldn't expect the LA times to be an outlier for trump. It still feels like their is still some error in how they are reporting since it 57% Hillary to 38% Trump on who they think will win in results.

They weight one black man's vote in Chicago way, way to high.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What do u make of the LA times tracking poll showing trump up 1.6% (with Hillary ground game I would assume correct to slight Hillary favorite). This is obvious outlier, but I wouldn't expect the LA times to be an outlier for trump. It still feels like their is still some error in how they are reporting since it 57% Hillary to 38% Trump on who they think will win in results.

When I see a NASA shuttle explode, I don't usually feel very adequate at explaining what went wrong, but I feel very comfortable saying there was a major flaw. RCP has been extremely accurate in past elections with Presidential polling, when viewed as an average. What did the LA Times do wrong? I don’t know, other than obviously their shuttle exploded and all they have left is a burning pile of garbage that needs discarded.