But you support a serial adulterer for president.
That is indeed, loony. I hear what you say, but what you do is more persuasive.
Trump's perversions have become your every day cup of tea.
Last edited:
Was this right?
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
But you support a serial adulterer for president.
That is indeed, loony. I hear what you say, but what you do is more persuasive.
Trump's perversions have become your every day cup of tea.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Stop saying "sexual assault". That is the most ridiculous charge libs have come up with yet. :down:
The pendulum has swung so far out of whack that it must be upside down like the rest of the world.
glorydaz
Well-known member
So, can you guarantee those who run for office are NOT serial adulterer? Please let us know how you propose to do that?
As did many many many that have voted for a President that committed adultery throughout history.
And I don't believe anyone, except loons, thought that meant they all supported adultery.
You are a loon, and your logic is loony.
Please. Who did not know before the election? He publicly said that he didn't consider adultery wrong. He admitted committing adultery with his first two wives, and just before the election, he was dumb enough to admit on a life microphone that he was trying to cheat on his third wife, and bragged about how his fame allowed him to get away with sexual assault. There are many women who have come forward acknowledging that he assaulted them.
C'mon.
He bragged about getting away with it on an open microphone. No point in denying it. Even his wife criticized him over it.
He's the pervert who walked into a dressing room full of adolescent girls who were unclothed, because he knew he could get away with it.
The rules have changed; that kind of thing is now dangerous. Why feel sorry for the pervert?
glorydaz
Well-known member
So, you can't assure me others in public office aren't doing the very thing Trump admitted to....which is still not "assault"?
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't feel sorry for Trump. I'm just not blind to the fact that what Trump has done is as common as dogs crapping in the park.
Conservatives and evangelicals were well aware of "The Donald's" 3 marriages, the Access Hollywood tapes and the number of women who accused him of making unwanted advances!
While they were willing to "demonized" Bill Clinton, but when it comes to "The Donald" - not so much!
glorydaz
Well-known member
Conservatives and evangelicals were well aware of "The Donald's" 3 marriages, the Access Hollywood tapes and the number of women who accused him of making unwanted advances!
While they were willing to "demonized" Bill Clinton, but when it comes to "The Donald" - not so much!
Probably because the Donald wasn't pretending to be what he wasn't.
He claimed to be a successful businessman, when in fact, he'd have been richer if he had just invested Daddy's money in a good fund.
He claimed to be a Christian, but he also says that adultery isn't a sin.
He claimed to be a very stable genius, when his temper and lack of control is notoriously bad.
He's spent an entire lifetime, pretending to be what he is not.
glorydaz
Well-known member
All media hype....and you're very gullible. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
I've read the same things you have....if you call that "documentation" then I'll pass. Opinions are not facts, and "facts" are not all true.
Trump's people call those "alternative facts." For example, Trump claims to be a great businessman, but:
Donald Trump Would Be Richer If He'd Have Invested in Index Funds
Donald Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion.
The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988.
Other billionaires’ net worths have beaten the stock market’s growth in that time. Bill Gates, for example, saw his increase 7,173%, to $80 billion, since 1988. Warren Buffett’s wealth grew 2,612% in the same time period, to $67.8 billion.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
If he had just taken Daddy's money and put it in index funds, he'd have been better off. I, for example, did better than that since 1988. And, unlike Trump, it was all money I earned myself.
So much for the "great businessman."
It's really not. It's only analogous to the straw man case of a bakery being forced to bake a cake specifically celebrating a gay marriage, which has never happened in this country. What has happened is that cake shops have been required to make cakes for couples on the same terms regardless of the identities of the customers, but when it comes to the speech content of the cake itself, the baker has final say, as would the owner of a billboard.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
First, I would say that no baker should be required by law to bake anything. And the issue was indeed the content of the cake since it is understood that there is a contract for the baker to bake and decorate a cake specifically and explicitly to recognize and celebrate a homosexual couple engaging in a public declaration of marriage. Anything that deviates from the request is a breach of that contract so as soon as that baker agrees to produce the cake for this couple, he locks himself in to recognition and celebration of something he cannot in good conscience recognize. The baker has no right (once under contract) to do anything different than what he is told to put on the cake. Likewise the billboard company. They can’t change what they are contracted to put up so either they agree and put up what the client wants or they decline entirely.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Doesn't say anything about sexual preference. I don't know what the case law is on this, but it doesn't look as though it was the intent of the law.
You mean like....playing at commander 'n chief?