"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think it's hard to make a judgement of someone's private temprament, but i suppose no you can't accuse Trump of being a walking contradiction he is as odious in public as people claim he is (unsubstantiated or not) in private.

This is a man who refuses to acknowledge the innocence of Five men whose convictions for Rape were overturned after DNA evidence exonerated them, partly because he'd taken out a poster campaign in New York advocating for the state to bring the Death Penalty and extend it for sex offenders and partly because let's be fair they were black.

And Letters may be a racist, misogynist and bigot but he's not running for high public office, and what Letters might say as off hand humour Trump has codified as part of his campaign. I believe in freedom of speech but freedom of speech doesn't immunise you from scrutiny and criticism of what you say, and what Trump says publically not even as a gaffe (or they might be gaffes but he's too stupid to do anything but double down on whatever nonsense he comes up with) summarises his character.

Whether the women who have come out against Trump are legitimate or not, he's invited it onto himself which what he was caught on tape saying, forget all the locker room talk about objectifying women (there isn't a man alive who hasn't objectified women in private conversations with another man) but he basically boasted that he commits sexual assault and can get away with it because he's famous, now if we are taking him at his word why on the other hand would these women be necessarily lying.

There was a whole ream of discussion on the Tory thread about the high level sexual abuse that goes on and how people in top positions are immunised from prosecution for it, I ask how is this any different?.

I have no idea whether Hilary Clinton flies into petulant rage in private about things (wouldn't surprise me that much), but she seems to be considerably less likely to get into public, child like squabbles with people...as Anderson Cooper said to Trump "he started it" is the argument used by a five year old.

[Niall_Quinn]

The purpose of my post was to expose (again) Letters' lack of knowledge and consideration upon which his conclusions are based. This coming from a person who only recently criticised swathes of the American population because they were ignorant, one-tracked and lacked consideration. Not only that, the propaganda he chooses to use to disparage one candidate is far more applicable to his candidate of choice. Certainly he's not the only person who behaves in this way, millions do. He's trying to ride a horse with both feet stuck in his mouth and it makes me spit coffee in wonder and bewilderment. Which I shouldn't do. I know I should ignore him.

[Letters]

What do you know about her apart from what you read about her? You may read different things to me but you don't know her any more than me. You have in the past sneered at me, saying I recycle other people's opinions but we all do. Unless we know someone personally our opinions of them have to be based purely on the way they present themselves and things we see and read about them. That's all we've got. Maybe you read different things to me but don't pretend your thoughts about her are original. And what makes the things you've read more valid?

As for the bigotry, misogyny and racism of Trump, again it all depends on what you read.

Does it? I mean, I've seen the videos of Trump talking. I watched quite a bit of his rally last Friday. This isn't stuff the media are making up or twisting. He's saying this stuff and you can go look at the tapes

Anyway, it's a bit rich a bigot, misogynist and racist such as yourself feels fit to comment. I read the stuff you posted about women and blacks on this forum. Now you might just say you were having a GW in-joke moment with the guys here and I'd believe that, because I've done it too and so have most members. But if I took your quotes and spun them up a bit and put them out to a receptive audience then dear oh dear, you'd be in a whole world of shit.

It's a bit different though, isn't it? This is a pretty small messageboard, even in its pomp it wasn't that big. It was, because of the subject matter, male-dominated and the sense of humour was neccessarily blokey. The board has a certain sense of humour which I enjoy and have joined in with but there is a certain level of anonymity and it's not a public, high profile board. And I'm not in a position of power (apart from Imaginary Internet Power) and not likely to run for one. What I think doesn't matter in terms of setting policy.

On Facebook I am very aware that the things I say could be seen by anyone - I don't bother having security settings set, I make all my posts public and thus I wouldn't write in the same way on there. Some of the jokes I think appropriate on here I would never post on there. And this is the thing with Trump. Maybe the "grab them by the pussy" comment was "locker room talk" (Although really? What locker rooms does he hang out in? When is that sort of thing ever acceptable?), some of the things he's said in public at his own rallies or on Twitter aren't much better. He said in his 'apology' it didn't reflect who he was as a person and I could maybe buy that were it not for the things he's said far more publicly which show that actually yes, that is exactly who he is.

You call the women who have come forward 'gold digging tramps'. At the last count 11 have come forwards, you have evidence that they have all been paid for their comments? And tramps? Really?

Now Hilary, on the other hand. I think you need to broaden your reading material. Plenty out there for people inclined to look.

Why do you always do that? You always hint at knowing better than me but never point me in (what you think is) the right direction.
Trump is relatively new to the political stage but he's not new to the public eye, there's plenty of material to rake through and plenty of dirt to dig up and a lot has been.

I found this re:Haiti:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...haiti-42762130

Some potentially murky goings on but worse than many long term, high profile politicians? And as I've said Trump's business dealings have plenty of dirt to be mined too. I don't think anyone is claiming that voting in this election is anything but the choosing the lesser evil.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Well it's different in the sense that as far as I'm aware you haven't boasted about committing sexual assault.

[Letters]

I'm a terrific message board moderator, I moderate the best board.

[GP]

I'm a terrific message board moderator, I moderate the best board.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Turncoats.

[Goonermerree]

The Aberfan disaster, horrific. RIP

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm a terrific message board moderator, I moderate the best board.

I wouldn't disagree with that. You put up with a lot of shit that many admins wouldn't bother with. To counterbalance that, you talk a lot of shit too. But then again, don't we all.

[Niall_Quinn]

What do you know about her apart from what you read about her? You may read different things to me but you don't know her any more than me. You have in the past sneered at me, saying I recycle other people's opinions but we all do. Unless we know someone personally our opinions of them have to be based purely on the way they present themselves and things we see and read about them. That's all we've got. Maybe you read different things to me but don't pretend your thoughts about her are original. And what makes the things you've read more valid?



Does it? I mean, I've seen the videos of Trump talking. I watched quite a bit of his rally last Friday. This isn't stuff the media are making up or twisting. He's saying this stuff and you can go look at the tapes



It's a bit different though, isn't it? This is a pretty small messageboard, even in its pomp it wasn't that big. It was, because of the subject matter, male-dominated and the sense of humour was neccessarily blokey. The board has a certain sense of humour which I enjoy and have joined in with but there is a certain level of anonymity and it's not a public, high profile board. And I'm not in a position of power (apart from Imaginary Internet Power) and not likely to run for one. What I think doesn't matter in terms of setting policy.

On Facebook I am very aware that the things I say could be seen by anyone - I don't bother having security settings set, I make all my posts public and thus I wouldn't write in the same way on there. Some of the jokes I think appropriate on here I would never post on there. And this is the thing with Trump. Maybe the "grab them by the pussy" comment was "locker room talk" (Although really? What locker rooms does he hang out in? When is that sort of thing ever acceptable?), some of the things he's said in public at his own rallies or on Twitter aren't much better. He said in his 'apology' it didn't reflect who he was as a person and I could maybe buy that were it not for the things he's said far more publicly which show that actually yes, that is exactly who he is.

You call the women who have come forward 'gold digging tramps'. At the last count 11 have come forwards, you have evidence that they have all been paid for their comments? And tramps? Really?


Why do you always do that? You always hint at knowing better than me but never point me in (what you think is) the right direction.
Trump is relatively new to the political stage but he's not new to the public eye, there's plenty of material to rake through and plenty of dirt to dig up and a lot has been.

I found this re:Haiti:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...haiti-42762130

Some potentially murky goings on but worse than many long term, high profile politicians? And as I've said Trump's business dealings have plenty of dirt to be mined too. I don't think anyone is claiming that voting in this election is anything but the choosing the lesser evil.

Okay, I'll pick out one aspect of that because life is short.

I'm glad you went away and looked up some information on Haiti, despite the fact you claim I never point you anywhere. If I gave you direct links then you'd be going where I lead. That's why links are shite. They are usually confirmation bias at best. I'll state what I believe and if you want to dig a bit deeper to discover if I'm talking shite or maybe there's something in what I am saying, then fine. But if you don't know what I'm talking about and you reach a judgement anyway then not so good. So I'm glad you went away and found some information. Not so glad you chose ABC "news" as a source, for reasons that would take a long time to explain but really are quite obvious anyway. No problem though if that's your first source on a longer trail. No harm seeing what the deeply biased opinion is on both sides. It helps define the boundaries of investigation. But I hope you aren't going to stop there. You're right, we don't know any of these people personally and all we have to go on is the experiences of others. So gathering as much of that experience as possible to find commonalities, patterns and other clues is probably the best bet we have when trying to figure out what professional liars really mean when they speak.

I have followed the Clintons since Mena. You won't find Mena in the news because it is carefully censored. But you can find much information if you dig deeper. At first you'll be totally lost because the Internet is a sea of everything from batshit lunacy to incredible propaganda. But eventually you'll learn how to separate the wheat. Of course you may not have the time or inclination to find the evidence that could support your conclusions. Many people don't. Fair enough. But in that's the case we must place your opinion in a context that is suitably reflective. And I do.