Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

his comments are only racist if you define anything negative said about somebody of another race as 'racist'
his comments are only sexist or misogynistic if you take any insult where the recipient is a woman as 'sexist'

he's a controversial figure and perhaps the investigation bares fruit, but even with your "god knows what else they'll find" comment, you already think he's guilty.

Your posts are a full on example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in effect, you don't like the guy so you're just willing to believe that everything he says is offensive , everything he does is criminal and everyone he likes is a criminal.

What an odd test for racism. Actions can also define a man.

Eric Cartman

Water John wrote: »

You are totally incorrect. The odds of it being true and untrue are not equal. A small single digit percentage figure sits on one side, versus a 90+ percentage on the other side.
The odds are its true. This is drawn from a number of studies that give us those figures.

I assume you're referencing just standard studies of false sexual assault reports , in which if Kavanaugh was just some guy, you would be correct. When the accused is a politician / athlete / wealthy theres no way that 90% is the chance of it holding up, 60 I might believe but I think theres far too much riding on this claim being perceived as true for the Democratic Party to care about it actually being true.

Eric Cartman

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What an odd test for racism. Actions can also define a man.

building a wall for Mexico = not racist
banning people from terror prone states (yes I know he didn't get them all , don't bother bringing Saudi into this) = not racist
making American born citizens top priority = not racist.

I see the 'N Word' tape never made it to light , Cant really find any evidence of actual racism, but theres lots of things that people pre-prepared to just hate the guy would gladly go 'ohh thats racist'

Water John

The consequences of the claim have no connection to the probability. One is not related to the other.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

his comments are only racist if you define anything negative said about somebody of another race as 'racist'
his comments are only sexist or misogynistic if you take any insult where the recipient is a woman as 'sexist'

he's a controversial figure and perhaps the investigation bares fruit, but even with your "god knows what else they'll find" comment, you already think he's guilty.

Your posts are a full on example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in effect, you don't like the guy so you're just willing to believe that everything he says is offensive , everything he does is criminal and everyone he likes is a criminal.

He has been associated with a lot of criminals, it's hard to believe he's not one himself.

everlast75

Can we post a sticky on this thread referring to the examples of racist, misogynistic and bullying behaviour, along with a link to his current lie number, so that we don't have the same tired exchange whenever someone tries to defend Trump on one of those charges?

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Can we post a sticky on this thread referring to the examples of racist, misogynistic and bullying behaviour, along with a link to his current lie number, so that we don't have the same tired exchange whenever someone tries to defend Trump on one of those charges?

Sure we may aswell just rename the thread "Everything bad about Donald trump is automatically true echo chamber, with very occasional debate from a handful of posters who don't look at him as some sort of putin controlled sex offending hitler robot"

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ a lot of kept promises. The economy is growing and while absolutely not a perfect president , I would still put him up there as a republican leader who has made progress.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

building a wall for Mexico = not racist
banning people from terror prone states (yes I know he didn't get them all , don't bother bringing Saudi into this) = not racist
making American born citizens top priority = not racist.

I see the 'N Word' tape never made it to light , Cant really find any evidence of actual racism, but theres lots of things that people pre-prepared to just hate the guy would gladly go 'ohh thats racist'

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure we may aswell just rename the thread "Everything bad about Donald trump is automatically true echo chamber, with very occasional debate from a handful of posters who don't look at him as some sort of putin controlled sex offending hitler robot"

You clearly ignore racist and misogynistic stuff that Donald does, you regularly discount it and he's a hero in your mind. This is not very representative of the reality and this is nothing to do with fake news. You just have a far higher standard than they would have of defining racism or misogyny 30/40 years ago. Basically your definition doesn't match up with the actual definition.

everlast75

No no no.

I don't want an echo chamber at all. I want the opposite. I want healthy debate. I would love a proper discussion.

What i don't want is having the same arguments over again and again and people ignoring the facts, and like it or not, they are "facts" or using whataboutery.

Whether he is doing a good job or not is debatable.

But starting off the discussion ignoring those facts is not going to get us anywhere.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure we may aswell just rename the thread "Everything bad about Donald trump is automatically true echo chamber, with very occasional debate from a handful of posters who don't look at him as some sort of putin controlled sex offending hitler robot"

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ a lot of kept promises. The economy is growing and while absolutely not a perfect president , I would still put him up there as a republican leader who has made progress.

I wonder how you cope with democracy if you think that anytime the majority don't agree with you it is some sort of echo chamber?

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wonder how you cope with democracy if you think that anytime the majority don't agree with you it is some sort of echo chamber?

the echo chamber element comes with this thread where people can openly accuse trump , kavanaugh or any associates of being rapists, predators, election tampering etc.. not even 'theres an investigation into' , full blown they are an X without convictions and it goes completely unchallenged or gets likes. Any post that does challenge that or goes against it and it gets met with debate which is fine , but Id just like to see the same robust standards and burden of proof attached to the majority opinion.

Leroy42

Posters on here are not simply making up accusations, there are responding to reports and leaks from insiders of the WH, people like Stormy Daniels etc.

On many of the things that Trump is particular has been accused, they are based on an element (at least) of truth. Always met with denials from Trump and his supporters come on here trying to deflect, blame Obama, HC or simply saying it doesn't matter.

That is not an echo chamber. This is a thread about Trump. He was actually getting some posters to agree that he was staying out of this issue and well done on that, but then he comes out and basically blames the woman. Is it wrong that people comment on that?

Is it wrong that people comment on a POTUS who is clearly only interested in getting his man to SCOTUS regardless of the situation? People consider the facts that are available to them. The Trump posters seem to post a defence regardless of the evidence, in many cases it turns out that Trump himself accepts that he was lying all along.

Why would anyone even think to think that Trump is ever telling the truth when he has been shown to be constantly lying. It is reasonable, given his history, that we treat everything he says as suspicious and await actual backup. That is not echo chamber that is simply reasonable/

Hurrache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Your posts are a full on example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in effect,

Have you been brain washed or do you genuinely think that was a good phrase to repeat?

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the echo chamber element comes with this thread where people can openly accuse trump , kavanaugh or any associates of being rapists, predators, election tampering etc.. not even 'theres an investigation into' , full blown they are an X without convictions and it goes completely unchallenged or gets likes. Any post that does challenge that or goes against it and it gets met with debate which is fine , but Id just like to see the same robust standards and burden of proof attached to the majority opinion.

Eric to cut out the back and forth, is there anything you disagree with or find more than a bit odd about Trumps present/past behaviour as an individual, a businessman and now POTUS? I think most people on this thread have looked at Trumps long history in the public eye, and noted several disturbing themes running through his life. You do not need to look much further than his own Twitter account. No media bias etc needed there. His own tweets show him for what he is. This understandably tends to lend a bit more weight to present accusations. Of course we must wait the outcome of the various Investigations to get some semblance of the full picture into his activities. And as is right, he is innocent until proven guilty. History I think will not look favourably on him or his supporters.

Christy42

The difference is the right want no investigation into Hillary's guilt. Just lock her up. All the left is calling for here is a fair investigation.

As for the argument that should not be an investigation. The guy is for SCOTUS and the Republicans are obviously biased against and can't afford a fair hearing. Their aim is to avoid any evidence being given and therefore can't provide a fair hearing.

One thing I have not heard someone say is that Republicans are capable of giving a fair hearing. Remembering that the senate will control the flow of the hearing. There is no guarantee there will be a chance to provide evidence.

MadYaker

Eric Cartman wrote: »

his comments are only racist if you define anything negative said about somebody of another race as 'racist'
his comments are only sexist or misogynistic if you take any insult where the recipient is a woman as 'sexist'

he's a controversial figure and perhaps the investigation bares fruit, but even with your "god knows what else they'll find" comment, you already think he's guilty.

Your posts are a full on example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in effect, you don't like the guy so you're just willing to believe that everything he says is offensive , everything he does is criminal and everyone he likes is a criminal.

Whatever about the racism thing, I'm not sure if he's racist or just says racist things to get those people to vote for him (is there a difference? Maybe not)

But there's no denying his disgusting attitude towards women, he's domonstarted it on numerous accounts, the pussy grabbing tape, the Megyn Kelly comments, calling Omarosa a dog on twitter. Clearly mysoginistic.

mcmoustache

Hurrache wrote: »

Have you been brain washed or do you genuinely think that was a good phrase to repeat?

It's perceived as "Hip" on the alt-right and nazi sites and forums. It gets automatic upvotes on the_Donald. He's probably just seeing the term everywhere on the sites that he visits.

dr.fuzzenstein

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's perceived as "Hip" on the alt-right and nazi sites and forums. It gets automatic upvotes on the_Donald. He's probably just seeing the term everywhere on the sites that he visits.

Usually accompanied by libtard, snowflake and a Pepe the Frog meme, it's extremely poor arguing.
Well, it's not arguing at all, it's just flinging dung when arguments run out. Or in Mr Cartman's case just saying "oh no it isn't!" in place of any valid argument and this is even one step below that.
Very poor show.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Enough of the talk of echo chambers and Trump Derangement syndrome (Whatever that is) please. It's not conducive to good discussion. Anyone seeing poor quality posts is advised to use the report function.

everlast75

For the record, I 100% disagree with calling Kavanaugh a rapist. It makes me cringe. I've said that here before.

Everyone deserves the presumption of innocence.

Not one of us here have the full facts. That's why there should be an investigation.

ancapailldorcha

Low quality post deleted. Please read the charter before posting again.

Rjd2

I'm not going to link to it, because the person who supposedly is about to break the story Ronan Farrow is staying quiet, but there is whispers of another person coming forward with a different allegation regarding Kavanaugh.

Obviously it could all be bollocks and even if so proves nothing regarding the Ford incident 35 years ago, but if anything in it, then its game over Kavanaugh, and will need a miracle to sneak through a GOP alternative.

Still astonished that Mitch did not strong arm Kavanaugh into stepping down last week, for a ruthless and shrewd operator its a monumental **** up.

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

For the record, I 100% disagree with calling Kavanaugh a rapist. It makes me cringe. I've said that here before.

Everyone deserves the presumption of innocence.

Not one of us here have the full facts. That's why there should be an investigation.

In a scenario like this, nothing wrong about saying I dunno. Those on both sides saying one way or other with 100% conviction that he is innocent or guilty are the absolute worst. You can lean one way or other obviously, but ****ing hell don't damn either people just because your echo chamber says so. As time goes by, likely we will have a much clearer picture one way or other.

Its brought back memories of the Ulster rugby scenario where everyone was an expert one way or other.

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

I'm not going to link to it, because the person who supposedly is about to break the story Ronan Farrow is staying quiet, but there is whispers of another person coming forward with a different allegation regarding Kavanaugh.

Obviously it could all be bollocks and even if so proves nothing regarding the Ford incident 35 years ago, but if anything in it, then its game over Kavanaugh, and will need a miracle to sneak through a GOP alternative.

Still astonished that Mitch did not strong arm Kavanaugh into stepping down last week, for a ruthless and shrewd operator its a monumental **** up.

And there it is. Sticking his member into another woman's face.

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

And there it is. Sticking his member into another woman's face.

It seems light that story, Farrow has not been able to confirm that he was at the party and memory gaps with the alleged victim, nonetheless its probably a story that will worry Collins etc as it be naive to suggest with certainty it did not happen.

Another story is about to break with Aventti, obviously heard to know the seriousness or credibility yet of the supposed victim, but 3 allegations no matter how different you believe they are when it comes to credibility is game over.

Itssoeasy

Second accuser for Judge Kavanagh and Stormy Daniels lawyer is claiming there is a third women.

jooksavage

I just cant see Collins and Murkowski voting for Kavanaugh now. Whatever about the timing of these accusations and the inherent lack of irrevocable evidence against him, theres too much mud-dripping off his name now. It could be just the out Murkowski needs - shes already under a hell of a lot of pressure from Native Alaskans to reject his nomination.

The Rs have no one to blame but themselves.: they were clearly aware Kavanaugh had baggage (that weird letter from his teenage female contemporaries was produced suspiciously quickly) and their response to the accusations have been wildly inconsistent ranging from "he didnt do it" (Kavanaughs own contention) to "it doesnt sound that bad" (no idea what constitutes attempted rape) to "you cant hold adult Kavanaugh accountable for a youthful indiscretion" (which seems to imply that attempted rape is something any drunken teenager is capable but most importantly accepts that Kavanaugh is lying and it doesnt matter).

Three more days until Fords appearance in front of the committee. If any more allegations come out I reckon he's toast. The Rs self assurance and lack of concern about being massive hypocrites might start to melt as the notion of a D controlled Senate goes from being a longshot to a real possibility.

Pelvis

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Second accuser for Judge Kavanagh and Stormy Daniels lawyer is claiming there is a third women.

The republicans will latch on to the "carefully assessing her memories" bit and dismiss it.

Rhineshark

jooksavage wrote: »

I just cant see Collins and Murkowski voting for Kavanaugh now. Whatever about the timing of these accusations and the inherent lack of irrevocable evidence against him, theres too much mud-dripping off his name now. It could be just the out Murkowski needs - shes already under a hell of a lot of pressure from Native Alaskans to reject his nomination.

The Rs have no one to blame but themselves.: they were clearly aware Kavanaugh had baggage (that weird letter from his teenage female contemporaries was produced suspiciously quickly) and their response to the accusations have been wildly inconsistent ranging from "he didnt do it" (Kavanaughs own contention) to "it doesnt sound that bad" (no idea what constitutes attempted rape) to "you cant hold adult Kavanaugh accountable for a youthful indiscretion" (which seems to imply that attempted rape is something any drunken teenager is capable but most importantly accepts that Kavanaugh is lying and it doesnt matter.

There was also the jaw-dropping excuse that sure, what red-blooded young man has not held a woman down on his bed, turning up the music to muffle her?

Any men remember this being a formative part of their uni experience? Personally, I don't get why men especially use this argument. It is a terrible argument that's insulting (and infantilising) the entire gender.

Edit: I could still see Collins and Murkowski voting for him though. Getting the SC to turn red is far more important than the quality and vetting of those seated on it. I wonder what the current Justices think about it (Gorsuch aside, he already benefited from GoP backhandedness).

Nody

Rhineshark wrote: »

There was also the jaw-dropping excuse that sure, what red-blooded young man has not held a woman down on his bed, turning up the music to muffle her?

Any men remember this being a formative part of their uni experience? Personally, I don't get why men especially use this argument. It is a terrible argument that's insulting (and infantilising) the entire gender.

It's all part of their world view and culture; remember Brock Turner who according to his father "paid a steep price for 20 minutes of action" when attempting to rape someone as a reason for a lenient sentancing.