Geeto67's Political Playground

[CRed05]

This is reportedly going to raise the price on new cars by several hundred dollars, presumably in order to protect the profits of steel and aluminum magnates in the US? Fuck you, people who buy cars.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about this. Is this fucking asshole trying to force an American car on me? Fucking gross, I'd rather walk.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/05/trumps-tariff-threat-on-european-cars-could-spell-big-trouble-for-germany.html

 

Germany's carmakers responded by pointing out that German and European carmakers are major investors in the U.S. In 2017, German automakers alone were invested in 265 plants across the country and employed approximately 110,000 American workers.

 

According to Germany's Association of the Automotive Industry, Germans produced 854,000 vehicles in the U.S. in 2016, a four-fold increase in about seven years. More than 60 percent of those were exported to foreign markets.

[greg1647545532]

Kerry, I don't profess to understand economists and their fancy math when it comes to calculating an ideal trade deficit, so I can't say if there's any reason to fact check Trump on this one. $800b seems pretty close to a real number, but if it's actually $550b after factoring in services, I don't think that matters. It doesn't matter to Trump's target audience, which is people who think any big number there represents a dearth of American manufacturing. Nor does it matter to people like me, who just don't understand the finer details of global trade policy. So let's just let that one slide.

 

My issue, as someone who wants government policy based on actual proven evidence, is that tariffs have been show time and time again not to work. Pro-union Democrats eventually had to get over that one and get on the free trade bandwagon, which was good because free trade is clearly the right policy.

 

It's baffling now that Trump's nationalist, anti-globalist agenda has found any purchase among conservatives.

[Geeto67]

It took a little bit of digging but I found something:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/10/donald-trumps-debate-mistake-on-trade-800-billion-deficit-doesnt-exist-not-problem-if-it-did/#110299251991

 

So basically he just doesn't understand how to read the data, and focused on one small detail instead of seeing the bigger picture. Here is what concerns me about that - he doesn't have anybody on his staff to explain it to him? To lay people like you, me, anybody it's not that important to understand it because we don't work in that arena and don't make policy. But, I kinda feel like this is something he should know, or at least someone in his cabinet is making a lot of noise about it.

 

It's baffling now that Trump's nationalist, anti-globalist agenda has found any purchase among conservatives.

 

Actually that's the least baffling part, Conservatives have always had this stance. Oddly enough, the last time the conservatives of this country promoted "America First" (in the 1930's), both the NAZI's and the Russians seized the opportunity to fuck with the American government. What's more alarming is how much of it is Anti-democracy and nobody seems to be flinching.

[TTQ B4U]

Although I genuinely expected a bigger conservative backlash from people when he literally said he wanted to take guns without due process.

 

Maybe but maybe not once they think about it. If children services can come in an take kids out of a home for the sake of their safety prior to a hearing then why shouldn't there be simliar measures when there's a danger involving a gun?

 

One case could be in the area of domestic violence. How many times have we seen the situation with a husband and wife go south with a gun involved or just as bad, the situation when the police are called out only to face an enraged couple in a domestic situation greeting them with gun fire.

 

If the asshole down the street puts up a facebook post about shooting up a school, wouldn't it be wise to remove the firearms from their reach then deal with things in a court hearing?

[Geeto67]

Maybe but maybe not once they think about it. If children services can come in an take kids out of a home for the sake of their safety prior to a hearing then why shouldn't there be simliar measures when there's a danger involving a gun?

 

Well for starters guns are not people. Different set of rules between people and property.

 

Second, it doesn't work like that. In most cases CPS needs a court order to remove a child from a home, so there is already due process involved. The exception is exigent circumstances -meaning CPS has a justifiable reason to believe that the child will experience immediate danger if not taken from the home at once. They then have to justify the harm post removal as part of the process. The best analogy I can come up with is the think of an exigent circumstance removal like a policeman disarming an individual walking into a school with a gun, which means it is also part of due process because that seizure/detainment starts the proceedings.

 

What trump is vaguely suggesting is that any agent of the government can take away first without a court order or exigent circumstance, and then let the owner challenge the system to have it returned. I mean I assume that is what he is saying by all the people in government who immediate cringed when he said it. I think the actual quote was "Take the guns first (meaning before due process is initiated) and then worry about due process later" which is not only a crime against English, it is also fundamentally unconstitutional.

 

Finding a way to incorporate due process to seize weapons is a form of gun control, and by the way, it's the federal government telling the states how to regulate gun control - which is pretty much against the GOP platform, the NRA, and probably feelings you have about our government and overreach Tim (based on things you have said in the past).

 

Is there a way to do it? maybe, I dunno, the entire attitude surrounding this issue has to change. And also someone needs to coach him on stuff so he doesn't sound like a goddamn moron sometimes.

 

One case could be in the area of domestic violence. How many times have we seen the situation with a husband and wife go south with a gun involved or just as bad, the situation when the police are called out only to face an enraged couple in a domestic situation greeting them with gun fire.

 

We have that already, the hard part in enforcement. Get on your state to grab that stick.

 

If the asshole down the street puts up a facebook post about shooting up a school, wouldn't it be wise to remove the firearms from their reach then deal with things in a court hearing?

 

That's a little specious and honestly that's usually what you are railing against with your 2A shall not be infringed rhetoric. I mean, are you sure this is what you want? the government to be able to take stuff on the basis of rumor and unverifiable information? And then you have to fight them to get it back? sounds like a ban to me.

[greg1647545532]

Maybe but maybe not once they think about it.

 

Yeah, I'm sure once the Molan Labe types carefully consider the positives of gun control they'll get on board.

 

 

This is perhaps the dumbest thing you've ever said. I don't know how you can say something this dumb and still be able to hold down a steady job. Your wife and kids must be saints for feeding you, dressing you, and wiping your ass, which I'm assuming you're unable to do based on how dumb this one sentence is.

[TTQ B4U]

Well for starters guns are not people. Different set of rules between people and property.

 

Second, it doesn't work like that. In most cases CPS needs a court order to remove a child from a home, so there is already due process involved. The exception is exigent circumstances -meaning CPS has a justifiable reason to believe that the child will experience immediate danger if not taken from the home at once. They then have to justify the harm post removal as part of the process.

 

I know how it works, my wife did family law. I also don't see why we couldn't move to put forth similar circumstances when a gun is involved. Contrary to Greg's point, I am a Molan Labe follower but he's painting with a broad brush on a canvas of people he doesn't know.

 

What I would envision is that firearms would be removed if there's a a present danger of serious harm by the person involved that owns the firearms. ie....someone putting threats of gun violence on social media or otherwise. If someone is hooked on heroin then they probably shouldn't be owning a gun. Someone beating their wife or has a restraining order against them, they probably shouldn't have a gun. I think I made my point clear.

 

or if the adult is not seen as having protective capacities sufficient to keep the firearms or person safe from causing that harm.....think the mother and Adam Lanza. Or a parent that perhaps has challenges caring for an unstable dependent.

 

Take the weapons and hold an emergency hearing within 24-36hrs just as SOP in other cases.

 

What trump is vaguely suggesting is that any agent of the government can take away first without a court order or exigent circumstance, and then let the owner challenge the system to have it returned. I mean I assume that is what he is saying by all the people in government who immediate cringed when he said it. I think the actual quote was "Take the guns first (meaning before due process is initiated) and then worry about due process later" which is not only a crime against English, it is also fundamentally unconstitutional.

We're what 13 months into him and his antics and we still continue to take his round-table comments as if he's a skilled lawyer or detail person. While I see what you're stating, I also know that we're not going to take what falls out of his pie hole as the wording in legislation.

 

Finding a way to incorporate due process to seize weapons is a form of gun control, and by the way, it's the federal government telling the states how to regulate gun control - which is pretty much against the GOP platform, the NRA, and probably feelings you have about our government and overreach Tim (based on things you have said in the past).

We're talking Trump not the GOP. He's a mixed bag. In terms of my opinions, they vary and you've seen that. Nothing is hard-line across all conversations or topics.

 

Is there a way to do it? maybe, I dunno, the entire attitude surrounding this issue has to change. And also someone needs to coach him on stuff so he doesn't sound like a goddamn moron sometimes.

I absolutely think there's a way to do it. You focus on and worry too much about his way of presenting ideas vs the fact that he's putting forth conversation that is at least putting ideas out there. There are plenty of legal-eagles and scholars there to clean up his points. I'm not worried about the off-the-cuff banter.

 

That's a little specious and honestly that's usually what you are railing against with your 2A shall not be infringed rhetoric. I mean, are you sure this is what you want? the government to be able to take stuff on the basis of rumor and unverifiable information?

where are you getting this unverifiable information or rumor bullshit from? it's pretty easy to trace a post someone makes on social media back to them or in the case of Florida all the red flags that asshole put out there.

 

And then you have to fight them to get it back? sounds like a ban to me.

happens in custody hearings all the time. Responsible parents don't get their kids taken from them. Neither do nor should responsible gun owners. Edited March 5, 2018 by TTQ B4U

[TTQ B4U]

Yeah, I'm sure once the Molan Labe types carefully consider the positives of gun control they'll get on board.

 

that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with their Bob Ross. I'm a responsible gun owner and perhaps a Molan type whatever your definition of that is. To me that means keep your fucking liberal pussy ass hands off my guns if I'm minding my own business and not a threat to you. Has my AR shot anyone? Am I threatening people on Social Media? No. Then fuck off if you think you're going to fuck with my shit if I'm not bothering anyone. In other words, go focus on the real problems, which aren't guns and especially aren't my guns. Got a problem with a crack-head fuck stick owning an AR, good, go take his. Leave me and mine the hell alone.

 

Contrasting that however, I'm very fucking accountable and if I beat my wife and threaten to kill her then by all means I would expect someone to put me in my place and protect her by removing my shit. Are there some that are not that reasonable? Of course. Welcome to the world.

[greg1647545532]

that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with their Bob Ross. I'm a responsible gun owner and perhaps a Molan type whatever your definition of that is. To me that means keep your fucking liberal pussy ass hands off my guns if I'm minding my own business and not a threat to you. Has my AR shot anyone? Am I threatening people on Social Media? No. Then fuck off if you think you're going to fuck with my shit if I'm not bothering anyone. In other words, go focus on the real problems, which aren't guns and especially aren't my guns. Got a problem with a crack-head fuck stick owning an AR, good, go take his. Leave me and mine the hell alone.

 

Oh fuck all, we couldn't get a mandatory background bill through congress because of all the "not one inch" slippy slope morons. Do I need to go find all of the CR Gun Crew folks who said as much in the recent gun thread? If you're saying you're a conservative who has no problem with gun control as long as you're not personally affected, then la di da for you but that's not where we're at as a country, and I'm flabbergasted that you'd pretend otherwise. That's not even where we're at on CR.

 

Contrasting that however, I'm very fucking accountable and if I beat my wife and threaten to kill her then by all means I would expect someone to put me in my place and protect her by removing my shit. Are there some that are not that reasonable? Of course. Welcome to the world.

 

What if someone were to make an anonymous tip that you were going to shoot your family and the cops came and took your guns away. You're cool with that?

[cdk 4219]

Kerry, I don't profess to understand economists and their fancy math.

 

 

Well that makes 2 of you, because he is a lawyer. Argument and confusion he does understand. These are that same people who attempt to run the country. Lawyers are definitely good for argument, most of the time they don’t know what they are arguing about.

 

Lawyers definitely live in their own little world, with rules that they make. These rules leave common sense behind .

[cdk 4219]

Originally Posted by Geeto67 View Post

Although I genuinely expected a bigger conservative backlash from people when he literally said he wanted to take guns without due process.

 

We really don’t have that much time, we have to go to work to pay all the fees, taxes, permits, licenses, as well as dragging all the unfortunate people up the hill. You seem to have plenty of time, maybe it would be better for you to redirect your hours of typing into some useful charitable events. They might not argue there, so you may not like it. Nothing like a genius lawyer arguing on a car forum.

[TTQ B4U]

Oh fuck all, we couldn't get a mandatory background bill through congress because of all the "not one inch" slippy slope morons.

 

sounds like a lack of trust in gov't. when leadership finally earns the trust of the people, perhaps that will change. root cause me thinks. perhaps The SPEED of Trust should be required reading to be leadership within our Gov't. but so many people haven't the balls to address the real problems....

 

Do I need to go find all of the CR Gun Crew folks who said as much in the recent gun thread? If you're saying you're a conservative who has no problem with gun control as long as you're not personally affected, then la di da for you

The VAST majority of gun owners are legit and upstanding people. So it's not la-di-da just for me. Hence the reason why so many take a hard line. How many fucking whacko's have we had shoot up the public at large? Maybe 100-200 per year over 10 years in a sea of what 100M+ gun owners? Please...talk about cutting off the nose to spite ones face.

 

but that's not where we're at as a country, and I'm flabbergasted that you'd pretend otherwise. That's not even where we're at on CR.

I'm not pretending otherwise, I'm speaking for me as I can't speak for everyone. However, if they aren't guilty then perhaps they have a right to hold the line. Do the math, you think the majority are the ones crying "come take them" right? Well, again, 1,200 or so over 10 years vs 100M+.....do the math, perhaps they are warranted in telling the opposition to fuck off.

 

What if someone were to make an anonymous tip that you were going to shoot your family and the cops came and took your guns away. You're cool with that?

I think the three other members of my house hold would clear that up in about 30 seconds.

[Geeto67]

I know how it works, my wife did family law. I also don't see why we couldn't move to put forth similar circumstances when a gun is involved.

 

Who says we don't have that already. GC is regulated at the state level and there are some states where that may be happening, I just don't know enough about every single gun law in every single state to confirm it for certain.

 

What I would envision is that firearms would be removed if there's a a present danger of serious harm by the person involved that owns the firearms. ie....someone putting threats of gun violence on social media or otherwise. If someone is hooked on heroin then they probably shouldn't be owning a gun. Someone beating their wife or has a restraining order against them, they probably shouldn't have a gun. I think I made my point clear.

 

These are all non-solutions. Why? well at least in the case of Social media the local PD already has the perogative to intervene based on the seriousness of the threat. Most don't because, let's be honest, the overwhelming majority of these threats are probably not serious.

 

As for domestic violence, well those laws are already in place and have been since the mid 1990s at the federal level and in some cases more expansive at the state level. There just isn't an mechanism of adequate enforcement.

 

similarly there is no real list of heroin addicts or drug addicts of any kind to help with enforcing any rule of restriction, should those laws be enacted. And let's be honest, there isn't much of a proveable connection between heroin use and mass murder currently (maybe that would change once the government is once again allowed to start research).

 

or if the adult is not seen as having protective capacities sufficient to keep the firearms or person safe from causing that harm.....think the mother and Adam Lanza. Or a parent that perhaps has challenges caring for an unstable dependent.

 

Careful, this is getting really close to making a victim of the crime an accessory. That means if someone steals your gun out of your house and uses it to murder you could be on the hook for not adequately securing the weapon. Do you really want that? In the case of the sandy hook shooter, the mother was murdered by her son so as to get access to her arsenal. Under what you are proposing she shouldn't have had any weapons in her home, secured or not. You really want to go that far?

 

Take the weapons and hold an emergency hearing within 24-36hrs just as SOP in other cases.

 

ok and who is going to pay for that? and what court is going to hear it? The system is taxed already, I don't know that most municipalities can accommodate that action. It's nice in theory, but the logistics are a night mare.

We're what 13 months into him and his antics and we still continue to take his round-table comments as if he's a skilled lawyer or detail person. While I see what you're stating, I also know that we're not going to take what falls out of his pie hole as the wording in legislation.

 

Ok, let's just change the entirety of how our system of government works to accommodate 1 person who can't get his shit together. Words have meanings, and honestly the biggest concept that goes sailing over his head is that he has to be careful about what he says publicly because it can be considered by the courts as part of the intention behind any action he takes. Think of the Muslim ban and how his statements in the media killed the bill in the courts. What falls out of his pie hole is absolutely relevant to any legislation he wants to propose, because that's 100% in his job description. We have had some awful people as presidents, I mean some real despots, brigands, and cads, but this concept didn't go over their heads, why is he special? o that's right - stable genius.

 

I'm not saying he shouldn't ask "why can't we circumvent due process" if he doesn't know, but perhaps don't do that on TV. It's called preparation, middle schoolers do it before a spelling bee, why do we have to make a special exception for this guy, when every single one of his predecessors understood this?

 

We're talking Trump not the GOP. He's a mixed bag. In terms of my opinions, they vary and you've seen that. Nothing is hard-line across all conversations or topics.

 

We are talking about government addressing issues, That means everyone. The biggest pushback he is going to get is from his own party, the NRA, and it should be from people like you, but weirdly it isn't. I mean "take em first and figure out the due process later" is like hearing you say "come and take them" and him saying "challenge accepted". How does that not make you bristle? it's literally the thing you are afraid of

 

I absolutely think there's a way to do it. You focus on and worry too much about his way of presenting ideas vs the fact that he's putting forth conversation that is at least putting ideas out there. There are plenty of legal-eagles and scholars there to clean up his points. I'm not worried about the off-the-cuff banter.

 

That's his job. Or at least part of his job. Presenting ideas in a careful way so as to get people on board and appeal to public opinion is literally part of the job description, he's the nation's spokesperson. He is an employee of the people, you are asking his employer to overlook a major performance flaw in his ability to do the job by saying we shouldn't focus on his presentation. People at Walmart get fired for less. If a progressive democrat said this you'd be foaming at the mouth, why give this guy a pass?

 

Again, his public statements are part of the record of any legislation he proposes and pushes for, that's been the case since George Washington. It's why the continental congress took minutes when drafting the declaration of independence and articles of confederation. But let's give Donny a pass because he's special (the helmet kind not the gifted kind).

 

where are you getting this unverifiable information or rumor bullshit from? it's pretty easy to trace a post someone makes on social media back to them or in the case of Florida all the red flags that asshole put out there.

 

Leaving the privacy concerns out for a moment, think about all the ways people accidentally leave their accounts vulnerable. And think about the frequency of hacking involving those accounts. If you open the door for direct statements on FB you open the door for indirect statements as well, meaning my opinion of you on the same platform. Is that really where you want to go? because let me tell you, if we do get there I'm gonna be on FB 24/7 telling the world you want to murder democratic senators and own a lot of guns, just because I think it will be funny.

 

But lets also consider this, statements on social media that are suspicious are triggers for investigation sometimes, depending on the municipality. In a lot of cases they don't have the bandwidth to investigate everything so they have to be choosy. If you are saying these procedures should be improved I agree, the question is just how?

 

 

happens in custody hearings all the time. Responsible parents don't get their kids taken from them. Neither do nor should responsible gun owners.

 

You know what doesn't get discussed in these conversations enough? the error rate. Probably because it is not known for a lot of things. Even with death row inmates the error rate for wrongful conviction is up around 20%, and it could be larger for the general population. What do you think CPSs error rate is? Based on the number of people reporting individual error on the part of CPS I am willing to wager it is at least statistically significant if we tracked such statistics. Oh, did you think it was 0%? I wish I could remember who said it but I was listening to a statistician on NPR recently and he made an offhanded comment that if he had to guess the overall government error rate, it would be somewhere around 30%. Think about that for a second, there is a chance the government screws it up 1/3 of the time. Sometimes they can fix it, sometimes they leathally inject an innocent person. And you are ok with them taking your guns with a potential track record like that?

[Geeto67]

O

We really don’t have that much time, we have to go to work to pay all the fees, taxes, permits, licenses, as well as dragging all the unfortunate people up the hill. You seem to have plenty of time, maybe it would be better for you to redirect your hours of typing into some useful charitable events. They might not argue there, so you may not like it. Nothing like a genius lawyer arguing on a car forum.

 

I must really get under your skin if you take some of your precious moments that you are too busy to use to pay attention to the world around you to write this nonsense. I am oddly satisfied with your hatred.

[TTQ B4U]

I want to reply but with 5 iPad Screens of text in one of Kerry’s, I can’t.

[zeitgeist57]

To reintroduce oxygen back into this thread...

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

 

Hey kids, if you’re going to engage a prostitute for an extended series of engagements that you want to keep from your wife, PLEASE make sure to sign the NDA.

[o0n8]

To reintroduce oxygen back into this thread...

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

 

Hey kids, if you’re going to engage a prostitute for an extended series of engagements that you want to keep from your wife, PLEASE make sure to sign the NDA.

 

Bet he remembered to sign the pre-nup though

[greg1647545532]

To reintroduce oxygen back into this thread...

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

 

Hey kids, if you’re going to engage a prostitute for an extended series of engagements that you want to keep from your wife, PLEASE make sure to sign the NDA.

 

The real problem in this country is the breakdown of the family unit. As a dedicated husband of 15 years and a father of 3, I've clearly misunderstood what a proper family unit should look like. I've already banged my porn star and started divorce proceedings with my wife, who's preparing a tell-all book about how abusive I've become. My kids are thrilled knowing that they'll someday get to live 300 miles away from their estranged 2nd stepmother, working jobs they're wholly unqualified for because of nepotism. I can only hope the rest of America follows Trump's lead as carefully as I am, it's the only way to MAGA.

[CRed05]

Continuing the theme of what a worthless turd Trump is...

 

Looks like he finally came up with his great infrastructure plan.

 

Oh wait...

 

The proposal to be unveiled by Democratic leaders

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-to-unveil-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan-seek-reversal-of-gop-tax-cuts-to-finance-it/2018/03/07/0de718f6-21c8-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html

 

 

I'm sure this well never happen, but it's nice to see where that money could be going.

[wagner]

To reintroduce oxygen back into this thread...

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

 

Hey kids, if you’re going to engage a prostitute for an extended series of engagements that you want to keep from your wife, PLEASE make sure to sign the NDA.

 

At least he didn't get blown by an intern while in office right? I mean that would TOTALLY be bad for the office of the president versus cheating on your wife, mean I can't think of any elected official that's ever been in a sex scandal.

 

****PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE IS SARCASM AIMED TO POINT OUT JUST HOW TERRIBLE ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN BE***

[Geeto67]

At least he didn't get blown by an intern while in office right? I mean that would TOTALLY be bad for the office of the president versus cheating on your wife, mean I can't think of any elected official that's ever been in a sex scandal.

 

****PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE IS SARCASM AIMED TO POINT OUT JUST HOW TERRIBLE ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN BE***

 

I mean are they really "terrible" people because they like to have sex with women whom they are married to? Does that really play into their role as advocates at all? I honestly don't know why people fixate on this stuff - it's pointless. America is so puritan sometimes.

 

Politicians can have consensual, of age, sex with whomever they like so long as they can balance a budget, broker trade deals, and advance civil rights and liberties in this country. Why do we care so much?

[greg1647545532]

Banging an intern is a wildly inappropriate, and when you're the CEO and the the intern is 21, I'm sorry, but that's an abuse of authority and borderline sexual assault. I'm not saying a 21 year old can't consent to blow a CEO, but given the power imbalance, coerced consent would look a lot like consent. As the adult in the room, Clinton should have known better, and the choice he made was completely despicable.

 

I'll cop that when I was a teenager and the blowjob was on the news every day, I didn't think it was a big deal. But the public dialog on sexual consent, especially over the last year, has convinced me that I was wrong back then. Clinton's oval office blowjob would be a disqualifying event for me, were he to somehow come up on a ballot. For as terrible a person as Trump is, at least his affairs didn't involve subordinates. He's still a pussy-grabbing rapist though.

 

Back to Clinton, he's a shitbag and I feel bad for defending him back in the 90s. But then, Washington owned slaves and he's on our money, so what are you going to do?

[Geeto67]

I hear and mostly agree with what you are saying about the power struggle and consent, but convince me how the personal sex lives, specifically out of wedlock consensual sex, are relevant to their advocacy of public policy? I wish the clinton conversation focused on the abuse of authority aspect, but that's largely lost in the public discourse where Clinton is brought up. This last election, it was constantly brought up as a character flaw that Hillary would stay with Bill after such a transgression. The power struggle? that was an after thought at best.

 

I don't think what Bill did was appropriate either, and he had a track record of abusing his position of power which has colored how people look at his legacy as president. But at the same time these comparative morality conversations around the "technically" consensual sexual activities of our politicians with respect to their marriages is just a bogus red herring.

[wagner]

Banging an intern is a wildly inappropriate, and when you're the CEO and the the intern is 21, I'm sorry, but that's an abuse of authority and borderline sexual assault. I'm not saying a 21 year old can't consent to blow a CEO, but given the power imbalance, coerced consent would look a lot like consent. As the adult in the room, Clinton should have known better, and the choice he made was completely despicable.

 

I'll cop that when I was a teenager and the blowjob was on the news every day, I didn't think it was a big deal. But the public dialog on sexual consent, especially over the last year, has convinced me that I was wrong back then. Clinton's oval office blowjob would be a disqualifying event for me, were he to somehow come up on a ballot. For as terrible a person as Trump is, at least his affairs didn't involve subordinates. He's still a pussy-grabbing rapist though.

 

Back to Clinton, he's a shitbag and I feel bad for defending him back in the 90s. But then, Washington owned slaves and he's on our money, so what are you going to do?

 

Tear down statues or destroy money? Is that still a thing with the statues? I know we were outraged about guns for a week but it seems like we're back to Russia.

 

Are we supposed to be mad about the flag still or has that changed as well?

 

I just want life to be simpler again, like in the 80s or 90s when you knew the drug dealer or terrorist in the movie was bad, the good guy did cool shit with a cool catchphrase, and people still smoked wherever the fuck they wanted like hospitals, airports, and schools

[greg1647545532]

I think you guys are still supposed to be outraged about football players kneeling and companies pulling support for the NRA, but I don't get the same newsletters you do.