The Donald Trump Thread

Can anyone here explain to me why the feminists are so up in arms against Trump? Other than the "grab 'em by the *****" comment, was there something more? As a woman, I have my own objections to Trump, but none have anything to do with him being misogynistic.





*mic drop*
J2nDnq2.jpg
 
Pollux,

The thing is, a lot of other politicians have done far worse. During the election a woman accused Bill Clinton of raping her, and Hillary of pressurising her into keeping quiet!

If people are gratuitously rude about him, he kicks back whatever their colour, and whatever their sex.

I am sick of the MSM pushing these issues so intensely. They use issues of women/race/sexual orientation/ etc to trash those who they don't like on policy issues - rather than actually discuss those policy issues. The MSM is hopping mad that that tactic failed this time!

Is he worse than JFK in his treatment of women?

David
 




*mic drop*
J2nDnq2.jpg
No, no mike drop.

First, a lot of those where either over blown or taken out of context.

Second, I agreed with him on a few of those...what? Blurbs? Rosie O'Donnel is cancer. She is an awful human being, inside and out. I don't need Donald Trump to tell me that. She has a big mouth and doesn't think before she speaks. She's not articulate or intelligent and any media storm I've seen her in has been at least in part her own doing. She doesn't get a pass from me because she's female or because she's a lesbian. I don't care. Bad people come in all shapes and sizes.

As for Megan Kelly, what? He's not allowed to have an opinion? Because she's female, he's not allowed to say he doesn't respect her as a journalist? Guess what, neither do I, and I'm a woman. So, I'm a self-hating woman because I thing we should be judged by the content of our character and our actions? Do I hate myself because I think female journalists should be judged by the quality of their work, just as men are? Sorry, I don't believe in special treatment because I was born with a specific type of genitalia.

As for his remarks to the other female journalist, she was setting up a straw man argument, and he called her out on it. Again, should she have received special consideration because she was female?

And his Howard Stern comments, about preferring beautiful women, uhh....duh? What man doesn't?

The comments about the female politicians face (sorry, don't know her name) was idiotic and rude and definitely uncalled for. But men are derided for their looks too. How many jokes has he endured because of his orange hair and skin? It's the same garbage you hear day in and day out in the media. There are entertainment gossip media outlets of all kinds that have turned judging people's appearance into a multi-billion dollar industry. It's horrible, yes, which is why I don't partake of that garbage. And Trump shouldn't have behaved in such a way. But I don't see it as particularly misogynistic. Bad taste? Yes. Classless? Yes. Misogynistic? No.

As for abortion, it's such an explosive issue. I'll just say this: I've had two wonderful children, and cannot imagine if I had decided to end one of their lives. I'm not specifically pro-choice or pro-life. It's a complicated issue that comes down to personal freedom and responsibility. If Trump feels, by his conscience, that abortion is wrong, he is allowed to have that view. That doesn't necessarily mean he is going to even try to abolish abortion. Why protest something that hasn't even happened and isn't even on the table ATM? The president alone doesn't have that power. But since when is a president not allowed an opinion? Obama was full of them. I didn't see the left saying anything about that, but that's probably because they agreed.

What I do dislike about the whole abortion issue is that it sets up this false argument that if you are against abortion, you are against women or worse, a misogynist. One can be simultaneously for equal rights and against abortion. I really despise that they've created such a false narrative, and call any woman that doesn't agree with their hard line feminist stance either a moron or a self-hating woman. That's so wrong on so many levels.

Suffice it to say, I still have not seen anything that would make me believe Trump deserves to die. Yeah, he's a jerk. I knew that already. I certainly didn't vote for him. But Obama was an arrogant ass. And I didn't vote for him either. Calling for his assassination is abominable. Much of the behavior on behalf of the left has been abominable. The behavior of Obama both during the election and after was incredibly unbecoming to the office, and completely uncouth. The behavior of the media has been absolutely unacceptable, and I for one am actually glad to see Trump call them out on it. Someone of prominence needs to.

I didn't vote for Trump. I did not want him or Hillary to hold the office if the presidency. But this is what we have. And I have never, in my life, seen the media behave this way, but have I ever seen such a group of so-called adults acting like spoiled children or worse, animals. (No offense to animals, I love animals). Everything that has transpired over the last few months has made me lose faith in humanity. We are not more evolved than our ancestors. We have not progressed. I believe it was a guest here on Skeptiko that wrote a book titled "The Myth of Progress" (forgive me, I don't recall the name of the author). Nothing has proven that thesis more than the last year. And I see no end the idiocy in sight.
 
No, no mike drop.

First, a lot of those where either over blown or taken out of context.
Taken out of context??...WTF..you mean he quoted someone else..or he really meant that; "no one respect women more than me" after he said, I grab 'em by the pussy" -

"When I come home and dinner's not on the table I go through the roof"
- "Ivana does exactly what I tell her to" ( and finish it off by asking the men in the audiences) "Right men - isn't that right, huh??"
"I would date her if she wasn't my daughter" Who the fuck says that - really???
I mean- defend him on his politics - but trying to defend him on these issues just makes you look bad!!!


You know what - I'm not gonna sit here doing a verbatim from statements in a video were you yourself can see WTF he is saying. There is just no 2 ways about it.

Saying; "It's out of context" is just laughable!!. You mean, if we would have heard the whole interview he would have come back and said; "No one respect women more than I do" - and that would have proved me wrong+?

EXACTLY what was; "taken out of context"???. That he suggested there should be; some sort of "punishment for women who makes an abortion", and he didn't really meant it? It is just ridiculous trying to deflect things that he actually said, and make it look like "Oooh, he just said it this one time...or twice...or three times...or four...but he really didn't mean it"??

PS: If you really insists I will type out what he said in these clips, verbatim, tomorrow - to point out my argument - if you cant see them by yourself.
 
What I do dislike about the whole abortion issue is that it sets up this false argument that if you are against abortion, you are against women or worse, a misogynist. One can be simultaneously for equal rights and against abortion. I really despise that they've created such a false narrative, and call any woman that doesn't agree with their hard line feminist stance either a moron or a self-hating woman. That's so wrong on so many levels.
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
 
Suffice it to say, I still have not seen anything that would make me believe Trump deserves to die. Yeah, he's a jerk. I knew that already. I certainly didn't vote for him.
Who the hell said he should die??
Hold the straw-man - people who read this aren't retarded!!
 
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!

So you see nothing wrong with partial birth abortions as long as that's what the woman wants?
 
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!
Yes, that is wrong. You aren't a moron or self hating woman if you disagree with abortion. It is appalling the moral dominance pro choice people claim. The women who disagree with abortion aren't morally bankrupt; they believe they are being the more moral of the two groups. Thus the dichotomy. It is exactly the attitude you expressed in the last sentence that is the cause of the vitriol with which this issue is discussed. No one is suggesting that women shouldn't be in charge of their own bodies. They're suggesting that, by having an abortion, they are destroying a life. I don't even consider myself on one side or the other because it's just such a complex issue, but to claim with such anger and conviction that "there's no middle ground" is dangerous.
 
So you see nothing wrong with partial birth abortions as long as that's what the woman wants?
This exact point where a foetus are determined to be a person/individual is always up for debate.
But when one hear people against abortion say that; "conception begins at erection", you just tune out..
 
Yes, that is wrong. You aren't a moron or self hating woman if you disagree with abortion. It is appalling the moral dominance pro choice people claim. The women who disagree with abortion aren't morally bankrupt; they believe they are being the more moral of the two groups. Thus the dichotomy. It is exactly the attitude you expressed in the last sentence that is the cause of the vitriol with which this issue is discussed. No one is suggesting that women shouldn't be in charge of their own bodies. They're suggesting that, by having an abortion, they are destroying a life. I don't even consider myself on one side or the other because it's just such a complex issue, but to claim with such anger and conviction that "there's no middle ground" is dangerous.
But what do you suggest then? Should a judge decide when/if/or a women should have the right to give birth to a child, or not? I don't want to invoke the Godwin-law here - but really!?!
 
This exact point where a foetus are determined to be a person/individual is always up for debate.
But when one hear people against abortion say that; "conception begins at erection", you just tune out..

I've never heard that before... lol

I don't know if there's a "point" at which "life" begins or if it's a continuum, but I think there is a fairly rapid development prior to birth where the unborn child's ability to feel and react to pain and continue development into a person must be respected over and above the mother's whim. Certainly any thinking empathetic person can see that partial birth abortions near the end of pregnancy are a most barbaric and brutal practice carrying far greater moral weight than the morning after pill.

But Trump has stated it's not up to the Federal government to debate this. It should be up to the states to debate this and come up with solutions. So you might initially have 50 different solutions to this complex moral legal issue - some favoring the woman's choice and some favoring the child. And eventually the states that do the best job handling the issue will become a model for others. And some states will become a haven for those who lean one way or another. The diverse decentralized approach is best.
 
NO, that's not wrong. A women, no matter who she is, where she's from, rich, poor, or whatever, should/shall be in charge what she will do with here body, when it comes to conceive a child. No other person should be in charge of her. If you cant see that, do not bother to respond to this 'cause there is no middle-ground here!!!

The foetus objectively is not a womans body.

This exact point where a foetus are determined to be a person/individual is always up for debate.
But when one hear people against abortion say that; "conception begins at erection", you just tune out..

>"conception begins at erection"
Never heard of this stance before, sounds like a bad strawman.

But what do you suggest then? Should a judge decide when/if/or a women should have the right to give birth to a child, or not? I don't want to invoke the Godwin-law here - but really!?!

No one is suggesting women should be forbidden from giving birth, I can't name a time when this was ever considered except under social darwinist countries that supported eugenics which is dated so far back as to be irrelevant to the debate today.
 
Does she speak for the women of the world?

Completely irrelevant to the original post. Yes, numerous people have called for Trump to die, many have said he should be assassinated, and many have even threatened to murder electoral college members if they were to/had voted for trump. Many have been arrested so it is a commonly accepted fact you can verify yourself in a few seconds.
 
I am very impressed that Trump has delivered on using executive order to kill the TPP, and I am very impressed Trump has made good on his promises to aid russia and Assad in stopping Isis. Just on the first day there has been 41 strikes against Isis and we have flown our first coalition with Russia.

I have been against the TPP for so long I thought we were going to be done in by it as our freedoms are curtailed for corporate bottom lines. Had the TPP passed forums like this could be shut down entirely.(https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) + (https://www.citizen.org/TPP)

In my opinion Trump has already saved us from entering into a cyberpunk dystopia where we're slaves in all but name by killing the TPP.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-riots-inauguration-reynolds-column/96923492/

Glenn Harlan Reynolds2:45 p.m. ET Jan. 23, 2017​

There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time — not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine — and it will probably never be true again.”

In other words, if Americans increasingly find it intolerable that their political opponents control the government, that’s because government controls too much.

Then, of course, there was the weaponization of the IRS. When it was Tea Party groups being harassed, nobody cared much. But now Democrats fear that under Trump, the IRS might target them. And they should: Going back at least as far as FDR, as Jonah Goldberg noted in his book, Liberal Fascism, presidents have used the IRS and other parts of the bureaucracy to target opponents.
...
But now, of course, we’ve just finished eight years of a president who claimed the legal right to kill Americans, without a trial, anywhere in the world outside the United States. One who spied on journalists, and imprisoned those who leaked to them. One who openly boasted that with his pen and a phone he didn’t need Congress.

And that was fine with Democrats, until the other team took power.
...
I’m certain that, as my old law prof Stephen Carter has predicted, with Trump in power “the left will swiftly rediscover the virtues of limited government and, in particular, strong constitutional restrictions on the independent exercise of authority by the executive
...
So I have a proposal.
...
Let those Democrats unhappy with the power possessed by Trump get together with those Republicans who were unhappy with how much power was possessed by Barack Obama and propose some real limits...

Glenn Reynolds blog is: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
 
Last edited:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-riots-inauguration-reynolds-column/96923492/

There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time — not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine — and it will probably never be true again.”

In other words, if Americans increasingly find it intolerable that their political opponents control the government, that’s because government controls too much.

Then, of course, there was the weaponization of the IRS. When it was Tea Party groups being harassed, nobody cared much. But now Democrats fear that under Trump, the IRS might target them. And they should: Going back at least as far as FDR, as Jonah Goldberg noted in his book,Liberal Fascism, presidents have used the IRS and other parts of the bureaucracy to target opponents.
...
But now, of course, we’ve just finished eight years of a president who claimed thelegal right to kill Americans, without a trial, anywhere in the world outside the United States. One whospied on journalists, andimprisoned those who leaked to them. One who openly boasted that with hispen and a phone he didn’t need Congress.
...
I’m certain that, as my old law prof Stephen Carter has predicted, with Trump in power “the left will swiftlyrediscover the virtues of limited governmentand, in particular, strong constitutional restrictions on the independent exercise of authority by the executive
And that was fine with Democrats, until the other team took power.

It will be interesting to see how the left will restructure and which of their ideologies will rise to the top (unless they continue doubling down). Will they have the courage to argue against the powers they so love to use against their enemies once they themselves have experienced it when they have those powers again?
 
Back
Top