Trump defense Ds the size of his JUNK -- You listening, JDrunk?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I totally agree. Despite IB's insistence otherwise, I never defended Clinton's behavior. But what Clinton did has no bearing on what Trump is doing. "Clinton did it!" is, ironically, exactly what you are complaining about Obama doing when he allegedly blames Bush.

Wrong. It's your mock outrage and hypocrisy that's being mocked. You still intend to vote for Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's chief enabler even as you denigrate Trump for crude innuendo when Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's actual behavior was much, much worse.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Again, oversimplification. Everything didn't follow this simple forward line towards us being more more loose about all speech. How do you feel about PC statements? Things that would have been totally acceptable to say 100 years ago are absolutely frowned on now. Yes, we are more "loose" when it comes to some things, less when it comes to others. You are, incorrectly, taking the fact that we, overall, have become more loose in speech with the belief that we have only gotten more loose with speech about everything.

So you criticize Trump's political views for being outdated by your (subjective) PC standards, then turn around and slam him for a non-political remark (“see how beautiful my hands are”) because it violates your prudish pre-1960s sexual revolution sensibilities? Got it!


It was a completely different time. The comparison is weak without further support. Every time you avoid finding a more relevant example and instead focus on trying to make the comparison valid, you further show how weak the comparison is.

No, YOU keep failing to explain why the comparison with Abe Lincoln's bawdy courtroom speech is invalid. You reject it solely because it's old. You don't deny that sexual mores have loosened up enormously over the past 150 years. That makes an older comparison MORE valid, not less. Why are you so stupidly argumentative over something so patently obvious?


In some ways, yes, in others, no. In more ways? Probably.

Oh, so you DO deny that sexual mores are looser now than they were in Lincoln's day? Really?

Abe's wife, circa 1847:



Donald's wife, circa 2000:




It's still childish here. If you cannot debate without calling other people names, you are acting childish. But do you really think that the speech that happens on a hooker board justifies the same speech in a presidential debate?

Nope. We're just trying to pound some perspective into you.


I totally agree. Despite IB's insistence otherwise, I never defended Clinton's behavior. But what Clinton did has no bearing on what Trump is doing. "Clinton did it!" is, ironically, exactly what you are complaining about Obama doing when he allegedly blames Bush.

Go back and re-read your first post in this thread (# 6). You bitched about behavior that is “beneath the dignity of the office”. You INVITED comparisons with Obama and other Dims right out of the gate. You look pretty stupid complaining now, because other posters took you up on your invitation. Of course we brought up Slick Willy. What could possibly be more "childish" and "undignified" than playing labia dipstick with cigars in the Oval Office?


Citation?

You're asking ME? You're the one who just claimed Trump is making himself look like a racist. You ought to be full of citations.


Vague references to Obama being childish don't really prove your point. We can clearly point to Trump acting like a child. You, apparently, cannot do so with Obama....

Moochelle disagrees...

.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're asking ME? You're the one who just claimed Trump is making himself look like a racist. You ought to be full of citations..

Earthling's request for citation was clearly directed at your statement, "Your denial of any intent to “paint Trump as a racist” is belied by your saying he already is one." You made the statement. Back it up instead of deflecting it. What words did he use that implied or stated trump is a racist?

I'll save you some time. He made one reference to trump and race and that was "If Trump came out and said "Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I don't care if they all die" your equivalent argument would be. "Well, Garfield once said, 'I have a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the Negro being made our political equal. And I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.'"
It clearly says "if".


The Lincoln/Trump example shows a greater man than Trump made an inappropriate comment 150 years ago. And that's it. Both men's comments were inappropriate for the settings they were made in. Dick size and cocksmanship are 2 subjects that probably won't be appropriate in court or presidential debates anytime soon regardless of \the degree of social change.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Earthling's request for citation was clearly directed at your statement, "Your denial of any intent to “paint Trump as a racist” is belied by your saying he already is one." You made the statement. Back it up instead of deflecting it. What words did he use that implied or stated trump is a racist?

I'll save you some time. He made one reference to trump and race and that was "If Trump came out and said "Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I don't care if they all die" your equivalent argument would be. "Well, Garfield once said, 'I have a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the Negro being made our political equal. And I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.'"
It clearly says "if".


The Lincoln/Trump example shows a greater man than Trump made an inappropriate comment 150 years ago. And that's it. Both men's comments were inappropriate for the settings they were made in. Dick size and cocksmanship are 2 subjects that probably won't be appropriate in court or presidential debates anytime soon regardless of \the degree of social change.

And hypocritical lib-retards starting a thread feigning mock outrage at Trump's innuendo while voting to put Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's chief enabler back in the White House is nothing less than ridiculous, Masterdickmuncher.

[Yssup Rider]

Blah blah blah. Best move ever was to ignore IBIdiot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Blah blah blah. Best move ever was to ignore IBIdiot.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So you criticize Trump's political views for being outdated by your (subjective) PC standards,

I've never said his political views were outdated, I said he was acting like a child.

then turn around and slam him for a non-political remark (“see how beautiful my hands are”) because it violates your prudish pre-1960s sexual revolution sensibilities? Got it!

No, I pointed out the fact that bragging about your penis size is childish and not fit for a presidential debate.

It boils down to one simple fact, you are apparently incapable of coming up with an example more relevant to the time we live in. The fact that you have to go back 150 years to find something even remotely comparable shows how rare, and how unacceptable, in our time, this is.

Oh, so you DO deny that sexual mores are looser now than they were in Lincoln's day? Really?

We were talking about, using your words, "such statements were considered taboo." We weren't talking about sexual mores.

Nope. We're just trying to pound some perspective into you.

You are using what is said on a hooker message board to defend what should and should not be said during a presidential debate. This is not a reasonable "perspective." Calling me names does not give me "perspective." It only suggests to me that you don't have faith in your argument so you have to resort to the tired, old ad hominem. Basically, it only makes me more confident in my position.

You bitched about behavior that is “beneath the dignity of the office”. You INVITED comparisons with Obama and other Dims right out of the gate.

Totally agreed that I invited the comparisons. I pretty much explicitly invited them when I asked for more relevant examples. I have no problem with the comparisons. My issue is with you complaining about it and then doing the same.

You're asking ME? You're the one who just claimed Trump is making himself look like a racist. You ought to be full of citations.

Someone already pointed out what I wanted cited, so I am just reiterating my desire for a citation.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Earthling's request for citation was clearly directed at your statement, "Your denial of any intent to “paint Trump as a racist” is belied by your saying he already is one." You made the statement. Back it up instead of deflecting it. What words did he use that implied or stated trump is a racist?

No, dipshit. Stay out of the discussion if you can't even follow it.



I'll save you some time. He made one reference to trump and race and that was "If Trump came out and said "Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I don't care if they all die" your equivalent argument would be. "Well, Garfield once said, 'I have a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the Negro being made our political equal. And I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.'"
It clearly says "if".

No, dumbass – I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up. He said Trump does a “plenty good job” of painting himself as a racist. That's calling Trump a racist – no ifs involved. Then he demanded that I provide a citation to back up HIS smear. That's sorta like me calling you a cocksucker, then demanding that you drop to your knees and substantiate your cocksucking skills for everyone.



The Lincoln/Trump example shows a greater man than Trump made an inappropriate comment 150 years ago. And that's it. Both men's comments were inappropriate for the settings they were made in. Dick size and cocksmanship are 2 subjects that probably won't be appropriate in court or presidential debates anytime soon regardless of \the degree of social change.


So you agree that both men's comments are comparable... good! Now explain it to eatfido before he chases his tail around in a circle again stupidly denying it. When you're finished schooling him, you can tell us how much MORE inappropriate it is for a President to receive blowjobs from a White House intern in the Oval Office. Then you can conclude by telling us why a repulsive woman who pathetically defends, enables and lies about her sick spouse's deviant behavior deserves to be our next President.

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

No, I pointed out the fact that bragging about your penis size is childish and not fit for a presidential debate.

It boils down to one simple fact, you are apparently incapable of coming up with an example more relevant to the time we live in. The fact that you have to go back 150 years to find something even remotely comparable shows how rare, and how unacceptable, in our time, this is....

Totally agreed that I invited the comparisons. I pretty much explicitly invited them when I asked for more relevant examples.

Your tedious, repetitive and incredibly dense posts in this thread are far more “childish” than anything said in the presidential debates. We've given you comparable examples a dozen times since this post started. You want an oldie from one of our most revered Presidents? You got Lincoln's bawdy quote. You want recent and “more relevant”? You got Slick Willy's serial sexual predations. Many of those predations took place right smack in the middle of the Oval Office. I challenge you to find a more disgraceful example of a President acting “beneath the dignity of the office” than that. Now stop whining that we haven't coming up with relevant examples. You're making yourself look stupider than I thought possible.

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Someone already pointed out what I wanted cited, so I am just reiterating my desire for a citation.

You called Trump a racist, not me. Your lack of citations is not my problem. You look pathetic asking the person on the other side of the debate to back you up.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

He said Trump does a “plenty good job” of painting himself as a racist.

I see. Thanks for finally referencing what you are talking about.

Let's retrace the discussion. I drew an analogy about how overtly racist speech was acceptable 150 years ago to make it obvious that not all speech has become "more loose." You accused me of trying to make it look like Trump is a racist; i.e. paint (def. to give a particular impression of something) Trump as a racist. I said he was doing a good enough job of painting himself a racist. I probably should have been more clear that this was referencing his comments about how Mexico is sending "rapists and criminals" and that we should ban all Muslim coming to the US. Whether or not these comments come from racist beliefs, I don't know. But they sure as hell give off that impression to many people. Personally, I don't know whether or not the guy is racist, but he certainly says a lot of things that give that impression to a lot of reasonable people.

So you agree that both men's comments are comparable... good!

I've already referenced the comments as "remotely comparable" and even pointed out how they are comparable, just that that the comparison is terribly weak. The problem is that they are from two entirely different eras, so trying to pretend one justifies the other holds no water.

When you're finished schooling him, you can tell us how much MORE inappropriate it is for a President to receive blowjobs from a White House intern in the Oval Office.

As I already said "If you want me to say that what [sic] Clinton's unfaithful philandering while in office was wrong, I absolutely think it was. More wrong than Trump's childishness."

How many times do I have to say that is more unacceptable before you will understand that I agree that that is more unacceptable? Please, give me a number, and I will just copy and paste it that many times here so you can stop accusing me of something so patently untrue.

Maybe that statement wasn't clear. What can I say to make it more clear? Honestly, if you can't get from that statement that I don't approve of or defend Clinton's actions at all, I'm not sure how to communicate with you. It seems to me to be pretty plain and explicit English.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Your tedious, repetitive and incredibly dense posts in this thread are far more “childish” than anything said in the presidential debates.

Even if this is true, so what? I didn't say being childish was unacceptable anywhere, only that it was unacceptable in a presidential debate. I've already explicitly pointed out that comparing a presidential debate to a hooker board is ridiculous.

You want an oldie from one of our most revered Presidents? You got Lincoln's bawdy quote.

No, I don't want an "oldie," I want a "relevantie."

You want recent and “more relevant”? You got Slick Willy's serial sexual predations.

No, I don't want to compare it to something wrong a president got caught doing, but something actually comparable to a presidential candidate being openly, publicly and unabashedly childish. Not only that, but we agree that Clinton's actions were beneath the dignity of the office. Again, Clinton acting beneath the dignity of the office has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Trump is acting childish.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Again, Clinton acting beneath the dignity of the office has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Trump is acting childish.

It does have bearing as long as your intention is to ridicule Trump's behavior as an excuse not to vote for him while you intend to ignore Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's juvenile lack of dignity -- while actually IN the oval office -- and vote for his chief enabler; thus, return Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator to the White House.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I've already referenced the comments as "remotely comparable" and even pointed out how they are comparable, just that that the comparison is terribly weak. The problem is that they are from two entirely different eras, so trying to pretend one justifies the other holds no water.

There you go again! They're comparable but a comparison "holds no water"? Make up your mind. The fact that they are from "two entirely different eras" STRENGTHENS the comparison rather than weakens it. If it didn't taint Abe Lincoln back in the days when Queen Victoria was on her throne (an era known for its prim and puritanical codes of conduct) then why should it be considered a huge scandal in today's highly decadent culture? You haven't refuted this point and you can't.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It does have bearing as long as your intention is to ridicule Trump's behavior as an excuse not to vote for him while you intend to ignore Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's juvenile lack of dignity while actually IN the oval office -- and vote for his chief enabler -- thus, return Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator to the White House.

+1

Eatfido just refuses to be honest about this. If he was, he would simply admit the Clintons get a pass because in his mind libtard politics "trumps" all character flaws.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Eatfido just refuses to be honest about this. If he was, he would simply admit the Clintons get a pass because in his mind libtard politics "trumps" all character flaws.

It takes him awhile to see reality, like Hillarys criminal investigation. He begrudgingly saw the light.