Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:26 pm UTC

I don't know if for guys like Trump, if you have identical twins* where one is a porn star and the other is an intern, the porn star is the "better conquest".

*Insert** joke about both
**Insert joke about inserting

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Trump presidency

Postby K-R » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:29 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No, I got the impression that he meant that Lewinsky wasn't particularly attractive, rather than sleeping with her was somehow worse than Trump sleeping with the porn star. As for the morality of it, I think sleeping with the porn star is marginally better than with the naive intern, but it also shows that Clinton cares more about the person as a person while Trump views women as masturbatory aides.
This interpretation fails to explain Monroe's presence in the sentence in question.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:No, I got the impression that he meant that Lewinsky wasn't particularly attractive, rather than sleeping with her was somehow worse than Trump sleeping with the porn star. As for the morality of it, I think sleeping with the porn star is marginally better than with the naive intern, but it also shows that Clinton cares more about the person as a person while Trump views women as masturbatory aides.
This interpretation fails to explain Monroe's presence in the sentence in question.


For a moment there I thought you meant Randall. That
would
be a surprise presidential affair.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:13 pm UTC

NASA roboticist. Either one of those screams "sexy".

But seriously, the whole Monroe thing was Yahoo being a bit of a twit, in that JFK allegedly had "better" affairs than Clinton because Monroe was hotter, nevermind that as I keep saying, it's likely that Clinton wasn't completely shallow.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8175
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:21 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Bill could've opened up People Magazine to "1996's top 100 sexiest people", and used it as a checklist. Lewinsky wasn't ugly, far from it, but she was "girl next cube over", not a supermodel. That Bill had an affair with her, at least 9 times rather than just hit and run, showed he sort of cared about her specifically. Maybe.

That he abused his power to promote a relationship (regardless of how willing or not Lewinsky was) is much worse than two adults with no direct power relationships between them choosing to have sex together. Both are shitty if they're done outside of the confines of their supposedly-monogamous relationship, but what Clinton did was abuse of power. I can't believe I'm defending Trump.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:41 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But seriously, the whole Monroe thing was Yahoo being a bit of a twit, in that JFK allegedly had "better" affairs than Clinton because Monroe was hotter, nevermind that as I keep saying, it's likely that Clinton wasn't completely shallow.
You're arguing that Clinton's relationship must have had more 'depth' to it because Lewinski isn't as 'attractive' as Clinton, or Stormy Daniels, or Marilyn Monroe -- or whoever else we're comparing her to.

Let me put this another way. Here's what you are saying: "Clinton was clearly an 8, and Lewinski was clearly a 5, so Clinton must have been into more than just her looks."

This is a loathsome, garbage-flavored conversation we're having right now. I don't think I can express just how disgusted I am with it.

Mutex
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:47 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:I can't believe I'm defending Trump.

In fairness this is nowhere near the worst thing Trump has done.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:01 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Zohar wrote:I can't believe I'm defending Trump.

In fairness this is nowhere near the worst thing Trump has done.


And it's not even close to being the worst thing in its particular category of bad things that he's done. Which is why it's a non story, one that only makes people roll their eyes and mutter "Trump derangement syndrome" or something, and inoculates them against the REAL stiries.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8175
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:11 pm UTC

Yeah, his behavior around this affair is more relevant politically than his actual infidelity.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:15 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Could someone explain to me the big deal about Stormy Daniels? It's not like there's people who think that Trump DIDN'T screw around, and it's almost doing the guy a favor considering that his persona is "I'm the guy you wish you were, I fuck the women you wish you could fuck!"


My impression was that a possible reason for the significance of this story is that Trump may have broken campaign finance laws by using campaign funds to cover money used to pay her off.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:28 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:But seriously, the whole Monroe thing was Yahoo being a bit of a twit, in that JFK allegedly had "better" affairs than Clinton because Monroe was hotter, nevermind that as I keep saying, it's likely that Clinton wasn't completely shallow.
You're arguing that Clinton's relationship must have had more 'depth' to it because Lewinski isn't as 'attractive' as Clinton, or Stormy Daniels, or Marilyn Monroe -- or whoever else we're comparing her to.

Again I think that's not the case. I think he's saying, one the one hand, that there is a shallow worldview probably held by many Trump supporters who would see Clinton's affair with Lewinsky as "less triumphant a conquest" than JFK's with Monroe because of how they would rate their attractiveness; but that, on the other hand, Clinton didn't seem to be exhibiting that worldview himself, because his affair with Lewinsky seemed to have been an ongoing relationship and not a one-off act of sexual conquest. (I imagine CU probably tacitly acknowledges the obvious problematic aspects of the Lewinsky affair, like the infidelity and power imbalance, and just isn't talking about them because they're beside his point that the Trump/Daniels affair exhibits different, arguably worse problematic aspects, namely this "triumph scale of sexual conquest" mindset).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:37 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Again I think that's not the case. I think he's saying, one the one hand, that there is a shallow worldview probably held by many Trump supporters who would see Clinton's affair with Lewinsky as "less triumphant a conquest" than JFK's with Monroe because of how they would rate their attractiveness; but that, on the other hand, Clinton didn't seem to be exhibiting that worldview himself, because his affair with Lewinsky seemed to have been an ongoing relationship and not a one-off act of sexual conquest. (I imagine CU probably tacitly acknowledges the obvious problematic aspects of the Lewinsky affair, like the infidelity and power imbalance, and just isn't talking about them because they're beside his point that the Trump/Daniels affair exhibits different, arguably worse problematic aspects, namely this "triumph scale of sexual conquest" mindset).
CorruptUser wrote:Bill could've opened up People Magazine to "1996's top 100 sexiest people", and used it as a checklist. Lewinsky wasn't ugly, far from it, but she was "girl next cube over", not a supermodel.
Look, maybe I'm being over-sensitive about this; I don't know. I've been having a rough couple of weeks. Months. Whatever. Anger seems to be my default mode, lately.

But I know that I'm not misinterpreting what CorruptUser said. There's not a lot of different ways you can take this. The most charitable interpretation is to presume CorruptUser is writing these statements from the perspective of Bill Clinton, and we're meant to take their description of Lewinsky as not "ugly, far from it" -- but "not a supermodel" -- as being an expression of Clinton's reasoning, rather than CU's.

That's a really hard interpretation to make -- and if it's what CU meant, I think CU definitely should have somehow clarified that's what they were doing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:14 pm UTC

1) I think it should be clear from the context that I was giving the most likely explanation for Trump vs Clinton's affairs in terms of their motivations. I don't know, I could be wrong; the real reason for the affairs could have been that Stormy is actually one of the world's greatest students on Wittgenstein and Proust which lead to long discussions late into the night, and after months of fighting with Mrs Trump, one thing lead to another. But is that the most likely story given what we already know about the affairs and the people involved? That President Pussygrabber Peeping-Tom, who divorced and remarried every time his current wife got close to menopause, actually gives a damn about the women he screws?
2) I'm on a phone. Forgive me if I'm not writing out a 50 page legal document explaining every possibly nuance.
3) It's the internet. Calm down, it doesn't matter.
4) It's more than just a few "bad weeks", isn't it? I'm not Cory Johnson, who builds computers and has a cat, I'm that asshole you knew in high school or college that you absolutely detested. I'm the bastard who lied in order to sleep with women, I'm the asshole who only see then as a pieces of ass. I'm the jerkwad who dumped a girl for someone more attractive in spite of all her qualities, only to dump her too after I got bored. Well I'm not that guy. I've done some bad things, but I'm not that guy.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:07 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:4) It's more than just a few "bad weeks", isn't it? I'm not Cory Johnson, who builds computers and has a cat, I'm that asshole you knew in high school or college that you absolutely detested. I'm the bastard who lied in order to sleep with women, I'm the asshole who only see then as a pieces of ass. I'm the jerkwad who dumped a girl for someone more attractive in spite of all her qualities, only to dump her too after I got bored. Well I'm not that guy. I've done some bad things, but I'm not that guy.
What? No. You're just a person on the internet who said a thing that I find really, really gross.

I mean, crap; for all I know, you could be exclusively into men. You could be asexual. You could be someone who runs a domestic abuse shelter during your spare time. You could be someone who spent the last three hours in the soaking rain as you talked someone down from the edge of a rooftop. I have no clue who you are, and I'm not going to make any presumptions.

It isn't who you are that bothered me; it's what you said. It's frustrating -- because to me, it's gross and vulgar. You said that Clinton might have had a deeper relationship with this person, because Clinton could have opened People Magazine to "1996's top 100 sexiest people" and "used it as a checklist".

You're saying that Clinton might have had a deeper relationship with this person -- because the other person wasn't as 'sexy' as him. You're saying: "When sexy people have sex with less-sexy people, that's notable behavior. Maybe there was a 'deeper' relationship, here."

And I'm saying: That's gross and dumb. For starters, there's no such thing as 'sexy' and 'less-sexy' people. People have sex with people because they're attracted to them. Attraction is personal; it's not a value you can extract or derive. Clinton had sex with Lewinski because he was attracted to her; he continued having sex with her because he continued to be attracted to her. Talking about this in terms of how "since he could have sex with a super-model, that means they might have had something more intimate" misses the point spectacularly on multiple levels. It's gross and dumb because it reduces sex to some sort of economic model where people behave based on their 'sexiness' quotients, and the act of having sex with someone with a 'lower' quotient is somehow exceptional or unusual.

Look, I get that you probably aren't going to understand what I'm talking about. That's fine. I probably got angrier at you than I should have; for that, I genuinely do apologize. But the stuff you're saying is gross. It's not especially gross, though; it's just 'normal gross'. The gross status quo. Singling you out for that is probably wrong.

I've said my peace; I'll leave this be.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:38 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:[CorruptUser] said that Clinton might have had a deeper relationship with this person, because Clinton could have opened People Magazine to "1996's top 100 sexiest people" and "used it as a checklist".
No, that's not what he said. (Or, more precisely, that's not the way I read what he did say).

I think what he's saying is "Trump would have opened People Magazine...checklist" and "That's not what Clinton did".

And in any case, these are all distractions. They are not the reason {fill in} is a {flawed person | disgrace to humanity}. Focus on the big picture.

Trump is deliberately and willfully stirring up divisiveness in the American populace. He spits in the face of decency, and is proud of it, and uses that pride to set the tone of the nation. He undermines - not "truth" (as in true statements), but rather, the idea of truth, and truth mattering. And while I think it's totally incompetent at being president, he's not doing this out of incompetence. He's very competent at putting Trump first, and the US last, and is doing this willfully.

The way he treats women is a shadow that shows his mind at work. But it's his mind that's the problem, not the shadow.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:10 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Bill could've opened up People Magazine to "1996's top 100 sexiest people", and used it as a checklist.
The Great Hippo wrote:[CorruptUser] said that Clinton might have had a deeper relationship with this person, because Clinton could have opened People Magazine to "1996's top 100 sexiest people" and "used it as a checklist".
ucm wrote:I think what he's saying is "Trump would have opened People Magazine...checklist" and "[Clinton could have, but] That's not what Clinton did".


CU: "Clinton could have done this thing, but didn't; that demonstrates Clinton might have been 'better' than Trump. Maybe."

Me: "CU said that Clinton could have done this thing, but didn't; to CU, this demonstrates that Clinton might have been 'better' than Trump. Maybe."

You: "No, what CU actually said was that Clinton could have done this thing, but didn't; to CU, this demonstrates that Clinton might have been 'better' than Trump. Maybe."

Like, am I being pranked, here? Are the people in this thread fucking with me? Or am I legitimately just this fucking awful at reading comprehension?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:51 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Like, am I being pranked, here?
I'm focusing on the "because". Perhaps I'm misreading what is because of what.

I also don't think it's important in the big picture. Let's not get distracted.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4808
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:14 am UTC

I agree that this isn’t important enough that we should belabor it much more, but for the sake of clarity: I read Hippo as thinking that either CU holds, or CU thinks Clinton holds, the kind of worldview that would see not doing the “checklist” as somehow “settling for less”, while I read CU as thinking that Clinton’s actions suggest that he does not hold such a worldview at all, for if he did hold such a view, nothing would compel him to do something he would see as “settling”, so he wouldn’t have; he’d have done the “checklist” instead (or comparable actions like Trump has done).

Both are saying that Clinton didn’t do something he could have, but CU is inferring something about Clinton’s mindset from those actions, while Hippo is inferring something about CU’s mindset from his description of those actions.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:40 am UTC

ucim wrote:The way he treats women is a shadow that shows his mind at work. But it's his mind that's the problem, not the shadow.

Jose

I think the ways he treat women and girls very relevant to even stuffs YOU say: Him undermining truthiness. Him undermining truthiness that rape, sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching or staring or comments are BAD and inappropriate and wrong. Undermining the truthiness in Not Ever, Ever confessing that you want to bed your daughter. Even if she only distant relate to you or "not your daughter but still looks like your daughter." Bragging in locker rooms about molesting and harassing women undermines a very real, powerful truth for women and girls everywhere: Their bodily autonomy. So Trump needs to knock out the womanizing garbage before some woman or girl sues his ass to Hell and back. And gets him disgraced publicly and fire from being Prez of the USA.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6411
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:57 pm UTC

Pedantic, I suppose, but important:
Ginger wrote:Him undermining truthiness that rape, sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching or staring or comments are BAD and inappropriate and wrong.
This is not truthiness, this is judgment. (Sexual) misconduct being (morally) wrong is not an objective fact, it is an opinion (albeit in this case one with which I agree). Flat earth being incorrect is an objective fact; one whose truth value is verifiable by experiment, and whose truth (or falsity) exists independent of our opinions, or even of our own existence.

The difference is important.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:25 pm UTC

Was going to let it drop since you said you didn't want to continue, but then you continued.

I'm focused on what the relationships say about Clinton vs Trump. You seem to be focused on what that says about me for judging other relationships.

And you know what, I'm going to be crass.

Spoiler:
You make the claim that the affairs happen because the two are attracted to each other. What you seem to be actively in denial about people is that who they are attracted to depends a fuckton on their options; to use crass dudebro terminology, their "league". The shallow guys are attracted to the "hot" girls in school, but for most guys "she's out of your league, bro". The less shallow guys will include talents or skills or intelligence, or perhaps they are still shallow and its money or family connections, or maybe they like redheads specifically, but for the majority of crushes a guy has, "she's out of your league, bro". It's basically the same for women, you might want the captain of the football team, the kid that got accepted to half of the Ivies, the rich guy, the mayor's son, whatever, chances are "he's out of your league, hun". If people struggle, they lower their standards or remain alone. That's how nearly everyone finds a partner. What, you mean to tell me you married the 6'2 millionaire scientist with a six pack that always knows how to make you laugh and plays a mean guitar and still has time to help starving orphans? Well luuucky you, the rest of us have to settle. I was waiting for the perfect man, found him, but he was waiting for the perfect woman.

To be even more crass, or intrusive or nebbish, or something where I'm prying where I shouldn't, let's say hypothetically your husband wins the lotto, or his book gets optioned for a series of movies, or something. What do you have that another woman doesn't? You have the shared experiences with your husband. He could at the point find someone younger, someone funnier, thinner, more intelligent than you, but not someone with 10 years of love. If that matters enough, you won't end up in the first wives club. If not, well, nearly every fiance thinks their partner would never betray their love, yet that's obviously not reality. Had your husband won the lotto BEFORE he met you, though? You wouldn't be together.

For shallow people like Trump, looks are the only part of those standards, whereas, since as president Clinton's "league" was "people magazine's top 100 sexiest celebrities", clearly he does not have appearances as the only measure of attractiveness. I could be wrong, maybe Clinton really is as shallow as Trump and he's actually super smelly, I don't know I've never met him in person, and he really saw Monica as the most attractive piece of meat that he could sink his claws into. Or maybe Trump really isn't shallow, that he was only making up the stories about only buying Miss Universe so he could walk in while they were dressing and grab them by their pussies, maybe he really does see women as more than sperm repositories. Maybe he bonded with all his wives and mistresses over their mutual appreciation for Proust, their disdain for Avant Guarde music and art, their heated arguments but mutual respect for each others viewpoints regarding transhumanism, their mutual fascination with architecture and the the construction business. I've also never met the guy. But, doesn't seem like the most likely scenarios, do they?


Again, my point in all of this, is that Clinton is probably less shallow than Trump when it comes to mistresses. If my analysis has to be crass to come to that conclusion, so be it.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:56 pm UTC

I've got another comparison to throw in, while we're stirring this stew-pot. Stormy or Monica, who has more experience of faking it? :wink:

Trump probably told his friends "I tapped that and she loved it," while she told hers he had no clue how to please a woman at all and a rubber doll would have had more fun than she did. Monica may have told hers that Bill was surprisingly tender, or something, maybe ... or maybe that he told her never to touch his hair ... or that she did touch his hair and it was rigid, like Lego. I still want to know how much he spent on that hair, you know. That hair was better-maintained than the Statue of Liberty. Stormy, though? I bet she took a really long, really hot shower afterwards, twice.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8175
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:55 pm UTC

You are disgusting.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Was going to let it drop since you said you didn't want to continue, but then you continued.
I wasn't continuing it with you; I was responding to someone who was telling me (yet again) that I didn't understand what you wrote.

As I said, I've spoken my peace. Whatever "crass" remarks you wrote under that spoiler can remain between you and everyone else in this thread. I'm not curious enough to look.

cphite
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:05 pm UTC

Without knowing any of the people involved, it's not overly difficult to make an educated guess about their motives, just from the way they conduct themselves in public.

Bill Clinton wanted to fool around, but didn't want to get caught fooling around; so a relatively anonymous girl who held him in awe and who'd almost certainly never tell anyone was ideal. That she was not famous, and was not someone who'd be viewed as overly attractive by common social standards, were actually advantages.

Donald Trump wanted to fool around, and wanted to be able to brag about the whole thing; and so the more famous and attractive the woman, the better. It's no accident that Trump has spend so much of his time around beauty pageants; the literal point of these contests is to name and rank the most beautiful and desirable women they can find. He can say, with official documentation to back it up, that he's surrounded by the most beautiful women in the world.

For someone like Trump, you can bet money that a very large part of hooking up with a woman is how hot she's perceived to be, and how wanted she is by other men. Who fits that criteria better than a porn star?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6170
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:19 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Without knowing any of the people involved, it's not overly difficult to make an educated guess about their motives, just from the way they conduct themselves in public.


So your "educated guess" is based on the idea that affairs start with people deciding to go out and have an affair and then finding someone to have it with, rather than a non-sexual relationship evolving into a sexual one. I think you need a better education.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Thesh wrote:Yes, that's why he's a jackass.
I mean, in a weird way, I'm actually kind of glad: I no longer have to struggle with the possibility that he might just be a nice, otherwise pleasant person with whom I deeply disagree.
Voltaire wrote:I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous ignorant jackasses.' And God granted it.

Honestly, I'm inclined to feel the same way about you at the moment. I wasn't referring to their attractiveness, though admittedly, I intentionally left it vague. (I probably shouldn't have, because I know anything I say in this thread is going to be jumped on anyway, I wasn't in the best mood and I was a little tired of the attacks)

What I was actually referring to was this:
  • Kennedy did better with Marilyn Monroe because it's never actually been proven anything happened between them.
  • Clinton did worse with Monica Lewinsky because it was proven, she was an intern which means he was in a position of direct authority, it happened in the president's place of business, and it happened while he was a sitting president.
  • Trump falls between those because it's very likely to have happened (and may have been officially proven by now; I haven't been keeping up), but it happened well before he ever decided to run for office.

As a side note, I do respect the paraphrasing of Voltaire.

The Great Hippo wrote:Look, maybe I'm being over-sensitive about this; I don't know. I've been having a rough couple of weeks. Months. Whatever. Anger seems to be my default mode, lately.

In light of this, I honestly and wholeheartedly apologize for leaving my comment vague. I can definitely sympathize at the moment.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

cphite
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:29 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
cphite wrote:Without knowing any of the people involved, it's not overly difficult to make an educated guess about their motives, just from the way they conduct themselves in public.


So your "educated guess" is based on the idea that affairs start with people deciding to go out and have an affair and then finding someone to have it with, rather than a non-sexual relationship evolving into a sexual one. I think you need a better education.


Nothing I said demands that they decide to go out and do anything.

Clinton was president, so it's entirely reasonable to assume that he wanted a relationship that could be kept low key and secret. Whether he actively sought out someone like that, or allowed an existing relationship to develop because Monica fit those parameters, or anything in between... his motivation to keep it quiet and non-public remains the same.

Trump is an attention whore who hovers around beautiful women like a vulture. That being the case, it's entirely reasonable to assume that he wants to sleep with women who are widely known and desired. Whether he actively sought out Daniels, or had an existing relationship with Daniels that he allowed to develop because of her status, his motivation also remain the same.

That being said... if you honestly believe that the President of the United States, given the day to day demands of that job, just happened to be good pals with an intern and was spending a lot of completely innocent alone time with her, to the point where it blossomed into something more... or that Donald Trump just happened to keep bumping into Stormy Daniels at parties or whatever... you're the one in need of a clue.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:38 pm UTC

IIRC, it was the other staffers who hushed up the Lewinsky affair by promoting her to the Pentagon. That's when it backfired and became public, but I don't think Bill was especially concerned about secrecy. It wasn't his first affair; remember Ms Flowers? He didn't expect the media to go after him over Lewinsky, nor the Repubs to be so fucking stupid to press this particular issue.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6170
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:51 pm UTC

cphite wrote:That being said... if you honestly believe that the President of the United States, given the day to day demands of that job, just happened to be good pals with an intern and was spending a lot of completely innocent alone time with her, to the point where it blossomed into something more... or that Donald Trump just happened to keep bumping into Stormy Daniels at parties or whatever... you're the one in need of a clue.


So, basically, you have more assumptions to back up your assumptions: that being President means you are constantly busy, don't take breaks, and are always 100% business with staff members. I don't know the circumstances, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in these matters like you apparently think you are (FYI, Dunning and Kruger are on line 2 for you).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

cphite
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:13 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
cphite wrote:That being said... if you honestly believe that the President of the United States, given the day to day demands of that job, just happened to be good pals with an intern and was spending a lot of completely innocent alone time with her, to the point where it blossomed into something more... or that Donald Trump just happened to keep bumping into Stormy Daniels at parties or whatever... you're the one in need of a clue.


So, basically, you have more assumptions to back up your assumptions: that being President means you are constantly busy, don't take breaks, and are always 100% business with staff members. I don't know the circumstances, and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in these matters like you apparently think you are (FYI, Dunning and Kruger are on line 2 for you).


I don't know for certain; and neither do you. Hence my use of the word "guess" right at the start. I made a guess based on how I've seen the two of them conduct themselves over many years; and while neither of us knows for sure, I would wager my guess is better than your guess. In part because I suspect your guess is based on little more than some goofy desire on your part to be in an argument.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6170
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:07 pm UTC

You said that it's not difficult to guess, implying that your assumption is likely to be true. I didn't make a guess; my point is that it *is* difficult to guess, and that there is no reason to think it happened as you described.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:08 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:What I was actually referring to was this:
  • Kennedy did better with Marilyn Monroe because it's never actually been proven anything happened between them.
  • Clinton did worse with Monica Lewinsky because it was proven, she was an intern which means he was in a position of direct authority, it happened in the president's place of business, and it happened while he was a sitting president.
  • Trump falls between those because it's very likely to have happened (and may have been officially proven by now; I haven't been keeping up), but it happened well before he ever decided to run for office.
Okay, that's a completely credible alternative interpretation that I didn't consider; one that has nothing to do with the grossness of assigning 'doing better' or 'doing worse' to the relative 'attractiveness' of people others are sleeping with.

I still have deep issues with your politics, but that's absolutely no excuse for me to malign you by accusing you of saying shit you weren't actually saying. This is particularly egregious on my part, because -- when I interpreted it that way -- it struck me as being somewhat out-of-character given your previous posts. I should have taken that as a clue to reserve judgment. I apologize.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:31 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Okay, that's a completely credible alternative interpretation that I didn't consider; one that has nothing to do with the grossness of assigning 'doing better' or 'doing worse' to the relative 'attractiveness' of people others are sleeping with.

I still have deep issues with your politics, but that's absolutely no excuse for me to malign you by accusing you of saying shit you weren't actually saying. This is particularly egregious on my part, because -- when I interpreted it that way -- it struck me as being somewhat out-of-character given your previous posts. I should have taken that as a clue to reserve judgment. I apologize.

Apology accepted as long as you also accept my apology for intentionally leaving my statement vague enough to be interpreted another way.

I, too, have issues with your politics, but I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss them (somewhat) civilly. There are some points on which we'll likely never agree and some on which we will agree. If those are identified and set aside, maybe the rest can be debated and we'll find some common ground.

Politics are so divisive these days, I'd really prefer the debate to be as positive and constructive as possible.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Mutex
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:36 pm UTC

*wipes tear from eye*

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:23 pm UTC

Yeah ... but it's still a better development than it could have been. Nothing like a plot twist.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7027
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:47 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:Apology accepted as long as you also accept my apology for intentionally leaving my statement vague enough to be interpreted another way.
I hold that it's the responsibility of the reader to give the writer as much charity as they can spare, but I can accept your apology and agree that it could have been phrased more precisely.
Yablo wrote:I, too, have issues with your politics, but I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss them (somewhat) civilly. There are some points on which we'll likely never agree and some on which we will agree. If those are identified and set aside, maybe the rest can be debated and we'll find some common ground.

Politics are so divisive these days, I'd really prefer the debate to be as positive and constructive as possible.
But there's issues here that I absolutely cannot set aside. These are not all matters where we can just 'agree to disagree'.

This is, at least in part, because these issues directly impact people I love. Not to be maudlin, but Trump's policies have put some of them in harm's way. They're having their lives disrupted -- their families torn apart -- as a direct result of his decisions as President. This makes it very, very, very hard for me to discuss things 'civilly' with anyone who thinks Trump is the 'greatest President' in the past few decades.

Think of it like this: We elect a new sheriff. The sheriff talks a lot of shit, but enacts policies you like and reverses a lot of nonsense you disliked. You start to see significant improvements in your neighborhood -- for the first time in twenty years, things seem to be getting better.

Meanwhile, one neighborhood over, some of the sheriff's policies are literally splitting families apart -- his shit-talk is emboldening his deputies to escalate violence against the neighborhood -- critical programs for the welfare of the neighborhood are getting gutted left and right -- and everyone's getting increasingly scared, because this 'shit-talk' of his is sounding a lot like someone who either doesn't understand or just doesn't give a fuck.

Now, when you say 'This is the best sheriff we've had in twenty years', do you really expect anyone from that neighborhood to debate the matter with you civilly? And this is important -- because it's those people who's voices are most important in any discussion like this. And they're the people least likely to be civil about any of it (and with good reason). I guess what I'm saying is that although I deeply sympathize with the desire for civil discourse, expecting it on some of these issues is kind of like expecting a man who's on fire to politely ask if you could possibly spare a bucket of water.

I'm not one of the ones on fire, but I know a lot who are. It's hard for me to not get very angry about it.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10027
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:53 pm UTC

Hey now, a rising tide lifts all boats. Except the ones whose anchor lines are too short, they sink, but screw them. Oh and the boats 6 hours away, they are at low tide, but screw them too. You know what, screw all the boats. The ocean sucks.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1254
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:18 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hey now, a rising tide lifts all boats. Except the ones whose anchor lines are too short, they sink, but screw them. Oh and the boats 6 hours away, they are at low tide, but screw them too. You know what, screw all the boats. The ocean sucks.

Taking speech lessons from the great orange one?
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:42 am UTC

freezeblade wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Hey now, a rising tide lifts all boats. Except the ones whose anchor lines are too short, they sink, but screw them. Oh and the boats 6 hours away, they are at low tide, but screw them too. You know what, screw all the boats. The ocean sucks.

Taking speech lessons from the great orange one?

Not enough exclamation points or credit-taking.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests