Sexual affairs...

[islander]

There was a time when any hint of an extra-marital sexual affair would
end the career of a politician. Trump seems to be immune to this as
evidence accumulates to show that he not only had affairs with at least
two women, but paid them to prevent exposure before the 2016 election.

Why is this? One wonders if conservatives would be quiet if the alleged
affairs were homosexual in nature? Why is this different?

[GLOBALIST]

Number One....there is no "evidence" that the candidate had
these affairs. They are "here-say".
Number one the Trump supporters are use to a supposed crises
once every 2 weeks.
Before now and November the haters will have evidence that
Trump drowns puppies

[b flanier]

The quietude of the Republican establishment is very curious concerning
the Donald. No doubt they would go ape if all this disgraceful stuff
the Trump engages in were done by a Democrat but what is going on with
Republicans, with a few exceptions- Flake, speaks volumes of today's
politics. I would suggest there is not very much difference in today's
goings on from the past-it just is more in-your-face what with the
platforms that are available.

Then, of course, we have comments the unmoored Globy made in this
thread which would not have been possibly seen/heard by a wide audience
ago by those of like. We have come to realize the Globys and others are
much more numerous than we might have imagined. They are of the opinion
that "truth is not truth". Very strange but we can hope the country
will out grow this abomination that is Trump. Wanna bet?

[b flanier]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:41:31 PM UTC-7, GLOBALIST wrote:
><

Globy, you have outdone yourself with this post!

Perhaps a gentle crunt would help you but on the other hand
perhaps it was a crunt that caused your current condition.

[islander]

On Meet the Press last Sunday, host Chuck Todd could barely hide his
astonishment when Rudy Giulani stated that "truth is not truth." And
today they are insisting that a crime is not a crime.

Note the dialog between O'Brian and Winston in George Orwell's 1984:

"You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline.
You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity.
You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined
mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something
objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that
the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into
thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the
same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not
external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the
individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes:
only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal.
Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to
see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the
fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of
self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before
you can become sane.' "

The dialog goes on to the infamous "how many fingers am I holding up"
segment.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/18.html

[b flanier]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:09:37 PM UTC-7, islander wrote:
>... Note the dialog between O'Brian and Winston in George Orwell's 1984:...

Scary, isn't it? Humans just can't be trusted! <grin>

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 8/22/2018 4:09 PM, islander wrote:

{snip}

> On Meet the Press last Sunday, host Chuck Todd could barely hide his
> astonishment when Rudy Giulani stated that "truth is not truth."

I have to give Giuliani a very small break because he speaks like
English is not his first language.

What he meant by the "truth is not the truth" is none of us knows for
sure what the truth is, and so if Trump were to answer Mueller's
questions 100% truthfully, he still might be charged with perjury if
Mueller thinks he is lying.

But, I am only giving Giuliani a very small break because that argument,
while not as asinine as the "truth is not truth," is still incredibly
lame. In order for it to be correct, you have to assume that Mueller
will go after Trump without a shred of independent corroborative
evidence that Trump is lying. That would be professional suicide by
Mueller and it ain't happening.

And let's not forget that Trump has a "stellar" record in telling the
truth including this whopper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrDCekqFbl8

[islander]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose

[mg]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 12:45:30 -0700, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

>There was a time when any hint of an extra-marital sexual affair would
>end the career of a politician. Trump seems to be immune to this as
>evidence accumulates to show that he not only had affairs with at least
>two women, but paid them to prevent exposure before the 2016 election.
>
>
>

Bill Clinton, as I recall, was also immune. In fact, if memory serves
he became even more popular after the Republicans impeached him and
told the world about the cum-stained dress and the infamous cigar.
Martin Luther King, Jr. had a reputation for sexual affairs, but I
don't think anyone cared. JFK had a similar reputation. I remember
reading somewhere that there were a lot of accusations about J. Edgar
Hoover.

The bottom line, I think, is that if people really like a particular
politician, or actor, or singer, etc., stories about his personal life
usually won't change their minds. My wife, however, refused to watch
the TV show "Frasier" because one of the actors was said to be gay,
but it is one of my favorite programs. Of course Archie Bunker is one
of my all-time favorite programs and my right-wing wife refused to
even be in the room when that show was on.

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:45:34 PM UTC-4, islander wrote:
> There was a time when any hint of an extra-marital sexual affair would
> end the career of a politician. Trump seems to be immune to this as
> evidence accumulates to show that he not only had affairs with at least
> two women, but paid them to prevent exposure before the 2016 election.

My prediction for some time has been that the Mueller investigation
will not find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They will
look hard but what will happen is they will find he had sex with
some women and then lied about it. He may even be impeached but
it will fail.
It all seems strikingly similar to the Ken Starr investigation of
Clinton. All they found after spending much time and money was that
Clintons lost some money on a real estate deal. The McDougals ended
up in prison because they would not tell the lies that Starr wanted
to hear. I can see someone going to jail because they won't tell lies
that Mueller wants to hear. We know what happened with his sexual affairs
with Monica. It all seems so much the same.

> Why is this? One wonders if conservatives would be quiet if the alleged
> affairs were homosexual in nature? Why is this different?

I just sit back and watch the actions of people speak the truth
since there is no point in listening to what they say.

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

Come on Islander are you going to hear what you want to hear and see
what you want to see?
I saw that interview and I saw what wood Chuck Todd did, and seems so
typical of bias press. Giulani's point was that people will testify to
their own version of the truth. I think we all know that when that
happens, the actual truth is found somewhere in between.
But I do credit the press for doing an excellent job of making
Giuliani seem like a fool. But I think only fools fall for that sort
of thing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/giuliani-truth-isn-t-truth-1302113347986?v=railb

[me]

“Consciousness and logic are not reliable standards.” – Cogitors fundamental postulates

[rumpelstiltskin]

In the old days and continuing to the present day, women
are mostly expected to have sex only with husbands
whereas men playing around with other women is shrugged
off. Mozart was a notorious womanizer though he had a
wife and four children. King Charles I, before he got his
head chopped off and nobody but his son regretted it, was
spoken of disrespectfully about "his wife, his mistresses,
and his whores".

[rumpelstiltskin]

True enough.

[islander]

Giuliani seems to be doing a pretty good job of making himself look like
a fool all by himself.

[b flanier]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:49:24 PM UTC-7, mg wrote:

> Bill Clinton, as I recall, was also immune.

Your memory could be a bit faulty. Clinton was disbarred and
impeached but not convicted. I would not call that immunity.

[b flanier]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:43:30 PM UTC-7, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> I have to give Giuliani a very small break because he speaks like
> English is not his first language.

You, in my opinion, are being far to generous with your "break"

Giuliani, as a former government official, has an obligation to
be precise in his pronouncements now especially since it is
claimed that he is Trump's attorney.

Methinks Rudy is trying very hard to muddy the waters and is doing
no favors for Trump. Having said that, his latest "truth is not truth"
remark will be cited many times over the coming years and not
positively.

[mg]

My guess on the cultural leniency of men having affairs, and not women
is because of the aversion men often have to raising some other man's
child. Actually, come to think of it, I think that other primates,
besides humans have that same aversion, I guess. In fact, I think a
male lion will kill all the cubs when he takes over a pride. Mother
Nature can be pretty cruel sometimes, or maybe I should say all of the
time?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Yep, lions do that. It's easy to understand why, in terms of
natural selection, but it's still really, really cruel. As I read
somebody saying lately, in my hunt-and-peck reading about
the Nazi Holocaust, "If there is a god, he will have to beg
for my forgiveness". Speaking for myself, I couldn't and
wouldn't forgive "Him" even if "He" begged. The world is
better without a god than with one, because we know that
unknowing and unfeeling circumstance allows things to
happen out of ignorance and incapacity, that would be
unforgivable if there were a "God" behind them.

[b flanier]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 1:24:32 PM UTC-7, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> ...Yep, lions do that.... >

Yabut, we are not lions.

[rumpelstiltskin]

We're a lot worse than lions. We wipe out whole species,
just for fun. It's estimated there were three to five billion
passenger pigeons in North America before the white man
came. In only about 30 years from 1870 to 1900, they
were completely wiped out in the wild, not for food, just
for fun and (I guess) because they shat all over the place
in their migrations. Here's "Martha", the very last one
as far as is known:
https://tinyurl.com/y7885pxq

The last dodo, on Mauritius, died by being clubbed
to death by drunken Dutch sailors, just for fun.

The Carolina Parakeet's beauty was its undoing.
It was fashionable for effete ladies to have hats
decorated with the plumage, or even whole corpses
of the parrot sitting atop their hats. The last known
one died at the Cincinnati zoo in 1918, the same zoo
where Martha died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_parakeet

[billbo...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:43:30 PM UTC-7, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

The only way Trump will be impeached is if the economy tanks and the market falls. Nobody cares about anything else. And the market is at record highs and going higher. 6 million people have gotten raises as a result of the Trump economy and tax cuts. Everybody is happy.

[islander]

The devil is in the details. Most workers did not get raises and for
those who did, it was a cost-of-living raise or because they changed
jobs. Nearly 2/3 of older workers did not get a raise. Everybody is
not happy!
https://www.fool.com/careers/2017/11/17/more-than-half-of-americans-did-not-get-a-raise-th.aspx

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 8/23/2018 6:40 PM, billbo...@gmail.com wrote:
>

And yet, his approval ratings are low.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[Bucko]

islander wrote

Trmp loves having sex with 13 year-olds, hookers and possibly other men.

That's why the Evangelicals love him, he's a kindered spirit.

[El Castor]

August 22 ...
"Federal Reserve officials saw signs earlier this month that wages are
poised to accelerate, lending credence to the central bank's push to
raise rates to head off a surge in inflation, according to meeting
minutes released Wednesday.
The minutes from the Fed monetary-policy committee's meeting on July
31-Aug. 1, led by by Chairman Jerome Powell, showed that officials saw
tightening labor-market conditions, supported by data on the number of
job openings and elevated quit rates -- as an indicator that employees
are comfortable leaving positions because of the availability of
alternatives. The officials also were encouraged by data showing that
previously discouraged workers are reentering the workforce.
"Some participants expected a pickup in aggregate nominal wage growth
to occur before long, with a number of participants reporting that
wage pressures in their districts were rising or that firms now
exhibited greater willingness to grant wage increases," according to
the minutes."
https://www.thestreet.com/markets/fed-august-2018-meeting-minutes-released-14690954

"Jefferies says buy these 6 consumer stocks due to rising wages —
including Amazon
Jefferies is getting more optimistic on rising wages.
Whether it be e-commerce giants like Amazon or luxury goods
sellers like Tiffany, the firm says there will be "retail and service
surprises" as corporate earnings are reinvested."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/jefferies-buy-these-6-consumer-stocks-due-to-rising-wages.html

[islander]

Pay attention to the tense of the verbs.

[El Castor]

Just pointing out optimism for the future of wages. If and when wages
rise, I will be very happy. Will you? Doesn't sound like it.

[billbo...@gmail.com]

That's all fake news. They only poll in places where the outcome is known. Meanwhile Orange County is supporting Trump.

"Bad News for Dems: Trump's Ratings Rising in Orange County"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/05/22/bad_news_for_dems_trump039s_ratings_rising_in_orange_county_442932.html

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Does your tin-foil hat fit?

> Meanwhile Orange County is supporting Trump.
>
> "Bad News for Dems: Trump's Ratings Rising in Orange County"
>
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/05/22/bad_news_for_dems_trump039s_ratings_rising_in_orange_county_442932.html

One poll from 3 months ago. Really?

[El Castor]

Here are some national approval ratings you may find interesting ...
24 Aug 2018 46% Trump
24 Aug 2010 45% Obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_aug24

And this is fascinating -- Why do you suppose?? ...
"Trump at 36 percent approval among African-Americans, new poll finds"
"That is a staggeringly high number for a man who only won 8 percent
of the African-American vote in 2016."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/

[mg]

Over the years, I think you have reminded me several times (and
rightfully so) that there is no god. That fact, however, doesn't
prohibit you or I from getting really pissed off, now and then, at our
non-existant god, anyway. :-)

What is particularly disappointing to me, though, is that our species,
after all these many thousands of years, has never been able to agree
on any set of rules for even minimally half-decent behavior to live
by.

Instead, it seems that the best we can do is bomb the shit out of a
variety of foreign countries in the oil-rich parts of the world
because it's in our best interest, while at the same time
demonstrating an inability to provide even a basic level of safety for
many people who live in places like Chicago and LA and New York City.

[mg]

But didn't his impeachment make him even more popular with the public?
Or did it? It seems to me that it did, but I can't remember for sure.

[rumpelstiltskin]

They were trying to impeach him for "sex", weren't they.
People are stupid, but not that stupid. Everybody understands
"sex".

Mozart played around, too. Not so great for his wife,
to be sure, but it has no bearing on the overwhelmingly
breathtaking quality of his music.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 00:42:51 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

>Over the years, I think you have reminded me several times (and
>rightfully so) that there is no god. That fact, however, doesn't
>prohibit you or I from getting really pissed off, now and then, at our
>non-existant god, anyway. :-)

Not "God" since there is no such thing, but the people who
believed in that "God" used "Him" to excuse themselves for
creating a society that ruined my adolescence and early
adulthood. For that reason, as I've also said many times, I
cannot, should not, and will not forgive human society.

>
>What is particularly disappointing to me, though, is that our species,
>after all these many thousands of years, has never been able to agree
>on any set of rules for even minimally half-decent behavior to live
>by.

Once we get rid of "God", and doctrinaire "capitalism"
and doctrinaire "communism", it may get easier.

>
>Instead, it seems that the best we can do is bomb the shit out of a
>variety of foreign countries in the oil-rich parts of the world
>because it's in our best interest, while at the same time
>demonstrating an inability to provide even a basic level of safety for
>many people who live in places like Chicago and LA and New York City.

In the USA IMO, bombing the shit out of other people
is a disease of "capitalism", though humanity has never
run out of other reasons for bombing the shit out of
other people either. So maybe "capitalism" is not a
"cause", but just one of the "facilitators" people can
grab onto when they need an excuse for bombing the
shit out of other people without revealing that the
real reason is to make even more money for a
handful of rich parasites.


<snip>

[b flanier]

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 11:47:57 PM UTC-7, mg wrote:
> But didn't his impeachment make him even more popular with the public?

After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's
rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished
with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that
of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman

[Gary]

But .. at least since our ancestors became civilized -- they only kill "other" people.
Back in stone age days, they killed their own children and parents. Whoever was close.
Which is why they remained in the stone-age for so long. Then religion came along and
taught them to "love and honor" their family. Why ? So they would have somebody to
look after them in old-age.

>Instead, it seems that the best we can do is bomb the shit out of a
>variety of foreign countries in the oil-rich parts of the world
>because it's in our best interest, while at the same time
>demonstrating an inability to provide even a basic level of safety for
>many people who live in places like Chicago and LA and New York City.

Maybe they are right. After all -- it would be terrible to have to walk everywhere we go
because -- there is no oil/gas for our cars.

[Gary]

Those colored, black, african-american, negro darkies are not always consistent.

[b flanier]

On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 4:40:07 AM UTC-7, Gary wrote:
><

Gary, please go back to bed, you need your rest!

[mg]

Bingo! Well said. In my old age, with dimentia undoubtedly creeping up
on me, I've been trying to figure out how to say what you just said
since the subject of sex and politics first came up.
>
>

[Gary]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 04:45:04 -0700 (PDT), b flanier <bfla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 4:40:07 AM UTC-7, Gary wrote:
>><
>
>Gary, please go back to bed, you need your rest!

Hey, Flan ! Why do you always remove my comment ? Are you afraid it might upset our
er, "odd" one :-)

[Josh Rosenbluth]

All these polls are included in
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[El Castor]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:47:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Survey Monkey? You Gov? Morning Consult? Huh? Thanks, but I'll stick
with Rasmussen.

[El Castor]

Lowest Black unemployment rate ever recorded -- that's why.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

you are of course free to cherry pick whatever polls you want. And to
ignore the statistics of relying on just one poll. But in case you are
interested in an unbiased view of the polls, here is how good each poll
has been at predicting elections:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[El Castor]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:12:12 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

November 8, 2016
"Who will win the presidency?"
Hillary 71.4%
Trump 28.6%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

FiveThirtyEight was founded by Nate Siver. He seems to be a gifted
statistician, and far be it for me to criticize his work, but he
admittedly leans to the left in his private life. On the other hand,
it seems that Rasmussen leans to the right. Lets wait for the votes to
be counted. (-8
*************
"Silver began publishing a diary under the pseudonym "Poblano" on the
progressive political blog Daily Kos."

"Considerable criticism during the 2012 elections came from political
conservatives, who argued that Silver's election projections were
politically biased against Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for
President.[95] For example, Silver was accused of applying a double
standard to his treatment of Rasmussen Reports polls, such as a 2010
analysis asserting a statistical bias in its methodology.[96] Mendy
Finkel of Daily Caller wrote that "Silver rigged his entire pollster
ratings for the sole purpose of lowering Rasmussen's rank".[97] Josh
Jordan wrote in National Review that Silver clearly favored Obama and
adjusted the weight he gave polls "based on what [he] think[s] of the
pollster and the results and not based on what is actually inside the
poll"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Indeed! Silver stood out from the polls and the other poll aggregators
in giving Trump a decent chance to win. He even had a 10% chance of
Trump winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

> FiveThirtyEight was founded by Nate Siver. He seems to be a gifted
> statistician, and far be it for me to criticize his work, but he
> admittedly leans to the left in his private life. On the other hand,
> it seems that Rasmussen leans to the right. Lets wait for the votes to
> be counted. (-8
> *************
> "Silver began publishing a diary under the pseudonym "Poblano" on the
> progressive political blog Daily Kos."
>
> "Considerable criticism during the 2012 elections came from political
> conservatives, who argued that Silver's election projections were
> politically biased against Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for
> President.[95] For example, Silver was accused of applying a double
> standard to his treatment of Rasmussen Reports polls, such as a 2010
> analysis asserting a statistical bias in its methodology.[96] Mendy
> Finkel of Daily Caller wrote that "Silver rigged his entire pollster
> ratings for the sole purpose of lowering Rasmussen's rank".[97] Josh
> Jordan wrote in National Review that Silver clearly favored Obama and
> adjusted the weight he gave polls "based on what [he] think[s] of the
> pollster and the results and not based on what is actually inside the
> poll"."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

Most importantly, all of these criticisms were shown to be unfounded
based on the results in both 2012 and 2016. Additionally, he doesn't
weight the polls based on what he subjectively thinks, but rather based
on published objective criteria of the historical accuracy and
methodology of each firm’s polls.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-calculates-pollster-ratings/

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 4:21:45 AM UTC-4, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 00:47:57 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT), b flanier
> ><bfla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:49:24 PM UTC-7, mg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bill Clinton, as I recall, was also immune.
> >>
> >>Your memory could be a bit faulty. Clinton was disbarred and
> >>impeached but not convicted. I would not call that immunity.
> >>
> >>
> >But didn't his impeachment make him even more popular with the public?
> >Or did it? It seems to me that it did, but I can't remember for sure.
>
>
> They were trying to impeach him for "sex", weren't they.
> People are stupid, but not that stupid. Everybody understands
> "sex".

The actual legal reason for impeachment was lying to congress about his
affair with Monica. But the fact that they couldn't tie him to
any other wrong doing, and his affair was an immoral act, and they had
to have "something" to justify the investigation, the secret affair was
the background reason for impeachment.
I think Clinton became more popular with the people because the
Starr investigation seemed like a GOP tit-for-tat since everyone knew
what Nixon had done with Watergate and the people also knew that it was
more than just Col. North responsible for Iran-Contra. Those things
really matter. And yet Starr had not found evidence of corruption on
Clinton's part, just that Monica had tempted him and he had a
sexual relationship with her. That is understandable to most people.
So people saw what was really going on with the witch hunt and it made
them angry with Starr and the GOP and so they liked Clinton even more.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

An intelligent, non-partisan friend of mine made a reasonable argument
that Clinton should have been impeached for abuse of power (the House
voted 148-285 not to impeach on that basis) for permitting an organized
effort to besmirch Lewinsky. I wasn't persuaded by the argument, but
his point was that attacking Lewinsky went beyond hiding a sexual
affair, and thus couldn't be written off.

In Trump's case, there is an argument that the payments were also hiding
sexual affairs, and I suspect the public would not approve impeaching
Trump on that basis for the same reason they didn't approve of
impeaching Clinton. On the other hand, there is a reasonable argument
that the payments were motivated by electoral concerns, and that does go
beyond merely hiding an affair to avoid personal embarrassment.

[rumpelstiltskin]

I don't remember Clinton trying to defame Lewinsky.
I certainly remember the Republican Party and Ken Starr
trying to defame Clinton on the basis of a consensual
sexual affair. What a bunch of snakes the Republican
party and Ken Starr looked like in that process. With
myself at least, that impression has been "lasting".

I also don't remember Clinton or his allies trying to
pay off Lewinsky. She did make money selling her
"memoirs" about it later, but Clinton didn't play any
part in that. Monica herself notes that neither the
Clintons nor anyone else tried to pay her off.
https://tinyurl.com/ybps8loz

My apologies to non-human snakes, who are just
trying to get by in life. They don't deserve to be
compared to the Republican party of that time, or
to Ken Starr.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 07:22:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

And in the end, he is still a left winger who chose to begin his
career by posting on the Daily KOS.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Now that is a fine example of the ad hominem fallacy!

[El Castor]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:57:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Well! At last you admit that I am a fine example!

[Bucko]

islander wrote

> There was a time when any hint of an extra-marital sexual affair would
> end the career of a politician. Trump seems to be immune to this as
> evidence accumulates to show that he not only had affairs with at least
> two women, but paid them to prevent exposure before the 2016 election.
>

> Why is this? One wonders if conservatives would be quiet if the alleged
> affairs were homosexual in nature? Why is this different?
>
>

Trmp loves having sex with 13 year-olds, hookers and possibly other men.

That's why the Evangelicals love him, he's a kindered spirit.