Trump

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

An article on Trump's wiretapping accusation against Obama that might be of interest, albeit perhaps biased. I had already heard of earlier mainstream media reports (in 2016) alluding to FBI wiretapping, but now said media is saying hardly a word about such:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...urced-reports/

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

I am of the opinion that God does not care what political system we use, if any. God, I assume, simply wants us all to love one another, and if we truly did then it would not matter what political system we used, if any, the system would simply work regardless of what it was. One the other hand, if there is little love among fellow (wo)man, then (s)he will not find a political system capable of solving his/her problems, at least in God's eyes.

If one takes everything in the bible (as it stands now) at face value, God favoured having a theocracy for Isreal, albeit perhaps if only since He was to be among the priests of that nation, courtesy of the Ark. The people of Isreal, however, eventually wanted a king like other nations.

In modern times the nations that seem to be most blessed in terms of quality of life, etc. seem to me to be by and large the democracies of the world. Make of that what you will.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

I simply pointed to an article, written by a law professor, indicating that what Trump admitted to amounts to sexual assault. You point out that Trump is a liar, and tell me your uncles have said worse. I don't doubt that Trump lies and I don't doubt that your uncles have said worse. These facts don't impinge on my argument.

Also, what Peter McKillop said.

admit - confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.

He didn't "confess", there is no way we can know from this if it is true, and it didn't appear to be reluctant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuHPRYkMEwI&t=76s

From 1:10-1:30 approximately

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

Although Tom you are correct to say that in the Trump / Billy Bush video, Trump did not admit to *any* sexual assault (meaning any specific sexual assault against a specific person), he DID admit to committing sexual assault. In fact, he admitted it in a general way that makes it clear he has committed MANY sexual assaults. In a perfect legal system, it would be enough to convict him even though there are no specific, mentioned victims to which that admission applies. But we have an imperfect legal system that requires there be such specific victims. This is what saved Trump from disaster when that video came out.

What!? You cannot be serious. You would convict someone for an offhand boasting comment lacking any specifics?

(Hey, Tom, here's a thought experiment for you. Walk into your nearest police station and "confess" to a murder. Insist that you killed someone. Then when they try and get you to take them to the body, tell them you don't know who you killed, how you killed, nor where the body is. See if you get charged with murder! If they try and lock you up as a loony, Neil Frarey will come and bail you out! )

I'll modify the experiment slightly. Instead of a police station how about I claim to have killed a bunch of people while chatting with some acquaintances in a bar. Seems like a stupid thing to do, but it's an experiment so we continue. Maybe I do this to look tough. Maybe I do this to intimidate some of my acquaintances. Maybe I think it will get me laid. Maybe I just like to hear myself talk. Who knows? Let's say I am overheard by a bunch of strangers who take my claim seriously and contact the police (my acquaintances don't take me seriously because they have dealt with me before). Presumably the police make an investigation and if they find nothing guess what happens?

But everyone who is not totally biased in Trump's favor knew, and still knows, from that video alone that Trump did indeed commit sexual assault, many times in fact. Melania Trump dismissed it as "locker room talk", but even she knows what's what. And I would think Billy Bush knows the truth also, and knows why he had to be suspended from his role on Today once that video came out.

That is why the video created such an uproar. It IS an admission of guilt despite the U.S. legal system not being able to prosecute on it.

Because the legal system needs, uh, proof. I find it hard to believe you are the same guy that defended Reich's earlier comments because hey all theories are possible, but now you are absolutely certain that you know the one truth. And would convict someone on that basis? Are you trolling me here? :-D

I did admit that Bill Clinton is guilty of sexual crimes. He deserved to be impeached and probably should not have been allowed to finish his term. As for Hillary covering up his crimes, I haven't looked at that aspect and so can't comment since I do not know what evidence exists on that charge.

Google: Juanita Broaddrick

Now I am certainly not saying that Ms. Broaddrick's claims are credible. I have no way of knowing that and since I have no way of knowing I assume that both Bill and Hillary Clinton are totally innocent of what Ms. Broaddrick alleges.

Being open-minded and unbiased doesn't mean never arriving at conclusions. When the evidence is there, conclusions can be drawn. The one thing we all expect and hope for in our judicial system is open-mindedness and unbiased thinking giving a decision based on the evidence. We entrust this to judges, but also to juries composed of ordinary citizens not trained in law. So Tom, although you apparently don't believe it is possible, people CAN be unbiased and still make decisions based on evidence.

I am sorry that you do not understand these concepts, Tom. I guess I overestimated your intelligence. You really should read up on the legal system and things like jury selection. Every day, unbiased people are found... to become assigned to criminal and civil juries. Some biased people may slip through the cracks, but few enough that we rely on these juries to make fair, unbiased decisions.

The hilarious thing is that you think I am biased and you are unbiased. Really, you must be trolling right?

As for Trump's bankruptcies, they could all have been prevented. They were, in fact, deliberate. Trump admits to "taking advantage of the legal system". Remember his "That makes me smart" comment in the debate with Hillary.

Most business owners strive at all costs to avoid bankruptcy, but Trump set out from the beginning to borrow money and not even attempt to pay it back. There is plenty of evidence from stiffed contractors who could not get Trump to pay a dime of the money he owed them. He certainly had the money. He just didn't believe he should pay when the legal system would bail him out.

So basically in your opinion he is a scumbag. Based on this "evidence" (very loosely speaking), it seems a reasonable opinion. But again, where is the proof of a crime?

I do believe Trump is as evil as Charles Manson. The crimes are different, but the evil mind behind them is the same. We have not had such a person sitting as President before. There have been Presidents who have committed wrongdoing while in office, but not in my experience have we had a purely evil person as President. The whole reason we saw, for the first time ever, masses of people protesting a newly-inaugurated President as "Not My President" is because these masses of people are smart enough and moral enough to know Trump is criminal and evil.

And that should "trump" everything else when it comes to being President. But unfortunately, not everyone is guided by morals and ethics, are they Tom? In any case, my comments were addressed to Kevin who I believe (perhaps erroneously) to be a person guided by morals and ethics and being wrongly forgiving (or else blissfully unaware) of Trump's evil nature. Perhaps it is true that given enough rope, Trump will hang himself as Kevin mentioned, but people with moral convictions should not rely on that. Trump should be fought tooth and nail with all legal means available.

I should imagine that if Trump is as evil as you suggest that:
1) You really should fear for your personal safety.
2) You should do more than protest by legal means.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Trump

It would appear that God is against Communism...

I am of the opinion that God does not care what political system we use, if any. God, I assume, simply wants us all to love one another, and if we truly did then it would not matter what political system we used, if any, the system would simply work regardless of what it was. One the other hand, if there is little love among fellow (wo)man, then (s)he will not find a political system capable of solving his/her problems, at least in God's eyes.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

1) I think most everyone can agree that Trump is at best someone prone to exaggeration and at worst a liar and a braggart. His commentary to Billy Bush is in line with these character traits.

2) Has Trump been convicted of sexual assault? I don't believe so.

3) What was the context of the comments? He was surrounded by a bunch of guys talking like he's in a locker room. This sort of thing is juvenile, but not at all uncommon, in my experience. I heard worse before I was a teenager at family gatherings with my uncles.

I simply pointed to an article, written by a law professor, indicating that what Trump admitted to amounts to sexual assault. You point out that Trump is a liar, and tell me your uncles have said worse. I don't doubt that Trump lies and I don't doubt that your uncles have said worse. These facts don't impinge on my argument.

Also, what Peter McKillop said.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

So let me see if I get this straight.

"Open-minded" Paul Bonham is convinced that Trump is as evil as Charles Manson; you can be assured that this is the one clear truth because Paul Bonham is completely unbiased. Trump is a sexual predator because a bunch of people claim he is, though as far as I know he hasn't been convicted in a court of law. As an aside, I guess that Bill and Hillary Clinton are also guilty because a bunch of people claim he is a sexual predator and she helped cover up the crimes.

Donald Trump separated his businesses from his personal finances and each other. He declared four (out of dozens? hundreds?) bankrupt, stiffing a bunch of people. As far as I can tell, that's morally reprehensible, common, and completely legal.

Fortunately we can just skip the expensive and messy part about presumption of innocence, due process, etc. and just go with Paul Bonham's truths. Wow, what a relief.

Although Tom you are correct to say that in the Trump / Billy Bush video, Trump did not admit to *any* sexual assault (meaning any specific sexual assault against a specific person), he DID admit to committing sexual assault. In fact, he admitted it in a general way that makes it clear he has committed MANY sexual assaults. In a perfect legal system, it would be enough to convict him even though there are no specific, mentioned victims to which that admission applies. But we have an imperfect legal system that requires there be such specific victims. This is what saved Trump from disaster when that video came out.

(Hey, Tom, here's a thought experiment for you. Walk into your nearest police station and "confess" to a murder. Insist that you killed someone. Then when they try and get you to take them to the body, tell them you don't know who you killed, how you killed, nor where the body is. See if you get charged with murder! If they try and lock you up as a loony, Neil Frarey will come and bail you out! )

But everyone who is not totally biased in Trump's favor knew, and still knows, from that video alone that Trump did indeed commit sexual assault, many times in fact. Melania Trump dismissed it as "locker room talk", but even she knows what's what. And I would think Billy Bush knows the truth also, and knows why he had to be suspended from his role on Today once that video came out.

That is why the video created such an uproar. It IS an admission of guilt despite the U.S. legal system not being able to prosecute on it.

I did admit that Bill Clinton is guilty of sexual crimes. He deserved to be impeached and probably should not have been allowed to finish his term. As for Hillary covering up his crimes, I haven't looked at that aspect and so can't comment since I do not know what evidence exists on that charge.

Being open-minded and unbiased doesn't mean never arriving at conclusions. When the evidence is there, conclusions can be drawn. The one thing we all expect and hope for in our judicial system is open-mindedness and unbiased thinking giving a decision based on the evidence. We entrust this to judges, but also to juries composed of ordinary citizens not trained in law. So Tom, although you apparently don't believe it is possible, people CAN be unbiased and still make decisions based on evidence.

I am sorry that you do not understand these concepts, Tom. I guess I overestimated your intelligence. You really should read up on the legal system and things like jury selection. Every day, unbiased people are found... to become assigned to criminal and civil juries. Some biased people may slip through the cracks, but few enough that we rely on these juries to make fair, unbiased decisions.

As for Trump's bankruptcies, they could all have been prevented. They were, in fact, deliberate. Trump admits to "taking advantage of the legal system". Remember his "That makes me smart" comment in the debate with Hillary.

Most business owners strive at all costs to avoid bankruptcy, but Trump set out from the beginning to borrow money and not even attempt to pay it back. There is plenty of evidence from stiffed contractors who could not get Trump to pay a dime of the money he owed them. He certainly had the money. He just didn't believe he should pay when the legal system would bail him out.

I do believe Trump is as evil as Charles Manson. The crimes are different, but the evil mind behind them is the same. We have not had such a person sitting as President before. There have been Presidents who have committed wrongdoing while in office, but not in my experience have we had a purely evil person as President. The whole reason we saw, for the first time ever, masses of people protesting a newly-inaugurated President as "Not My President" is because these masses of people are smart enough and moral enough to know Trump is criminal and evil.

And that should "trump" everything else when it comes to being President. But unfortunately, not everyone is guided by morals and ethics, are they Tom? In any case, my comments were addressed to Kevin who I believe (perhaps erroneously) to be a person guided by morals and ethics and being wrongly forgiving (or else blissfully unaware) of Trump's evil nature. Perhaps it is true that given enough rope, Trump will hang himself as Kevin mentioned, but people with moral convictions should not rely on that. Trump should be fought tooth and nail with all legal means available.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

My point (since Christianity was mentioned) was that it would appear that God is against Communism, the logical extension of Socialism (according to Marx, I believe) , i.e. both are leftist in nature. One could argue that the Soviet Union's chief "error" was to be officially atheist, but the Virgin spoke of "errors" in plural according to the Sister's testimony (some argue that that was faked, in another link I once looked at).

My earlier post of course meant that the left is in general, and in their principles, eternally misguided and twisted, in spite of any trappy sophistry used against me. Anyone can more or less accidently do (and be there to do) the right thing, such as enact any version of a particular social reform that's overdue, but overall the left really sucks and comes from a rotten source (i.e. its Marxist roots). That's not to mention social engineering by the left (e.g. Wynne's radical sex ed ideas that were forced into Ontario schools). I've heard it said that on his deathbed Marx feared he was doomed to hell, but for myself, I think people have done far worse things to and in this world, and may have been saved.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

1) I think most everyone can agree that Trump is at best someone prone to exaggeration and at worst a liar and a braggart. His commentary to Billy Bush is in line with these character traits.

2) Has Trump been convicted of sexual assault? I don't believe so.

3) What was the context of the comments? He was surrounded by a bunch of guys talking like he's in a locker room. This sort of thing is juvenile, but not at all uncommon, in my experience. I heard worse before I was a teenager at family gatherings with my uncles.

Unless things have changed dramatically over the years, I think you're off base on this one, Tom. Throughout my teens and into my early twenties I was quite athletic. Played on school teams, intramural sports, lifted weights, ran, swam, etc. Spent a lot of time in locker rooms in those years. Not once did I hear anyone brag about sexually assaulting a girl/woman. That was in the sixties and seventies and maybe someone with more current locker room experience can comment on what gets talked about these days - but I doubt it has changed. Trump is a scumbag for talking that way and he's way down at the bottom of the cesspool if he actually did any of the things he bragged about. I regret for your sake that your uncles left you with the impression that what Trump did wasn't that big of a deal.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Trump

There are differing opinions on whether globalization can be stopped...

Is it possible that the forces working toward globalism, while certainly powerful and dangerous, have through media manipulation made us fear that they are more powerful and dangerous than they in reality are? As you intimate, if we truly are on the verge of a new world order, it will not be a mortal man who precipitates it. :)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Trump

1) I think most everyone can agree that Trump is at best someone prone to exaggeration and at worst a liar and a braggart. His commentary to Billy Bush is in line with these character traits.

2) Has Trump been convicted of sexual assault? I don't believe so.

3) What was the context of the comments? He was surrounded by a bunch of guys talking like he's in a locker room. This sort of thing is juvenile, but not at all uncommon, in my experience. I heard worse before I was a teenager at family gatherings with my uncles.

As far as I can tell, there is at least one lawsuit ongoing with Trump about sexual assault.
I also understand that a Federal Judge (undoubtedly not Trump's sister) has ruled that a sitting president can be sued.

https://www.ft.com/content/c7da1760-...c-f253db7791c6

(and, yes, I realize that being sued is quite different from being guilty and that this could be an opportunistic lawsuit etc. yada yada)

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...d_the_law.html

1) I think most everyone can agree that Trump is at best someone prone to exaggeration and at worst a liar and a braggart. His commentary to Billy Bush is in line with these character traits.

2) Has Trump been convicted of sexual assault? I don't believe so.

3) What was the context of the comments? He was surrounded by a bunch of guys talking like he's in a locker room. This sort of thing is juvenile, but not at all uncommon, in my experience. I heard worse before I was a teenager at family gatherings with my uncles.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

Fwiw, here's a link about the problem with the consecration of Russia during the era of the (leftist) Soviet Union. It is said that she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars, if she does not change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consec...tion_of_Russia

Thanks for the non-answer.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

Fwiw, here's a link about the problem with the consecration of Russia during the era of the (leftist) Soviet Union. It is said that she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars, if she does not change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consec...tion_of_Russia

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

... Trump won the US popular vote, if one doesn't take into account California and New York State, just two States of fifty. ...

Hmm. This seems like saying that Tim Hudak and the Conservatives won the last Ontario election if you don't take into account the GTA. Maybe the proportion of rational, intelligent voters living in New York and California is higher than in the rest of the USA?

... So far I like a lot of what Trump is doing to cheese off the eternally misguided and twisted left wing ...

Eternally misguided and twisted? I take it you're not a fan of things like the civil rights movement and many other social justice initiatives that the Democrats have been involved in over the years. My question for you is, why not? If I recall correctly (i.e. I don't have the time or inclination to go rummaging through old posts), don't you claim to be a Christian? Aren't Christians generally supportive of social justice initiatives?