|Comment count is 37|
The non-apology apology.
|Sexy Duck Cop |
what a fantastic backdrop for a heartfelt apology. he looks like a floating rapist talkshow host from a skeezy 3DO FMV game.
donald trump's "I'm sorry I admitted to being a rapist but can I still be President?" video looks like the Game Over screen to Leisure Suit Larry.
|Jack Dalton |
Donald Trump has grown up a lot since he turned 59. When he started to connect with real Americans, it changed him. I think we can all relate.
It's a fair point. I doubt his "come to Jesus" story is any more sincere than Hillary's own have been lately, but sincere or not, it doesn't really matter. A few things to consider:
1) It's an ad hominem attack. Whether Trump is a pig or not has no real bearing on his policies, the strength of his arguments, or his fitness to be in office. I really shouldn't have to point this out, but since I know a lot of people are predisposed towards hating Trump, I think everyone here would happily agree with this principle when applied to, say, JFK, Dr King, or even Monicagate. Who cares if JFK banged all kinds of bimbos? What does it matter that the Feds got blackmail material of Dr King cheating on his wife? If Bill can fuck an intern and we can understand that this fuck was irrelevant, that this fuck was not a moratorium on his policies or his fitness, then surely we can see the same in Donald.
2) Bill *is* a rapist - or at least, an accused rapist, with a long history of accusations, and there is at least as strong a case against him as there is against that other, blacker celebrity Bill, the one whom white journalists are comfortable demonizing: Bill Cosby. Please note, as stated above, I am not about to rag on Slick Willie for being a notoriously sex-hungry womanizer; that is just how many powerful men act. Bill does not need to apologize for his consensual infidelity anymore than The Donald does, at least not to me - but *rape*! That is another matter entirely.
3) Has Hillary ever apologized for the hot mic comments regarding the sodomization/murder of Gaddafi and the ongoing humanitarian crisis that Hillary herself was in a large part responsible for? Because that IS a statement which, in addition to showing the sociopathic nature of her character, also has direct bearing on her policies and her fitness to be in office.
Ultimately, this is a non-issue - except as an illustration of the nature of the American propaganda machine, and the ways in which the public responds to, even accepts, the bizarre and self-contradictory narratives being sold to them.
This isn't just the boys will be boys (13 year old ones, in Trump's case) of locker room talk.
He was bragging about SEXUALLY ASSAULTING women. And we've plenty evidence from Ivana Trump, the Jane Doe rape case, and the Apprentice cast and crew that it wasn't just talk.
EH doing his thing -- it's funnier in other contexts.
I would point out that 'ad hominem' is a pefectly reasonable line of argument when the question is the fitness of a candidate to hold office. It's is only a fallacy when you confuse an attack on a person for an attack on their ideas.
But of course everyone knows that already, EH included.
>It's an ad hominem...
Low-effort trolling today EH. It isn't, you can wiki it yourself :^]
"Whether Trump is a pig or not has no real bearing on his policies, the strength of his arguments, or his fitness to be in office."
It absolutely does. Just because pigs have gotten elected before doesn't mean they deserved to be there - they just snuck through before anyone knew.
A person's character absolutely DOES make them qualified or unqualified for office.
"Let me play devil's advocate for the dumbest position possible!" -EvilHomer
I'm not "doing a thing", and it IS an ad hominem attack. It doesn't matter if Trump is a pig or said a thing ten years ago that has no bearing on his policies - I mean, has the entire country, outside of Mr Wildcat, gone crazy?! Do I really need to point this out?
Again, I challenge you guys, each and every one of you: if you dispute what I am saying, then turn it around on the Clintons. Bill is a notorious womanizer. He is an admitted and proven pig. If Trump is unfit for office on account of his being a man who enjoys sex, then was Bill unfit for office? Was JFK? If being-a-pig, which no-one can dispute is a question of (petty) moral character rather than of policy or competence, truly IS a matter relevant towards fitness for holding office, then we can confidently say, indeed we MUST say, that both Clinton and JFK were unfit for office. Furthermore, Bill, at least, is on a whole 'nother level from Donald - he is an alleged *rapist*, and, given that Hillary has been complicit in covering for him, then basic proportionality would render both of them far less fit than Donald.
Either Pussygate is a valid attack, or it's ad hominem, and if we want to buy into the salacious media narrative and obstinately maintain that, "no EH! We're not being suckers! It IS valid", then we ALSO need to be prepared to take the rest of Washington down in our puritanical fury, too. (because hoo boy, how many politicians do you suppose are out there who don't enjoy sex?) This is basic reason, basic principles; principles must hold true across the board and cannot be selectively invoked whenever we feel it would be convenient, else these principles are worthless.
Furthermore, this same day, we saw another leak: a Wikileaks dump of John Podesta's private emails. In them, we saw detailed excerpts from Hillary's Wall Street speeches. Now I ask you: what is more important in a presidential selection cycle? Off-the-cuff remarks by a private celebrity recorded over a decade ago? Or until-now-suppressed policy speeches, given by an active politician, to an extraordinarily powerful lobbyist group? Clearly it is the latter, and yet here we see which story the media is focusing on, which story gets the proletariat riled up. Again I put it to you: this is an illustration of the nature of the American propaganda machine, and the ways in which the public responds to, even accepts, the bizarre and self-contradictory narratives being sold to them.
A few specific responses:
Godot - could you first define "sexual assault"? And I'd especially like YOUR take on the Clinton's behavior.
Hazelnut - your position is not fully explained, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume you are saying that a person's moral character IS relevant to their fitness for holding office? And in that case, the question becomes: in what regards, to which degree? Because to the first, I'd probably agree with you, but on the second, I suspect we differ. For example, I'd be willing to say that if a person could be shown to be an inveterate liar or thief, both of these character failings *would* have a bearing on her fitness to hold office, for the reason that a history of lying and thievery make her highly untrustworthy, and make it likely that the candidate in question will use her office to serve her own interests rather than the interests of the people. But I don't see how sexual immorality would have any bearing on a candidate's fitness (beyond the "fitness of spectacle" created by the media's obsession with vague concepts like "public image", and AT A STRETCH, a candidate's susceptibility to bribery, which as J Edgar and the Dulles Brothers proved, can be a great way for the Deep State to get their hooks into a candidate)
Bawbag - not really sure what 'wiki" you got your information from, but you might want to check some other sources. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wildcat - pots and kettles are both black. The formerly anti-Clinton Republican response is a perfect illustration of my point: the nature of American propaganda, and the bizarre way in which the public responds to self-contradictory narratives. That the Republicans have flipped their seat in the narrative just goes to show that the problem we're facing is systemic, and cannot be solved from the inside, by placing our faith in the partisan group currently "in the right" (although in the Repub's defense, the biggest issue with the Clinton impeachment was Clinton having lied under oath, and that was sort of valid. He never should have been put in the POSITION to lie, but once there, yeah, he perjured himself, and that's illegal.)
Cog - I'm not sure I follow. I've listened to Trump's speeches, I've had arguments with his pundits, and he has in fact come out in favour of quite a number of polices. Peaceful foreign relations, improved cooperation with Russia, tougher immigration laws, economic protectionism that favours workers, possible censorship of the media (a position which he shares with Hillary), and more recently, national stop & frisk. These are all policies, so the claim that he has none is demonstrably false.
Gmork - think of Trump like the dwarf from Myth. He throws a lot of bombs, and sometimes there's collateral damage, but does that mean he's not a valuable part of the formation?
"The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone"
"When debating about a person
As ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur), if the argument and the person's character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones, is relevant. "
"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning"
Trump isn't making an argument here, his character and behaviours are being addressed and thus direct criticism of those is entirely relevant and not an 'Ad Hominem' by definition.
Yourself, and a lot of others on the internet have been labouring under a common layman's misconception of what precisely constitutes an Ad Hominem fallacy.
Bawbag - "the mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument"
Mr Bawbag, the whole point of this personal attack is to undermine Trump's argument that he is the better Presidential candidate.
If you want to say "Donald Trump is a pig" and leave it at that, then that is fine. There's no problem with merely saying he is a pig, and you'll get no argument from me if you do. BUT, if you want to say "Donald Trump is a pig, and therefore his argument is unsound", then yes, as per all three of your definitions, this is an ad hominem attack.
As for the "moral character" argument, if you'll note, I already discussed this with Hazelnut. For example, if a candidate can be shown to be a liar (a failing of moral character), then THAT is a personal attack which might have some bearing on the Presidential debate, and avoid the charge of ad hominem. (see, for example, Hillary Clinton) But I have yet to see ANY arguments (other than my own) - here or elsewhere - defending this notion that a person's sexual interest is genuinely relevant to his or her fitness to serve as President. Again: Bill Clinton. JFK. LBJ. Even FDR. Anyone who wishes to maintain that this narrative is not an ad hominem attack, but is in fact a valid line of argument, *must* account for the similar (or worse) behavior that was demonstrated by those other politicians.
JHM - that goes double for you. I know for a fact that you've repeatedly defended Bill Clinton's piggish behavior towards women, and heaped scorn on Republicans for making too much of his bedroom antics, when his bedroom antics were clearly irrelevant. (which, incidentally, the Republicans are doing AGAIN, here with Trump.e)
Summary, since I know a lot of people don't like reading:
tl;dr - the whole matter hinges on whether or not minor sexual impropriety is a valid impediment to one's fitness for office. So far, no one has actually defended this absurd position in any depth, nor have they accounted for the blatant political double-standards that would arise if we were to take this position seriously.
So I invite all of you, any of you, to do this.
>tl;dr - the whole matter hinges on whether or not minor sexual impropriety...
A 'Minor sexual impropriety' got Bill Clinton impeached.
What Trump is describing of his own behaviour is sexual assault.
206 was the year that real television and golden era Paul Vehoven movie television truly became indistinguishable. It's been building for a while now but this was the year. We're still probably a decade or two away from Robocop technologically, but culturally we're pretty much there.
|Maggot Brain |
It took a long time for the Cosby allegations to come forward partly due to a reluctant media. As for the Gaddafi comment people just don't care about violence.
That and the fact that the statute of limitations for rape is really short (5 years I think) and ran out on most (all?) of the Cosby assaults long ago, so for most of the victims even after American society started to take rape seriously some time in the 90s, speaking up would have just opened them up to being sued out of existence by Cosby without any possibility of him being held accountable. Even without the statute of limitations the deck would be stacked against anyone who went up against him.
|That guy |
If he wasn't up for !*$#*@! president, I would be amused by all of this shit.
Trump's on a drug, and it's called CharlieSheen.
Gallows humor is a perfectly reasonable response to all of this.
|Binro the Heretic |
If I'm reading Trump's facial expression correctly, the chairperson of the GOP is down below out of view of the camera with a firm grip on Trump's testicles, ready to crush them if he goes off-script or refuses to speak.
Binro the Heretic
Also, it sounded like he said he talked to grieving mothers then laid off people and sent their jobs overseas.
Cue the arrival of the alien spacecraft to pick up Donald and his famIly to take them back home...Poochy style.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
Donald Trump currently has a lawsuit pending claiming he raped the plaintiff when she was thirteen, and yet he's choosing, after these revelations, to focus on allegations against Bill Clinton that didn't pan out 25 years ago. This is a very bad idea. The desperation is quite palpable.
There's also the matter of Jeffrey Epstein, whom Trump is more or less on record as having known to be a pedophile - but of course nobody's going to bring THAT up, because Epstein was friends with Trump AND Clinton, as well as vast swathes of the media establishment, and as such probably has blackmail material on everyone in Washington.
But no, yeah, let's focus on a minor conversation between Trump and one of the younger members of the Bush crime dynasty, which coincidentally has been breaking kayfabe and overtly supporting Hillary's bid. Nevermind the Podesta leaks or the war in Syria or the fact that the military-industrial complex has heated up the Let's-Bomb-Russia rhetoric to a level not seen since the 1960s. THIS is the important story.
I mean, if you guys put even half the effort into attacking Trump over his stop & frisk policy that you do over petty bullcrap like this locker-room talk, we might actually have a shot at getting our society out of the freefall it's currently in.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
>>There's also the matter of Jeffrey Epstein, whom Trump is more or less on record as having known to be a pedophile - but of course nobody's going to bring THAT up, because Epstein was friends with Trump AND Clinton, as well as vast swathes of the media establishment, and as such probably has blackmail material on everyone in Washington.
>>But no, yeah, let's focus on a minor conversation between Trump and one of the younger members of the Bush crime dynasty, which coincidentally has been breaking kayfabe and overtly supporting Hillary's bid. Nevermind the Podesta leaks or the war in Syria or the fact that the military-industrial complex has heated up the Let's-Bomb-Russia rhetoric to a level not seen since the 1960s. THIS is the important story.
I must be confused. I thought it was Trump who was running for president, not this Brian Epstein person.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|